Research Article

Investigating the Use of Learning Management System (LMS) for Distance Education in Malaysia: A Mixed-Method Approach

Nagaletchimee Annamalai 1 , T. Ramayah 2 , Jeya Amantha Kumar 3 * , Sharifah Osman 4
More Detail
1 School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia2 School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia3 Centre for Instruction Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia4 Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), July 2021, ep313, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10987
OPEN ACCESS   5008 Views   2775 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Technology acceptance research explains the adaptation of learning technology by accounting for the use of technologies. This mixed-method study investigated the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) for distance education in Malaysia using the extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Limited studies on LMS for Malaysia higher education studies focusing on distance learning are warranted due to the diversity of resources, maturity, and education as working adults contrasting from traditional undergraduates. The survey on 205 respondents revealed that the extended TAM, which includes perceived resources, explained variance in attitudes (R2= 56.2%) and actual use (R2= 34.5%) adequately. Concurrently, indicating perceived ease of use and perceived resources as a determiner for the attitude which predicts actual use. Subsequently, a semi-structured interview on 15 respondents supported this as it was inferred that respondents’ attitude was mainly determined by their perception of the role of LMS to facilitate learning activities. Furthermore, inconveniences in accessing learning contents and lack of interactive learning activities are the respondents’ primary concern, reflecting on the predictive role of perceived ease of use. The findings also provide appropriate guidance for the pedagogical design and LMS implementation for distance education based on affordance and inclusivity.
Keywords: extended TAM, perceive resources, distance learning, Moodle, higher education

CITATION (APA)

Annamalai, N., Ramayah, T., Kumar, J. A., & Osman, S. (2021). Investigating the Use of Learning Management System (LMS) for Distance Education in Malaysia: A Mixed-Method Approach. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), ep313. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10987

