More relevant actions in the LMS did not assure better results; the highest-action cluster was a low achiever.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The article states that more activity in the LMS does not assure better results, noting that the Non Task Oriented (non-procrastinators) cluster had a high number of relevant actions but low-medium achievement. → Cerezo 2016
Evidence¶
Cerezo 2016¶
Cerezo, R., Sanchez-Santillan, M., Paule-Ruiz, M. P., & Núñez, J. C. (2016). Students' LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.006
q2 · i? · associational · r1
The article's interpretation of the relevant actions variable states that "more activity in the LMS does not assure better results", noting that the two Task-Oriented Groups showed average or low scores in relevant actions but the highest final marks.
"Something similar could be oc curring with the Relevant Actions; more activity in the LMS does not assure better results."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Greater procrastination (more days to hand in tasks) was associated with lower final marks. — related
- Task-oriented clusters achieved higher final marks than non-task-oriented clusters. — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-30 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.