Baran KAYNAK, Osman TUNA, Ugur OZBEK, Ali AKSOY, Ahmet OZMEN, Mehmet Baris HORZUM, Burak GOL

UZEP: A CLOUD-BASED DISTANCE EDUCATION PLATFORM FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic has affected higher education institutions all over the world, causing face-toface education to cease. Schools have tried to carry out educational activities through online teaching either by using on premise infrastructure or by leasing cloud based online platforms. Although these platforms are convenient, most of them do not meet all the requirements for higher education institutions. Not knowing where the personal data is stored in a public cloud creates another problem for some countries according to laws. In this study, a new online learning platform has been developed for higher education institutions to solve these problems using state-of-the-art cloud technologies. The new system enables implementation of individual curricula of many higher education institutions in one software system, and it can be taken into service quickly in emergencies. It expands dynamically by activating a large number of streaming servers to meet the demand. The new system provides easy to use-learn interfaces, offers an economical solution for e-learning by sharing the resources, and compliant with the law on protection of personal data. The new platform was in service at 12 universities in Turkiye during the fall 2020, and its performance was measured with surveys at various levels.

Keywords:

Distance education, Internet based online learning, online assessment, educational technology, Covid-19,

PDF

___

Akbulut Y., Kuzu A., Latchem C., Odabasi F. (2007). Change readiness among teaching staff at Anadolu University, Turkey. Distance Education, 28, 335-350.
Bozkurt A., Sharma R. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to coronavirus pandemic, 15, i–vi.
Lee K., Fanguy M., Lu X.S., Bligh B. (2021). Student learning during covid-19: It was not as bad as we feared. Distance Education, 42(1), 164-172.
Moore M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Bonk C.J. (2020). Pandemic ponderings, 30 years to today: synchronous signals, saviors, or survivors? Distance Education, 41(4),589-599.
Moore M., Kearsley G. (2011). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning. What’s New in Education, Cengage Learning.
Keegan D. (1996). Foundations of Distance Education. Routledge education books, Routledge.
Escobar-Rodriguez T., Monge-Lozano P. (2012). The acceptance of moodle technology by business administration students. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1085–1093.
De Medio C., Limongelli C., Sciarrone F., Temperini M. (2020). Moodlerec: A recommendation system for creating courses using the moodle e-learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106168.
S´anchez R.A., Hueros A.D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of moodle using tam. Computers in human behavior, 26(6), 1632-1640.
Piotrowski M. (2010). What is an e-learning platform? In: Learning management system technologies and software solutions for online teaching. Tools and applications, 20-36.
Pireva K., Imran A.S., Dalipi F. (2015). User behaviour analysis on lms and mooc. 2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e), IEEE, 21-26.
Acosta T., Luj´an-Mora S. (2016). Comparison from the levels of accessibility on lms platforms that supports the online learning system. 8th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 2704-2711.
Cavus N., Zabadi T. (2014). A comparison of open source learning management systems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 521-526.
Subramanian P., Zainuddin N., Alatawi S., Javabdeh T., Hussin A. (2014). A study of comparison between moodle and blackboard based on case studies for better lms. Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation, 6, 26–33.
Totschnig M., Willems C., Meinel C. (2013). openhpi: Evolution of a mooc platform from lms to soa. CSEDU, 593-598.
Martin L., Martinez D.R., Revilla O., Aguilar M.J., Santos O.C., Boticario J.G. (2008). Usability in e-learning platforms: heuristics comparison between moodle, sakai and dotlrn. The 7th Europian Conference on e-Learning, Agia Napa, Cyprus.
Zawacki-Richter O., Naidu S. (2016). Mapping research trends from 35 years of publications in distance education. Distance Education, 37(3), 245-269.
Lambert S.R. (2020). Do moocs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? a systematic review 2014–18. Computers & Education, 145,103693.
Stich A.E., Reeves T.D. (2017). Massive open online courses and underserved students in the united states. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 58-71.
Littenberg-Tobias J., Reich J. (2020). Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: A case study of a mooc-based blended professional degree program. The Internet and Higher Education, 47,100759.
Espada J.P., Rodriguez C.C., Garcia-Diaz V., Crespo R.G. (2014). Method for analysing the user experience in mooc platforms. 2014 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), IEEE, 157-162.
Garcia-Loro F., Martin S., Ruiperez-Valiente J.A., San Cristobal E., Castro M. (2020). Reviewing and analyzing peer review inter-rater reliability in a mooc platform. Computers & Education, 103894.
Zhu M., Sari A., Lee M.M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical mooc literature (2014–2016). The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 31-39.
Zhuhadar L., Kruk S.R., Daday J. (2015). Semantically enriched massive open online courses (moocs) platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 578-593.
Formanek M., Wenger M.C., Buxner S.R., Impey C.D., Sonam T. (2017). Insights about large-scale online peer assessment from an analysis of anastronomy mooc. Computers & Education, 113, 243-262.
Heinich R., Molenda M., Russel J.D., Smaldino S.E. (2002). Instructional media and technology for learning. Pearson Education Ltd.
Wang Y.S., Wang H.Y., Shee D.Y. (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1792-1808.