On Modeling Users’ Quality of Interaction with LMS Using Fuzzy Logic

  • Sofia B. Dias
  • José A. Diniz
  • Leontios J. Hadjileontiadis
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 59)


Politicians, educators, and investigators have been unanimous in stating that we need to design schools to teach 21st century skills (i.e., creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and collaboration); however, HEIs are paralyzed by the lack of consistent and intelligent ways to assess these skills/competences. One of the difficulties is that, usually, the current assessment instruments are based on products and not on processes, due to the intrinsic complexities in capturing detailed process data for large numbers of users. In turn, data mining technologies, signal processing, text-mining, machine learning to explore multimodal process-based learner assessments could offer a possible solution to capture/analyze massive amounts of process data of classroom online activities.


  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Chatteur, F., Carvalho, L., & Dong, A. (2008). Design for Pedagogy Patterns for E-learning. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 341–343). DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  3. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre/University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. In Proceedings of FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference. Retrieved from
  5. Conole, G., de Laat, M., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devedižić, V. (2006). Semantic web and education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Dias, S. B., & Diniz, J. A. (2013). FuzzyQoI model: A fuzzy logic-based modelling of users’ quality of interaction with a learning management system under blended learning. Computers & Education. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.016.Google Scholar
  8. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.Google Scholar
  9. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graf, S. (2007). Adaptivity in learning management systems focussing on learning styles. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Technology, AU.
  11. Grant, M.R., & Thornton, H.R. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online learning: mechanisms for course design and delivery. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), (pp. 346–356). Retrieved from Google Scholar
  12. Hellwege, J., Gleadow, A., & McNaught, C. (1996). Paperless lectures on the Web: An evaluation of the educational outcomes of teaching Geology using the Web. In Proceedings of 13th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary education (ASCILITE ‘96), Adelaide: University of South Australia. Retrieved from
  13. Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, C. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hijón, R., & Velázquez, A. (2006). Web, log analysis and surveys for tracking university students. In Proceedings of IADIS International Conference on Applied Computing (pp. 561–564), ISBN: 972-8924-09-7.Google Scholar
  15. Hijón, R.N., & Velázquez, A.I. (2010). From the discovery of students access patterns in e-learning including Web 2.0 resources to the prediction and enhancement of students outcome, e-learning experiences and future. In S. Soomro (Ed.). E-learning Experiences and Future, InTech (ch. 14, pp. 276–294). Retrieved from
  16. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Kickul, J., & Kickul, G. (2002). New pathways in e-learning: The role of student proactivity and technology utilization. In Proceedings of the 45 rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Academy of Management Conference (Management Education: Teaching & Instruction). Retrieved from
  18. Kidd, T. (2005). Key aspects affecting students’ perception regarding the instructional quality of online and web based courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(10).
  19. Lim, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Pedagogical usability checklist for ESL/EFL e-learning websites. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 2(3), 67–76.Google Scholar
  20. McIsaac, M. S., Blolcher, J. M., Mahes, V., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer-mediated communication. Educational Media International, 36(2), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nian-Shing, C., & Kan-Min, L. (2002). Factors affecting e-learning for achievement. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2002) (pp. 200–205) Retrieved from
  22. Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1997). Interactions in audio-graphics and learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education,, 11(1), 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peled, A., & Rashty, D. (1999). Logging for success: Advancing the use of WWW logs to improve computer mediated distance learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research,, 21(4), 413–431.Google Scholar
  24. Ping, T.A., Cheng., A.Y., & Manoharan, K. (2010). Students interaction in the online learning management systems: A comparative study of undergraduate and postgraduate courses. In Proceedings of the AAOU-2010 Annual Conference (pp. 1–14)
  25. Ramos, C., & Yudko, E. (2008). “Hits” (not “Discussion Posts”) predict student success in online courses: A double crossvalidation study. Computers & Education, 50, 1174–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka K., Bacigalupo M., Ferrari A., & Punie Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe. Joint Research Centre (JRC)-Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
  27. Sheard, J., Albrecht, D.W., & Butbul, E. (2005). ViSION: Visualization student interactions online. In A. Treloar & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian World Wide Web Conference (pp. 48–58), Gold Coast, Australia, 2-6 July 2005: Southern Cross University, Lismore, ISBN: 0975164430.Google Scholar
  28. Singleton, D.M. (2012). The transition from traditional to blended on-campus learning experience. PhD thesis, Nova Southeastern University, USA.
  29. Tillett, J. (2012). Project Tin Can–The Next Generation of SCORM. Float Mobile Learning. In Pedagogy and Learning, Tin Can, Webinars.
  30. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. Am J Distance Educ, 8(2), 6–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wall, J. (2012). Strategically integrating blended learning to deliver lifelong learning. In J.L. Moore, & A.D. Benson (Eds.). International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education, in subject Business, Management and Economics, InTech (ch. 7, pp. 133–148).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sofia B. Dias
    • 1
  • José A. Diniz
    • 1
  • Leontios J. Hadjileontiadis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Education, Social Sciences and HumanitiesUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations