Skip to main content

Investigating the impact of space design, visual attractiveness and perceived instructor presence on student adoption of learning management systems

Abstract

Education industry has available a range of educational technologies to support student learning. A Learning Management System (LMS) is one of the most important educational technologies used in the tertiary sector, providing an online platform for teaching, as well as supporting student learning. Despite all the effort put through deployment of most LMSs, in many universities, a below expectation student engagement and acceptance of the LMS is normally reported. To address this issue, this paper develops a conceptual model and investigates the impact of space design, visual attractiveness and perceived instructor presence on student acceptance of LMS. The results generally confirmed the positive impact of space design, visual attractiveness and perceived instructor presence on student acceptance of LMS. The only hypothesis which was not confirmed by the data of this study was the impact of perceived instructor’s presence on the LMS perceived usefulness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Sharhan, S., Al-Hunaiyyan, A., Alhajri, R., & Al-Huwail, N. (2020). Utilization of learning management system (LMS) among instructors and students. In Advances in Electronics Engineering (pp. 15-23): Springer.

  3. Alturki, U. T., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2016). Evaluating the usability and accessibility of LMS" blackboard" at King Saud University- page 219. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 9(1), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Asiri, M. J. S. (2012). Factors influencing the use of learning management system in Saudi Arabian higher education: A theoretical framework. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baleghi-Zadeh, S., Ayub, A. F. M., Mahmud, R., & Daud, S. M. (2017). The influence of system interactivity and technical support on learning management system utilization. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 9(1), 50–68.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barker, A. (2003). Faculty development for teaching online: Educational and technological issues. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 34(6), 273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Binyamin, S., Rutter, M., & Smith, S. (2017). Factors influencing the students' use of learning management systems: A case study of King Abdulaziz University. Paper presented at the International Conference on e-Learning.

  8. Brown, I. T. (2002). Individual and technological factors affecting perceived ease of use of web-based learning technologies in a developing country. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 9(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59): Harvard University press.

  10. Chang, H. H. (2000). The implementation and integration of information systems for production management in manufacturing: An empirical study. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 13(5), 369–387.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. In: JSTOR.

  12. Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cruz, T. Y., Arriola, K., Tzot, D., & Hernandez, A. (2019). Evaluating the success of Moodle: The learning management system at Independence junior college. Journal of MIS@ UB, 3(1).

  14. Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Johnson, L. W. (2007). A hierarchical model of health service quality: Scale development and investigation of an integrated model. Journal of Service Research, 10(2), 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning management systems in higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives. In: Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR, September 2014. Available from http ….

  16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  17. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

    Google Scholar 

  18. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 60–95.

  19. Eikebrokk, T. R., & Olsen, D. H. (2007). An empirical investigation of competency factors affecting e-business success in European SMEs. Information & Management, 44(4), 364–383.

    Google Scholar 

  20. El-Gayar, O., Moran, M., & Hawkes, M. (2011). Students' acceptance of tablet PCs and implications for educational institutions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Findik-Coşkunçay, D., Alkiş, N., & Özkan-Yildirim, S. (2018). A structural model for Students' adoption of learning management systems: An empirical investigation in the higher education context. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ghapanchi, A. H., & Aurum, A. (2011). The impact of project licence and operating system on the effectiveness of the defect-fixing process in open source software projects. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 8(4), 413–424.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ghapanchi, A. H., Aurum, A., & Low, G. (2011). A taxonomy for measuring the success of open source software projects. First Monday, 16(8).

  24. Global Corporate E-learning Market 2016–2020. (2020). Technavio, [online] Available at: https://www.technavio.com/report/global-education-technology-corporate-e-learning-market[].

  25. Grandon, E. E., & Pearson, J. M. (2004). Electronic commerce adoption: An empirical study of small and medium US businesses. Information & Management, 42(1), 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner's guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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).

  29. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (1996). Instructional media and technologies for learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

  30. Hevner, A., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram. S. (2004). “Design science research in information systems.” MIS Quarterly, (28:1), 75–105.

  31. Hoffman, K. M. (2003). Online course evaluation and reporting in higher education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(96), 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hulland, J., & Business, R. I. S.o. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hussein, S. M., Batada, N. N., Vuoristo, S., Ching, R. W., Autio, R., Närvä, E., . . . Olsson, C. (2011). Copy number variation and selection during reprogramming to pluripotency. Nature, 471(7336), 58, 62.

  34. Igbaria, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9(3), 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jeffrey Pomerantz, M. B.D., Christopher Brooks (2018). Foundations for a next generation digital learning environment: Faculty, students, and the LMS. Report by EDUCAUSE.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Laundy, D., Tang, C., Roberts, M., Miller, M., Thompson, S., & Bushnell-Wye, G. (2003). Software for automatic calibration of synchrotron powder diffractometers. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 10(2), 183–186.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Liu, J. C., Brantmeier, N., Wilcox, D., Griffin, O., Calcagno-Roach, J., & Brannon, R. (2019). Faculty perceived functionality of learning management system: Development and validation of a scale. In Shaping the Future of Education, Communication and Technology (pp. 165-177): Springer.

  38. Luckyardi, S., & Syaroni, D. A. W. (2020). Assessment of Lecturer Satisfaction, Working Quality and Productivity Toward Learning Management System. Paper presented at the international conference on Business, economic, social science, and humanities–economics, Business and management track (ICOBEST-EBM 2019).

  39. Ma, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Understanding online knowledge sharing: An interpersonal relationship perspective. Computers & Education, 56(1), 210–219.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mahlke, S. (2005). Understanding users' experience of interaction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference on European association of cognitive ergonomics.

  41. Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? I. Reliability and validity. Educational and psychological measurement.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Meerza, A., & Beauchamp, G. (2017). Factors influencing undergraduates attitudes towards ICT: An empirical study in Kheis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 16(2), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mingers, J., & Willcocks, L. (Eds.). (2004). Social theory and philosophy for information systems. Chichester: Wiley.

  44. Mirani, R., & King, W. R. (1994). The development of a measure for end-user computing support. Decision Sciences, 25(4), 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Neuman, W. (2006). Qualitative and quantitative research designs. WL Neuman, Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed., pp. 149-178). Boston: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

  46. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1−28.

  47. Persico, D., Manca, S., & Pozzi, F. (2014). Adapting the technology acceptance model to evaluate the innovative potential of e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 614–622.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Purarjomandlangrudi, A., Chen, D., & Nguyen, A. (2015). A systematic review approach to technologies used for learning and education. International Journal of Learning and Change, 8(2), 162–177.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Singh, H., & Miah, S. J. (2019). Design of a mobile-based learning management system for incorporating employment demands: Case context of an Australian University. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 995–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sumner, M., & Hostetler, D. (1999). Factors influencing the adoption of technology in teaching. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40(1), 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Swaak, M., De Jong, M., & De Vries, P. (2009). Effects of information usefulness, visual attractiveness, and usability on web visitors' trust and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at the 2009 IEEE international professional communication conference.

  53. Taiwo, A. A., Mahmood, A. K., & Downe, A. G. (2012). User acceptance of eGovernment: Integrating risk and trust dimensions with UTAUT model. Paper presented at the 2012 international conference on computer & information science (ICCIS).

  54. Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information & Management, 40(6), 541–549.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.

  56. Vichitvanichphong, S., Kerr, D., Talaei-Khoei, A., & Ghapanchi A.H. (2013). Analysis of research in adoption of assistive technologies for aged care. Proceedings of the 24th Australasian conference on information systems.

  57. Yakubu, M. N., & Dasuki, S. I. (2019). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning technologies among higher education students in Nigeria: A structural equation modelling approach. Information Development, 35(3), 492–502.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zanjani, N. (2017). The important elements of LMS design that affect user engagement with e-learning tools within LMSs in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1).

  59. Zheng, Y., Wang, J., Doll, W., Deng, X., & Williams, M. (2018). The impact of organisational support, technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management system. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(4), 311–319.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Hossein Ghapanchi.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghapanchi, A.H., Purarjomandlangrudi, A., McAndrew, A. et al. Investigating the impact of space design, visual attractiveness and perceived instructor presence on student adoption of learning management systems. Educ Inf Technol 25, 5053–5066 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10204-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Learning management systems
  • LMS
  • User adoption
  • Perceived instructor presence