Learning Management Systems for Teaching at University Level: Students’ Attitudes and Real Usage in the Classroom

Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 10)


This chapter aims to present a group of undergraduates’ attitudes and real experiences with online management platforms in the classroom. The students involved in the present experiment were enrolled in a university course in English for specific purposes. The use of online management systems by university instructors has been limited to the upload of documents for students to consult; as a consequence, an alternative and more updated classification of tools and uses is described here, combining online and offline employments of such platforms. Using a socio-constructivist theoretical framework, online interaction among the different agents in the classroom is analysed, having the following results: Participants in the study manifested their preference towards small group interaction, communication and the online distribution of information as opposed to big group sessions and error-focused instruction. At the end of the chapter, further implications in group dynamics are also offered.


Undergraduates Attitude Real experiences Online management platforms English for Specific Purposes Combining online and offline employments Socio-constructivist theoretical framework Online interaction Small group interaction Communication 


  1. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computer Education, 50(2), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bongalos, Y., et al. (2006). University teachers’ experiences in courseware development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brill, J., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors’ integration of technology in classroom-based practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho, A., et al. (2011). Students’ perceptions of blackboards and Moodle in a Portuguese university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 824–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Farrell, T. (2008). ‘Here’s the book, go teach the class’: ELT Practicum Support. RELC, 39(2), 226–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garrote, R. (2012). Barriers to a wider implementation of LMS in higher education. Eleed, 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
  9. Garrote, R., & Pettersson, T. (2007). Lecturers’ attitudes about the use of LMS in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Guey, C., Cheng, Y., & Shibata, S. (2010). A Triarcal instruction model: Integration of principles from behaviourism, cognitivism and humanism. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 9, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Murphy, L. (2008). Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the production of courses for distance learners of French, German and Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pérez Gómez, Á., Soto Gómez, E., Sola Fernández, M., & Serván Núñez, M. (2009). Aprender cómo aprender. Autonomía y responsabilidad: el aprendizaje de los estudiantes. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
  15. Richards, J. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC, 39(2), 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Slevin, J. (2000). The internet and society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  17. Taillefer de Haya, L., & Muñoz-Luna, R. (2011). Online glossary of English applied linguistics. In S. Maruenda-Bataller & B. Clavel-Arroitia (Eds.), Multiple voices in academic and professional discourse: Current issues in specialised language research, teaching and new technologies. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Taillefer de Haya, L., & Muñoz-Luna, R. (2013). Technology implementation in language teaching: Analysis of ICTs in teaching English as a foreign language. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Studies: A Section of The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 7(1), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang Ng, E., & Gunstone, R. (2003). Science and computer-based technologies: Attitudes of secondary science teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(2), 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Denmark Polytechnic UniversityLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations