Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–7 | Cite as

Patterns in Faculty Learning Management System Use

  • Szymon Machajewski
  • Alana Steffen
  • Elizabeth Romero Fuerte
  • Eleanor Rivera
Original Paper

Abstract

Technology in Higher Education affects teaching and learning excellence while being a significant expense for universities. There is a need for evaluation of current instructional technology use when planning for renewal or adoption of a new learning management system (LMS). This study was conducted to understand the patterns of course tools used by faculty in a commercial LMS used at a large public research university. Course data was extracted from 2562 courses with 98,381 student enrollments during the Fall of 2016. A latent class analysis was conducted to identify the patterns of LMS tool use based on the presence of grade center columns, announcements, assignments, discussion boards, and assessments within each course. Three latent classes of courses were identified and characterized as Holistic tool use (28% of the courses), Complementary tool use (51%), and Content repository (21%). These classes differed in the mean number of students per course and whether courses were exclusively online. These descriptions provided data-based information to share with deans across the university to facilitate discussion of faculty needs for LMS tools and training.

Keywords

Course design Learning management system Latent analysis Blackboard Learn BbStats Educational technology 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abazi-Bexheti, L., Kadriu, A., & Ahmedi, L. (2010). Measurement and assessment of learning management system usage. In Proceedings of 6th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Educational Technologies. WSEAS Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berking, P., & Gallagher, S. (2013). Choosing a learning management system. Advanced distributed learning (ADL) Co-laboratories. Version 3.0. Serco Services, Inc.–OPM contract no. OPM0207008, Project Code: 02EA3TTAN MP, Vol.3. https://www.adlnet.gov/public/uploads/ChoosingAnLMS.docx. Accessed 2 Jan 2017.
  3. Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, C., & Bichsel J. (2014). The Current Ecosystem of Learning Management Systems in Higher Education: Student, Faculty, and IT Perspectives. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
  4. Dawson, S., McWilliam, E. & Tan, J. (2008). Teaching smarter: how mining ICT data can inform and improve learning and teaching practice. Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 221–230). Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  5. Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education: Understanding conceptual change and development in practice, Higher Education Research & Development, 36:1, 73–87.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300
  6. Fritz, J. (2013). Using Analytics at UMBC: Encouraging Student Responsibility and Identifying Effective Course Designs. (Research Bulletin). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.  Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2013/4/using-analytics-at-umbc-encouragingstudent-responsibility-and-identifying-effective-course-designs. Accessed 2 Jan 2017.
  7. Janossy, J. (2008). Proposed Model for Evaluating C/LMS Faculty Usage in Higher Education Institutions. Paper presented at the MBAA International Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  8. Kroner G. (2014). Does your LMS do this? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://edutechnica.com/2014/01/07/a-model-for-lms-evolution/.
  9. Lazarsfeld, P., & Henry, N. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Machajewski, S. (2014). Open source analytics for Blackboard Learn, BbStats – Activity dashboard. Paper presented at the Big Data Conference, Allendale, MI. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/bigdata_conference2014/10.
  11. Medina-Flores, R., & Morales-Gamboa, R. (2015). Usability evaluation by experts of a learning management system. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 10(4), 197–203.  https://doi.org/10.1109/rita.2015.2486298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Openo, J., Laverty, C., Kolomitro, K., Borin, P., Goff, L., Stranach, M., & Gomaa, N. (2017). Bridging the divide: Leveraging the scholarship of teaching and learning for quality enhancement. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Orfanou, K., Tselios, N., & Katsanos, C. (2015). Perceived usability evaluation of learning management systems: Empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 227–246.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Whitmer, J., Nuñez, N., Harfield, T., & Forteza, D. (2016). Patterns in Blackboard Learn tool use: Five course design archetypes. Retrieved from https://www.blackboard.com/Images/Bb_Patterns_LMS_Course_Design_r5_tcm21-42998.pdf.
  15. Whitmer, J., Nuñez, N. & Forteza, D. (2016a). Research in progress: Learning analytics at scale for Blackboard Learn [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.blackboard.com/research-in-progress-learning-analytics-at-scale/.
  16. Whitmer, J., Nuñez, N. & Forteza, D. (2016b). How successful students use LMS tools – confirming our hunches [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.blackboard.com/how-successful-students-use-lms-tools/.

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations