Utilizing Learning Management System Technology: Modelling the Tripartite Relationships Among Previous Technology Use Experience, Technology Self-Efficacy, and Use Behavior

Brandford Bervell 1 2 * , Irfan Naufal Umar 2, Moses Segbenya 3, Justice Kofi Armah 1, Beatrice Asante Somuah 4, Rosemary Twum 5
More Detail
1 Mathematics and Science Department, College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, GHANA
2 Center for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, MALAYSIA
3 Business Department, College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, GHANA
4 Education Department, College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, GHANA
5 Department of Mathematics and ICT Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, GHANA
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 12, Issue 4, Article No: e202240. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/12530
OPEN ACCESS   2400 Views   1385 Downloads   Published online: 14 Oct 2022
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study sought to find out how previous technology use experience, technology self-efficacy, and use behavior relate among themselves towards learning management system (LMS) technology uptake. This is because LMS has been adopted by higher educational institutions during both the COVID-19 lockdown and post-COVID-19 era. Nonetheless, evidence shows lack of training of tutors in utilizing the LMS technology for pedagogical purposes during the emergency remote learning paradigm. Owing to that, most tutors relied on their previous technology use experiences to cultivate a self-belief towards the actual use behavior of leaning management system for their teaching and learning. Consequently, a quantitative approach based on a survey design was adopted, and questionnaire used to collect data from a purposive sample of 267 tutors in a traditional face-to-face distance setting. Results from a partial least squares structural equation modelling approach proved a positive statistically significant effect of both previous technology use experience and technology self-efficacy on LMS use behavior. Additionally, previous technology use experience positively determined technology self-efficacy with the latter having a significant indirect and mediation effect on the former towards LMS use behavior. The results of this study provided insights into the tripartite relationships existing among these three important variables. Based on the findings, recommendations were made to higher educational institutions towards the adoption of LMSs by tutors.
Keywords: previous technology use experience, technology self-efficacy, LMS use behavior, blended learning, distance higher education, structural equation modelling

CITATION

Bervell, B., Umar, I. N., Segbenya, M., Armah, J. K., Somuah, B. A., & Twum, R. (2022). Utilizing Learning Management System Technology: Modelling the Tripartite Relationships Among Previous Technology Use Experience, Technology Self-Efficacy, and Use Behavior. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4), e202240. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/12530

