Linear or grid? LMS layout and students’ perceived usability across academic progression

Introduction In contemporary higher education, learning management systems (LMS) serve as central digital environments in which students access content, complete tasks, and navigate course requirements. Despite the central role of these systems, decisions about LMS interface layout are often guided by institutional defaults or visual conventions rather than empirical evidence. This study examined how different Moodle layouts are associated with usability, as perceived by students, and whether these evaluations vary by academic seniority, gender, or academic discipline. Methods Using a quasi-experimental, between-groups design, we compared two widely used Moodle layouts within a mandatory, standardized institutional course: the linear collapsed topics format (CTF) and the tile-based grid format (GF). The study participants were 386 undergraduate students who evaluated the course site using a 15-item instrument that addressed different aspects of the user experience (UX) and user interface (UI; Cronbach's α = .967). Results Students who accessed the course in the CTF layout assigned significantly higher UX and UI scores than those who accessed it in the GF layout. Academic seniority was also associated with greater perceived usability, with third-year students assigning higher UX and UI scores than first-year students. However, the layout × academic year interaction was not statistically significant, indicating that layout-related differences were broadly consistent across academic years. Usability evaluations did not differ by gender. Although academic discipline was associated with overall UX scores, layout-related evaluation patterns did not differ significantly by discipline. Discussion These findings suggest that structured, linear LMS layouts may support perceived usability in mandatory or content-heavy course environments. Conceptually, the study frames LMS interface preferences as emerging from the interplay between interface structure and learners’ accumulated experience within institutional digital-learning environments, positioning interface design as a pedagogical decision rather than a merely technical one.