Dissertation - Nikolaos Tarantilis by Nikos Tarantilis

IS499

Impact of the e-learning activity in the academic society through the lens of Activity Theory: A case study of the Technical University of Crete

Candidate number: 73433

Word Count: 10981/14036

2012/2013

Information Systems and Innovation Group

Department of Management

Abstract E-learning is considered as the next best thing of today‟s modern societies. Each institution globally strives to equip its educational „arsenal‟ with a contemporary elearning system. The obvious reason is that universities intend to elevate their international reputation, hence the accomplishment of this goal encompasses the delivery of high level education towards students. The most questionable points though are the overall impact of these modern systems on the academic societies and also if their fundamental goal is achieved. The main aim of this piece of research is to answer these specific arguments. This study evaluates the impact of a modern e-learning platform on the academic ecosystem of a Greek university. As it becomes evident, e-learning platforms are not solely technical entities but principally social ones. Therefore, this research in grounded on the principles of Activity Theory in order to analyze the outcome of an e-learning execution socio-technically. The use of Activity Theory‟s tools and concepts will assist our attempt to identify potential challenges, conflicts, tensions and lastly, influences of both instructors and students towards the overall outcome of elearning integration into the university educational environment.

[2]

Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my honest gratitude to my research advisor Dr. Will Venters for all his useful advices, his support and his overall guidance throughout the process of this dissertation. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge Dr Tony Cornford for his useful comments and suggestions during the mock presentation of this research. Furthermore, I would also like to state my undivided gratefulness to my former supervisor Dr. Stavros Christodoulakis and the faculty of the Technical University of Crete for all the assistance provided me throughout this research. Additionally, I am truly thankful to all of the students who took part into this studyâ&#x20AC;&#x;s series of interviews. Moreover, I am sincerely indebted to all my friends for being there for me whenever I asked their help. Last but by no means least, I would like to thank the person without whom this postgraduate degree, this amazing year in London as well as my former studies in engineering would have never come true, this is my beloved mother.

[3]

Glossary and Abbreviation Index Abbreviation

Original Form

Activity Theory

ECE

Electronic and Computer Engineering

HCI

Human-Computer Interaction

ICT

Information Communication Technology

Information Systems

MOLE

Multimedia Open Learning Environment

MUSIC

Distributed Multimedia Information Systems And Applications

NLS

New Literacy Studies

TUC

Technical University of Crete

User Interface

VLE

Virtual Learning Environment

[4]

Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 3 Glossary and Abbreviation Index ....................................................................................... 4 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 7 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background Information ........................................................................................... 8 1.2 Research Objective ................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Research Question & Sub-questions ......................................................................... 9 1.4 Dissertation structure .............................................................................................. 10 2. Literature Review.......................................................................................................... 11 2.1 E-learning ................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 Pedagogy and e-learning ......................................................................................... 12 2.3 Assessment of e-learning practices ......................................................................... 14 3. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 17 3.1 Overview of Activity Theory .................................................................................. 17 3.1.1 1st Generation of Activity Theory .................................................................... 17 3.1.2 2nd Generation of Activity Theory ................................................................... 18 3.1.3 3rd Generation of Activity Theory .................................................................. 19 3.2 The Concept of Contradictions ............................................................................... 21 3.3 Relevant Research & Justification of choice .......................................................... 23 3.3.1 Activity Theory and e-learning ........................................................................ 23 3.3.2 Suitability of Activity Theory for this study .................................................... 24 4. Research Design & Methodology ................................................................................. 26 4.1 Research Methodology ........................................................................................... 26 4.1.1 Research Method ............................................................................................. 26 [5]

4.1.2 Epistemological Framework ............................................................................ 26 4.1.3 Research Pattern............................................................................................... 27 4.2 Research Design...................................................................................................... 27 4.2.1 Interview process ............................................................................................. 28 5. Research Findings ......................................................................................................... 30 5.1 Case study ............................................................................................................... 30 5.1.1 Main context: Technical University of Crete................................................... 30 5.1.2 Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering..................................... 30 5.1.3 Release of MOLE ............................................................................................ 31 5.2 Presentation of the data ........................................................................................... 32 5.2.1 Professors ......................................................................................................... 32 5.2.2 Tutors ............................................................................................................... 34 5.2.3 Students ............................................................................................................ 36 6. Analysis & Discussion .................................................................................................. 39 6.1 Identification of Activity Systems .......................................................................... 39 6.2 Internal Contradictions............................................................................................ 42 6.2.1 Primary contradictions ..................................................................................... 43 6.2.2 Secondary Contradictions ................................................................................ 44 6.2.3 Tertiary Contradictions .................................................................................... 44 6.2.4 Quaternary Contradictions ............................................................................... 45 7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 46 7.1 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 46 7.2 Future research ........................................................................................................ 47 8. References ..................................................................................................................... 48 9. Appendices .................................................................................................................... 57 9.1 Sample of the interview questions .......................................................................... 57 [6]

9.2 MOLE‟s features ..................................................................................................... 58 9.3 Screenshots of MOLE ............................................................................................. 59 9.3.1 Home Page ....................................................................................................... 59 9.3.2 Course Page ..................................................................................................... 60 9.3.3 Video Lectures Page (Summary) ..................................................................... 60 9.3.4 Video Lecture Page .......................................................................................... 61 9.3.5 Online Tutorials Page ...................................................................................... 61

List of Figures Figure 1 Categorization of e-learning practices (Lin et al, 2011).--------------------------- 11 Figure 2 Contrasts between e-learning and old-style classroom learning ------------------ 14 Figure 3 Vygotsky's graphical representation of AT (Vygotsky, 1978). ------------------- 18 Figure 4 Engestrom‟s enhanced activity triangle model (1987). ---------------------------- 20 Figure 5 Activity system‟s elements (Engestrom, 1987). ------------------------------------ 20 Figure 6 Interacting activity systems with a shared object as a supplementary model of the 3rd generation of AT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Figure 7 Engestrom's four-level contradictions model (Engestrom, 1987). --------------- 22 Figure 8 List of Interviewees. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Figure 9 Teaching Activity System. ------------------------------------------------------------- 40 Figure 10 Learning Activity System. ------------------------------------------------------------ 41 Figure 11 Overarching Teaching-Learning Activity System. -------------------------------- 42

[7]

1. Introduction 1.1 Background Information Information Technology (IT henceforth) is a field which is constantly evolving and its immediate effects can be seen in almost every aspect of our daily lives. A sector which has been affected significantly by various technological developments since the 90‟s, is education. Universities have been equipped with high-end e-learning tools and have settled their own plans for future expansion of their learning services (Lin et al, 2011). As Evans and Nation (1996) emphatically highlighted: “We have come to the end of an era in which colleges can be „bounded by a wall with a narrow gate‟ that keeps out all but a few who can afford high costs, when all students are kept „in one place at one time‟, sharing finite resources and faculty, and when they leave their education stops” (p. 143). E-learning, as it will be described extensively in the forthcoming chapter, offers a unique educational environment for both students and teachers. It utilizes high-end electronic gadgets in order to transmit educative content via different mediums of communication ranging from Internet to CD-ROMs. Subsequently, e-learning passed through many stages of development and has become, nowadays, one of the most representative instances of Information Systems (hereafter IS), because its usage is reflected not only in the education sector but also in the industry. Nonetheless, as Ozkan and Koseler (2009) eloquently stressed “the development, management and continuous improvement of e-learning systems are quite challenging (…) in that, assessment has become an essential requirement of a feedback loop for continuous improvement” (p. 1285). Thus, many evaluations of e-learning systems have been released. Each one of them had different goals, for instance the identification of those factors that characterize platform‟s success, user satisfaction or the level of adoption. The previously mentioned assessments examined either the technical or the social perspective of e-learning. However, e-learning combines those two extremes, so it must be seen from a sociotechnical angle.

[8]

Activity Theory (AT henceforth) is a conceptual framework that enables the evaluation of an activity from numerous different perspectives. Consequently, it can be considered as a „wise‟ choice for conducting an e-learning platform evaluation inside the context of a university. The reason is that a university encompasses a very complex and diverse environment, thus the release and enforcement of a new e-learning platform, can be followed by different thoughts and can be seen from various perspectives. AT, as stated by Bratteteig and Gregory (2001), offers a helpful initial point for examining the collaborative practices involved in the use of an IS, since it encapsulates both “the elements of an activity system as dynamic and perpetually open to change” and “the mediation and multiplicity of the artefacts” (p.3). Moving forward, an academic research must have a context which in turn can produce many findings. Considering the latter, Greece is a country which has lots of universities with a very high reputation globally. Nevertheless, its universities lack contemporary technological infrastructure. The administrations of all Greek universities have anticipated this issue and are struggling to develop advanced e-learning systems in order to enhance their teaching-learning processes. The Technical University of Crete (hereafter TUC) is the first university in Greece which intended to implement its own platform. Accordingly, the application of this tailor-made modern system in the university context has created diverse consequences which in turn have lots of research potential.

1.2 Research Objective The aim of this research, which derives from the previously described arguments, is to examine the impact of the application of the e-learning platform called MOLE (i.e. Multimedia Open Learning Environment) on the academic society (students and professors/tutors) of the department of Electronic and Computer Engineering (ECE henceforth) at the TUC.

1.3 Research Question & Sub-questions The main research question that this study will intend to answer is:

[9]

“What are the challenges after the adoption of a new e-learning platform in the Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering?” In order to answer this question two auxiliary arguments are expressed in order to streamline the whole research procedure. These are:  “Does the use of ICTs affect the teaching-learning process? If so, in what ways?”  “How do the roles of teachers and students influence the outcome of e-learning?”

1.4 Dissertation structure The remainder of this study is structured as follows: Chapter 2 contains the review of the relevant literature in the context of e-learning. Then, in Chapter 3 the focal theory (AT) which underpins this dissertation is illustrated. Afterwards, Chapter 4 contains the research methodology and design according to which this study is shaped. Chapter 5 presents the case study and explores the key research findings. Subsequently, Chapter 6 combines the key findings with the conceptual framework and through an extensive analysis strives to answer the research question. Finally, Chapter 7 illustrates the overall conclusion, the research limitations and lastly, gives suggestions for future research.

[10]

2. Literature Review This chapter presents a review of the academic literature that is relevant to the study of e-learning. Initially, the general notion of e-learning will be presented, accompanied with its interconnection with pedagogy. The final part of this section is devoted to illustrate other scholars‟ reviews whose theme is the measurement of the impact of e-learning strategies inside the higher education context.

2.1 E-learning Several scholars throughout literature have attempted to interpret the notion of elearning. Thus, according to Lin et al. (2011) ,the „E‟ stands for electronic which means that a computer or a network of computers, along with other means of IT are utilized in order to succeed in providing several different forms of learning, which were not possible in the past. Benbunan-Fich (2002) claims that e-learning is the teaching-learning process whose content‟s flow is mediated by ICTs. Other scholars such as Gunasekaran et al. (2002) and Ardito et al. (2004), describe e-learning as “distance learning” or learning facilitated by the use of internet technologies. Nevertheless, because of the unparalleled evolution of e-learning tools, numerous e-learning functions have been integrated into a single system. This progress led to a broader characterization of e-learning as „blended learning‟ expressed by Harris et al. (2009). This expression encapsulates the simultaneous usage of group educations with e-learning and has become very common nowadays. Together with the elucidation of the e-learning notion, a detailed classification of e-learning techniques is presented in the following table.

Figure 1 Categorization of e-learning practices (Lin et al, 2011).

[11]

E-learning enables versatile teaching and training. In terms of synchronicity, an elearning platform enables a student to have flexible access (mainly offline) to its miscellaneous education material from everywhere and at any time (asynchronous study). On the contrary, when a student has real-time interaction with online resources, synchronous study occurs. Additionally, in terms of facilitation a student has two options via e-learning, either individual self-study or collaborative one. The former gives the opportunity to students to enrich and develop their personal cognitive asset on their own. In contrast, the latter places an individual student inside a study group and offers him/her many collective features, such as forums, live chats or video conferences, with which a more all-rounded learning is achieved (Lin, 2011). All the above were a brief outline of e-learning and its characteristics. However, “the traditional context of learning is experiencing a radical change” (p. 1285), as argued by Ozkan and Koseler (2009), and the cause of this change is the transition from the teacher-centered model to the student-centered one (Cuban, 1993). The ultimate outcome of this shift is the arrival of e-learning.

2.2 Pedagogy and e-learning In the past, the teaching-learning process was oriented by various pedagogies, teaching frameworks or models. The most predominant one was the “traditional classroom learning”, also named as “passive learning model”, which continues to be applied even in modern educational systems (Zhang et al, 2004, Catalano & Catalano, 1999). During this teaching method, the instructor (professor/tutor) had the dominant role in the classroom and was concerned with the whole control of the course‟s content, at the same time students occupy a relatively „passive‟ role (Zhang et al, 2004). Additionally, Cuban (1993) is one of the major researchers of pedagogy and the way the teachinglearning process is conducted. He conceptualized this traditional procedure of learning and was the introducer of the “teacher-centered model”. According to him, this model comprises some typical characteristics: a) teacher-dominated teaching in which teachers are responsible to talk to the whole class and to pose various questions to students, in contrast students are concerned with listening and expressing clarifying questions; b) general instructions and guidelines are expressed towards the whole class; c) lack of face to face discussions between tutors and students; d) the curriculum is grounded mainly on [12]

textbooks and is complemented by other teaching material (e.g. multimedia tools etc.); and lastly, e) classroom‟s desks have a fixed position facing both the blackboard and the educator‟s desk. According to the previously described model, students are following specific strategies (i.e. curriculum, instructions, assessment practices) settled by instructors without being eligible to contribute and speak up as much as possible during the teaching-learning process (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). On the other hand, education is an ever-evolving field, thus many new pedagogy models and practices have been introduced. One of these paradigms is the “studentcentered model”, also known as “active learning model” (Cuban, 1993, Catalano & Catalano, 1999). According to this model students become the core part of the training process and their feedback as well as their vigorous contribution to classroom‟s operation, are essential (Salmon, 2003). There are some specific attributes of this overall pattern: a) students and teachers share classes‟ talking time equally; b) the class is divided into smaller groups for effective learning; c) courses‟ content and rules are shaped by both instructors and students; d) students can select among various educational material and finally, e) classrooms‟ furniture is arranged according to students‟ needs (Cuban, 1993). Additionally, this model supports the fact that learning derives from various behavioral changes occurring during the teaching-learning process, and is also directly linked with communal constructivism, which in turn underlines the way collaborative knowledge is structured (Cuban, 1993, Leask and Younie, 2001). Nonetheless, the previously portrayed model is evolved to its highest level due to the presence of the Internet and other contemporary network technologies. E-learning, as a modern educative notion, adopts and offers a “learner-centered” educational environment. The figure below juxtaposes the two main teaching-learning models that have already been presented by referring to their pros and cons accordingly.

[13]

Figure 2 Contrasts between e-learning and old-style classroom learning (Zhang et al, 2004).

As it can be considered, pedagogy has to be taken into excessive consideration prior to the implementation and application phases of an e-learning environment. More analytically, e-learning not only adopts and enhances the “student-centered” learning model, but also offers a new high-end educational ecosystem to its existing and potential users.

2.3 Assessment of e-learning practices Even though the origins of e-learning and e-learning platforms date back to the 90‟s, only a few scholars and researchers have evaluated the impact of an e-learning system on its users as well as on users‟ activities. There are many theorists which explore in depth the factors shaping user acceptance and the adoption of an e-learning platform such as Purnomo and Lee (2003), Cheung and Vogel (2013), Ong et al. (2004) etc. Moreover, there are also many scholars who have uncovered various implementation and design elements so that an e-learning platform would be successful, such as Darking (2004) or Agarwal & Venkatesh (2002). Additionally, it is generally true that e-learning systems can be seen from multiple perspectives. Thus, there are many scholars coming from diverse scientific fields, such as computer science, educational technology, IS or psychology, trying to evaluate an elearning platform after its application. For instance, Islas et al. (2007) assessed the technical components of an e-learning system or Douglas and Van Der Vyver (2004) [14]

measured how effective the course materials provided by a system are. In addition, Gilbert (2007) examined the impact of such a system solely from the student perspective and lastly, Arbaugh and Fich (2007) surveyed the extent to which users‟ interaction inside an e-learning environment is essential for their cognitive enhancement. Nonetheless, as Ozkan and Koseler (2009) argued “the success of an e-learning system may be considered as an emerging concept of „social issues‟ and „technical issues‟ and depends on numerous circumstances (…) is affected by the environment and influenced by the people who use it” (p. 1286). Therefore, an e-learning system combines two distinct parts which in turn form a unique socio-technical entity; as a result it has to be examined from both angles, taking also into account two basic principles: a) efficiency and effectiveness. The one extreme focuses on the usage of an e-learning system by individuals. Even though the origins of e-learning and e-learning platforms date back to the 90‟s, only a few scholars and researchers have evaluated the impact of an e-learning system on its users as well as on users‟ activities.

Furthermore, a comparison between classical

teaching methods and e-learning will take a significant part of the audit procedure (Zhang et al, 2004; Islas et al, 2007). Moreover, it has to be mentioned that in terms of effectiveness, instructor‟s quality (i.e. teaching styles, technology and e-learning tools approach and control over technological artifacts), learner‟s perception (i.e. computer anxiety, enthusiasm, motivation as well as their intention to use an e-learning platform), regulations, trends, ethical norms, and other general environmental stimuli are vital for an all-around critical appraisal (Liaw et al., 2007; Khan, 2005; Chen & Yeh, 2008). On the other hand, apart from the social issues indicated before, a crucial part of the e-learning evaluation is grounded on technology. Technology plays an essential role on the overall effect that an e-learning system will have upon its users. During this phase of assessment, system‟s performance has to be gauged recurrently, targeting the measurement of system‟s usability and quality (Zaharias, 2006; Ardito et al. 2004). Students look for convenient services that would be adjusted to them and would increase their efficiency (Sun et al., 2008; Selim, 2007). Additionally, as it is mentioned before system and Internet quality determine significantly the effectiveness of e-learning. Thus, “the software quality involves stability, security, reliability, pace, responsiveness, ease of use, user-friendliness, well-organized design, personalization. The quality of the [15]

peripherals involves wellness of electronic mail, online threaded discussion boards, synchronous chat, and desktop videoconferencing” (p. 1286) as noted by Ozkan and Koseler (2009). Moreover, the quality of content defines system‟s usability level due to the learner‟s seek for „neat‟ design and up-to-date management (Holsapple and Lee-Post, 2006). Shee & Wang (2008) argue that the platform‟s content should be interactive, useful, adaptable, and lastly, well-organized. To this end, learner‟s motivation will increase and their satisfaction as well as usage rates will reach their peak (Holsapple and Lee-Post, 2006). Nonetheless, e-learning literature contains a conceptual gap on how to weigh system‟s usability, because it was focused only on revealing syntactic errors in Human-Computer Interaction (hereafter HCI), neglecting human attitude and the overall experience after the use of an e-learning platform (Ardito e al., 2006). All in all, a researcher in order to achieve a deeper evaluation of e-learning and elearning platforms has to take into account every socio-technical element combined with pedagogy effectiveness. There is a significant amount of theorists who have studied elearning evaluation, such as Lytras & Pouloudi (2001), Zhang et al. (2004), Ozkan and Koseler (2009) and Novo-Corti et al. (2012), but none of them has either researched the application of e-learning in Greek universities or assessed platforms, like MOLE, which have been developed from the university itself for its internal needs. Thus, all the above leave a lot of space for an extended research of the impact that a tailor-made e-learning platform has on the students and faculty of a Greek university.

[16]

3. Conceptual Framework This chapter is devoted on describing and justifying the theoretical foundation upon which the overall outcome of the e-learning platform usage is grounded. The conceptual framework that was chosen for this study is Activity Theory. Hence, in the following paragraphs, a short overview of AT‟s history will be presented, highlighting the interconnection between AT and e-learning ICTs as well as the reasons for which AT is selected as a suitable framework for framing this research.

3.1 Overview of Activity Theory Around the 1920s – 1930s in the former Soviet Union, some members of the faculty of the Moscow Institute of Psychology, named Vygotsky, Leonte‟v and Luria were the first scholars who introduced the notion and the structure of AT (Adams, Edmond et al., 2003). It is considered that Vygotsky is the introducer of the first generation of AT and that he had been influenced by the ideas of the famous German philosopher Karl Marx (1978). AT is grounded on social constructionism, since Vygotsky was one of its major theorists (Huitt, 2003), and it intends to analyze not only the way an acting subject (i.e. an individual) is creating reality, but also the way that real world‟s collaborative practices are generated by different learning communities (Engestrom, 2000).

3.1.1 1st Generation of Activity Theory As mentioned before, Vygotsky (1978) initiated the 1st generation of AT. The ultimate goal of his work was to formulate human learning activities as a „mediated act‟ which comprises a subject and an object both intermediated by various tools. The subject is pursuing an ultimate object which, in turn, is mainly what is actually being formed and changed by the mediator (tools). Simultaneously, the mediating tools can be either concepts or material language both imprinted with the most important cultural values. Furthermore, he tried to distinguish humans from non-human elements in terms of the roles that individuals and artefacts are having during the operation of a system. For instance, he made clear that people are not acting as „agents‟ in an information system [17]

and that the way an already processed information is being modelled differs across people and machines. Ultimately, Vygotsky encapsulated the overall concept of mediation of human activities in his renowned triangular model, which is illustrated below.

Figure 3 Vygotsky's graphical representation of AT (Vygotsky, 1978).

3.1.2 2nd Generation of Activity Theory Even though Vygotsky‟s model had been revolutionary in inserting cultural tools into human activity as well as in overwhelming the distinction between the social and the individual structures, it failed to transform the analysis unit from individual to collective. (Daniels, 2005; Engestrom, 1999b). Thus, Leont‟ev and the other scholars of his group tried to overcome this limitation by emphasizing the analysis of a collective activity and also by shifting the heart of the overall research from the mediating tools towards the object (Leont‟ev, 1981). The second generation of AT focused not only in explaining the crucial differences between individual and collective actions, but also in further explicating the activity concept by elaborating its core levels (i.e. activity – operation – action). Leont‟ev considered that every activity integrates many social factors, and that there are also strong interrelations among the elements of Vygotsky‟s model (subject, object and mediating tools). Additionally, it is expressed that each of these elements can become collective because for instance, there can be a group of tools that can act as mediating tools. Nevertheless, Vygotsky‟s original mediational model was not expanded or restructured graphically by Leont‟ev so that the dimension of collectiveness would be included. The reason is that Leont‟ev focused on the engagement of „concrete individuals‟ into an individual activity. This means that even though a societal dimension was expressed, it cannot be inferred that every individual activity is essentially collective [18]

(Leont‟ev, 1981). Thus, Leont‟ev‟s work indicated the foundations for introducing the notions of collective activity and interaction between different discrete activity systems.

3.1.3 3rd Generation of Activity Theory Leont‟ev‟s work offered a more holistic view of AT, because it observed the AT not only from the individual but also from the social perspective. Nevertheless, while Engestrom (1987) accepted the hierarchical way through which humans are acting, he argued that Leont‟ev‟s contribution failed to examine the way that individuals act in a collaborative and communal activity context. For instance, in what way do individuals interact with all the other members of a community in terms of converting distinct personal actions into a shared and mutual object or even in what manner the division of labor shape the way that individuals‟ actions are performed inside a collective activity. Furthermore, Leont‟ev had also been criticized because he failed to integrate the communicative side of activity into a single cohesive and united model (Engestrom, 2000). Therefore, Engestrom (1987) based on the two previous versions of AT, attempted to overcome the limitations of Leont‟ev‟s research and to enhance the collective nature of AT. He complemented the original graphical model with another triangle which is representing the presence of 3 additional contextual components which in turn facilitate the exchange of various perspectives from diverse parties with the overall goal to be the enrichment of the activity system‟s social structure. These are: a) the community of people who have the same interests and are pursuing the same object; b) the rules which form not only the whole activity process from subject towards the object but also the relationship between the contributors in every activity; c) the division of labor which designates not only the division of various responsibilities among the activity‟s participants, but also the power division according to the position of each contributor with the main aim to be the reach of the object (Foot, 2001). The latest graphical version of AT model, introduced by Engestrom‟s research, is presented below (Fig. 2).

[19]

Figure 4 Engestrom’s enhanced activity triangle model (1987).

Bedny et al (2000) characterizes AT as a „goal directed system‟ which encapsulates six different elements whose combination in a certain context results in an overall outcome. An outline of the AT‟s elements and its descriptions are presented in the following table (Table 1). It has to be noticed that all the elements are interconnected and can get transformed to another element. For instance, an object can become an outcome (i.e. final result) or a tool or then a rule. (Engestrom, 1996).

Figure 5 Activity system’s elements (Engestrom, 1987).

[20]

Moving forward, as it is argued by Engestrom, “The third generation of AT needs to develop conceptual tools to understand dialogue, multiple perspectives and voices and networks of interacting activity systems (…) the basic model is expanded to include minimally two interacting activity systems” (Engestrom, 2001, p. 135). Thus, Engestrom proposed a further extension of his version which is “networked activity systems whose work concerns a shared object” (Kyriakidou – Zacharoudiou, 2011, p. 71). The updated version of the third generation of AT is displayed below (Fig. 4).

Figure 6 Interacting activity systems with a shared object as a supplementary model of the 3 rd generation of AT (Engestrom, 2001).

In conclusion, for the needs of this research the Engestrom‟s version of AT is used. The reason is that our case contains two interacting activity systems which are the teaching and the learning activity via the e-learning platform. Therefore, in that context, the model including the shared object which in turn derives from numerous interacting activities is the most suitable one. Moving forward, it can be seen that an activity system be characterized as a heterogeneous context which encapsulates voices from several parties. Therefore, activity‟s components can overlap each other or clashes can emerge between them. This fact leads to the next key characteristic of AT which is the „Concept of Contradictions‟.

3.2 The Concept of Contradictions Every activity system is characterized by its internal contradictions (Engestrom, 1999c). This happens because an activity system is not only a dynamic entity which is constantly evolving but also is a unit which is not fragmented and isolated from the broader environment. Thus, it gets influenced by other activities or by various changes in [21]

the environment or even the collaborative work that is done by individuals or groups of people who are part of the activity‟s context. Therefore, in order to manage and conceptualize all the overall tensions and clashes that are emerging inside an collaborative activity system, AT provides the notion of contradictions (De Souza and Redmiles, 2003). The concept of contradictions is very relevant to our study because many conflicts arise between the members of the academic society (professors, tutors, students etc.) regarding the extensive use of an e-learning platform. Contradictions are counted as the key source of dynamism, growth and learning in AT (Bertelsen, 2003). As it is also stated by Kuuti (1996), “Contradictions are used to indicate a misfit within elements, between them, between different activities, or between different developmental phases of a single activity” (p. 16). Thus, when the activity system‟s distinct elements begin to misalign due to internal or external factors, the activity is losing its right direction. Simultaneously, contradictions facilitate any necessary amendments which are required in order for collective actions to be regained and the collective mind to be revived as well. For instance, subjects will thrive to tackle any conflicts that have arisen by creating and restructuring activity‟s cultural mediators, such as the development of new tools or reinterpreting the rules of cooperation and the way that division of labour is conducted (Weick and Roberts, 1993). A four-level framework is introduced by Engestrom (1987) in order to conceptualize the concept of contradictions (Fig. 4).

Figure 7 Engestrom's four-level contradictions model (Engestrom, 1987).

[22]

First of all, primary contradictions are those which transpire within every component of the central activity and are considered as clashes between actions that play a crucial role in the accomplishment of an activity. For instance, regarding the education research a primary contradiction can be the use of traditional methods of teaching (e.g. blackboards) and of contemporary methods like a high-end e-learning platform (e.g. MOLE). Furthermore, secondary contradictions are considered those controversies which happen between two elements of the central activity. For example, a secondary contradiction can be a clash between strict rules and supple mediating tools (Engestrom, 1999a). Moving to the next category that includes the tertiary contradictions which in turn occur in occasions when an activity is reshaped so that new working ways are established. More analytically, it is the dispute between the object of the central activity and the object of the “culturally more advanced form of that activity” (Bertelsen, 2003). The „new‟ activity has derived from the resolution of contradictions which occurred in the central activity and has created new activity elements (e.g. rules, division of labour, tools etc.). Finally, the contradictions happening among diverse concurrent and coexisting (also known as „neighbour activities‟) and the central activity are called quaternary contradictions. These kinds of contradictions are very complex and thus, extensive coordination is needed. For instance, the way professors and students are viewing the use of a tool can create numerous conflicts.

3.3 Relevant Research & Justification of choice 3.3.1 Activity Theory and e-learning Evidently, AT is extensively used in the fields of psychology, education and training (Bedny et al., 2000). The theory was widely used in the near past in order to measure the educational change occurring due to the technological evolution and the diffusion of e-learning platforms at schools and universities (Bellamy, 1996). There are many examples of scholars and theorists who used AT to frame their researches and which inspired the use of AT for this specific study. For instance, a) Jonassen (2000) adopted AT in order to form the technology-based learning environment; b) Hana and Richards (2012) used AT to propose a VLE environment which contains multi-agent [23]

collaboration among learners; c) Wiredu (2005) research on mobile learning was based on AT; d) Blin and Munro (2008) assessed the way teaching practices altered by the use of VLEs via AT and lastly, e) Isroff & Scanlon (2001) reinterpreted numerous former studies on computer-mediated collective learning with the use of AT.

3.3.2 Suitability of Activity Theory for this study In order to justify the selection of AT as the core conceptual framework for this study, a review published by Hull and Schulz (2001) was taken into consideration. This publication stated that scholars have extensively adopted three main theories in order to assess the impact of learning activities in education. These are: a) Ethnography of Communication (Hymes, 1964); b) the New Literacy Studies (NLS henceforth) (Coiro, 2003); and c) AT. The first theory is mainly focusing on the interaction between students and teachers and gives specific suggestions to the latter on how to enrich their pedagogy technique. Unfortunately, even though this framework is suitable for exploring the broad context of learning, it does not take into account contemporary technologies like elearning platforms or other ones that mediate the teaching-learning process. Therefore, Ethnography of Communication cannot be applied to this study. Moreover, regarding the second framework, NLS, is placing literacy in every possible context (i.e. political, historical, economic, cultural and social) and evaluates the way that is affected by them so that a well-rounded view of literacy is generated. Nevertheless and besides the fact that NLS takes into consideration that nowadays literacy is highly shaped by the appearance of new technologies, such as Internet, it does not have the proper functions to observe the diffusion of knowledge through speaking or listening (Gee, 1996; Coiro, 2003). However, the needs of our study require a more allrounded conceptual model (i.e. MOLE as an e-learning platform uses all the mediums of interaction among the members of the academic society), thus even this theory is not applicable to our research. Finally, AT was considered as the best choice to examine our case. The reason is that the framework investigates the way that education is evolved through the use of an elearning platform not only by taking into consideration all the cultural and contextual constituents, like the rules, the division of labour, and the peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x;s community, but also [24]

by viewing the mediating tool (i.e. MOLE) as a vital component used by the subjects (e.g. professors, students etc.) to accomplish the activityâ&#x20AC;&#x;s object (i.e. the development of education) (Engestrom, 1987). As a result, AT is a well-rounded concept that suits our case and through its use every aspect of this research can be unfolded.

[25]

4. Research Design & Methodology The presentation of a complete strategy for the exploration of a piece of research is vital in terms of outcomes‟ validity. Therefore, a justification of the decisions taken regarding this study‟s research design and methodology are demonstrated in this chapter.

4.1 Research Methodology It is widely known among several scholars that IS are a quite complex and rather unexplored research field. IS do not have only a technical but also a social character, as claimed by Angel and Smithson (1991). The socio-technical character of IS implies that its examination is relatively challenging, hence every aspect of the entire research design should be taken into consideration before the launch of the research.

4.1.1 Research Method After a thorough scan throughout the existing literature on the various epistemologies as well as due to the fact that we are investigating the social aspect of the e-learning platforms, it is decided that the suitable research method will be a qualitative approach (Walsham, 2006). The reason is that qualitative methodologies allow academics to study complex issues including all cultural and social data which is related with the context of the situation (Klein and Myers, 1999; Cornford and Smithson, 2006). Additionally, as stated by Maxwell (1996), qualitative research assists us in gaining “the meaning and context of the phenomena studied and the particular events and processes that make up these phenomena over time, in real-life, natural settings” (p. 23).

4.1.2 Epistemological Framework Cornford and Smithson (1996) define Epistemology as “the type of (valid) knowledge that can be obtained about a phenomenon under study” (p. 61). Thus, the process of the entire research, including the assumptions upon which the whole research is grounded, will be determined by the selected epistemological framework. Among the three types of epistemological framework: a) the positivist; b) the critical, and c) the interpretative (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991), the latter will be adopted. In order to [26]

justify this choice, it has to be said that the interpretative methodology aims not only to clarify the IS‟ context, but also to formulate the cognitive routes under which IS and its context interact and affect each other (Walsham, 1993).

4.1.3 Research Pattern Moving forward, the next step in the research analysis is to decide upon the broad research pattern that will be utilized. Cornford and Smithson (1996) portray three distinct research approaches: a) Constructive (i.e. conceptual or technical development); b) Nomothetic (i.e. formal-mathematical analysis, experiments or field studies and surveys); and c) Idiographic (i.e. case studies or action research). For the needs of our study, the idiographic research approach is adopted and more specifically the case study option. To support the previous choice, Yin (2009) argues that “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 18). Therefore, the case study approach is the most appropriate style for our qualitative investigation. The reason is that it enables us to perform a thorough study of the situation by taking into account numerous sources of data; other conceptual factors that underpin the research and snapshots of the phenomenon taken from different angles and by people with different perception of the case, and different behavior towards it (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Yin, 1981). Finally, having decided the whole „bouquet‟ of research methodologies, the data collection stage will be accomplished by conducting numerous interviews. Further details about the design and the structure of the interview phase will be illustrated in the following section.

4.2 Research Design The researcher, as a former student of the department of ECE, has a relatively versatile awareness of the university‟s environment and processes. However, since nearly three years have passed from the graduation day, this experience can be rather outdated and incorrect. For this reason, some generic and informal discussions took place in order to acquire a general picture of the way the members of the academic society treat the new e-learning platform so that the research design would be formed properly. [27]

4.2.1 Interview process In order to fulfill the purposes of this study, eleven interviews have been conducted with professors, tutors, and students from the ECEâ&#x20AC;&#x;s academic society. All of them, except for one that was made via e-mail, because the professor was abroad and he had no spare time for a phone interview, were performed via an instant messaging service (voice/video conferences) because all the interviewees were located in Crete. The sample of the interviewees was intended to be very versatile (i.e. various positions, age, years of presence in the university) so that well-rounded and accurate results would be achieved. Furthermore, all the interviewees asked for anonymity because they would like to feel comfortable to express their opinions and thoughts about the internal usage of MOLE without having the pressure that the disclosure of sensitive information and the publication of â&#x20AC;&#x17E;causticâ&#x20AC;&#x; comments would upset either the one or the other extreme (i.e. faculty or students). The table below illustrates the interviewees providing some additional information about each one of them.

Figure 8 List of Interviewees.

The interview process began with a brief summary of the overall study and its main aim. The rest of the process continued with several objective and subjective questions. All the interviews were semi-structured and their basic structure was grounded [28]

on a questionnaire. The questionnaire, which is available in the Appendix, was used for guidance and it was personalized on each interviewee according to his/hers previous answers and reactions. This was done in order to force the interviewees not to give typical answers during the interview. It can easily be considered that the interviewsâ&#x20AC;&#x; questionnaire was shaped according to the academic position of the interviewee. Moreover, it has to be stated that some of the questions followed the conceptual framework of AT, which was selected for this study, so that frameworkâ&#x20AC;&#x;s components to get completely covered. Nevertheless, the terminology was relatively different so that the interviewees could not know the way that their answers will be combined and analyzed in order to result in an accurate outcome. Finally, even though the primary source of data comes from the interviews, other data sources were utilized as complementary information, including school reports and MOLEâ&#x20AC;&#x;s access statistics per course.

[29]

5. Research Findings The aim of this chapter is to illustrate the main findings of the research that has been conducted in the context of ECE at the TUC. The first part of this section is dedicated to the brief description of the case study upon which this study is grounded. Then, after the elaboration of the collected data and their coupling with the research questions, the main critical arguments will be presented, classified according to the different groups of interviewees.

5.1 Case study 5.1.1 Main context: Technical University of Crete The main context of this study is the TUC and more specifically the department of ECE. TUC is one of the biggest technical universities in Greece and has a unique reputation for its publications, ranked 1st among all Greek universities (15 in total) in the SCOPUS which is a qualitative analysis of Greek publications in International Journals (News247, 2013). It was founded in 1977 in Chania Crete and consists of five academic engineering departments the Department of Production Engineering and Management, the Department of Mineral Resources Engineering, the Department of Electronic & Computer Engineering (ECE), the Department of Environmental Engineering and the Department of Architectural Engineering. It has more than 4,000 students, is a pioneer university in various fields and is constantly striving to offer the best possible educational services to its students (TUC, 2013). Thus, due to the excessive need of a unified learning platform, the department of ECE took the initiative to develop, on its own, a learning system tailored to the needs of its members. Simultaneously, the intention for the implementation of a more generic version of that platform, not only for the other departments but also for other schools and universities, emerged.

5.1.2 Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering More analytically, the department of ECE established in 1990, has nearly 1,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students, and comprises four divisions, such as the division of Electronics and Computer Architecture, Computer Science, Control Systems, [30]

and Telecommunications. Each division has its own professors, tutors, laboratories and is also responsible for the courses that are related to the division itself. Thus, in the past, each division had a specific website where the professors could store various course material and the students, in turn, could have access to online academic resources and also could upload their assignments/projects for marking. As a result, it can be easily considered that each division‟s course website could be characterized as a simple repository system as well as that the whole e-learning procedure was very messy and had a completely supplementary role in the department‟s teaching-learning process (ECE, 2013).

5.1.3 Release of MOLE Consequently, the administration of the Laboratory of Distributed Multimedia Information Systems and Applications (MUSIC henceforth) in order to tackle this issue and to support its members decided to initiate a very ambitious project. The name of the project was „Courses‟ and was basically an e-learning platform which integrated several advanced features (e.g. online chat room supporting video conferences, forums, course discussions, online course material, project submission functions etc.). Many members of the faculty and other laboratory assistants took part in the development of the system which took about 2 years to be released. After its completion, all the members of the laboratory were using it in order to foster the level of education provided to students. The outcome of platform‟s application was fantastic. All students were excited and felt that they were offered a unique opportunity to enhance their interaction with the faculty as well as to learn more by having a constant contact with a specific course. Subsequently, due to the overall success of „Courses‟, the departmental administration took the decision to customize the e-learning platform and to create a generic version of it. The new version, called „MOLE‟, would encapsulate all the modules taught by the department and would replace the other course websites. All in all, MOLE was released in 2008, funded mostly by the EU, and was adopted by the entire ECE‟s academic community. Until the recent years, many new features were attached, such as video lectures or online preview and commenting of lecture slides, in order to provide a more all-rounded e-learning platform (TUC/MUSIC, 2013). As noted by Pappas et al. (2011): “The MOLE fosters distance learning by enabling communication between tutors/trainers and students, [31]

cooperation among students and access to coursework information and learning resources (…) also supports the combination of traditional classroom-based lessons and practical sessions, with self-study and eLearning. This, so called, “hybrid” or “blended” approach” (p. 1).

5.2 Presentation of the data 5.2.1 Professors The two professors interviewed claimed that we live in an era where the use of ICTs in education is vital and irreplaceable. IS support the asynchronous interaction between students and teachers, reduce redundancy and waste (i.e. unnecessary e-mails, hard copies of lecture notes/slides or coursework etc.), and similarly enrich the collaborative bonds between students through the service of discussions/forum which is provided to them. Nonetheless, P1 eloquently noted that: “They have not explored their full potential yet.” P1 also stated that the introduction of e-learning is beneficial for Greek universities because the class attendance in Greece is quite low and the reason is that students, due to the fact that their presence in class is not mandatory, they think that traditional classroom learning is boring, so they intend to spent their time in doing various other things. Thus, according to him, e-learning platforms can keep them informed about how a module is evolving and subsequently, students can get stimulated to change their „bad‟ habits and to amplify their contribution in class. They mutually agreed that MOLE is a high-end platform that offers exceptional services to end-users and fulfill all their needs. MOLE is used by them because it facilitated their job (i.e. to publish announcements for all students, to easily upload course content, to communicate with specific students, to announce extensions in assignments or changes in teaching, to publish news from the international market and scientific events) and they emphasized its ease-of-use. However, they argued that even though the members of the department are familiar with the use of IS, some features of the platform were quite complex and therefore, these issues decreased the usability rate of the platform. A possible solution, proposed by them, could be the launch of some training sessions for teachers in [32]

cooperation with students (especially „freshmen) during which a brief outline of the platform together with answering queries would be provided. Furthermore, P1 and P2 noted that first year students get amazed by MOLE and the reason is that they had not been using such a system throughout their entire school life. Thus, young students tend to contribute a lot in open discussions and to post much useful information on forums. On the other hand, senior students prefer to get informed about what is happening in a course and to participate when asked or when they have an inquiry to expose. As P1 expressively commented: “It seems that the capability of act as a social network for the course (in large courses especially) and to also allow for a solution of many trivial to difficult problems that the users had through cooperation, it is the major advantage of MOLE” However, P2 complemented that many discussion threads are converted into „spam‟ conversations and this is a quite serious issue to be tackled because it diminishes students‟ motivation to be „active‟ participants. Furthermore, both professors used only the features that were familiar with or that were not time-consuming. For instance, the „calendar‟ feature of MOLE can be very convenient for students because they can see course information in detail (e.g. date and time of the course, lecture title, details about courses and seminars etc.), but in order the calendar to contain up-to-date information, professors have to spend much time in filling in all the existing fields or to modify old records with new ones if something unexpected occurs. As a result, this component is not so popular among the faculty as professors mentioned. Considering the offered features, P1 said that a noteworthy one is the individual grading tab. In that every student can get notified about his/her grades in a particular module or project. This is a substantial progress in terms of privacy because in the past all student marks where announced and put up on the notice boards of each division‟s secretary. In addition, P1 supplemented that the feature of video lectures is beneficial for many students that have lost some or many lectures because they can fill their conceptual gap effortlessly. The only drawback of this service is that due to university‟s regulations the professor or tutor cannot disclose any confidential information about several sensitive issues, such as the examinations, [33]

thus he/she must be very careful about what is talking about or in what way he/she assists his/her students. Moving forward, P2 noticed that student grades have become better since the release of MOLE and the cause is that the students can discuss numerous inquiries with their classmates, can have direct interaction with courses‟ tutors and professors, and lastly, their access to course material has been simplified a lot. However, as P2 emphatically put it: “In terms of pedagogy nothing changed since the introduction of the brand new e-learning platform. The educational level is not affected by these kinds of factors, the only thing that can truly shape it is the way the teaching-learning process is conducted inside an amphitheater. In other words, everything depends on the technique under which knowledge is transmitted to students by teachers. MOLE just facilitated the learning process significantly, created stronger bonds among the academic society and made several academic resources available to everyone at any time and from everywhere.” P1 also added that according to his perspective: “The tool has the potential to improve the methods of learning which have not been explored adequately yet. For the time being, no amendment is widely detected in terms of pedagogy.” All in all, the two professors expressed positive outlook about MOLE. They mutually concluded that MOLE has become an irreplaceable component of the teachinglearning process as it made everyone‟s life more comfortable and boosted the level of efficacy in their efforts.

5.2.2 Tutors As T1 vigorously underlined: “The use of e-learning platforms in our era is necessary and every university, not only in Greece, but also globally, gets oriented towards the full adoption of ICTs so that their educational services to reach the highest possible level.” [34]

From the above statement, it can be considered that T1 as well as T2, who more or less agreed with this viewpoint, are in favor of the application of e-learning platforms in universities. The two tutors mentioned that MOLE is an advantageous tool which assists the teaching-learning process conducted in the university. Additionally, T1 stated that MOLE is a platform which places huge emphasis in fulfilling users‟ needs as well as that in contrast to other similar platforms the core element of MOLE is not the course but the user itself. He also said that the platform is very useful for teachers and students because it makes complex issues to look trivial. For instance, it facilitates the interaction between the two extremes (i.e. professors/tutors and students) and reduces redundancy to minimum by providing features such as the tab of discussions/forum or announcements via which everyone gets informed about changes in the course, any unforced mistakes or even any inquiries expressed by students.

Subsequently, although T1 claimed that

MOLE has a powerful user interface (hereafter UI) targeting users who do not occupy special IT skills, T2 disagreed with this testimony and underscored that MOLE‟s UI needs restructuring in order to become „neater‟, more straightforward and thus for its usability to suit better to the needs of both the experienced and the novice users. Furthermore, MOLE offers interactivity via its video lectures as commented by T2 and continued by stating that: “For me is one of the best features provided by MOLE because a student can feel like being in the class and have a direct interaction with the instructor. Nonetheless, the traditional classroom teaching cannot be replaced because in my point of view, face to face contact can boost individual‟s knowledge and enhance his/her understanding about a specific topic.” In addition, T1 argued that even though the educational level is enriched due to the arrival of MOLE (i.e. students can access the course material very easily and simultaneously, they can exchange thoughts and ideas about various themes), he cannot underpin that students‟ grades have become better. He strongly believed that students have improved qualitatively in terms of knowledge acquisition and not quantitatively in terms of succeeding in gaining better grades. Last but not least, in terms of pedagogy they mutually agreed that nothing has changed since the introduction of MOLE. T2 stated that the way each course is taught via [35]

the platform varies and depends on the instructor‟s intention to utilize the e-learning tool at its maximum extent. Similarly, T1 supplemented that: “MOLE has not amended teaching pedagogically because professors and tutors have not fully adjusted.

There is a percentage of 10 per cent of

instructors who rebuilt their course structure according to the contemporary digital trends and placed MOLE in the core of the teaching-learning process. Moreover, 60 per cent of them handled it as a supplementary tool and the rest did not give so much emphasis on it and evaded it. To conclude, the two tutors, who are basically master students, are in favor of new innovative e-learning environment. They are intending to use it as much as possible in order to support students, but due to the department‟s strict regulation together with their limited spare time they cannot offer as much as they wish to.

5.2.3 Students All the students that took part into the interview process stated that e-learning is vital nowadays and constitutes an irreplaceable „weapon‟ for modern universities‟ arsenal. As S3 noted characteristically: “Our era enforces the use of ICTs in almost every field. E-learning platforms are a very convenient way to educate and inform numerous students simultaneously. The most beneficial part of these systems is that all the provided course material is gathered into one single site, therefore a student does not have to seek around and waste his study time on the contrary he/she can focus on the essence of learning.” As regards MOLE, it can be said that all the interviewees are more or less in favor of the platform. On the one hand, young students faced something completely new but they liked the interactivity that MOLE generates among the department‟s members, while on the other hand, senior students highlighted the fact that the former repository sites were integrated into a single unit. Features, such as the video lectures, the online project submission, the online lecture preview and the forums (or discussion threads), have been

[36]

characterized as valuable and essentially define the distinction between a typical elearning platform and an advanced one. Nonetheless, despite the positive feedback by most of the students regarding MOLE‟s usability, some senior students expressed severe criticism against its UI. Interestingly, S5 argued that: “Even though MOLE‟s usability rate is high enough, there are a considerable number of issues concerning its design and structure. From my point of view, system‟s interface was designed very roughly and without taking into account basic HCI principles. Subsequently, despite the fact that we live in the era of mobility, neither a mobile application nor a responsive website are offered. What is bizarre is that the laboratory which implemented MOLE is responsible for conducting the HCI course. As a result, everything advocates that students‟ motivation is hindered due to misguiding exemplification of relevant projects.” Furthermore, another crucial issue expressed by all the participants is that the level of adoption is not the same among all the instructors. To this end, many of them have not adjusted to the new trends arisen by the brand new system, so their pedagogy technique has not been shaped accordingly. Additionally, some professors resist following the unified method of interaction via standardized routines (e.g. discussion threads, personal messages, announcements etc.) and apply other more traditional methods. For instance, a professor suggested his students to send him an e-mail in case of inquiries because he does not use other MOLE‟s functions apart from the upload of his course‟s lecture slides/notes. Remarkably, S2 also noticed another drawback: “Some instructors continue to maintain their own repository systems because they argue that MOLE‟s privacy policy does not comply with the well-known international standards. Consequently, a leakage of academic material is very likely to occur.” Moving forward, there is a significant fraction of participants who stressed that although MOLE helped them to preserve permanent contact with a course, their knowledge and grades have not improved due to the platform but because of traditional [37]

classroom learning. A notable statement, pointed by S4, is that MOLE introduces a technocratic way of education according to which projects, coursework, strict deadlines and in some cases austere sanctions for not complying with the rules constitute the central segment of the teaching-learning process. The previously described practices inhibit the qualitative progress of the students. To conclude, MOLE has received a positive feedback from the students because it encompasses many cutting-edge services which assist them to develop their human asset in an unparalleled way. Nevertheless, MOLE is primarily shaped by the professorâ&#x20AC;&#x;s intentions so, if the relation between the instructor and the system is not streamlined, the outcome will be equal (or even worse) to the traditional classroom learning.

[38]

6. Analysis & Discussion The previous chapter presented the key findings of this piece of research. As it has become evident, even though the introduction of MOLE in the academic society of ECE facilitated the way education is conducted, its efficacy was highly criticized and severely questioned. Many clashes have arisen between the two main extremes of the teaching-learning process (students and professors/tutors). The main aim of this chapter is to examine these findings through the lens of AT, so that the main research question as well as the two supplementary arguments can be justified. Thus, the initial segment of this section will elaborate the collected data in order to establish all the existing activity systems. Then, as it is mentioned before, every activity system contains internal contradictions which in turn create tensions and clashes between its core elements. In our case, the determined activity systems will be „weighed„ according to the four-level contradictions model presented by Engestrom (1987).

6.1 Identification of Activity Systems In the first part of this study‟s analysis, the Engestrom‟s activity model (1987) will be applied. An activity model, as it is extensively described before, consists of eight core components. These are: a) the Activity; b) the Subject; c) the Tools; d) the Object; e) the Rules; f) the Division of labor; g) the Community and lastly, h) the overall Outcome. The findings from the previous chapter advocate that two activity systems co-exist in the context of ECE. The first one is demarcated by the intentions of professors and tutors and can be entitled as the activity of Teaching via the use of MOLE. On the contrary, the activity of Learning denotes the procedure during which students are enriching their knowledge and are struggling to improve their grades, having the assistance of a modern e-learning platform, like MOLE. The two activity systems are briefly analyzed in the following figures.

[39]

Figure 9 Teaching Activity System.

[40]

Figure 10 Learning Activity System.

The previously portrayed activity systems overlap each other due to the fact that they both share the same object, which is the overall improvement of the conducted academic training, and also the constituents of one of the two activities determine either the success or the failure of the opposed activity system. Consequently, the two activities are not isolated but have elevated interconnection. To this end, the supplementary triangle model of the 3rd generation of AT (Fig 4, Engestrom, 2001) will be applied so as to achieve a more representative outcome. The combined activity system is presented below.

[41]

Figure 11 Overarching Teaching-Learning Activity System.

6.2 Internal Contradictions The research findings along with the analysis conducted in the previous section, revealed fundamental clashes, tensions and various internal misalignments between the elements of the overarching teaching-learning activity system. These disputes are analyzed through the concept of contradictions in AT. As it has been formerly presented, an activity system has four levels of contradictions. These are: a) the primary; b) the secondary; c) the tertiary, and ultimately d) the quaternary contradictions (Engestrom, 1987). Each one of them will be applied in the interacting activity system, which was structured in the previous segment, and the outcome will be displayed below.

[42]

6.2.1 Primary contradictions Regarding the primary contradictions of this study, these are identified in the inner conflicts of a discrete element of the activity. Therefore, the first primary contradiction is shown within the subject constituent. There are many disputes between professors and students, professors versus their colleagues and lastly, among the student society. Considering the former, professors use MOLE as an auxiliary teaching tool and not all of them have adjusted their teaching methods to the modern teaching techniques that include the use of e-learning systems. On the other hand, students want to get influenced by their teachers in order to use even more the brand new platform. Most of them think that the tool has a lot of potential which has not been explored yet and the reason is that their instructors either do not have time to engage with it or they do not feel the motivation to enhance the teaching-learning process because they are used to the traditional way of teaching. A second primary contradiction arose among the faculty. First of all, tutors are in favor of the video lectures because they think that the students who do not attend classes regularly can retain their engagements with a course. While on the contrary, professors believe that teaching is conducted in class and face to face interaction is beneficial for students. Furthermore, some professors strongly believe that grades have elevated a lot due to the use of MOLE, whether in contrast there are some instructors who have not noticed any considerable change. A final tension arises in terms of platform usage. To this end, professors believe that have gotten familiar with the use of the system and use it on daily basis as an irreplaceable part of the teaching process. On the contrary, tutors insists in the fact that only a very small percentage uses MOLE to its full extent (i.e. as an overall high-end teaching system, the rest of them utilize it as a supplementary tool and because it simplifies their overall work). Moving forward, there is a significant amount of conflicts between students. Many of them think that MOLE has enhanced the education level of ECE, while others think that a system cannot replace the physical contact between teachers and students. In addition, the use of forum and discussion threads has created another issue. Some students overuse this feature and post new comments constantly. This fact converts direct conversations into â&#x20AC;&#x17E;spamâ&#x20AC;&#x;, thus many students get highly irritated and their motivation [43]

for „active‟ participation is diminishing. All the above are encapsulated into the third primary contradiction. The fourth, and probably the last one, is involved in the division of labor component. MOLE supports flexible organizational structure and loose hierarchy between students and the faculty. The situation in ECE is quite different. Professors have the control of everything and they have the power to determine the way a course is conducted. 6.2.2 Secondary Contradictions This kind of contradictions is shown between two discrete elements of an activity. The first contradiction is detected between subjects and tools. Both students and professors believe that are minor issues considering MOLE‟s usability. Some mistakes are observed on its designing and need to get resolved as fast as possible. Additionally, the lack of mobile application or a responsive website is considered a serious issue in an era where mobility dominates. Ultimately, many end-users claimed that they would like the provision of some training would be advantageous. A second one appears between the rules and the tools. Even though MOLE expresses the notion of open learning and freedom of collaboration between all academic society members, university‟s rules are quite harsh and outdated. For instance, instructors have to be careful about what can be said or not (e.g. especially in recorded lectures), and also the online students interaction is under professors „surveillance‟ in case of „sensitive‟ information disclosure. 6.2.3 Tertiary Contradictions These contradictions appear between the object of the initial activity and the objective of a more culturally advanced activity. In our case the aim of MOLE was to assist the swift from the teacher-centered model to the learned-centered one. The findings of this piece of work do not confirm the „implementation‟ of this transition. The reason is that even though they play an „active‟ role inside the course and the cross-interaction between classmates has been enhanced significantly, the courses‟ management is held by the instructors. From the student perspective, MOLE was not used as a tool which can make knowledge acquisition smoother but instead it promoted the technocratic way of [44]

teaching. The never-ending projects, the demanding coursework, the strict deadlines and the harsh sanctions in case of cheating isolate students and make them as „observers‟ of the whole process. Their feedback and suggestions are not taken into account. On the contrary, they cause long-lasting tensions and disputes about what is beneficial or not. Students will eventually evolve into „grade hunters‟ and that is not the target of a higher education institute. 6.2.4 Quaternary Contradictions A quaternary contradiction constitutes the distinction between the desired outcome of the overarching teaching-learning activity system and the subject element of the teaching activity. It was previously stated that the desired upshot of MOLE‟s application would be the overall education improvement. Nonetheless, professors did not align with the contemporary teaching trends of our epoch. Although the professors interviewed vigorously stated that they have positive attitude towards this new system, and they also mentioned that the overall education process in terms of pedagogy has not altered. Their colleagues are „stuck‟ to their traditional conceptions about the worthiness of old-fashioned classroom teaching. Therefore, they have been using some of MOLE‟s features just because their lives get easier and they can target many people at no time. As a result, there is a quite considerable gap between professors‟ intentions and the true aim of e-learning. Until this alignment huge efforts have to be made from the instructors‟ side in order for the department of ECE to become an up-to-date institution with a huge reputation in terms of ICT usage.

[45]

7. Conclusion In summary, the aim of this study was the assessment of the impact that a contemporary e-learning platform can have among the members of the academic society of a Greek institution. The choice of AT (Engestrom, 1987 & 2001) as the conceptual framework for this study was proven to be ideal. The reason is that AT is able to conceptualize the interaction of multiple activity systems and unite them into an overarching activity. Subsequently, AT has specific „tools‟ that can decompose an activity into very small parts and evaluate each one of them individually. This was vital for the completion of this research and for the release of a representative outcome. The AT‟s triangle model assisted not solely in the identification of the core elements of our findings but also in the classification of them into distinct categories. Moreover, the interconnection of those constituents creates tensions and misalignments which in turn can be analyzed via the concept of contradictions. Therefore, all the research objectives of this research were clearly answered. Ultimately, the arrival of MOLE in ECE raised challenges several challenges among its users. The teaching-leaning process was affected and partially amended. However, the professors have the power and the entire responsibility to conduct teaching, thus if they do not rearrange their pedagogies according to the modern instruction principles the core of the teaching procedure will never been modernized. Students occupy also a significant role in the teaching-learning process, nonetheless they have to be influenced more and let them take more initiatives in order to truly shape the education‟s structure.

7.1 Limitations The major limitation of this research is probably the data collection. The time and distance restrictions made the on-site empirical research as well as the face to face interviews unfeasible. Bailey (2004) and de Leeuw (2005) eloquently argued that real empirical observations of the situation assessed together with real-time interaction with the interviewees lead to more „secure‟ results. Furthermore, even though the researcher tried to have a very diverse sample of interviewees at his disposal, the number of people interviewed generates another limitation. [46]

7.2 Future research The practice of high-end e-learning systems is a newfangled trend in the Greek context. Thus, they have huge potential to increase their usage rates both in the educational field as well as in the industrial sector. The research of the impact of elearning platforms in both secondary and high schools in Greece would generate noteworthy findings. In addition, the introduction of long term empirical assessment of the Greek universities would be a remarkable supplement to the existing literature. Finally, this research was based on a university ecosystem where its members have a continuous (daily) engagement with the ICTs, consequently the evaluation of an academic institution whose members are not familiar with the use of contemporary IS would yield notable findings.

[47]

8. References Adams, M., D. Edmond, et al. (2003). The application of activity theory to dynamic workflow adaptation issues. 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, South Australia. Agarwal, R., & Venkatesh, V. (2002). Assessing a firm‟s web presence: A heuristic evaluation procedure for the measurement of usability. Information Systems Research, 13(2),168–186. Angel, I. and Smithson, S. (1991). Information Systems Management: Opportunities and Risks. London. Macmillan Press. Arbaugh, J. B., & Fich, R. B. (2007). The importance of participant interaction in online environments.Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 853–865. Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Marsico, M. D., Lanzilotti, R., Levialdi, S., Roselli, T., et al. (2006). An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning applications. University Access Information Society, 4, 270-283. Ardito, C., Marsico, M.D., Lanzilotti, R., Levialdi, S., Roselli, T., Rossano, V., et al. (2004). “Usability of E-learning tools”, Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. Gallipoli, Italy: ACM. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of social research. New York: Free Press. Baxter, P. and Jack, S (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, Vol 13 No. 4, pp. 544-559. Bedny, G. Z., Seglin, M. H., & Meister, D. (2000). Activity Theory: history, research and application. Theoritical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1(2), 168-206. [48]

Bellamy, R. K. E. (1996). Designing educational technology: Computer-Mediated change. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press. 123-146. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., and Mead, M. (1987). “The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No.3, pp. 369-386. Benbunan-Fich,

(2002).

Improving

Education

and

Training

With

IT.

Communications of the ACM, 45(6). Bertelsen, O. W. (2003). Contradictions as a tool in IT-design: Some notes. 8th European Conference of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), Helsinkin, Finland. Blin, F. & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn‟t technology disrupted academics‟ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Educations , 50(2), 475-490. Bratteteig, T. and J. Gregory (2001). Understanding design. IRIS conference, University of Bergen. Catalano, G. D., & Catalano, K. C. (1999). Transformation: from teacher-centered to student-centered engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 1. Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implication for Hong Kong. Language and Education. Cheung, R., Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers and Education, Vol.63, pp.160-175.

