Skip to main content
Log in

LMS Acceptance: The Instructor Role

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Learning management systems (LMS) have become the norm in recent years in higher education to further engage students and lecturers. The e-learning tools within LMS provide knowledge sharing and community building opportunities that can support both critical thinking and higher order learning skills through conversation and collaboration. However, the mere existence of tools does not guarantee users’ adoption and acceptance. Several effective arrangements are required to engage users. This paper focuses on different aspects of lecturers’ attitude that impact user engagement with LMS tools reporting on findings from 74 interviews with students and lecturers from different disciplines within a major Australian university. Results indicate that lecturers’ teaching style and habits, active participation in online activities as well as designing appropriate tasks and assessment procedure are important determinants of lecturers’ attitude in engaging students with LMS tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Busaidi, K. A., & Al-Shihi, H. (2010). Instructors’ acceptance of learning management systems: A theoretical framework. Communications of the IBIMA, 2010, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education: Citeseer.

  • Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 853–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses. Management Learning, 33(3), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J., & Franklin, T. (2008). A review of current and developing international practice in the use of social networking (Web 2.0) in higher education.

  • Atkinson, M. A., & Kydd, C. (1997). Individual characteristics associated with World Wide Web use: an empirical study of playfulness and motivation. ACM SIGMIS Database, 28(2), 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, S. L. (2007). Influence of instructor behaviors on student perceptions of the online learning experience (Ph.D. dissertation Touro University International, United States California). Retrieved from QUT Dissertations & Theses. (Publication No. AAT 3282352).

  • Beebe, R., Vonderwell, S., & Boboc, M. (2010). Emerging patterns in transferring assessment practices from F2f to online environments. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 8(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, A., Areal, N., & Silva, J. (2011). Students’ perceptions of blackboard and moodle in a Portuguese university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 824–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Sun, S. Y., Lin, T. C., & Sun, P. C. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M.-H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, L., & Tavares, N. J. (2013). From moodle to facebook: Exploring students’ motivation and experiences in online communities. Computers & Education, 68, 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eslaminejad, T., Masood, M., & Ngah, N. A. (2010). Assessment of instructors’ readiness for implementing e-learning in continuing medical education in Iran. Medical Teacher, 32(10), e407–e412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Bracewell, R. (2014). Students’ engagement in technology rich classrooms and its relationship to professors’ conceptions of effective teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. M., Weaver, M., Voegeli, D., Fitzsimmons, D., Knowles, J., Harrison, M., & Shephard, K. (2006). The development and evaluation of the use of a virtual learning environment (Blackboard 5) to support the learning of pre-qualifying nursing students undertaking a human anatomy and physiology module. Nurse Education Today, 26(5), 388–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing science, 12(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaton-Shrestha, C., Gipps, C., Edirisingha, P., & Linsey, T. (2007). Learning and e-learning in HE: the relationship between student learning style and VLE use. Research Papers in Education, 22(4), 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an online learning environment: what do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(7), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don’t always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klobas, J. E., & McGill, T. J. (2010). The role of involvement in learning management system success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(2), 114–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, B. J. L., Griffeth, R., & Hartman, S. (2006). Measuring student perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, B., & Lentle-Keenan, S. (2013). Teaching beliefs and practice, institutional context, and the uptake of web-based technology. Distance Education, 34(1), 4–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation—confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54(2), 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, S. S., Chen, G. D., & Huang, H. M. (2008). Users’ attitudes toward web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers & Education, 50(3), 950–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orehovacki, T., & Bubas, G. (2009). Web 2.0 in Education and Potential Factors of Web 2.0 Use by Students of Information Systems. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 443–448.

  • Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pishva, D., Nishantha, G., & Dang, H. (2010). A survey on how Blackboard is assisting educational institutions around the world and the future trends. Paper presented at the the 12th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT).

  • Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers college press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soong, M. B., Chan, H. C., Chua, B. C., & Loh, K. F. (2001). Critical success factors for on-line course resources. Computers & Education, 36(2), 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, C. H. (2007). What do university students expect from teachers using an LMS. Paper presented at the ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.

  • Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Tsai, R. J., Chen, C. C., & Wu, Y. (2006). An integrative model to predict the continuance use of electronic learning systems: Hints for teaching. International Journal on E Learning, 5(2), 287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanjani, N., Nykvist, S. S., & Geva, S. (2012). Do students and lecturers actively use collaboration tools in learning management systems? Paper presented at the Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2012).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nastaran Zanjani.

Appendix

Appendix

Sample Students’ Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    What is your reflection about lecturers’ ability to use LMS tools?

  2. 2.

    Can you explain the activities you have done with LMS tools?

  3. 3.

    In your e-learning experiences with LMS tools, what were the more effective teaching strategies?

  4. 4.

    How do you think lecturers can enhance the use of LMS tools among students?

  5. 5.

    Have you faced any teaching method that discouraged you to use LMS tools?

Sample Lecturers’ Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    How do you engage students with LMS tools?

  2. 2.

    What tasks have you designed to use each of LMS tools?

  3. 3.

    What strategies did you find unsuccessful to engage students with LMS tools?

  4. 4.

    What strategies did you find effective to engage students with LMS tools?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zanjani, N., Edwards, S.L., Nykvist, S. et al. LMS Acceptance: The Instructor Role. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 25, 519–526 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0277-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0277-2

Keywords

Navigation