In this study, the integrative review method was used to map the studies in the Web of Science, Scopus, Ebsco and Scielo databases, regarding the use of LMS in the e-learning management. The analysis focused on categories that can characterize the scientific production about the LMS use in the e-learning management. The development of this work allowed: 1 to observe the evolution of research; and 2 to identify possible trends of growth in the number of scientific papers dealing with the subject. It was possible to outline the historical behavior of scientific production and realize that there is growing academic interest from different countries England, Spain, USA, South Africa, Australia and United Arab Emirates to develop research related to themes adjacent to this integrative review.
This article also identified authors, objectives and designs of the researches that are being carried out on the subject of this integrative review. The list of journals presented in this work allows researchers to, for example, know where to start the deepening of research on the subject and know what are the main publications related. The LMS that each paper presented as context for data collection, case study or as a system for experiment constituted as objects of analysis. Also in relation to the categories, the interface was the less frequent in the papers analyzed, while the Didactic Resources was the most frequent.
The studies approach the administrative functions on a non-integrated manner and focusing educational information. The e-learning management information remain on the margins of the discussion, which may represent interesting opportunities for research in this field. It is also noticed that, even though having some tools to manage the e-learning courses, that is not an easy or ordinary task.
Most managers use LMS only for operational needs or just to issues directly related to control the learning of the students. In contrast, LMS does not provide an adequate tool for management to analyze so many data. In this sense, Learning analytics, which is the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs, emerges as a fundamental need in the context of studies on LMS.
Also, the resources. This review also revealed that there is a lack of clear theoretical definitions on the relationship between the LMS and the e-learning management. It was noticed that different technological platforms are treated in a generic way and that there is few empirical research focused on the topic. The analyzed research approach superficially the theme and don't respond, actually, the IT management issues when utilized as a support to the managers of e-learning, supporting the view of Bach, Domingues and Walter Questions like "how LMS influenced the e-learning planning, direction, execution and control from the manager perspective?
Almrashdeh, I. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology , 24 1 , Bach, T. Belanger, F. Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: technologies, tools and techniques. London: Idea Group Publishing. Belloni, M. Autores Associados, Campinas. Berge, Z. Review of Research in Distance Education, to The American Journal of Distance Education. Beuren, I. Bof, M. In: Almeida, M. Botelho, L. Boumarafi, B. Strategies for the delivery of e-information services to support the e-learning environment at the University of Sharjah.
The Electronic Library , 28 2 , Calvani, A. Visualizing and monitoring effective interactions in online collaborative groups. British Journal of Educational Technology , 41 2 , Coates, H. A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management , 11, pp. Coutinho, L. Aprendizagem on-line por meio de estruturas de cursos.
- A History of Modern Israel.
- Browse Search?
- Multiscale simulation methods in molecular sciences winter school, 2 - 6 March 2009, Forschungszentrum JuМ€lich, Germany ; lecture notes!
Optimizing e-learning: research-based guidelines for learner-controlled training. Human Resource Management , 43 , pp. Gil, A. Chang, Y. A learning style classification mechanism for e-learning. Fayol, H. Gonzales, M. Integrating an educational 3D game in Moodle. Graf, J. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 26, — Itmazi, J.
Gea, M. A comparison and evaluation of open source learning managment systems. Jackson, G. Methods for Integrative Reviews. Review of Educational Research , 50 3 , Judd, T.
A five-year study of on-campus internet use by undergraduate biomedical students. Laurindo, F.
Lazakidou, G. Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics. Lonn, S. Saving time or innovating practice: investigating perceptions and uses of learning management systems. Who needs to do what where? Louwa, J. Instructional technologies in social science instruction in South Africa.
Macfadyen, L. Mackay, S. Blended learning, classroom and e-learning. The Business Review , Cambridge, v. Masiello, I. Attitudes to the application of a web-based learning system in a microbiology course. Matucheski, F. Revista Intersaberes , 5 10 , Mcgill, T. How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 24 3 , Mendes, K. Texto Contexto Enferm , 17 4 , Mill, D.
Moore, M. Oliveira, E. Papirus, Campinas. Peters, O. Pimentel, N. Almeida, F. Ritchie, A. Romero, C. Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Roque, G. Aspectos relevantes para o desenvolvimento de ambientes educacionais para a web. Miami, United States. Rosini, A. Integration of metacognitive skills in the design of learning objects.
Computers in Human Behavior , 23 6 , Santos, E. Ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem: por autorias livres, plurais e gratuitas. The virtual desktop will normally be running in a datacentre on server hardware. This could be a public, private hybrid cloud or on-premise. It also allows for reduced virtual desktop image size as the applications do not need to be physically installed on the virtual desktop. In this case, the application will connect to a database or service which it requires to function.
The other common use case is to support non-Windows operating systems. At the moment all application virtualization solutions that are available only support Windows applications and Windows operating systems. With a desktop virtualization solution, a Windows operating system environment can be provided and accessed from a non-Windows device. Application virtualization and desktop virtualization often get banded as the same, with the defining line between the two technologies often feeling blurred or unclear.
Desktop virtualization, or VDI, is an entire virtualized desktop. This means that is it running on a server, rather than the end device. Application Virtualization is the virtualization of an individual application, or perhaps a suite of apps. Typically it will run locally, utilizing the processing power of the end device. It is, however, important to highlight that you can also deliver a virtual application to a virtual desktop.
As to whether one is better than the other, both technologies have their place in a desktop estate. It depends on the use case as to which one fits, if not both. Typically we would see the use case for VDI being a subset of users, or for a specific purpose, or application. The generally overarching use case for desktop virtualization would be consistency or compliance; With VDI, every desktop will be the same as they are all running in the same place.
Administrators are able to spin up new desktops on-demand with the knowledge that they are always the same, regardless of the device the end-user is accessing from. This is also a use case for application virtualization, where the end device may be able to run the application. It could be a windows application and the user be on say a Chromebook, or tablet, so the application needs to run elsewhere.
Compliance is the other major factor. Running a virtual desktop minimizes the risk of rules being broken and helps maintain compliance. The consistency and compliance of virtual desktops will bring some benefits to an IT department which is why many IT administrators are proponents of virtual desktops. By utilizing application virtualization you strip a desktop down to its bare bones, perhaps limited to Windows10, Microsoft Office and commonly used items, such as a pdf reader or web browser.
The advantage of this is that your imaging process is simplified and often reduced to a single image. You can then use application virtualization to deliver software on-demand, where and when it's needed. Application Virtualization has perhaps got a bad reputation because of limitations with the more commonly known tools.
One good use of application virtualization can be for applications that require an old version of Java; you can virtualize the old Java and only let it work with the given application and still have a more recent version installed on the end device for any other applications that require it, helping mitigate security issues. As for which is right for you it's more about understanding your users. What are they trying to do, what apps are being accessed, where are they located, the end device and perhaps their role in the organization.
Analyzing some of those will help you determine the scenarios where either of the technologies is the better fit. Like many other universities, Pitt State originally chose VDI as the best solution to deploy apps to students. After realizing that performance is patchy and costs are astronomical, the university sought another technology. VDI: One of the stand-out technologies of the decade. The promise? To deliver end user IT services wrapped inside a remote desktop window.
It was everyone's dream, but was a promise that never delivered. VDI Student Experience. Customers VDI. With a wide range of technologies available from many different virtualization vendors, each application virtualization tool is priced differently. Generally speaking however, these technologies are all priced through an annual license model link to hidden costs in app delivery post.
Depending on the technology and your requirements, you can usually pay for a device license — sometimes known as a user license, which covers only a set number of devices — or a site license, which will cover every user or employee and give you the flexibility to increase this without needing to change your billing model with the vendor. Often vendors will stipulate that a site license is required to deploy virtual applications off-site or to BYO devices.
Annual license models involve an annual fee, as the name suggests, which is essentially a subscription to the technology. The benefit of technologies that are licensed and priced through this model is that all maintenance is usually included as part of the contract, including all upgrades and support.
Some application virtualization technologies may follow this model but bill their customers on a monthly basis, to help their customers tie in the costs with budget cycles etc. Application virtualization technologies almost never need either of those licenses. One key thing to consider is the hardware cost or CAPEX capital expenditure required for application virtualization; almost non-existent! As a solution used to deploy applications, the infrastructure and upfront investment required for these technologies is minimal in comparison with what VDI customers must pay on day 1.
Application virtualization technologies usually only require a few lightweight servers, namely streaming servers and a licensing server, to support tens of thousands of users. Of course, these days this can be cloud-based, but at an even greater cost! The other costs involved, as with any technology solution, are that of staffing or resource costs. This skillset is common in enterprise and higher education IT, where administrators have been packaging applications in one way or another for decades, for example with App-V or other similar technologies.
Once the applications are packaged, there is very little additional expertise required to deliver the applications. The skills that this does require are usually readily available within any IT, end-user computing EUC or desktop team. One of the huge benefits of application virtualization versus desktop virtualization is the ability to take advantage of endpoint computing resources.
Instead of having to build a huge backend to process and compute all of those apps, with application virtualization, IT departments can push apps down to the endpoint hardware where they belong. Not only this, but if the institution supports BYOD, now they have FREE hardware to run apps and can start to right-size their lab spaces thus saving even more money. With minimal hardware costs for application virtualization solutions, the only cost that you need to consider is the cost of licensing the technology solution itself.
Except for Microsoft App-V see below for information around App-V pricing , the majority of application virtualization technologies are priced per user or device. Certain vendors such as Cameyo and Turbo. The per user cost of application virtualization solutions varies massively from solution to solution.
However, all of the technologies available on the market do offer heavily-discounted pricing for education institutions such as universities and colleges. So, why is App-V free?
- Virtualization of Universities.
- WEU WORLD EDUCATION UNIVERSITY.
- DeVry University Campus – Naperville Center + Keller Location.
Largely, Microsoft focuses on the enterprise when developing its licensing strategies around its many product offerings. This signifies the understanding from Microsoft that not all line-of-business applications will run on Windows 10 in a native format, and that an application virtualization solution might be needed. Most enterprise and higher ed customers will maintain a campus-wide or volume licensing agreement with Microsoft and thus will now have access to App-V licensing free of charge. There are two models prevalent in the application virtualization space.
The first is a more traditional model usually made up of a perpetual license plus ongoing annual maintenance cost. The annual maintenance entitles the customer to upgrades and technical support, usually provided in various tiers of coverage, response time, and cost. The second is the ever-increasing annual subscription model. Here, both license and maintenance fees are rolled into one and billed annually or sometimes monthly. The advantage to a subscription model is avoiding the need for a huge cash outlay for perpetual licenses and often adds a more predictable set of figures for ongoing budget forecasts.
When it comes to the longevity of application virtualization within your organization, as a technology it is much more adaptable to change as you grow. That said, many vendors will negotiate a lower per-user cost when increasing the total number of users within your contract. There are many ways you might deliver your software estate to end-users. But with each one having a different pricing model, it's worth knowing the additional costs involved in Microsoft licenses.
One of the unique challenges in managing computing in a university is how to deliver apps to students in a cost-effective manner, while ensuring a good user experience An indicative example of using application virtualization technology at a typical university.
So, with fewer than 10 servers plus databases you can support 15, students in a typical application virtualization estate. Without exception, our customers have been able to implement this environment onto their existing virtual infrastructure, without the need for additional hardware. A key area in which application virtualization reduces costs for organizations is the staffing resources required.
The workload necessary to deploy and manage an app virtualization estate is significantly lower than the viable alternatives of either desktop virtualization or traditional imaging, both in terms of quantity of staff and breadth of specialized skills required. For deployment, application virtualization relies upon packaged applications; apps separated from the underlying operating system by a virtual structure. Packaging is a comparatively transferrable skill in the field of IT and the sub-field of software delivery.
The general process of packaging has common themes between different application virtualization technologies and can even be required for certain desktop virtualization and imaging methodologies and approaches. This is helped further by the seasonal nature of packaging and the elimination of the need to reimage and redeploy everything in order to patch, update or add single software titles.
It only takes a handful of experienced packagers to manage a huge application virtualization estate. Many service-oriented application virtualization vendors are also experts in packaging applications, with teams of designated packagers to help them advance their product and to share knowledge and best practice with their customers. For organizations wishing to keep their services and packaging entirely in house, especially those intending to build a department around delivering software via application virtualization estates, packaging training may be the way to go.
The merit of this approach is self-sufficiency with the detriments being the lack of guarantee that in-house resources will be able to package a specific app or app set and that any changes to a virtualization product may necessitate further packaging training. Vendors may opt to sell pre-packaged applications or recipes for packaging specific applications on a per-app basis. One-off, flat costs would deliver one of two things to purchasing organization. Purchasing pre-packaged apps would likely be delivered in the form of a file, or a set of files which would require a small amount of configuration dependent upon the specific app package to slot into an application virtualization estate and become entirely deployable.
That configuration is likely to be some slight amends to file paths and references to make the package compatible with specific server architecture, replacement of any organization-specific or user-specific details, and the input of registry keys or registry key systems. The benefit of this approach is that the packaging is handled almost entirely out-of-house and so staff workload and time required is reduced. Many application virtualization vendors provide free recipes detailing step-by-step instructions on how to package specific apps; particularly for open source apps.
The greatest benefit of this is that an organization is guaranteed to be delivered a fully-functional and ready-to-go packaged app specific to that organization and their unique details and license keys. New models for packaging services are beginning to surface in the application delivery space; models that allow vendors to serve more than just one customer at a time and therefore reduce the cost of outsourcing packaging for customers.
Subscription-based services providing different levels of access with optional extras are growing in popularity in other areas of business and software delivery is no exception. Giving organizations access to a large library of pre-packaged apps for a regular fee allows packagers to cease the duplication of work to deliver more quickly, and to pass cost savings on to the customer. This is instrumental in meeting the restrictive timescales of needing everything virtualized and ready to deploy for the start of each semester.
The benefits of packaging as a service are numerous; All of the benefits of the previous approaches apply alongside a quicker turnover time, more availability in the context of booking packaging time and by far the most cost-effective method of outsourcing packaging. Following the packaging of apps, it's just a case of publishing the packages to a preferred deployment solution, such as Microsoft SCCM or AppsAnywhere. Deploying a single image through SCCM is a small task and given the simplicity of deploying packaged apps through AppsAnywhere, deployment becomes a much less laborious and complex task; one which is more of an admin task and would be safe in the hands of a junior member of IT, or even a student employee.
This frees up more experienced and higher skilled members of IT to address more urgent or key strategic matters. Virtualized apps are available on-demand and packages function as if the app were locally installed. Virtualizing and deploying applications is a more friendly and robust process for end-users, minimizing the chance of any obstacles and, by extension, support tickets. This enables support staff to work on other, more urgent tickets, higher priority projects or reduces the number of support staff required altogether. It is worth still considering a single, principal image with most-used apps that must be omnipresent within a campus, such as Microsoft Office, web browsers or PDF readers.
Even using virtualization and a basic software image in tandem, there is still only one image to manage and it is common to ALL managed machines. This removes the need to rebuild images and reimage countless cross-sections of lab machines to perform updates, patches of additions. To put this into perspective, all of the previously mentioned staff resources required for application virtualization are also needed for desktop virtualization. Alongside this, VDI also calls for several highly-experienced system admins and system architects.
Packaging is still a challenge that must be overcome particularly in cross-platform delivery and support team requirements are the highest for any of the viable software delivery approaches. Not only is more support staff essential, unless a very significant investment has been made in high-end hardware, many insurmountable support tickets may be logged due to application performance issues. Before an application can be deployed using virtualization the original app installer must be converted to the relevant format.
This process is generally known as packaging, or more specifically Sequencing App-V or Cloudifying Cloudpaging. The procedure is broadly similar to that used for legacy MSI creation, however the tools available for app virtualization are generally easier to use and provide faster results. This is because virtualization allows for the isolation of the application files from the rest of the system. Once packaged a virtualized app can be widely deployed with little to no risk of conflicts with files or keys that already exist on a target system.
The goal is to capture only the intent of the original installer, excluding all background processes. Most tools will pick up some background noise — to a greater or lesser extent — which then requires the packager to review the results and to manually exclude unrelated files from the package. With MSI deployment tools such as AdminStudio, there is only one option — that is to delete files and keys that are not needed.
Virtualization solves this by providing the ability to isolate all or parts of an application. Solutions such as App-V sequence the app into a completely isolated package that will not conflict or even interact with other applications on a target machine. This removes all conflicts but comes at the expense of compatibility and interoperability. Apps that contain drivers or services often do not work in isolation, so the overall effectiveness of the solution is reduced.
Numecent Cloudpaging solves this interoperability issue in a unique way known as configurable virtualization. Any part of the app can be completely isolated from the target system as with App-V , written to disk such as with a driver or service, or exist in a mixed mode known as the integrated layer. These settings can be applied generally at the time of capture, or at an individual file and registry key level. Cloudpaging Studio is also widely regarded as one of the best packaging tools for producing clean captures due to a comprehensive pre-filter, so there is less clean-up to do after the initial capture of the app installer.
In contrast with legacy packaging tools, if the packager is unsure whether a file or registry key was captured as part of the original installer, that file can simply be moved to the isolated later where it remains available to the app, but will not conflict with any target system. Older snapshot-based tools, which compare the system state before and after the app installation, have long been surpassed by the above approaches and are not worth considering. The high level of noise that they capture makes them impractical due to the time required to clean a package. Once we have our virtualized app it should be possible to deploy to any machine.
Tools such as ThinApp can provide a single file which may be widely copied and executed without license control. These days, most modern app virtualization solutions provide a web-based portal where end-users can login to install or launch their apps. This approach is rapidly growing in popularity with VMware, Citrix, Microsoft and Numecent all providing such portals.
The benefits of open source virtualization - eCampus News
Often, the ability to create legacy desktop or Start Menu shortcuts for virtualized apps is also supported, however, these must be managed by Group Policy or SCCM. In all of the above cases, access can be restricted to AD users, groups or machines. However, this simplistic domain-joined view of app deployment is often limiting in the modern workplace, where remote working and BYOD are now commonplace. AppsAnywhere from Software2 aims to address this by integrating with nearly all of the leading app deployment solutions.
AppsAnywhere provides a single app portal with additional license controls such as device ownership, network connection, device type and geolocation — allowing users to roam with their apps whilst also adhering to software license terms. Of particular note is the ability in Cloudpaging to make apps available offline, whilst still retaining license control.
For laptop users this is a must, providing for native, work anywhere experience. A permitted offline period can be set as well as an expiration date for each app. Once reached, access is revoked and the app can be removed automatically, even if the user is offline and the app has previously been virtualized to their machine. Traditionally applications are deployed based upon the end-user's device.
In most organizations, an image is created and assigned to a machine. The image may contain a base level of applications. Some additional applications can then be installed on demand by the user.
Virtualization of Universities: Digital Media and the Organization of Higher Education Institutions
In addition in some environments, this can lead to extremely large and complex images. However, multiple images can be just as difficult and time-consuming to maintain than a single, large image. Managing these, deploying these and eventually updating these all becomes cumbersome and time-consuming work. This model lacks flexibility and does not account for the dynamics of the application layer. Updates and changes are common but having to re-image a machine is not a trivial task. With application virtualization, the whole paradigm of application delivery can change from machine-based to user-based.
Application virtualization enables true separation of the application layer from the Operating System. In addition to the B. Learn Online. Florida Orlando Lake Mary. Texas San Antonio. Call Now 1. Chat Now Apply Now. Cloud Computing. Get Started!