[49]

Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56 (6). Cornford T., & Smithson S., (1996). “Project research in information systems”. Palgrave, London, UK. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (2 ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Daniels, H. (2005). An introduction to Vygotsky. East Sussex, Routledge. Darking, M. L. (2004). Integrating On-line Learning Technologies into Higher Education: A case study of two UK universities. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). De Leeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21 (2), pp. 233-255. De Souza, B. C. and F. D. Redmiles (2003). Opportunities for extending activity theory for studying collaborative software development. 8th European Conference of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Helsinki, Finland. Douglas, E., & Van Der Vyver, G. (2004). Effectiveness of e-learning course materials for learning database management systems: An experimental investigation.Journal of Computer Information System, 41(4), 41–48. ECE: Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering (2013). History and Related Information. http://www.ece.tuc.gr/Ctrl?lang=en#reqHandler,Ctrl?lang=en&actionClass=show GeneralInfo&chapter=1&section=1 (accessed 20 August 2013).

[50]

Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental reasearch. Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit. Engestrom, Y. (1996). Development work research as educational research: Looking ten years back and into the zone of proximal development. Journal of Nordic Educational Research, 16, 131-143. Engestrom, Y. (1999a). "Expansive visibilization of work: An activity theoretical perspective". Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8: 63-93. Engestrom, Y. (1999b). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Perspectives on activity theory. Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and P. RaijaLeena. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Engestrom, Y. (1999c). Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In: Perspectives on activity theory. Y. Engestrom,

Miettinen

and

Raija-Leena.

Cambridge,

Cambridge

University Press. Engestrom, Y. (2000). "Activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: A story of four umpires". Organization 7(2), pp. 301 - 310. Engestrom, Y. (2001). "Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation". Journal of Education and Work 14(1): 133-156. Evans, T. D., & Nation, D. E. (1996). Opening Education: Policies and practices from open and distance education. London: Routledge. Foot, K. A. (2001). "Cultural-historical Illuminating

the

development

activity of

Communication Theory 11(1): 56-83.

[51]

theory

practice

conflict-monitoring

theory: network".

Gee, K. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Falmer press. Gilbert, J. (2007). E-learning: The student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 560–573 Gunasekaran, A., Mcneil, R. D., & Shaul, D. (2002). E-learning: research and applications. Industrial and Commerical Training, 34(2), 44-53 Hana, N., Richards, D. (2012). “A Framework for a Multi-agent Collaborative Virtual Learning Environment (MACVILLE) Based on Activity Theor”. In: Knowledge Management and Acquisition for Intelligent Systems, pp. 209-220. Harris, P., Connolly, J. and Feeney, L. (2009). “Blended learning: overview and recommendations for successful implementation”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.155–163. Holsapple, C. W., & Lee-Post, A. (2006). Defining, assessing, and promoting elearning success: An information systems perspective. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 67–85 Huitt, W. (2003). "Constructivism." Educational Psychology Interactive. Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and Learning Out of School: A review of Theory and Research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 575-611. Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Towards ethnographies of communication. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds), The ethnography of communication (pp 1-34). Washington: American Anthropology Association. Islas, E., Pérez, M., Rodriguez, G., Paredes, I., Ávila, I., & Mendoza, M. (2007). Elearning tools evaluation and roadmap development for an electrical utility.

[52]

Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research (JTAER), 2(1), 63â&#x20AC;&#x201C;75. Issroff, K. & Scanlon, E. (2001). Case studies revisited: what can Activity Theory offer? Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2001 (CSCI, 2001), Maastricht: Netherlands. Johanssen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting Activity Theory as a framework for Designing Student-Centered Learning Environments. In D. H. Johanssen & S. M. Land (Eds.): Theoritical foundations of learning environments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Khan, B. (2005).Managing e-learning strategies: Design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. Hershey, London, Melbourne, Singapore: Information Science Publishing. Klein, H. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, Special Issue on Intensive Research 23(1), pp. 67-93. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Context and Consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction. B. Nardi. Cambridge, MIT Publisher: 9-22. Kyriakidou-Zacharoudiou, A. (2011). Distributed development of large-scale distributed systems: the case of the particle physics grid. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Leask, M., & Younie, S. (2001). Communal constructivist theory: information and communications technology pedagogy and internationalization of the curriculum. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1&2), 117-133.

[53]

Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow, Progress publishing. Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers Education, 49(4), 1066–1080. Lin, C., Ma, Z. and Lin, R. (2011). Re-examining the Critical Success Factors of elearning from the EU perspective. International J. Management in Education, Vol. Lytras, M. D. & Pouloudi, A. (2001). E-learning: Just a Waste of Time. In Strong, D., Straub, D. & DeGross, J. I. (Eds) Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). Boston: Massachusetts, pp. 216222. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Novo-Corti, I., Varela-Candamio, L. and Ramil-Diaz, M. (2012). E-learning and face to face mixed methodology: Evaluating effectiveness of e-learning and perceived satisfaction for a microeconomic course using the Moodle platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 410–415 Ong, CS., Lai, JY. and Wang, YS. (2004). Factors affecting engineers' acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information and Management, Vol. 41 (6), pp. 795-804. Orklikowski, W. K. & Baroudi, J. J (1991). “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2., pp. 1-28. Ozkan, S. and Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students‟ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53, pp. 1285-1296. [54]

Pappas N., Arapi P., Moumoutzis N., Mylonakis M., Christodoulakis S. (2011). The Multimedia Open Learning Environment (MOLE). In Proceedings of EDEN2011 Open Classroom Conference, Athens, Greece. Purnomo, S. H., Lee, Yi-Hsuan (2003). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia: an empirical study. Information Development, Vol. 29(2), pp. 138153. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online (2eds.). London: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd. Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 2(2), 157–182. Shee, D. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based elearning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers Education, 50(3), 894–905. Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. S., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. TUC: Technical University of Crete (2013). Homepage. http://www.tuc.gr/3324.html (accessed 20 August 2013). TUC/MUSIC: Technical University of Crete, Laboratory of Distributed Multimedia Information

Systems

and

Applications

(2013).

Homepage.

http://www.music.tuc.gr/Home.show (accessed 21 August 2013). Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[55]

Wagner, E. D., & McCombs, B. L. (1995). Learner centered psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35(2), 32-35. Walsham, G. (2006) "Doing interpretive research." European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3): 320-330. Weick, K. and H. K. Roberts (1993). "Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks." Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 357-381. Wiredu, O. G. (2005). Mobile computing in work-integrated learning: Problems of remotely-distributed

activities

and

technology

use,

London

school

economics and political sciences. Yin, Robert K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 58-65. Yin, Robert K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 1-240. Zaharias, P. (2006). A Usability Evaluation Method for E-learning: Focus on Motivation to Learn. In: CHIâ&#x20AC;&#x; 06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing System. Montreal: ACM Press, pp. 1571-1576. Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L. & Nunamaker., J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Cummunication of the ACM, 47(5).

[56]

9. Appendices 9.1 Sample of the interview questions 1. Position in the university:

2. Age:

3. Number of years in the university:

4. Specify the role that you occupy according to the way that you are using the MOLE platform? (e.g. User, Decision maker, Administrator, Teacher)

5. What is your opinion about using ICT tools in the higher education?

6. What is the overall experience after using MOLE?

7. Can you describe me briefly which are the strongest features of the Mole platform?

8. Which of them are you using the most and why?

9. What are the goals and aims in order to utilize the MOLE? 10. Is MOLE‟s usage imposed to the academic society by any university‟s rule or regulation?

11. Can you describe the division of labor on preparing the course resources (e.g. lecture notes, projects etc.) that will then get uploaded on MOLE? 12. Do you think that student‟s needs depend on their age? For instance, senior students need to be offered more functions than freshers.

[57]

13. Do you think that MOLE has improved the education level or no change has been observed?

14. Do you think that the use of MOLE has improved your communication with students or teachers and tutors?

15. Is the pedagogic value of the courses included in the platform enhanced?

16. Do you think that your conceptual knowledge and grades have been improved since the release of this new e-learning platform?

17. What are the main challenges that you have faced throughout the usage of MOLE? Did these difficulties lowered your motivation or your expectations?

18. When did you use the e-learning platform more frequently? Daily or during the exam period?

19. What is the overall outcome of using an e-learning platform as a complementary educational tool?

20. Are there any further suggestions for the improvement not only of the platform but also of the way that education is conducted through it?

9.2 MOLEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s features 1. Calendar

8. Rating

2. Course Mail

9. Search

3. Digital Content

10. Assessment

4. Workspaces

11. Reservations

5. Forum

12. Presentation Room

6. Chat

13. Video Conference Room

7. FAQ

14. Video Lectures [58]

15. Laboratory Material

23. Syllabus

16. Project submission

24. Curriculum

17. Previous projects

25. Course Information

18. Live Chat

26. Course Statistics

19. Lecture Slides

27. Teleconference Room

20. Seminar Slides

28.

21. Useful Documents 22. Grades

9.3 Screenshots of MOLE 9.3.1 Home Page

[59]

9.3.2 Course Page

9.3.3 Video Lectures Page (Summary)

[60]

9.3.4 Video Lecture Page

9.3.5 Online Tutorials Page

[61]