Learning Management System: An Innovation in Teaching Learning Process at University Level

Asif Nadeem; Nosheen Malik; Shaista Noreen

doi:10.52633/jemi.v3i2.106

Authors

Asif Nadeem Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan Author
Nosheen Malik Department of Education, IUB, Punjab Pakistan Author
Shaista Noreen Department of Education, IUB, Punjab, Pakistan Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52633/jemi.v3i2.106

Keywords:

Innovation, Educational Technologies, Learning Management System, Higher Education System, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)

Abstract

The Learning Management System (LMS) has attained great significance in the innovative teaching-learning process at the university level during pandemics. The 21^st century saw innovation in technology use and incorporation of LMS in the teaching-learning process. The major objective of the present study was to determine the teacher-learner perception towards the adaptation of the Learning Management System and to examine the adoption baseline for LMS by incorporating critical external factors in the technology acceptance model. A mixed-method research approach was used. Data was collected from 400 learners and 20 teachers. It was found that teacher’s perception of LMS is affected by a number of factors related to social influence, perceived ease of use and usefulness. In addition, factors such as actual use of the system and content qualities are also important to whether teachers embrace a system or not. The study provides some useful insights on LMS adoption and highlights how innovative tools can transform the conventional learning landscape.

Author Biographies

Asif Nadeem, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan

Department of Education, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Nosheen Malik, Department of Education, IUB, Punjab Pakistan

Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Shaista Noreen, Department of Education, IUB, Punjab, Pakistan

Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan

References

Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238-256.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Alam, F., Hadgraft, R. G., & Alam, Q. (2014). eLearning: Challenges and opportunities. In Using technology tools to innovate assessment, reporting, and teaching practices in engineering education (pp. 217-226): IGI Global.

Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’z behavioral intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155.

Al-Mushasha, N. F. A. (2013). Determinants of e-learning acceptance in higher education environment based on extended technology acceptance model. Paper presented at the 2013 Fourth International Conference on e-Learning" Best Practices in Management, Design and Development of e-Courses: Standards of Excellence and Creativity".

Amin, F. M., & Sundari, H. (2020). EFL students’ preferences on digital platforms during emergency remote teaching: Video Conference, LMS, or Messenger Application?. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 362-378.

Bilgiç, H. G., Doğan, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Current situation of online learning in Turkish higher education institutions: Needs, problems, and possible solutions. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 1(2), 80-87.

Boateng, R., Mbrokoh, A. S., Boateng, L., Senyo, P. K., & Ansong, E. (2016). Determinants of e-learning adoption among students of developing countries. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology.

Bousbahi, F., & Alrazgan, M. S. (2015). Investigating IT faculty resistance to learning management system adoption using latent variables in an acceptance technology model. The Scientific World Journal, 2015.

Chu, T.-H., & Chen, Y.-Y. (2016). With good we become good: Understanding e-learning adoption by theory of planned behavior and group influences. Computers & Education, 92, 37-52.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology—A response to “Fool’s Gold”. AACE Journal, 11(1), 7-69.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Pearson.

Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Davis, L. L., Kong, X., McBride, Y., & Morrison, K. M. (2017). Device comparability of tablets and computers for assessment purposes. Applied Measurement in Education, 30(1), 16-26.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., . . . Javitz, H. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort.

Glaubke, C. (2007). The effects of interactive media on preschoolers’ learning: A review of the research and recommendations for the future. Oakland, CA: Children Now.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(5), 890

Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R. D., & Shaul, D. (2002). E‐learning: research and applications. Industrial and commercial training.

Huynh, M. Q., Umesh, U., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). E-learning as an emerging entrepreneurial enterprise in universities and firms. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 3.

Joshi, A., Vinay, M., & Bhaskar, P. (2020). Impact of coronavirus pandemic on the Indian education sector: perspectives of teachers on online teaching and assessments. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.

Jurubescu, T. (2008). Learning content management system. Revista Informatica Economica, 4(48), 91-94.

Kanwal, F., & Rehman, M. (2017). Factors affecting e-learning adoption in developing countries–empirical evidence from Pakistan’s higher education sector. IEEE Access, 5, 10968-10978.

Khairudin, N., Khairudin, R., Hamid, M. N. A., Hancock, P., McGill, T., & Zamani, Z. A. (2016). The importance of human capital perspective in the learning management system (LMS) decision making process at universities. Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, 30(2).

Khan, I. M. (2009). An analysis of the motivational factors in online learning. University of Phoenix.

Khasawneh, M., & Yaseen, A. B. (2017). Critical success factors for e-learning satisfaction, Jordanian Universities’ experience. Journal of Business & Management (COES&RJ-JBM), 5(1), 56-69.

Kim, D. R., Kim, B. G., Aiken, M. W., & Park, S. C. (2006). The Influence of Individual, Task, Organizational Support, and Subject Norm Factors on the Adoption of Groupware. Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal, 9(2).

Lazar, S. (2015). The importance of educational technology in teaching. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 3(1).

Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS quarterly, 657-678.

Lim, D. H. (2004). Cross cultural differences in online learning motivation. Educational Media International, 41(2), 163-175.

Ma, C. M., Chao, C. M., & Cheng, B.-W. (2013). Integrating technology acceptance model and task-technology fit into blended e-learning system. JApSc, 13(5), 736-742.

McFarland, D. J., & Hamilton, D. (2006). Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Computers in human behavior, 22(3), 427-447.

Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609-611.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction: John Wiley & Sons.

Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (2006). Recommended books. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 18(1), 135.

Ninoriya, S., Chawan, P., & Meshram, B. (2011). CMS, LMS and LCMS for elearning. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), 8(2), 644.

O'Neill, G. P. (1986). Teacher Education or Teacher Training: Which is it? McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, 21(003).

Poulova, P., Simonova, I., & Manenova, M. (2015). Which one, or another? Comparative analysis of selected LMS. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 1302-1308.

Ramírez Anormaliza, R. I., Sabaté i Garriga, F., & Llinàs Audet, F. J. (2016). The acceptance and use of the e-learning systems among the university teachers in Ecuador. Paper presented at the EDULEARN16 Proceedings.

Rozac, J., Ballester, J. V., & Buendía, F. (2012). A model-based approach to integrate e-learning platforms and social networks using a service-oriented framework. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 44(3), 247.

Saadé, R. G., He, X., & Kira, D. (2007). Exploring dimensions to online learning. Computers in human behavior, 23(4), 1721-1739.

Simões, J., Redondo, RD, & Vilas, AF (2013). A social gamification framework for the K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 (2), 345-353.

Taimur-ul-Hassan, A. R. S. (2013). ICTs in learning: Problems faced by Pakistan. Journal of Research, 7(1), 52-64.

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153-163.

Teo, C. B., & Gay, R. K. L. (2006). A knowledge-driven model to personalize e-learning. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 6(1), 3-es.

Vallerand, R. J., & Blssonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of personality, 60(3), 599-620.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.

Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders' analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26-36.

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.