Learning Management Systems - Literature review Example

Learning management Systems Name Tutor Institution Date Introduction The success of any online educational system will depend on three crucial steps: design, implementation and its assessment after implementation (Nagarajan & Jiji, 2010). Cost and effectiveness are the two major considerations when assessing an educational system and these considerations have resulted to education experts opting for the adoption of ICT. Improvement in information and communication technology has impacted strongly on learning. The information and communication technologies have supported learning and as a result, many organizations and institutions have invested heavily on the development of ICT. In a number of educational institutions, a number of initiatives such as that of ensuring that all educational institutions have internet access have been implemented to enhance the use of ICT in learning. However, there is need to evaluate the success of IS and arguments have emerged that this should extend beyond the traditional mere assessment of the return on investments to ascertain the costs and benefits of technology (Petter, DeLone & McLean, 2008; Rabaai & Gable, 2009). Much has so far been done in terms of research in a bid to come up with a better method of analyzing the success of information systems. This resulted to the emergence of proposed models that can be used information system impact or success and they include the DeLone and McLean (D&M) model of IS success (1992) and the Davis's (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Rabaai & Gable, 2009). The arguments of these two old models are heavily based on psychological theories and concepts such as the TAM model which heavily relies on the theory of reasoned action. The D&M model has since been modified by various scholars in a bid to enhance its effectiveness to assess the usefulness which according to them is a desirable measure of IS success rather than use (Petter, DeLone & McLean, 2008). Much research in the assessment of IS success has seen the emergence of more effective models. The most recent model is the IS-impact model that was proposed by Gable, Sedera & Chan (2008) and it is believed to be the most comprehensive assessment model. This research will delve more into these models and to ascertain the effectiveness of this latest model, this research will use the IS-Impact Measurement model (Gable, Sedera, & Chan 2008) to assess the impact of Blackboard system in a bid to help enhance the standards of existing learning environment in higher education. Currently, many organizations have shifted from the traditional training to learning. This shift has seen these organizations adopt e-learning as a method of enhancing learning. Despite this shift, most of them do not attain their objectives basically because the e-learning programs' objectives adopted are not decipherable and measurable and lack a well integrated plan. Ismail (2002) argues that most e-learning programs lack decipherable and measurable objectives. The type of learning systems framework developed will have a major impact on how an e-learning program will succeed. One of the most crucial component of this framework is management of learning (Ismail, 2002) and this can only be achieved if an e-learning system or application is employed. There are four kinds of e-learning systems. They are: The Learning management system (LMS), Learning Design System(LDS), Learning Content Management System(LCMS) and the Learning Support System(LSS) (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). All these applications are crucial elements of learning systems framework (Ismail, 2002) Learning Management System (LMS) is the most commonly used and it is used by different universities worldwide (Sekaran, 2003; Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). As a result of this, this research study will put much focus on learning management system. Learning Management System (LMS) Universities which have adopted Learning Management System (LMS) normally refer it as a Virtual Learning Environment (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013; Paulsen, 2003). The concept Learning Management System (LMS) has been defined differently by different scholars. Ayub et al., (2010), gave a precise definition and termed LMS as a web-based technology, which aids in designing, distribution and assessment of a certain process of learning. LMS is basically a software that has been designed to guide the entire learning process as well providing learning resources to the learners. It can also be termed as a set of tools and frame work that enable easy creation of web content and at the same time guiding learning (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). Wahlstedt & Honkaranta (2007), affirm that LMS is an advancement of traditional learning since consists of instructional devices, learning contents and evaluation devices. Quite unique with Learning management system is the fact that it can be used to plan, convey and manage learning thus combining various tasks earlier distributed to different stakeholders. Management tasks of LMS include; delivery, examinations, statistical analysis and virtual classes (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). "Learning Management System manages the log-in of registered users, manage course catalogs, record data from learners and provide reports to the management" (Paulsen, 2003). It is therefore a crucial tool in the management of institution basically it brings all the facets onboard. LMS is a crucial platform where learners and their instructors can interact and at the same time share learning materials. It can therefore be regarded as an advanced internet-based technology solution for both the learners and instructors because it allows the two parties can interact with the help of interactivity features such as forums, file sharing platforms and thread discussions (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). The Learning Management System can be used by the instructors to distribute courses and at the same time aiding in instructor-learner interaction (Almarashdeh et al., 2010). The management function of Learning management System is particularly of great importance because it requires less effort and it also saves time that could otherwise been wasted by the instructor without changing the entire instructional process. Threaded discussions, video conferencing and discussion forums are the key characteristics of Learning Management System (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). These features allow for an interactive learning environment. Learning Management System has tremendous effect on e-learning. According to Paulsen (2003), the presence of a Learning Management System will determine how e-learning will succeed. With a Learning Management System in place, an institution can easily develop web content, teach electronically, evaluate learners electronically and generate learners' databases for which the learners can access their results (Paulsen, 2003). Despite being helpful in aiding e-learning, there has been a gap between reality and other advanced instructional tools such as the multimedia believed to be helping in instruction (Almarashdeh et al., 2010). On many occasions, these multimedia tools are normally not being used or if they are used, instructors don't exploit them fully. For example, many institutions are currently using LMS to facilitate e-learning but instructors limit themselves to uploading course materials and barely use other features such as discussion forums (Almarashdeh et al., 2010). Other users have been discouraged by the fact that they don't get immediate feedback from features such as email (Almarashdeh et al., 2010). Although these interactive features have been included in LMS, their use may still be restricted by the commitment of both parties. LMS can be used as a bridge to the gap that exists between reality and advanced instructional tools. This can only be possible if the Learning Management System is built to be more adaptive and customizable (Almarashdeh et al., 2010). Building an adaptive and customizable LMS will help in ensuring that learners and instructors with different levels of computer literacy are accommodated. Learning Management System (LMS) in Higher Education Many institutions have integrated technology by adopting a LMS. Past research studies have indicated a considerable distinction in learner outcomes which is highly dependent on how instructors used technology (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). The findings of a study conducted have shown high acceptance levels of LMS amongst distance learners and instructors. The benefits of LMS for higher education include, but not limited to: a) Creating and delivering online teaching by uploading PowerPoint, audio and video files, and images. LMS can be used to import videos from You Tube or record voice to make training more engaging. b) It allows people to share learning content online, offline, or via mobile devices. LMS’ multiple publishing and content delivery options enables training to occur anytime, anywhere, on-demand. C) It also makes training interactive and collaborative by engaging audience through discussion forum, chat, notes and annotations. d) It facilitates keeping track of student’s activities in real time, as well as exporting reports to different formats, such as word format, adobe reader format and excel format. e) The mobile Learning Management System makes it possible for the institution to manage learning and online content, as well as assign courses to learners (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013). Blackboard System It is a web-based server software which features customizable open architecture, course management, that permits amalgamation with student information systems and authentication protocols. This system may be installed on local servers or hosted by blackboard ASP solutions, and its core purposes are to develop completely online courses with a few or no face- to - face meeting and add online elements to courses conventionally delivered face-to-face. The Blackboard Learning System provides users with a platform for sharing content and communication (Almarashdeh et al., 2010). On the side of communication, the blackboard system enhances announcements, that is, instructors can post annunciations for learners to read. Such announcements may be created as pop up messages or via the announcement available in the blackboard. A discussion feature makes it possible for the professors and students to create discussion threads and offer feedback. The chat function in the blackboard allows the learners to converse and share ideas. Lastly, the blackboard mail allows students and teachers to send mail to each other or to groups. Learning modules feature allows professors to post various lessons for students to access. Instructors can also post assignments and receive assignments via the assessment tab. Teachers and professors use grade book feature to post grades for students to view. Lastly, videos and other media can be posted under media library function. Information Systems (IS) Success Models and Measures Much has been done with regards to research on information system success measurement since its emergence into the academic disciplines in the 1990's. Despite having been researched extensively by use of different approaches, scholars have failed to come up with a unified decision on a common measure if information system success. As a result of these diverse studies, scholars have had differing opinions thus coming up with different models. However, the most discussed IS success model is the DeLone and McLean (1992) model (Gable, Sedera & Chan, 2003; Gable, Sedera & Chan, 2008; Elias & Cao, 2009). This model emerged upon the review of communications' research done by Shannon and Weaver (1963) and the information influence theory work done by Mason (1978). According to Gable, Sedera and Chan (2003;2008), it was difficult to use these studies in the IS success measurement owing to the fact that researchers had lumped together different factors of success thus making it difficult to use (DeLone & McLean, 2003). The DeLone and McLean (1992) model emerged from the synthesis and harmonization of these earlier separated measures (Rabaai & Gable, 2009). The DeLone and McLean model has six major IS success constructs and they include: system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact and organizational impact (Rabaai & Gable 2009; Elias & Cao, 2009). These constructs can be summarized diagrammatically as shown in the figure 1 below. Fig 1 The D&M IS success model (Source: Rabaai & Gable 2009) This model has been subjected to analysis and it has been highlighted to make major contributions in the IS success measurement. In a similar way, the model has also been subjected to criticisms. One of the major contributions that this model has made in the realm of IS research is the summary of commonalities of previous research studies (Elias & Cao, 2009). On the other hand, this model has received sharp criticism in the confusion it brings by combining the process and cause in the model (Seddon, 1997). The DeLone and McLean's model was further subjected to review by Seddon (1997) to give an advanced version of the D&M model. In his review Seddon (1997) removed the interpretation process of the D&M model and fragmented the remainder into two different models; the partial behavioral model of IS use and the IS success model (Wang, Wang & Shee, 2007). The updated IS model done by Seddon has six dimensional components and they include: information quality, service quality, system quality, use, user satisfaction and net benefits (Wang Wang & Shee, 2007). A recent update of D&M model had several changes. Notable changes in the Delone and McLean (2003) model include: Inclusion of service quality as one of the dimensions. The introduction of 'intention of use' in place of the 'use' dimension. The introduction of 'net benefits' dimension as a combination of 'individual impact' and 'organizational impact' dimensions. A feedback loop was introduced to link the 'net benefits' dimension and the 'use' and 'user satisfaction' dimensions. An inclusion of explanation that arrows exhibited associations among dimensions in a process sense (Wang, Wang & Shee, 2007; Rabaai & Gable, 2009) These changes can be summarized by fig 2. Updated DeLone and McLean (2003) IS-success model (Source: Rabaai & Gable, 2009) Despite the fact that these three IS models; DeLone & McLean (1992), Seddon model and Update DeLone & McLean model have contributed immensely to the IS success measurement research, they have failed to address several issues. One major setback of these models that has not been addressed is failure to address the constructs as either formative or reflective (Gable, Sedera & Chan, 2008). A good example of such as a confusion was highlighted by Petter et al., (2007) and they argue that constructs were under threat of being mis-specified and validated as reflective while close scrutiny could easily reveal that they are formative. In addition to this, the D&M IS success model has widely been criticized for failure to offer a good and clear explanation on its theoretical and epistemological basis (Gable, Sedera & Chan, 2008). It is for this reasons that the IS-impact model has always been suggested as the best option to address these weaknesses. The IS-Impact model The IS-Impact model, that was proposed by Gable, Sedera and Chan in (2008) has always been regarded as a comprehensive and valid IS success measurement model (Elias & Cao, 2009). Gable et al. (2008) have given their proposed definition of the IS-impact of an Information System (IS) and they define is as “a measure at a point in time, of the stream of net benefits from the IS, to date and anticipated, as perceived by all key-user groups” (Rabaa'i, 2009). This model was designed basing on the work of DeLone & McLean and it corrects the setbacks of D&M IS success model. The IS-Impact measurement model differs from the old D&M IS measurement model in five ways. These are: It reflects a true measurement model rather than causal/process model depicted by the D&M model. The use dimension has been omitted. It regards satisfaction as a measure of success rather than a dimension of success. The modern IS context has been put into consideration through the inclusion of new measures. Additional measures have been added to deeply examine organizational dimension (Rabaa'i, 2009). The IS-Impact model can be diagrammatically represented as shown in fig 3 below. The IS-Impact Measurement Model (Source: Gable, Sedera & Chan, 2008) Justification of IS-Impact Model The IS-Impact measurement model is more comprehensive and valid model for use. According to Rabaa'i (2009), this model has been tested statistically though surveys and has proven to be valid and it employs the perceptual measures. These tests depicted the validity and reliability of this model. Despite borrowing heavily from the DeLone & McLean model by adopting its constructs, it has succeeded in employing them for a different purpose (Gable, Sedera & Chan, 2008). The model and approach employs perpetual measures, aiming to offer a common instrument answerable by all relevant stakeholder groups, thereby enabling combining or comparison of stakeholder perspectives (Elias & Cao, 2009). This model has been adopted in this research owing to its strengths in comparison to other models. It is quite clear that this model has eliminated all the weaknesses of other models by including and reviewing their constructs. References Adzharuddin, A. & Ling, H. L. 2013. Learning management Systems among University Students: Does it Work? International Journal for e-Education, e-Business, e-Management, and e-Learning, 3(3): 248- 251. Almarashdeh, A., Sahari, N., Zin, M. & Alsmadi, M. 2010. The success of learning management system among distance learners in Malaysia Universities. Journal of theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 21(2): 80-91. Ayub, A. F. M., Rohani, A. T, Wan, M. W. J., Wan, Z. W. A., & Luan, W. S. 2010. Factors influencing Students Use a Learning management System portal: perspective from Higher Learning Students. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 2, pp4 Cao, M. Zhang, Q. & Seydel, J. 2005. B2C e-commerce web site quality: an Empirical Industrial management Data Systems, 105(5): 645- 661. 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): 9-21. Elias, N. F. & Cao, L. 2009. Validating the IS-Impact Model: Two Exploratory Case Studies in China and Malaysia. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) 2009 Proceedings. Gable, G., Sedera, D. & Chan, T. (2003). Enterprise systems success: a measurement model. Proceedings of the 24th ICIS, Seattle, Washington. Gable, G., Sedera, D., & Chan, T. (2008). Re-conceptualizing Information System Success: the IS-Impact Measurement Model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. (9:7): 377-408. Ismail, J. 2002. The Design of an e-learning system Beyond the Hype. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2002): 329-336. Nagarajan, P. & Jiji, G. W. 2010. Online Educational System (e-learning). International Journal of u- and e- Service, Science and Technology, 3(4): 37-48. Paulsen, M. F. (2003). Experiences with Learning Management Systems in 113 European Institutions. Educational Technology & Society, 6 (4): 134-148. Petter, S., D. Straub & A. Rai. 2007. Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Petter, S., DeLone, W. & McLean, E. 2008. Measuring Information System Success: models, dimensions, measures and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17: 236-263. Rabaai, A. A. & Gable, G. 2009. Extending the IS Impact Model into the Higher Education Sector (Research in Progress). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Rabaa'i, A. A. 2009. Assessing Information Systems Success Models: Empirical Comparison (Research in Progress). In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2-4 December 2009, Caulfield Campus, Monash University, Melbourne. Seddon, P. B. 1997. A Re-specification and Extension of DeLone and McLean model of IS Success. Information Systems Research, 8(3): 240-253. Sekaran, U. 2003. Research methods for Business; A skill building Approach, 4th ed. Haboken: John Wiley & Sons. systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4): 623-656. Wahlstedt, A. & Honkaranta, A. 2007.Bridging the gap between Advanced Distributed Teaching and Use of learning management Systems in the University Context, Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced learning Technologies (ICALT 2007) Wang, Y. S, Wang, H. Y, & Shee, D. Y. 2007. Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4): 1792- 1808. Read More