REFERENCES

  1. Abdul Lasi, M. (2021). Online distance learning perception and readiness during Covid-19 outbreak: A research review article in international journal of academic research in progressive education and development. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(1), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i1/8593
  2. Al-Busaidi, K. A. (2013). An empirical investigation linking learners’ adoption of blended learning to their intention of full e-learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(11), 1168-1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.774047
  3. Almarashdeh, I., & Alsmadi, M. (2016). Investigating the acceptance of technology in distance learning program. 2016 International Conference on Information Science and Communications Technologies, ICISCT 2016, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISCT.2016.7777404
  4. Annamalai, N., & Kumar, J. A. (2020). Understanding smartphone use behavior among distance education students in completing their coursework in English: a mixed-method approach. Reference Librarian, 61(3-4), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2020.1815630
  5. Aybay, I., & Dağ, O. O. (2003). A learning management system developed at the Eastern Mediterranean University. The Turkish Online: A Learning Management System, 2(2), 14-19.
  6. Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D. J. (2018). Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 93-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9587-0
  7. Belaja, K., Teoh, G., Sai, B., Liau, A., & Lin, W. (2012). Effects of the lecturer’s transactional presence towards learners’ intrinsic motivation in learning english as a second language through distance education. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 77-97.
  8. Bervell, B., & Arkorful, V. (2020). LMS-enabled blended learning utilization in distance tertiary education: establishing the relationships among facilitating conditions, voluntariness of use and use behaviour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0183-9
  9. Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2018). Utilization decision towards LMS for blended learning in distance education: Modeling the effects of personality factors in exclusivity. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 10(3), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2018.10.018
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  11. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3402_1
  12. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
  13. Chung, E., Subramaniam, G., & Dass, L. C. (2020). Online learning readiness among university students in Malaysia amidst Covid-19. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 16(2), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10294
  14. Cigdem, H., & Ozturk, M. (2016). Factors affecting students’ behavioral intention to use lms at a turkish post-secondary vocational school. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2253
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  16. Davis, F.D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  17. Davis, Fred 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  18. Escobar-Rodriguez, T., & Monge-Lozano, P. (2012). The acceptance of Moodle technology by business administration students. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1085-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.012
  19. Exter, M. E., & Ashby, I. (2019). Preparing today’s educational software developers: voices from the field. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(3), 472-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9198-9
  20. Ferianda, M. R., Herdiani, A., & Sardi, I. L. (2018). Increasing students interaction in distance education using gamification. 2018 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), 0(c), 125-129. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICoICT.2018.8528765
  21. Fernando, Z. F., Rosalba, C. C., Francisco, L. T., Andres, V. F., & Dionicio, Z. F. (2008). u-Teacher: Ubiquitous learning approach. In Technologies for e-learning and digital entertainment. Edutainment 2008 (Lecture No, pp. 9-20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69736-7_2
  22. Fleischmann, K. (2018). Hype or help? technology enhanced learning in the classroom: An experiment in online design collaboration hype or help? International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 11(1), 331-341.
  23. Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515
  24. Gros, B., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Future trends in the design strategies and technological affordances of e-learning. In M. J. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology. An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1-23). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_67-11
  25. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
  26. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2018). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  27. Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), 498-501. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334
  28. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  29. Hubona, G. S., & Kennick, E. (1996, January). The influence of external variables on information technology usage behavior. In Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 166-175). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1996.495323
  30. Ifinedo, P., Pyke, J., & Anwar, A. (2018). Business undergraduates’ perceived use outcomes of Moodle in a blended learning environment: The roles of usability factors and external support. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.001
  31. Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Sage.
  32. Kim, Y., & Thayne, J. (2015). Effects of learner–instructor relationship-building strategies in online video instruction. Distance Education, 36(1), 100-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019965
  33. Ku, C.-H. (2009). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model using perceived user resources in higher education web-based online learning courses [Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida]. UCF Repository. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/3867
  34. Kumar, J. A. & Al-Samarraie, H. (2018). MOOCs in the Malaysian higher education institutions: The instructors’ perspectives. The Reference Librarian, 59(3), 163-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2018.1458688
  35. Kumar, J.A., Bervell, B., & Osman, S. (2020). Google classroom: Insights from Malaysian higher education students’ and instructors’ experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4175-4195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10163-x
  36. Lee, Y.-C. (2008). The role of perceived resources in online learning adoption. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1423-1438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.001
  37. Lemay, D. J., Morin, M. M., Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2018). Modeling students’ perceptions of simulation-based learning using the technology acceptance model. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 20, 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.04.004
  38. Maruping, L. M., Bala, H., Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2017). Going beyond intention: Integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 623-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23699
  39. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86-112. https://doi.org/10.1145/506724.506730
  40. Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802395771
  41. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publication.
  42. Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satisfaction: understanding the role of enterprise resource planning system implementation. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721418
  43. Mukoviz, O., Ihnatenko, N., & Kovtun, O. (2019). Selection of the distance learning management system for pedagogical higher education institutions. Open Educational E-Environment of Modern University, special edition, 215-221. https://doi.org/10.28925/2414-0325.2019s20
  44. Nicholas-Omoregbe, O. S., Azeta, A. A., Chiazor, I. A., & Omoregbe, N. (2017). E-learning management system: A case of selected private universities in Omoregbe, Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 106-121.
  45. Novo-Corti, I., Varela-Candamio, L., & Ramil-Díaz, M. (2013). E-learning and face to face mixed methodology: Evaluating effectiveness of e-learning and perceived satisfaction for a microeconomic course using the Moodle platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 410-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.006
  46. Olivier, J. (2016). Blended learning in a first-year language class: Evaluating the acceptance of an interactive learning environment. Literator - Journal of Literary Criticism, Comparative Linguistics and Literary Studies, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/lit.v37i2.1288
  47. Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 207-217.
  48. Rahman, K. A., Ghazali, S. A. M., & Ismail, M. N. (2010). The effectiveness of learning management system (LMS) case study at Open University Malaysia (OUM), Kota Bharu Campus. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 2(2), 73-79.
  49. Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0: An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis. Pearson.
  50. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH.
  51. Saidi, R. M., Sharip, A. A., Abd Rahim, N. Z., Zulkifli, Z. A., & Md Zain, S. M. (2021). Evaluating students’ preferences of open and distance learning (ODL) Tools. Procedia Computer Science, 179(2019), 955-961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.085
  52. Sivo, S. A., Ku, C. H., & Acharya, P. (2018). Understanding how university student perceptions of resources affect technology acceptance in online learning courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 72-91. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2806
  53. Smith, J. A., & Sivo, S. A. (2012). Predicting continued use of online teacher professional development and the influence of social presence and sociability. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 871-882. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01223.x
  54. Sobaih, A. E. E., Moustafa, M. A., Ghandforoush, P., & Khan, M. (2016). To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 296-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.002
  55. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2015). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 739-755. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12169
  56. Thah, S. S., & Latif, L. A. (2020) Learning outcomes in distance learning: a study of learners’ experience. In K. C. Li, E. Y. M. Tsang, & B. T. M. Wong (Eds.), Innovating Education in Technology-Supported Environments. Education Innovation Series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6591-5_2
  57. Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2017). Understanding students’ learning practices: challenges for design and integration of mobile technology into distance education. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1088869
  58. Waheed, M., Kaur, K., Ain, N., & Hussain, N. (2016). Perceived learning outcomes from Moodle. Information Development, 32(4), 1001-1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915581719
  59. Washington, G. Y. (2019). The learning management system matters in face-to-face higher education courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519874037
  60. Weng, F., Yang, R.-J., Ho, H.-J., & Su, H.-M. (2018). A TAM-based study of the attitude towards use intention of multimedia among school teachers. Applied System Innovation, 1(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi1030036
  61. Yacob, N. H. M., Syazwani, N., Fadzillah, M., Hawani, N., Abdul, W., Mustafa, L. M., Jamaluddin, S., Barieyah, A., & Bahari, M. (2020). Learning experience and barriers throughout open distance learning mode: A case study of UITM Pahang. GADING (Online) Journal of Social Sciences, 23(2), 25-33.
  62. Yalcin, M. E., & Kutlu, B. (2019). Examination of students’ acceptance of and intention to use learning management systems using extended TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2414-2432. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12798
  63. Zwain, A. A. A. (2019). Technological innovativeness and information quality as neoteric predictors of users’ acceptance of learning management system: An expansion of UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(3), 239-254. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2018-0065