See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312113861

Studying and comparing the free e-learning platforms

Conference Paper · October 2016

DOI: 10.1109/CIST.2016.7804953

CITATIONS READS
35 8,366

4 authors, including:

Ouadoud Mohammed Amel Nejjari

Abdelmalek Essaâdi University 12 PUBLICATIONS   221 CITATIONS   
44 PUBLICATIONS   304 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

kamal eddine el kadiri

Abdelmalek Essaâdi University
59 PUBLICATIONS   399 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling and Prototyping New Smart Learning Management Systems View project

Cloud Storage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ouadoud Mohammed on 08 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Studying and Comparing the Free E-learning
Platforms

Mohammed Ouadoud Mohamed Yassin Chkouri, Amel Nejjari

UAE, Faculty of Sciences (FS) UAE, National School of Applied Sciences (ENSA)
Laboratory of Informatics, Research Operational and Laboratory of the Information System and Software
Statistic Applied (LIROSA) Engineering (SIGL)
Tetouan, Morocco Tetouan, Morocco
mohammed.ouadoud@gmail.com yassin.chkouri@gmail.com ; amelnejjari@yahoo.fr

Kamal Eddine El Kadiri

UAE, Faculty of Sciences (FS)
Laboratory of Informatics, Research Operational and Statistic Applied (LIROSA)
Tetouan, Morocco
kamalelkadiri@yahoo.fr

Abstract—E-learning platforms are constantly changing; they
have transformed the everyday life of teachers and students. An
e-learning platforms study, from a methodical, systemic
approach that identifies the dimensions, specifications and the
essential criteria for the evaluation of these platforms is
necessary. In this paper, we propose an analytical study of free e-
learning platforms. Four platforms have been selected according
to requested criteria filter among the 600 platforms listed in the
THOT CURSUS directory. Subsequently, we make a
comparative study of these platforms. On the one hand, we would
like to measure the degree of adequacy between technological
opportunities they offer and the pedagogical presuppositions of
training. On the other hand, for clarifying and supporting the
users in their choice of the most suitable platform for their needs
so that they can benefit to the maximum of potential offered by
technologies in pedagogy, and approach the problematic of the
platform choice for a better pedagogy.
Keywords—Comparative study; e-learning platform; LMS;
LCMS; platforms comparison; platforms evaluation; software
engineering approach
I. INTRODUCTION
In the digital era, Moroccan universities, among others,
seem to be more and more preoccupied with the quality of
courses, which they offer their students to guarantee their
integration in the labour market. Consequently, national
reflections are looking for new smart platform that are able to
diffuse innovative trainings in the context of teaching and
learning in full motion. We conducted a comparative study of
the existing e-learning platforms in use in teaching and
learning. Indeed, we think that it is essential to develop a
reflexive synthesis on the uses of ICTE1, to detect their impact
on practices and their appropriation by users.
In this study, training devices that interests us are free e-
learning platforms, because their cost, their development, their
orientation and the used technologies are very close to the axis
of this study.
During the last decade, the e-learning platforms have
evolved a lot. However, several comparative studies have been
developed previously, [26], [27], [28], but they have been
abandoned because their life cycle is changing apace. Thereby,
we conducted a comparative study on free e-learning platforms
in order to choose the most suitable platform.
In such a context of proliferation of training, the choice
becomes difficult. Consequently, any choice at random causes
a loss of money, effort and time. So a rigor challenges us in
this choice and invites us to make the following questioning:
On the one hand, how can we choose an e-learning
platform that meets the norms and standards as they are
acknowledged in the distance education device?
On the other hand, what norms and standards do the
requirements meet in evaluation of these platforms? Which
approach in terms of pedagogical multimedia engineering
should we use to assess these platforms?
These issues and others are the subject of the investigations
as part of our study, in order to put the item on the question of
the provisions. What we are proposing, is that it is an approach
that allows us to make the right choice of the e-learning
platform from a comparative evaluative, technical and
pedagogical study to judge its contributions for purposes of
experimentation, whose results will allow us to judge its
technical and pedagogical values, and therefore choose the e-
learning platform that is necessary.

1 ICTE: Information and Communication Technology for Education

978-1-5090-0751-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 581

 To conduct our study, in the ‘platforms study’ section, we
selected four free platforms since the THOT CURSUS 2
directory. Thus, we present the approach used for the quality
evaluation of these e-learning platforms [1]. Then, we identify
these platforms while specifying their designers, their
pedagogical models, their types, and their licensing.
Subsequently, in the ‘comparison of platforms’ section we
put the selected e-learning platforms in comparison, based on
our evaluation approach [1].
Finally, in the ‘synthesis’ section, we file the results of the
comparative study after analyzing them. Then, we give a
detailed view to each of the analyzed platforms.
II. FREE E-LEARNING PLATFORM
A. Definition
A type LMS 3 e-learning platform is a software including
services to assist teachers in the management of their course.
Moreover, as we defined OVAREP, the e-learning platform is
a computing device that groups several tools and ensures the
educational lines. Across dedicated platforms to the ODL
(open and distance learning), all conduits are preserved and
expanded for the learner, tutor, coordinator and administrator,
etc. within the e-learning platform [25].
Fig. 1. General architecture of an e-learning platform LMS
2 THOT CURSUS: is an e-learning platforms directory, LMS, LCMS and
other systems for content and training management « Répertoire d’e-
learning et e-formation - 2015 », Thot Cursus. [Online]. Available:
http://cursus.edu/institutions-formations-
ressources/formation/13486/plates-formes-learning-formation-2015/.
[Accessed: 02-sept-2015].
3 LMS: Learning management system
978-1-5090-0751-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
It should be mentioned, that a free e-learning platform is a
software which the use, the study, the modification and the
duplication with a view to release or diffuse it are permitted,
technically and legally [2]. This is to ensure certain freedoms
that are induced, which include the program’s control by the
user and the possibility of sharing between individuals [1].
These rights may simply be available or established by a
license, called "free" based on copyright.
Figure 1 illustrates the general principle of the operation of
an e-learning platform LMS by presenting the key features
associated with the main actors: learner, teacher, tutor,
coordinator, and administrator. The learner can consult and/or
download the resources placed at his disposal by the teacher,
make its learning activities while following his progress in
training. The teacher, who is responsible for one or more
modules, creates and manages the educational content he
wishes to broadcast via the platform. It can also build tools for
monitoring learners’ activities. The tutor accompanies and
monitors each learner in having at his disposal the tools that he
needs to communicate, collaborate and animate discussions.
On its side, the coordinator ensures the management of the
overall system. Finally, the administrator is responsible for the
customization of the platform benefiting the rights of the
administration thereunder (system installation, maintenance,
access management...
B. Platform features
An e-learning platform fits well in several pedagogical
models. We defined our expectations in matters of content and
teaching modalities for all the actors: learners, teacher, tutors,
coordinators and administrators.
Learners are invited to
 Attend pedagogical activities that take various forms,
both specific and general (problems, simulations,
QCM, tests self-correcting),
 Include interactive teaching resources in various
formats (text, image, audio, video, PDF, Flash),
 Realize situations for assessments,
 Access collaborative working, from shared documents.
Teachers (course designers) are responsible for the
preparation of training courses with regard to
 Creation of the teaching resources interface with the
training management systems (AICC, SCORM, etc.),
 Sharing educational resources (course modules,
evaluations, etc.),
 Planning of pedagogical resources…
Tutors are responsible for
 Taking charge of learners by an individual tracking
system, animation and / or moderation of forums,
 Initializing the conversation within the chat, which is
responsible,
 Follow-up the learners in video-conference,
582
  Monitoring activities and proposed projects… Several evaluation methods of the platforms were
encountered in literature [29], [30]. However, they have not
Administrators and coordinators are responsible for been chosen, because these studies focus mainly on the
customizing the platform with regard to functional aspect, forgetting other aspects very important such
 Establishing the groups, as: security, maintainability, portability, compatibility,
performance efficiency and usability. For this reason, we have
 Managing the courses, realized our own evaluation approach of the e-learning
platforms quality.
 Customizing the platform…
Table I present an overview of our approach with measures
III. PLATFORMS STUDY and criteria adapted for evaluation of the e-learning platforms.

A. Platforms selection TABLE I. EVALUATION APPROACH OF THE E-LEARNING PLATFORMS

In this paper, we take care of four free e-learning platforms, QUALITY [1]

which were selected in detail on 29 platforms. These platforms Assessment and analysis grid of the
were selected from 600 platforms listed in the THOT CURSUS e-learning platforms quality
directory. Platform identification
o Platform’s name:
Other platforms like Elgg, Dokeos, and WIMS..., are
“encountered” in the work and are not cited as counted o Platform designer:
because: they are tools and not e-learning platforms in the o Platform type:
sense of this study. Also, their costs, their development status, o Platform genre:
their orientation, the used technologies are too far from the axis
o Platform’s pedagogical model:
of this study.
o Platform license:
We did a first filter on free platforms currently used in o Description:
University or training structures. Next, we have elaborated a
second filter according to the following criteria: o Version & Edition:
o Used technology:
 be operational and have been used by learners as part
o Language:
of lessons,
o Website:
 rely on new internet technologies, and meet the Utility Specifications
standards in force,
Functional suitability tools (Table 4 [1])
 allow to manage several types of pedagogical activities Performance efficiency tools (Table 5 [1])
(reading, exercises, collaboration, communication…), Compatibility tools (Table 6 [1])
 can manage a large number of users. Security tools (Table 7 [1])
Maintainability tools (Table 8 [1])
After applying the two filters, the study had focused on four
Portability tools (Table 9 [1])
listed e-learning platforms, namely: Atutor, Claroline Connect,
Moodle and Sakai. Usability Specifications
Usability criteria (Table 11 [1])
It should be recalled that this study was conducted in two
stages: a census of platforms that matches the type of e- This approach sets up tags for exploration of e-learning
learning platforms, including the requested filters, then, a platforms. It organized and prepared our comparative study to
detailed comparative study of the selected platforms. assess e-learning platforms and allowed us to live the
experience of distance training via a suitable platform on which
Thus, to achieve our study, we opted for a qualitative
we built our judgment of the relevance of the teaching and
approach consisting to realize an analysis by products
technological choices and meeting most of our expectations.
exploration, analysis of documentation, collection of user
opinions, discussions with publishers and simulation tests that
we carried on the selected e-learning platforms. C. Platforms identification
Before proceeding to global evaluation, we begin with
We present thereafter a common table we used to evaluate identifying the selected e-learning platforms to get an idea
its e-learning platforms. about their quality levels and ability to be used in remote
training.
B. Comparison criteria
Selected platforms are presented in the next section with
To be used effectively, the selected e-learning platforms
their identification, their general characterization, their
need an overall evaluation of the utility and usability
strengths and weaknesses..., and this using a critical analysis
specifications to be well exploited and used in the best
based on evaluation approach of the e-learning platforms
conditions.
quality presented in table I.

978-1-5090-0751-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 583

 TABLE II. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SELECTED E-LEARNING PLATFORMS

Platform’s name: Atutor*
Platform designer: Inclusive Design Research
Centre, OCAD University
Platform type: LCMS
Platform genre: Online learning platform
Platform’s pedagogical model: traditional pedagogy
Platform license: GPL
Description: Online learning platform
Version & Edition: V. 2.2 (24 Aug. 2014)
Used technology: PHP (5.6.3)
Language: Multi-language support, more
than 38 languages [13]
Website: www.atutor.ca
User institutions Fundação Universitária Vida
Cristã, Srinakharinwirot
university, softaculous,
Nursing Course Server,
Ubicomp Courses, etc.
Identification
Claroline Connect* Moodle* Sakai*
UCL / IPM / ECAM Martin Dougiamas and Moodle Sakai Community
Community
LMS CMS, VLE, LCMS LMS
Online learning platform Online learning platform Online learning platform
social constructivist social constructivist [24] Constructivism
GPL [22] GPL Educational Community License
Online learning and collaborative work Online learning platform Online learning platform, including
platform collaboration tools
V. 5.1.10 (May. 2015) V. 2.9 (11 May. 2015) V. 10 (08 July. 2014)
PHP (5.5+) PHP (5.4.4+) JAVA
Multi-language support, limited number of Multi-language support, more than 135 Multi-language support, more than 20
languages (fr, en, es) languages [12] languages [9]
www.claroline.net www.moodle.org www.sakaiproject.org
High School of Namur-Liège-Luxembourg, Toulouse III ‘Paul Sabatier’ university, Collège Providence, Baltimore
Neuchâtel university, campus : Belfort & Louvain Catholic university, Lille 1 & university, Duke university, GHANA
Lyon ‘esta’, LaSalle Beauvais,Saint Louis Lille 3 university, Paul-Valéry university, Brock university,
Namur, Lyon Catholic university, Collège university, Jean Moulin university, Lyon Washington & Lee university, Collège
Saint-Pierre, etc. III, Artois university, etc. Washington & Jefferson, etc.

IV. COMPARISON OF PLATFORMS They also offer an improvement in conduct of teachings

In this section, we will do a comparison of the selected e-
learning platforms by using critical analysis based on
evaluation approach of the e-learning platforms quality
presented in table 1, in which we present six characteristics of
the utility and one characteristic of the usability, but in this
paper, we limit ourselves initially on three characteristics of the
utility, namely: functional suitability, compatibility, and
portability.
A. Functional suitability
Functional suitability means “the degree to which a product
or system provides functions that meet stated and implied
needs when used under specified conditions” [24].
Table III projects the essential functionalities for functional
suitability analysis, as well as e-learning platforms analyzed.
B. Compatibility
Compatibility signifies “the degree to which a product,
system or component can exchange information with other
products, systems or components, and/or perform its required
functions, while sharing the same hardware or software
environment” [24].
Table IV presents the essential functionalities for
compatibility analysis, as well as e-learning platforms
analyzed.
C. Portability
Portability signifies “the degree of effectiveness and
efficiency with which a system, product or component can be
transferred from one hardware, software or other operational or
usage environment to another” [24].
Table V shows the essential functionalities for portability
analysis, as well as e-learning platforms analyzed.
V. SYNTHESIS
The analyzed platforms offer an important pedagogical and
functional wealth, for learning support and design.
and for the construction and organization of elaborate
formations.
Despite the degree of utility and usability reached by the
analyzed platforms, the result of the evaluation of each of these
platforms shows that each has its own strengths and low points.
However, they have all unmet needs in the pedagogical side
especially regarding pedagogical conceptual references
adopted by the platforms.
Moreover, platforms quality analysis, according to our own
approach led to very interesting results. We see that most of the
analyzed platforms were initially developed a decade ago,
based on a classical training model. The teacher is the one who
holds the knowledge and transmits it, according to different
modalities, to future learners in order to foster the learning of
these latter. They are mostly TMS (Teaching Management
Systems), that is to say tools at the teacher’s service to create
and manage courses rather than at the service of the learner and
the learning process. They are always part in a logic and
uniform architecture, technocentric, cantoned in a reduced
learning conception, which advocates a particular pedagogical
theory independently of others.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The subject of this article is very interesting because the
free platforms are on the one hand, a topical domain in
Software Engineering and Pedagogical Engineering, and on the
other hand, the application of these platforms in e- learning
reaches a vast clientele. Moreover, academically, it seems that
it is interesting to apply for the first time an inspired approach
of software engineering to evaluate the e-learning platforms
quality.
In this perspective, an experiment is therefore indispensable
to validate what has been developed in the context of this
article. Indeed, this latter, will be based on the results of a well-
detailed comparative and evaluative study of the analyzed
platforms and many others. This will help us present the results
of our study in the form of a recommendation system of the
free e-learning platforms, which we envision to implement to
facilitate the choice of the suited e-learning platform to our
objectives and our institutional specifications.

978-1-5090-0751-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 584


Platform’s name:
Forum
Synchronous causerie (chat)
Virtual Classroom (webinar)
Sharing documents
Calendar
Awareness
Tests management
Collaboration (Wiki)
Learners’ management
(registration, schedule...)
Learners management in
working groups
Users roles management
Customizable platform
Advancement Scale or
progression percentage in the
course
Resource Management
(course)
Support of multiple authors
Management of working
time of learners and teachers
Results and notes
Notes display
Tracking statistics of course
Control Connections
(tracking of learners)
Report on the test results
Glossary
Report on the frequency or
the use of a course
Certification
Foyer (family group)
Registration chat
Messaging
Plagiarism detection tools
RSS / podcast: means of
distributing files
Platform’s name:
Course transfer from one platform
to another of the same type
SCORM
IMS QTI
AICC
IMS XML
Information and application
sharing
Interconnection platform
Import and export of resources
Possibility of using plugins
(Word, Excel, etc.)
978-1-5090-0751-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
TABLE III. FUNCTIONAL SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED E-LEARNING PLATFORMS
Atutor*
Yes, discussion forum / export [17]
Yes, flexible synchronous interaction in
writing, audio and video [17, 18]
Yes, ‘BigBlueButton’ plugin [18]
Yes, 'Dropbox' tool for creating shared
files
Yes, structure an agenda with tasks and
deadlines [17]
Yes
Yes, module ‘ Tests and Surveys’
Yes, plugin 'EWiki’ + implemented of
ErFurtWiki [18]
Yes, multiple authentication
mechanisms of registered and
unregistered learners [17]
Yes, Manual and automatic groups
[17]
Yes, multi-profile (Student ; instructor ;
administrator)
Yes, management roles, groups, users,
modules, etc.
Yes, module ‘statistics’
Partial, sharing courses for the groups
[17] and not in the activity spaces
Yes, the teacher has the right to create
and manage its course
No, the platform does not support the
working time of the learners
Yes, module ‘ Tests and Surveys’
Yes
Yes, ‘ tests and surveys’ tool
Yes, module ‘ Tests and Surveys’
Yes, ‘ tests and surveys’ tool
Yes, ‘Glossary’ tool
Yes, ‘My Tracker’ tool
Yes [17]
Yes, creating a discussion forum
Yes [17, 18]
Yes, mail [17]
No
No
TABLE IV. COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED E-LEARNING PLATFORMS
Atutor*
Yes, transfer of SCORM courses to a
platform adapted to the SCORM
Yes, SCORM V .1.2/2004 plugin
[18]
Yes, QTI test/question Package
No
Yes, C/I/E CC-CP
Yes, through Dropbox for creating
shared files and EWiki collaboration
tools [18]
No
Yes, the platform offers the ability to
import and export of resources
Yes
Functional suitability
Claroline Connect* Moodle* Sakai*
Functional completeness
Yes, public or private discussion forum Yes, Different types of forums are available Yes [7]
[19] and open to all [15]
Yes Yes, flexible synchronous interaction in Yes, [5]
writing [15]
No Yes, ‘BigBlueButton’ plugin Yes, ‘BigBlueButton’ plugin [8]
Yes, collaboration Wiki space [19], and Yes, collaboration Wiki space [15] Yes, collaboration Wiki space [7], +
shared files. ‘Dropbox’ tool [5]
Yes, structure an agenda with tasks and Yes Yes [7]
deadlines
Yes Yes Yes
Yes, generation of exercises (quizzes, Yes, choose the level of sharing issues [15] Yes, the tool open and closed
MCQ, open answers ...) [19] questions. [6]
Yes [19] Yes, 'Wiki' collaboration space [15] Yes [7]
Yes, user management space + Yes, several authentication mechanisms Partial, a space of role management
interfacing with LDAP directory [19] through the module 'User Management' [15] / lack of planning
Partial, creation of related discussion Yes, attribution of learners in groups (class) Yes, creation of a discussion forum
forums and not groups in groups
Yes, roles management space is offered Yes, multi-profile (Manager ; course Yes, multi-profile management
by the platform [19] creator ; Teacher ; Student ; administrator)
Yes, management roles, users, groups, Yes, roles management, users, groups, Yes
plugins… [19]. customizable themes [13], + installable
activity plugins [15]
Yes, consult the statistics of attendance Yes, Registration and follow-up of Yes [6]
and success in exercises activities [15]
Yes, share resources of activity spaces Yes, course management plugin that allows Yes, integration of multimedia in
[19] deposition of courses [15] the course [5]
Yes, the teacher has the right to create Yes, the teacher has the right to create, Yes, the teacher has the right to
and manage its course manage, and give the access right to tutors create and manage its course [14]
in its course
Functional correctness
No, the platform does not support the No, the platform does not support the No, the platform does not support
working time of the learners working time of the learners the working time of the learners
Yes Yes, All given notes in forums, tests and Yes [14]
homework [15]
Yes Yes Yes
Yes, tools of monitoring the learners' Yes, activity reports are available with Yes, See statistics of learner visits
activities [19]. graphs for each module [15, 12]. and the activities [6, 14].
Yes, monitoring tools, statistics; + Yes, supervision tools (groups, activities, Yes [14]
dashboard [19] etc.); + dashboard.
No Yes, visualization interface of the various Yes [5]
reports of test results.
No Yes, Glossary Module Yes, Glossary Module [5]
Yes, through a tracking interface Yes, « Rapports d'activités» tool Yes, ‘Statistics’ tool [5]
Functional appropriateness
Yes Yes, plugin ‘Certificate’ Yes
Yes, creating a discussion forum Yes, discussion forum by user [15] Yes, creating a discussion forum [5]
Yes Yes, All sessions are recorded [15] Yes [7]
Yes, internal messaging [19] Yes, messaging has existed since Moodle Yes [7]
1.6 [16].
No Yes, plagiarism plugin ‘Turnitin ‘ No
Yes Yes Yes, Display the news contents via
RSS [8]
Compatibility
Claroline Connect* Moodle* Sakai*
Co-existence
Yes, transfer of SCORM courses to a Yes, transfer of SCORM courses to a Yes, transfer of SCORM courses to a
platform adapted to the SCORM platform adapted to the SCORM platform adapted to the SCORM
Yes [19] Yes, SCORM V. 1.2 import-/2004 Yes [5, 7]
Partial, QTI being finalized [19] Partial, QTI 2.0 export is still Yes [5]
unfinished [4]
No Yes No
No Yes No
Interoperability
Yes, through Wiki collaboration spaces Yes, Wiki collaboration space [15], + Yes, Wiki collaboration space [7]
[19], and shared files. Dropbox tool
Yes, allow multiple Claroline No No
platforms to exchange information [19]
Yes, the platform offers the ability to Yes, the platform offers the ability to Yes, the platform offers the ability to
import and export of resources import and export of resources import and export of resources
Yes Yes Yes
585
 TABLE V. PORTABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED E-LEARNING PLATFORM

Portability
Platform’s name: Atutor* Claroline Connect* Moodle* Sakai*
Adaptability
Adaptation to mobiles Partial, interface adapted to Partial, interface adapted to responsive Yes, interface adapted to responsive Partial, interface adapted to responsive
terminals responsive design / there is no design [19] / there is no mobile design (+ Moodle mobile App). design / there is no mobile application
mobile application application
Compatibility with common Yes, the platform is compatible Yes, the platform is compatible with Yes, the platform is compatible with Yes, the platform is compatible with
browsers with common browsers common browsers common browsers common browsers
Adapting to different training Partial, the design of the platform is Partial, the design of the platform is Partial, the design of the platform is Partial, the design of the platform is
devices (creating xMOOC, adapted to the xMOOC, the SPOC adapted to the xMOOC, the SPOC [19] adapted to the xMOOC, the SPOC and adapted to the xMOOC, the SPOC and
and not to the cMOOC and not to the cMOOC not to the cMOOC not to the cMOOC
cMOOC or SPOC)
Installability
Instability of without errors Yes, easy installation of the Partial, some difficulties during the Yes, easy installation of the platform Yes, easy installation of the platform
platform platform and without errors installation of the platform under and without errors and without errors
Windows
Replaceability
Replaceability with the new No No, migration from Caroline is in Yes, the platform offers the possibility Yes, the platform offers the possibility
platform version realization progress [19] of replacing the old version [22] of replacing the old version [23]
[16] Moodle community, “Messagerie — MoodleDocs,” 08-Apr-2016.
REFERENCES [Online]. Available: https://docs.moodle.org/2x/fr/Messagerie.
[Accessed: 06-Jun-2016].
[1] M. Ouadoud, MY. Chkouri, A. Nejjari, KE. EL Kadiri, “Studying and
Analyzing the Evaluation Dimensions of E-learning Platforms Relying [17] M. A. Encinas Escribano, “Manual de Usuario ATutor”. GBIF.ES,
on a Software Engineering Approach,” International Journal of Unidad de Coordinación.
Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 2016, Vol. 11 no. 1, pp. 11- [18] ATutor community, “ATutor: Learning Content Management System:
20, 10p, Feb. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i1.4924 Download”. [Online]. Available:
[2] R. Stallman, “gnu.org”, 01-déc-2015. A propos du projet GNU - Projet http://www.atutor.ca/atutor/modules/index.php. [Accessed: 06-Jun-
GNU - Free Software Foundation. [Online]. Available: 2016].
http://gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html. [Accessed: 05-Jun-2016]. [19] Claroline community, “Consortium Claroline - Plateforme
[3] Free Software Foundation, “gnu.org”, 01-Jan-2016. Qu’est-ce que le d’apprentissage et travail collaboratif en ligne,” 13-Jan-2015. [Online].
logiciel libre ? - Projet CNU -free Software foundation. [Online]. Available: http://www.claroline.net/type/Functionalities. [Accessed: 06-
Available: http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html. [Accessed: 05-Jun- Jun-2016].
2016]. [20] Claroline community, “Consortium Claroline - Plateforme
[4] Moodle community, “Development: Question engine - MoodleDocs”, d’apprentissage et travail collaboratif en ligne”. [Online]. Available:
23-Dec-2010. Moodle. [Online]. Available: http://www.claroline.net/type/services. [Accessed: 06-Jun-2016].
http://docs.moodle.org/29/en/Question_engine.[Accessed: 05-Jun-2016]. [21] Moodle community, “Philosophy – MoodleDocs,” 02-Feb-2012.
[5] Apereo Foundation, “Features, Tools & Functionality | Sakai », 2014. [Online]. Available:
[Online]. Available: http://sakaiproject.org/features-tools-functionality. https://docs.moodle.org/29/en/Philosophy#Constructivism. [Accessed:
[Accessed: 05-Jun-2016]. 06-Jun-2016].
[6] Peter ET Knoop, “SCORM - Contrib: SCORM Player - Confluence”, 28- [22] “Mise à jour à Moodle 2.9 — MoodleDocs,” 11-May-2015. [Online].
Feb-2012. [Online]. Available: Available: https://docs.moodle.org/2x/fr/Mise_à_jour_à_Moodle_2.9.
http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/SCORMPLAYER/SCORM. [Accessed: 06-Jun-2016]
[Accessed: 05-Jun-2016]. [23] S. Massicotte, “Sakai - Procédure d’installation - Communauté Sakai
[7] Apereo Foundation, « Learning Management | Sakai”, 2014. [Online]. française - Confluence”, 30-sept-2010. [Online]. Available:
Available: http://sakaiproject.org/learning-management. [Accessed: 05- https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=7068
Jun-2016]. 1431#Sakai-Procédured’installation-
Installationdelanouvelleversionenpré-prod. [Accessed: 06-Jun-2016]
[8] A. Whyte and J. Federico, “Home – Contrib: bigbluebutton -
Confluence”, 16-Apr-2015. [Online]. Available: [24] ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering -- Systems and
http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/BBB/Home. [Accessed: 05- software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) -- System and
Jun-2016]. software quality models
[9] Apereo Foundation, “Languages | Sakai”, 2014. [Online]. Available: [25] The OVAREP (Observatoire des ressources multimédias), 2000 « Étude
http://sakaiproject.org/languages . [Accessed: 05-Jun-2016]. comparative technique et pédagogique des plateformes pour la formation
ouverte et à distance »
[10] Moodle community, “Language packs”, 05-Jun-2016. [Online].
Available: http://download.moodle.org/langpack/2.9/. [Accessed: 05- [26] B. Dimet, “Etude comparative technique et pédagogique des plates-
Jun-2016]. formes pour la formation ouverte et à distance,” 15-Jan-2006. [Online].
Available:http://www.portices.fr/formation/Res/-
[11] Atutor community, “ATutor: Learning Management System: Formation/Plateformes/Pf1Resume.html. [Accessed: 06-Jun-2016].
Translation”. [Online]. Available: www.atutor.ca/atutor/translate/.
[Accessed: 05-Jun-2016]. [27] S. Menasri, “Etude comparative de plateformes d’enseignement en ligne
(e-learning) utilisées dans un contexte universitaire,” Jun-2004.
[12] Moodle community, “Moodle.org: Moodle Statistics”. [Online]. [Online]. Available:
Available: http://moodle.net/stats/. [Accessed: 05-Jun-2016]. http://urfist.enc.sorbonne.fr/anciensite/archives/gremi/gremi10juin04/co
[13] Moodle community, “Moodle plugins directory: Category: Themes”. mparatif.htm#. [Accessed: 06-Jun-2016].
[Online]. Available: [28] DOGBE-SEMANOU, DA. Koffi, A. DURAND, M. LEPROUST, and
http://moodle.org/plugins/browse.php?list=category&id=3. [Accessed: al., Etude comparative de plates-formes de formation à distance. le
05-Jun-2016] cadre du Projet@ 2L Octobre, 2007.
[14] PLUME community, “Sakaï | Fiche logiciel validé PLUME”. [Online]. [29] A. Lablidi, A. Abourrich and M. Talbi, (dec-2009) « Démarche
Available: www.projet-plume.org/fiche/sakai. [Accessed: 15-oct-2015]. préconisée pour évaluer une plate-forme », Association EPI.
[15] Moodle community, “Fonctionnalités — MoodleDocs,” 16-Mar-2015. [30] Aska, Le Préau & Klr.fr (2000). « Choisir une solution de téléformation
[Online]. Available: https://docs.moodle.org/2x/fr/Fonctionnalités. : 2000 study : l'offre de plates-formes et de portails de téléformation » /
[Accessed: 06-Jun-2016]. [Study conducted by Anne Bouthry, Patrick Chevalier, Serge Ravet, et
al.].

978-1-5090-0751-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 586

View publication stats