Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 18–39 | Cite as

Key factors to instructors’ satisfaction of learning management systems in blended learning

  • Kamla Ali Al-Busaidi
  • Hafedh Al-Shihi
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Learning Management System (LMS) enables institutions to administer their educational resources, and support their traditional classroom education and distance education. LMS survives through instructors’ continuous use, which may be to a great extent associated with their satisfaction of the LMS. Consequently, this study examined the key factors that influence the instructors’ satisfaction of LMS in blended learning, and how this satisfaction is related to their intention to continuously use LMS in blended learning and purely for distance education. These investigated factors are related to instructors’ individual characteristics (computer anxiety, technology experience and personal innovativeness), LMS characteristics (system quality, information quality and service quality), and organizational characteristics (management support, incentives policy and training). The findings indicated that computer anxiety, personal innovativeness, system quality, information quality, management support, incentives policy and training are key factors to instructors’ satisfaction of LMS in blended learning. Furthermore, instructors’ satisfaction is a significant determinant of their continuous intention to use LMS in blended learning, and their intention to purely use LMS for distance education.

Keywords

Learning management system e-learning Instructors’ satisfaction Critical factors to LMS Blended learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. World Bank. (2010). Learning management system. Retrieved from http://web.worldbank.org.
  2. Aczel, J. C., Peake, S. R., & Hardy, P. (2008). Designing capacity-building in e-learning expertise: Challenges and strategies. Computers & Education, 50, 499–510. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education, 47, 373–398. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Busaidi, K., & Al-Shihi, H. (2010). Instructors’ acceptance of learning management systems: A theoretical framework. Communications of IBIMA. Retrieved from http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/CIBIMA/2010/862128/a862128.html.
  5. Ali, A. J. (1990). Management theory in a transitional society: The Arab’s experience. International Studies of Management and Organization, 20(3), 7–35.Google Scholar
  6. Ambient Insight Research. (2011). The worldwide market for self-paced eLearning products and services: 2010–2015 forecast and analysis. Retrieved from http://www.ambientinsight.com/Resources/Documents/Ambient-Insight-2010-2015-Worldwide-eLearning-Market-Executive-Overview.pdf.
  7. Bailey, J., & Pearson, S. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29(5), 530–545. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.29.5.530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ball, D., & Levy, Y. (2008). Emerging educational technology: Assessing the factors that influence instructors’ acceptance in information systems and other classrooms. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(4), 431–443.Google Scholar
  9. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modelling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration (with commentaries). Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–323.Google Scholar
  10. Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Online teaching and learning transition: Faculty perspectives on Moving from Blackboard to the Moodle learning management system. TechTrends, 50(4), 36–45. doi: 10.1007/s11528-006-0036-y.
  11. Blackboard. (2011). Explore the Blackboard learn platform capabilities. Retrieved from: http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Learn/Products/Blackboard-Learn/Teaching-and-Learning/New-to-Learn.aspx.
  12. Browne, T., Jenkins, M., & Walker, R. (2006). A longitudinal perspective regarding the use of VLEs by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(2), 177–192. doi: 10.1080/10494820600852795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burniske, R. W., & Monke, L. (2001). Breaking down the digital walls. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chan, C. C., Tsui, M.-S., Chan, M. Y. C., & Hong, J. H. (2008). A virtual learning environment for part-time MASW students: An evaluation of the WebCT. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28, 87–100. doi: 10.1080/08841230802179027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chin, W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Chin, W. (2001). PLS Graph user’s guide, Version 3.0. Houston, TX: Bauer College of Business, University of Houston.Google Scholar
  17. Chin, W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Crano, W., & Brewer, M. (2002). Principles and methods of social research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 60–95. doi: 10.1287/isre.3.1.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2003). The Delone and Mclean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.Google Scholar
  21. Falvo, D. A., & Johnson, B. F. (2007). The use of learning management systems in the United States. TechTrends, 51(2), 40–45. doi: 10.1007/s11528-007-0025-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Hawkins, B. L., & Rudy, J. A. (2007). Educause core data service. Fiscal year 2006 summary report. Colorado, USA: Educause.Google Scholar
  25. Hayashi, A., Chen, C., Ryan, T., & Wu, J. (2004). The role of social presence and moderating role of computer self efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(2), 139–154.Google Scholar
  26. Igbaria, M. (1990). End-User computing effectiveness: A structural equation model. Omega, 18(6), 637. doi: 10.1016/0305-0483(90)90055-E.
  27. Kelly, T., & Bauer, D. (2004). Managing intellectual capital-via e-learning-at Cisco. In C. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook on knowledge management 2: Knowledge directions (pp. 511–532). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. (1994). Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with the information services function. Decision Sciences, 25(5/6), 737–765. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb01868.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klobas, J. E., & McGill, T. J. (2010). The role of involvement in learning management system success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22, 114–134. doi: 10.1007/s12528-010-9032-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knecht, M., & Reid, K. (2009). Modularizing information literacy training via the Blackboard eCommunity. Journal of Library Administration, 49, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/01930820802310502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, Y. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517–541. doi: 10.1108/14684520610706406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liaw, S., Huang, H., & Chen, G. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1066–1080. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin, C., Singer, R., & Ha, L. (2010). Why university members use and resist technology? A structure enactment perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22, 38–59. doi: 10.1007/s12528-010-9028-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51, 142–154. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moodle. (2011). Welcome to the Moodle Service Network! Retrieved from http://moodle.com/.
  36. Naidu, S. (2006). E-learning a guidebook of principles, procedures and practices, 2nd revised edition. New Delhi, India: Commonwealth Educational Media Center for Asia (CEMCA).Google Scholar
  37. National Centre for Educational Statistics. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000–2001. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  38. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.Google Scholar
  39. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426. doi: 10.2307/3250989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47, 222–244. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raaij, E., & Schepers, J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50, 838–852. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001.
  42. Rainer, R. K., Turban, E., & Potter, R. E. (2007). Introduction to information systems: Supporting and transforming business. NJ, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Reiser, R. A. (2002). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 26–53). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Roca, J., Chiu, C., & Martinez, F. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuous intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 683–696. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Moenaert, R. K. (2005). The adoption of information technology in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simonson, M., Maurer, R., Montag, M., & Whitaker, M. (1987). Development of a standardized test of computer literacy and a computer anxiety index. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(2), 231–247. doi: 10.2190/7CHY-5CM0-4D00-6JCG.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sumner, M., & Hostetler, D. (1999). Factors influencing the adoption of technology in teaching. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40(1), 81.Google Scholar
  50. Sun, P., Tsai, R., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50, 1183–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52, 302–312. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thompson, R., Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (2006). Intentions to use information technologies: An integrative model. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18(3), 25–47. doi: 10.4018/joeuc.2006070102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wan, Z., Fang, Y., & Neufeld, H. (2007). The role of information technology in technology-mediated learning: A review of the past for the future. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 183–192.Google Scholar
  55. Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997).Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1282. doi: 10.2307/257034.
  56. Woods, R., Baker, J., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structure: Faculty use and perception of Web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet & Higher Education, 7(4), 281–297. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu, J. P., Tsai, R. J., Chen, C. C., & Wu, Y. C. (2006). An integrative model to predict the continuance use of electronic learning systems: Hints for teaching. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(2), 287–302.Google Scholar
  58. Yueh, H.-P., & Hsu, S. (2008). Designing a learning management system to support instruction. Communication of the ACM, 51(4), 59–63. doi: 10.1145/1330311.1330324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sultan Qaboos UniversityAl-Khod, MuscatOman

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options