Comparative Analysis of E-learning Platforms and Their Application in Higher Education

11th International Scientific Conference Technics, Informatics and Education – TIE 2026, (pp. 23-29)

 

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Ana Veljić , Miloš Papić and Krstivoje Miljković

Download Full Pdf  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46793/TIE26.023V

САЖЕТАК /ABSTRACT:

The fast development of modern technologies in the field of education has become a challenge for academic institutions to choose the right Learning Management System (LMS) for their use. As part of the current research, an analysis of five selected platforms representing different implementation models: Moodle, Blackboard, Canvas, ATutor, and MS Teams, was performed. The platforms were assessed according to the following criteria: architectural, functional, user-centered, and implementation-based (open-source versus Software as a Service [SaaS] platforms). The analysis indicates that Moodle and ATutor offer considerable flexibility and show a strong documented emphasis on accessibility; however, self-hosted deployment requires substantial support from the institution’s IT department. At the same time, commercial platforms such as Blackboard and Canvas provide stable, vendor-managed environments with lower maintenance requirements, but at higher recurring costs. Additionally, the research revealed that MS Teams is a proprietary SaaS platform with extensive integration and communication capabilities, but with fewer specialized pedagogical features than dedicated LMS solutions. In conclusion, it may be stated that there is no one-size-fits-all solution – the decision should be made depending on the trade-off between the institution’s technical and financial capacities.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS: 

e-learning; LMS; higher education; comparative analysis; platform evaluation

 ПРОЈЕКАТ / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

  • Hashim, M. A. M., Tlemsani, I., & Matthews, R. (2022). Higher education strategy in digital transformation. Inf. Technol., 27, 3171-3195. DOI:10.1007/s10639-021-10739-1
  • Oliveira, K.K.S., & De Souza, R.A.C. (2022). Digital transformation towards education 4.0. Inform. Educ., 21, 283-309. DOI:10.15388/infedu.2022.13
  • Sharifov, M., Safikhanova, S., & Mustafa, A. (2021). Review of prevailing trends, barriers and future perspectives of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using ICT, 17, 207-216.
  • Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Inf. Technol., 24, 2523-2546. DOI:10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3
  • Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2023). COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Learn. Environ., 31, 863-875. DOI:10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
  • Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2021). Transitioning to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have higher education institutions responded to the challenge? Inf. Technol., 26, 6401-6419. DOI:10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w
  • Berking, P., & Gallagher, S. (2013). Choosing a Learning Management System. Alexandria, VA, USA: Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Co-Laboratories, 40-62.
  • Ali, M., Wood-Harper, T., & Wood, B. (2024). Understanding the technical and social paradoxes of learning management systems usage in higher education: A sociotechnical perspective. Res. Behav. Sci., 41, 134-152. DOI:10.1002/sres.2945
  • Alshomrani, S. (2012). Evaluation of technical factors in distance learning with respect to open source LMS. Asian Trans. Comput., 2, 11-17.
  • Galvis, Á.H. (2018). Supporting decision-making processes on blended learning in higher education: Literature and good practices review. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., 15, 25. DOI:10.1186/s41239-018-0106-1
  • Sahoo, S.K., & Goswami, S.S. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: Advancements, applications, and future directions. Mak. Adv., 1, 25-48. DOI:10.31181/dma1120237
  • Asadabadi, M.R., Chang, E., & Saberi, M. (2019). Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). Cogent Eng., 6, 1623153. DOI:10.1080/23311916.2019.1623153
  • Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
  • Yucel, A.S. (2006). E-learning approach in teacher training. Online J. Distance Educ., 7, 123-131.
  • Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Educ., 49, 467-493. DOI:10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0
  • Oliveira, P. C., Cunha, C. J. C. A., & Nakayama, M. K. (2016). Learning management systems (LMS) and e-learning management: An integrative review and research agenda. JISTEM, 13, 157-180. DOI:10.4301/S1807-17752016000200001
  • Rößling, G., Joy, M., Moreno, A., Radenski, A., Malmi, L., Kerren, A., et al. (2008). Enhancing learning management systems to better support computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bull., 40, 142-166. DOI:10.1145/1473195.1473239
  • Veluvali, P., & Surisetti, J. (2022). Learning management system for greater learner engagement in higher education – A review. Educ. Future, 9, 107-121. DOI:10.1177/23476311211049855
  • Colace, F., & De Santo, M. (2011). Evaluation models for e-learning platforms and the AHP approach: A case study. IPSI BGD Trans. Internet Res., 7, 31-43.
  • Altun Turker, Y., Baynal, K., & Turker, T. (2019). The evaluation of learning management systems by using fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS and an integrated method: A case study. Online J. Distance Educ., 20, 195-218. DOI:10.17718/tojde.557864
  • Pucar, Đ., Popović, G., & Milovanović, G. (2023). MCDM methods-based assessment of learning management systems. Teme, 47, 939-956. DOI:10.22190/TEME230209058P
  • Veljić, A., Viduka, D., Ilić, L., Karabasevic, D., Šijan, A., & Papić, M. (2025). Sustainable decision-making in higher education: An AHP-NWA framework for evaluating learning management systems. Sustainability, 17, 10130. DOI:10.3390/su172210130
  • Florjančič, V., & Wiechetek, Ł. (2022). Using Moodle and MS Teams in higher education – a comparative study. J. Innov. Learn., 31, 264-286. DOI:10.1504/IJIL.2022.120650
  • Al-Qora’n, L., Salem, O. A. S., & Gordon, N. (2022). Heuristic evaluation of Microsoft Teams as an online teaching platform: An educators’ perspective. Computers, 11, 175. DOI:10.3390/computers11120175
  • W3C.  (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. W3C Recommendation; World Wide Web Consortium. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
  • Instructure. (2026). Canvas LMS – Open-source LMS (AGPLv3). GitHub repository. Available online: https://github.com/instructure/canvas-lms
  • Moodle. (2023). Moodle LMS achieves WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility compliance. Moodle Pty Ltd. Available online: https://moodle.com/news/moodle-lms-4-0-achieves-wcag-2-1-aa-accessibility-compliance/
  • Anthology. (2026). Blackboard Ally: Accessibility and alternative formats. Anthology Inc. Available online: https://www.anthology.com/products/teaching-and-learning/learning-effectiveness/blackboard-ally
  • Marković, M., Soleša, D., & Karabašević, D. (2026). A simulation-based latency-aware autoscaling model for LMS platforms in Kubernetes environments. Electronics, 15, 2336. DOI:10.3390/electronics15112336
Post Views: 20