Research Article

LMS-Enabled Blended Learning Use Intentions among Distance Education Tutors: Examining the Mediation Role of Attitude Based on Technology-Related Stimulus-Response Theoretical Framework

Brandford Bervell 1 * , Paul Nyagorme 1, Valentina Arkorful 1
More Detail
1 University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, College of Distance Education, Maths, Science & ICT, Ghana* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), October 2020, ep273, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8317
OPEN ACCESS   5513 Views   2850 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Distance education delivery has shifted from the mere meaning of distance due to the use of abridged technologies. Current distance education utilizes technologies that have made the term distance a metaphor. The affordances of technology have promoted student-student interaction; teacher-student interaction as well as student-student interaction across boundaries. This has been possible due to blended leaning that combines both the online component in addition to the face-to-face sessions. One of the technologies that have made blended learning possible in distance education is the Learning Management System (LMS). However, intentions towards the use of LMS have been a crucial element in contemporary literature especially in Africa. Consequently, one of the key determinants of LMS use intentions is attitude towards the technology. Hence, this study is focused on unraveling the key determinants of attitude based on a Technology-Related Stimulus-Response Theoretical Framework (TR-SR-TF) while addressing empirically, the mediating role of attitude on these determinants. In view of this, the study employed a survey design with the questionnaire as an instrument for data collection from a sample of 267 course tutors in distance education. The results from a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) approach revealed performance expectancy, effort expectancy and facilitating conditions as key antecedents of attitude towards LMS for blended learning. Again, attitude had a significant mediating effect on all three antecedents in determining behavioural intention towards LMS use for blended learning in distance education. The results of the study suggests that factors such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy and facilitating conditions should be critically addressed while implementing LMS-enabled blended learning because the former factors have a direct effect on attitude towards use intentions of blended learning for distance education delivery.
Keywords: distance education, LMS, blended learning, use intention, attitude, determinants

CITATION (APA)

Bervell, B., Nyagorme, P., & Arkorful, V. (2020). LMS-Enabled Blended Learning Use Intentions among Distance Education Tutors: Examining the Mediation Role of Attitude Based on Technology-Related Stimulus-Response Theoretical Framework. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep273. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8317

REFERENCES

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  2. Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 5(1). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120
  3. Aljaloud, M. (2012). Barriers to implementing Learning Management Systems in Saudi Arabian higher education (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Flinders University.
  4. Altanopoulou, P., & Tselios, N. (2017). Assessing acceptance toward wiki technology in the context of higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, 18(6), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.2995
  5. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
  6. Aoki, K. (2012). Generations of distance education: Technologies, pedagogies, and organizations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 55, 1183-1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.613
  7. Asiri, M. J. S., Mahmud, R., Bakar, K. A., & Ayub, F. M. A. (2012). Factors influencing the use of Learning Management System in Saudi Arabian higher education: A theoretical framework’. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v2n2p125
  8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
  9. 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 (IJETHE). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0183-9
  10. Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2016). ‘Mediators’, ‘The Mediated’ or ‘Predictors’: Re-Conceptualizing the Tripartite Role of Personality Factors in Higher Education Technology Acceptance. Proceedings from the 16th Annual Conference of the South East Asian Association of Institutional Research (SEAAIR), Suan Dusit University, Thailand, 21st-23rd September, 2016 (pp. 399-415).
  11. Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2017). Validation of the UTAUT model: Re-considering non-linear relationships of Exogeneous variables in higher education technology acceptance research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 6471-6490. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/78076
  12. 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 & E-Learning: An International Journal, 10(3), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2018.10.018
  13. Bervell, B., Umar, I. N., & Kamilin, M. H. (2019). Towards a model for online learning satisfaction (MOLS): re-considering non-linear relationships among personal innovativeness and modes of online interaction. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2019.1662776
  14. 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 (375651), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/375651
  15. Burns (2011). Distance Education for Teacher Training: Modes, Models, and Methods. Education Development Center, Inc. Washington, DC.
  16. Chen, H. R., & Huang, J. G. (2012). Exploring learner attitudes toward web-based recommendation learning service system for interdisciplinary applications. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 89-100. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.15.2.89
  17. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. (5th.ed.), New York: Harper & Row.
  18. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  19. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warsawa, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
  20. Davis, R., & Wong, D. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring the optimal experience of the eLearning environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 97-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00129.x
  21. Deperlioglu, O, Sarpkaya, Y & Ergun, E. (2011). Development of a relational database for Learning Management Systems. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 10(4), 107-120. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/53329/
  22. El-Gayar, O. F. & Moran, M. (2016). College students’ acceptance of tablet Pcs: An application of the UTAUT model. Dakota State University, 820, 2845-2850. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net
  23. 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. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GEjH_1kIUiglXDKCnQq1JOXhYCNp_1V/view
  24. Elias, S. M., Smith, W. L., & Barney, C. E. (2012). Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace: Work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.513419
  25. Essel, R., & Owusu-Boateng, W. (2011). Access and Success in Learning: Technologies for Scaling Up Open and Distance Learning Programme in the Institute of Distance Learning, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana. US-China Education Review (B 3), 423-429. http://hdl.handle.Net/11599/2230
  26. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). London: SAGE.
  27. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/ajzen/f&a1975.html
  28. Gasaymeh, A. (2009). A study of faculty attitudes toward internet-based distance education: A survey of two Jordanian public universities (PhD Thesis), the College of Education, Ohio University, Ohio, USA.
  29. Ghazal, S., Aldowah, H., Umar, I., & Bervell, B. (2018). Acceptance and satisfaction of learning management system enabled blended learning based on a modified DeLone-McLean information system success model. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management (IJITPM), 9(3), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITPM.2018070104
  30. Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate behavioral research, 26(3), 499-510. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7
  31. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.15358/9783800653614
  32. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. (2015). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  33. Hair, J. F., Hult, G., Tomas, M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Incorporated.
  34. Hastie, M., Hung, I., Chen, N., & Kinshuk (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525812
  35. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
  36. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). 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
  37. Horvat, A., Dobrota, M., Krsmanovic, M., & Cudanov, M. (2015). Student perception of Moodle learning management system: A satisfaction and significance analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 515-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.788033
  38. Hurst, K. R. (2010). Technology Acceptance in a Mandatory Technology-Based Learning Environment (PhD Thesis, The University of West Florida, Florida, US). Retrieved from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/WFE0000204
  39. Isaias, P., Reis, F., Coutinho, C., & Lencastre, J. A. (2017). Empathic technologies for distance /mobile learning: An empirical research based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 159-180. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2017-0014
  40. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling Methodology in the Social Sciences 4th ed. Guilford Publication: NY.
  41. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 11(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
  42. Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00302
  43. Kohnke, A., Cole, M. L., & Bush, R. G. (2014). Incorporating UTAUT predictors for understanding home care patients’ and clinician’s acceptance of healthcare Telemedicine equipment. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9, 29-41. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242014000200003
  44. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
  45. Kumi, R., Reychav, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2012). The Impact of Facilitating Conditions on Anxiety, Attitude, Self-Efficacy, And Performance: Insights from an Empirical Study of iPad Adoption. In Proceedings of the AIS SIGED IAIM 2012 Conference (pp. p. 1-14).
  46. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16-39. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
  47. Mbengo, P. (2014). E-learning adoption by lecturers in selected Zimbabwe State Universities: An application of Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Business Administration and Education, 6(1), 2014, 15-33. Retrieved February 22, 2020 from https://infinitypress.Info/index.php/jbae/article/view/886
  48. Mohamedbhai, G. (2011). Higher education in Africa: Facing the challenges in the 21st century. International Higher Education, 63, 20-21. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.63.8534
  49. Moore, J. (2014). Effects of online interaction and instructor presence on students’ satisfaction and success with online undergraduate public relations courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 69(3), 271-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695814536398
  50. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2004). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
  51. Mtebe, J. S. (2015). Learning Management System success: Increasing Learning Management System usage in higher education in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 11(2), 51. Retrieved February 19, 2020 from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=2005
  52. Mtebe, J. S., Mbwilo, B., & Kissaka, M. M. (2016). Factors influencing teachers’ use of multimedia enhanced content in secondary schools in Tanzania. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2280
  53. Nassuora, A. B. (2013). Students’ acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Learning Management Systems, 1(1), 1-9. Retrieved on February 12, 2020 from http://www.naturalspublishing.com/Article.asp?ArtcID=2552
  54. Nicholas-Omoregbe, O. S., Azeta, A. A., Chiazor, I. A., & Omoregbe, N. (2017). Predicting the adoption of E-Learning Management System: A case of selected private Universities in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306563
  55. Ntumy-Coleman, R. K. (2011). Assessing the adoption of e-learning in Ghanaian universities: Case of some Ghanaian universities (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Sweden: Luleå University.
  56. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  57. Oye, N. D., Iahad, A. N., & Rahim, A. B. N. (2012). Acceptance and usage of ICT by university academicians using UTAUT Model: A Case Study of University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 3(1), 2079-8407. Retrieved January 22, 2020 from http://cisjournal.org/journalofcomputing/Download_January_pdf_6.aspx
  58. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and prediction electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behaviour. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148720
  59. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behaviour Research Methods, 40(3), 897-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  60. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
  61. Shahadat, H. K., Mahbub, H., & Che, K. C. (2012). Barriers to the introduction of ICT into education in developing countries: The example of Bangladesh. International Journal of instruction, 5(2), 1380-1470. Retrieved January 30, 2020 from http://www.e-iji.net/volumes/318-july-2012-volume-5-number-2
  62. Sharma, A., & Vatta, S. (2013). Role of learning management systems in education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 3(6), 997-1002. Retrieved February 20, 2020 from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Role-of-Learning-Management-Systems-in-Education-Sharma-Vatta/3d19dc963e7 fb8ce49bb6bcc 9329aa03e22a6075
  63. Siemens, G., Gasévić, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the Digital University: A Review of the history and current state of distance, blended and online learning. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved February 15, 2020 from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/preparing-for-digital-university/
  64. Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful eLearning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
  65. Taiwo, A. A., & Downe, A. G. (2013). The Theory of User Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): A Meta-analytic review of empirical findings. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 49(1). Retrieved February 19, 2020 from http://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol49No1/fourtyninth_volume_
  66. 1_2013.php
  67. Taiwo, A. A., Downe, A. G., & Mahmood, A. K (2012). User acceptance of E-government: integrating risk and trust dimensions with UTAUT model. In proceedings at the International Conference on Computer and Information sciences. Kuala Lumpur. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCISci.2012.6297222
  68. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Factors affecting students’ acceptance of elearning environments in developing countries: a structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(1), 54. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.233
  69. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education, 52(1), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
  70. Teo, T. (2010). Examining the influence of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: a structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9066-4
  71. Thomas, T. D., Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(3), 71-85. Retrieved on February 15, 2020 from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=1687
  72. Tu, C.-H., Sujo-Montes, L., Yen, C.-J., Chan, J.-Y., & Blocher, M. (2012). The integration of personal learning environments & open network learning environments. Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 56(3), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0571-7
  73. Ursavaş, Ö. F., Yalçın, Y., & Bakır, E. (2019). The effect of subjective norms on preservice and in‐service teachers’ behavioural intentions to use technology: A multigroup multimodel study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12834
  74. Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001
  75. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision sciences, 39(2), 273-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
  76. Venkatesh, V., Morris, G. M., Davis, B. G., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  77. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
  78. Yamin, F. M., Hussain, W., Ishak W., & Ibrahim, A. (2014). Students’ Acceptance on Document Sharing through Learning Management System. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Education and Information Management (ICEIM-2014). Retrieved on February 16, 2020 from www.wanhussain.com
  79. Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302