Citation :

S. Aimara, M. Radid, G. Chemsi, M. Khiati, S. Nallusamy, "Design and Deployment of an Open-Source LMS Architecture for Hybrid Pre-Laboratory Instruction: An Open edX Implementation Case Study," International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 496-507, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V74I8P133

Abstract

This paper reports the design, implementation and deployment of an open-source Learning Management System (LMS) architecture supporting hybrid pre-laboratory instruction in a resource-constrained university setting. The platform was deployed with Tutor, the Docker-based distribution of Open edX, on a single virtual private server with four virtual CPU cores and 4 GB of RAM, with DNS and TLS resolution provided by Cloudflare. The architecture is layered across infrastructure, platform, course content and data processing. Two pre-laboratory modules were delivered through short instructional videos, auto-graded formative quizzes and an embedded interactive serious game, and the engineering trade-offs of third-party tool integration without a Learning Tools Interoperability bridge are analysed. A four-stage learning analytics pipeline extracts learner activity from the LMS gradebook, selects valid engagement signals and computes a composite engagement index. Operational validation over a continuous 58-day production period shows a mean edge response time of 67.3 ms (SD 14.0 ms, n = 20), an application-tier saturation throughput of approximately 74 requests per second, and zero failed requests across 1,600 load-test requests at concurrency levels from 5 to 50. Across the deployed cohort, 82.4% of learners in Module CS101 (n = 17) and 77.3% in Module CS102 (n = 22) attempted at least one formative quiz, and the composite engagement index (n = 17) reached a mean of 76.5% (SD 33.8%, median 88.9%). The result is a low-cost, reproducible blueprint for hybrid digital instruction, together with a quantified account of its capacity envelope and its limits.

Keywords

Learning Management System, Serious game integration, Educational data pipeline, Engagement analytics, System implementation, Resource-Constrained Deployment.

References

[1] Avi Hofstein, and Vincent N. Lunetta, “The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century,” Science Education, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 28-54, 2004.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[2] Fredrick S. Simasiku et al., “Exploring the Efficacy of Practical Work on Learners’ Academic Achievements in Biology at Senior Secondary Level in Namibia,” European Journal of Health and Biology Education, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2025.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[3] Ram Babu Pareek, “An Assessment of Availability and Utilization of Laboratory Facilities for Teaching Science at Secondary Level,” Science Education International, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 75-81, 2019.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[4] Xiaoran Wang et al., “Hybrid Teaching after COVID-19: Advantages, Challenges and Optimization Strategies,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2024.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[5] Mohammed Ouadoud, Nouha Rida, and Tarik Chafiq, “Overview of E-Learning Platforms for Teaching and Learning,” International Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering, Science and IT, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 50-70, 2021.
[Google Scholar]

[6] A.W. (Tony)Bates, Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning, 2^nd ed., BCcampus, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/221

[7] 1EdTech, Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), 1EdTech, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.1edtech.org/standards/lti

[8] Lea C. Brand, and Andreas Schrader, “Serious Games in Higher Education in the Transforming Process to Education 4.0—Systematized Review,” Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1-12, 2024.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[9] Florence Martin, and Doris U. Bolliger, “Engagement Matters: Student Perceptions on the Importance of Engagement Strategies in the Online Learning Environment,” Online Learning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 205-222, 2018.
[Google Scholar]

[10] Alberto Rivas et al., “Artificial Neural Network Analysis of the Academic Performance of Students in Virtual Learning Environments,” Neurocomputing, vol. 423, pp. 713-720, 2021.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[11] José A. Ruipérez-Valiente et al., “Scaling to Massiveness with ANALYSE: A Learning Analytics Tool for Open edX,” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 909-914, 2017.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[12] José A. Ruipérez-Valiente et al., “Evaluation of a Learning Analytics Application for Open edX Platform,” Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 51-73, 2017.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[13] Yinghui Sh et al., “College Students’ Cognitive Learning Outcomes in Technology-Enabled Active Learning Environments: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 791-817, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[14] Richard E. Mayer, and Logan Fiorella, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[15] Michael Allen, and Richard Sites, Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning Experiences, ATD Press, 2012.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[16] Hyojung Jung et al., “Advanced Instructional Design for Successive E-Learning based on the Successive Approximation Model (SAM),” International Journal on E-Learning, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 191-204, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[17] Khe Foon Hew et al., “Meta-Analyses of Flipped Classroom Studies: A Review of Methodology,” Educational Research Review, vol. 33, 2021.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]

[18] Emtinan Alqurashi, “Predicting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning within Online Learning Environments,” Distance Education, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 133-148, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]