Christopher Jankovski, Damian Schofield


Twenty-six students from a sixth grade math class in Upstate New York received guardian approval to participate in a study that gathered data pertaining to student navigation ability, information retrieval ability, and satisfaction in regards to the Learning Management System (LMS) their school utilized. Data collection began with the researchers attending math classes for observation and to conduct cognitive walkthroughs with the students to gather information about their experiences and navigation through the LMS. An eye tracker and the associated eye tracking software were utilized to monitor and detect patterns of eye movements when the students were looking at a device screen. For this study, students were monitored by the eye tracker while they attempted to complete several tasks from the experiment. By measuring the length of time taken by students as they completed tasks on the LMS, quantitative data can be collected and used later in the experiment. After analyzing the time metrics and the eye tracking data produced and feedback given on the questionnaire distributed at the beginning of the experiment, a targeted LMS page was slightly modified in hopes to increase the effectiveness of the page, based on user interface design standards.  Well defined organization, accessibility, and usability in an LMS is essential to allow learners to focus to be on their curriculums, and not how to access their assignments. An in-depth analysis of navigation through an LMS will allow for a better understanding of how users interact with the structure of their curriculum in an electronic format. The study described in this paper intended to address the question of whether an LMS used in an elementary school setting can provide users with an interface that optimizes the accessibility and usability of their class materials.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



learning management systems, eye tracking, usability, human computer interaction, education


Aybay I, Oguz D, 2002. A Learning Management System Developed at the Eastern Mediterranean University. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2(2): 1303-652.

Ayub A F, Tarmizi R A, Jaafar W M, Ali W, Luan W S, 2010. Factors influencing student’s use a learning management system portal: Perspective from higher education students. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies 4(2): 100-108.

Blair N, 2012. Technology Integration for the New 21st Century Learner. National Association of Elementary School Principals.

Boticki I, Baksa J, Seo P, Lool C K, 2015. Usage of a mobile social learning platform with virtual badges in a primary school. Computers & Education. 86: 120-136.

Bransford J D, Brown A L, Cocking R R, 2000. How people learn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Brown A, Johnson J, 2007. Five Advantages of Using a learning Management System. Accessed 7 March 2017.

Carlson S, Gadio C T, 2003. Teacher professional development in the use of technology. Accessed 7 March 2017.

Cheung A K, Salvin R E, 2011. The Effectiveness of Education Technology for Enhancing Reading Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Center for Research and reform in Education.

Churchill D, Wang T, 2014. Teacher's use of iPads in higher education. Educational Media International, 51(3): 214-225.

Christensen C M, Horn M B, Johnson C W, 2008. Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

Clariana R, 2009. Ubiquitous wireless laptops in upper elementary mathematics. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 28(1): 5-21.

Cuban L, 2001. Oversold and underused: Computers in schools 1980-2000, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

De Lera E, Fernandez C, Valverde L, 2010. The emotional gap in virtual online environments. Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific, AACE: 67-70.

De Silva C R, Chigona A, Adendorff S A, 2016. Technology Integration: Exploring Interactive Whiteboards as Doalogic Spaces in the Foundation Phase Classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 15(3): 141-150.

Dixon B, Tierney S, 2012. Bring Your Own Device to School. Microsoft Corporation.

Epping R J, 2010. Innovative Use of Blackboard [R] to Assess Laboratory Skills. Journal of Learning Design 3(3): 32-36.

Ernerling C E, 2010. Towards discursive education: Philosophy, technology and modern education. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.

Fullan M, 1999. Change forces: The Sequel. Falmer Press, Philadelphia, USA.

Fullan M, 2001. Leading in a culture of change (1st Edition), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA.

Furio D, Juan M C, Segui I, Vivo, R, 2015. Mobile learning v. traditional classroom lessons: a comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 31(3): 189-201.

Fulton K, 1997. Learning in a Digital Age: Insights into the Issues, The Skills students

Need for Technological Fluency: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Gerger K, 2014. 1:1 tablet technology implementation in the Manhattan Beach Unified School District: A case study. Long Beach, California State University, USA.

Ghoniemy S, Fahmy A, 2010. A Dedicated Web-Based Learning System. Universal Journal of Computer Science and Engineering Technology 1(2): 84-92.

Hall G E, Hord S M, 1999. Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes, Pearson, Boston, USA.

Hargreaves A, Shirley D, 2012. The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

Harper B, Milman N B, 2016. One-to-One Technology in K-12 Classrooms: A Review of the Literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 48(2): 129-142.

Harvey T R, 2002. Checklist for change: A pragmatic approach for creating and controlling change. R&L Education, Lancaster, PA, USA.

Hinostroza J E, 2011. The relation of the availability and use of computers with students’ and teachers’ performance in secondary schools in Barbados, No. 0711. Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight.

Inversini A, Botturi L, Triacca L, 2006. Evaluating LMS usability for enhanced e-learning experience. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications: 595-601.

Kangro A, Kangro I, 2004. Integration of ICT in Teacher Education and Different School Subjects in Lativia. Educational Media International 41(1): 31-37.

Kayalar F, 2016. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Teachers' Views Upon Integration and Use of Technology in Classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 15(2): 11-19.

Kennewell S, Tanner H, Jones S, Beauchamp B, 2008. Analyzing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(1): 61-73.

Kinash S, Brand J, Mathew T, 2012. Challenging mobile learning discourse through research: student perceptions of blackboard mobile learn and iPads. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 28(4).

Kirkpatrick D L, 2001. Managing change effectively: Approaches, methods, and case examples. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, USA.

Lee M, Winzenried A, 2009. The use of instructional technology in schools: Lessons to be learned. ACER Press, Camberwell, Australia.

Lewin C, Somekh B, Steadman S, 2008. Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 14(4): 291-303.

Lu J, Meng S, Tam V, 2014. Learning Chinese characters via mobile technology in a primary school classroom. Educational Media International. 51(3): 166-184.

Mandel T, 1997. The elements of user interface design, Wiley, New York, USA.

Nakamichi N, Shima K, Sakkai M, Matsumoto K, 2006. Detecting low usability web pages using quantitative data of users' behavior. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM: 569-576.

November A C, 2010, Empowering students with technology, National Association of Secondary School Principals (U.S.), Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2005. Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. OECD Publications, Paris, France.

Pamela K, 2006. Factors Affecting the Online Delivery of English Language Courses in a Virtual Learning Environment, UPM, Jilid 2, Bilangan 2.

PBS LearningMedia, 2013. PBS Survey Finds Teachers are Embracing Digital Resources to Propel Student Learning. Accessed 1 November 2016.

Penuel W R, 2006. Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(3): 329-348.

Piña A A, 2013. Learning management systems: A look at the big picture. Learning management systems and instructional design. Best practices in online education 1: 1-19.

Quinn P, 2016. Google Schools? A Chromebook case study. Screen Education, 82: 90-94.

Richardson W, Postman N, 2013. Students first, not stuff. Technology Rich Learning 70(6): 10-14.

Safitry T S, Mantoro T, Ayu M A, Mayumi I, Dewanti R, Azmeela S, 2015. Teachers' Perspectives and Practices in Applying Technology to Enhance Learning in the Classroom. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 10(3): 10-14.

Satell G, 2013. How to manage innovation. Accessed 7 March 2017.

Scalise K, 2016. Student Collaboration and School Education Technology: Technology Integration Practices in the Classroom. Journal on School Educational Technology 11(4): 53-63.

Sheingold K, Tucker M, 1990. Restructuring for learning with technology. Center for Technology in Education, New York, USA.

Smerdon B, Cronen S, Lanahan L, Anderson J, Lannottie N, Angeles J, 2000. Teachers' Tools for the 21st Century: A report on Teachers' Use of Technology. Statistical Analysis Report. U.S Department of Education. Washington D.C: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Snodin N S, 2013. The effects of blended learning with a CMS on the development of autonomous learning: A case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual learners. Computers & Education 61: 209-216.

Stroud R, Drayton B, Hobbs K, Falk J, 2014. Interactive whiteboard use in high-tech science classrooms: Patterns of Integration. Blended Learning, 9(9).

Stuikyr V, Damasevicius R, Montvillas M, Limanuskiene V, Ziberkas G, 2006. Educational Portal Development Model for Implementing Design for Change. Information Technology and Control 35(3): 222-228.

Su B, 2009. Effective technology integration; Old topic, new thoughts. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology 5(2): 161-171.

Sung E, Mayer R, 2012. Affective impact of navigational and signaling aids to e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior 28: 473-483.

Thuseethan S, 2014. Department Management System for Departments of Sri Lankan Universities. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 3(6): 173-175.

Tselios N, Avouris N, Komis V, 2008. The effective combination of hybrid usability methods in evaluating educational application of ICT: issues and challenges. Education and Informational Technologies 13(1): 55-76.

Warschauer M, 2006. Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. Teachers College Press, New York, USA.

Yang X, Li X, Lu T, 2015. Using mobile phones in college classroom settings: effects of presentation mode and interest on concentration and achievement. Computers & Education 88: 292-302.

Zucker A A, 2008. Transforming schools with technology: How smart use of digital tools helps achieve six key education goals. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Christopher Jankovski, Damian Schofield

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2022. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).