REFERENCES

  • Aladsani, H. K. (2022). A narrative approach to university instructors’ stories about promoting student engagement during COVID-19 emergency remote teaching in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54 (sup1), s165-s181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1922958
  • Almahasees, Z., Mohsen, K., & Amin, M. O. (2021). Faculty’s and students’ perceptions of online from formal, informal, and independent professional learning. Frontiers in Education, 6, 638470. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.638470
  • Amid, A., & Din, R. (2021). Acceptance and use of massive open online courses: Extending UTAUT2 with personal innovativeness. Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1), 57-66.
  • Bandura, A. (1994). Self‐efficacy. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Barton, E. A., & Dexter, S. (2019). Sources of teachers’ self-efficacy for technology integration learning during COVID-19. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09671-6
  • Bervell, B. (2018). Distance education tutors’ acceptance of learning management system for blended learning in Ghana [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
  • 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 behavior. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(6), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0183-9
  • 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 & E-Learning, 10(3), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2018.10.018
  • Bervell, B., Umar, I. N., Kumar, J. A., Somuah, B. A., & Arkorful, V. (2021). Blended learning acceptance scale (BLAS) in distance higher education: Toward an initial development and validation. SAGE Open, 11(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040073
  • Bove, L. A., & Conklin, S. (2020). Learning strategies for faculty during a learning management system migration. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 23(1), 1-10.
  • Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2015). Teachers’ ICT usage in second-cycle institutions in Ghana: A qualitative study. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 11(2), 104-112.
  • Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2021). The acceptance of learning management systems and video conferencing technologies: Lessons learned from COVID‑19. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y
  • Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  • Chu, R. J.-C. (2010). How family support and internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among higher aged adults: Analyses of gender and age differences. Computers & Education, 55(1), 255-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.011
  • Chu, R. J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Self‐directed learning readiness, internet self‐efficacy and preferences towards constructivist internet‐based learning environments among higher‐aged adults. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 489-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00324.x
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.2307/249749
  • Dogru, M. (2017). Development of a self-efficacy scale of technology usage in education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 1785-1798. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1204a
  • Donham, C., Barron, H. A., Alkhouri, J. S., Kumarath, M. C., Alejandro, W., Menke, E., & Kranzfelder, P. (2022). I will teach you here or there, I will try to teach you anywhere: Perceived supports and barriers for emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00335-1
  • Durak, G., & Cankaya, S. (2019). Learning management systems: Popular LMSs and their comparison. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), The handbook of research on challenges and opportunities in launching a technology driven international university. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6255-9.ch016
  • Elbitar, H. M. M. (2015). Egyptian industrial education teachers’ perceived computer self-efficacy. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 7(8), 80-88.
  • Fong, C. J., Dillard, J. B., & Hatcher, M. (2019). Teaching self-efficacy of graduate student instructors exploring faculty motivation, perceptions of autonomy support, and undergraduate student engagement. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.ijer.2019.08.018
  • Gambari, A. I., Shittu, A. T., Ogunlade, O. O., & Osunlade, O. R. (2017). Effectiveness of blended learning and eLearning modes of instruction on the performance of undergraduates in Kwara State, Nigeria. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 25-36.
  • Granziera, H., & Perera, H. N. (2019). Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, engagement, and work satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.003
  • Gunasinghe, A., Hamid, J., Khatibi, A., & Azam, S. (2018). Does the lecturer’s innovativeness drive VLE adoption in higher education institutes? A study based on extended UTAUT. Journal of Information Technology Management, 10(3), 20-42. https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2019.285648.2382
  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE.
  • Heng, K., & Sol, K. (2020). Online learning during COVID-19: Key challenges and suggestions to enhance effectiveness. Cambodian Education Forum. https://cambodianeducationorumwordpress.com/2020/12/08/online-learning-during-covid-19-key-challenges-and suggestions-to-enhance-effectiveness/
  • 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
  • Heriyanto, Christiani, L., & Rukiyah. (2022). Lecturers’ information literacy experience in remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE, 17(3), e0259954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259954
  • Hong, J. C., Liu, X., Cao, W., Tai, K. H., & Zhao, L. (2022). Effects of self-efficacy and online learning mind states on learning ineffectiveness during the COVID-19 lockdown. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1967818
  • Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  • Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford Publication.
  • 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
  • Li, L. (2010). A critical review of technology acceptance literature. http://swdsi.org/swdsi2010/SW2010_Preceedings/papers/PA104.pdf
  • Ma’arop, A. H., & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: A review of the literature. International Education Studies, 9(3), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n3p41
  • Mormina, M. (2019). Science, technology, and innovation as social goods for development: Rethinking research capacity building from Sen’s capabilities approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25, 671-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0037-1
  • Pan, X. (2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 564294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294
  • Park, H., & Shea, P. (2020). A review of ten-year research through co-citation analysis: Online learning, distance learning, and blended learning. Online Learning Journal, 24(2), 225-244. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2001
  • Pearson. (2020). Online vs. blended learning: Which is better? Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/asia/insights-and-ideas/learning-english/2020/07/online-vs--blended-learning--which-is-better--.html
  • Ponners, P., & Asim, S. (2016). Beyond the classroom walls: Technology infusion advancing science education. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 83(1), 61.
  • Pruet, P., Ang, C. S., & Farzin, D. (2016). Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in underdeveloped areas: Students’ technology experience, learning styles and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(Part B), 1131-1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.063
  • Rad, M. S., Nilashi, M., Dahlan, H. M., & Ibrahim, O. (2019). Academic researchers’ behavioral intention to use academic social networking sites: A case of Malaysian research universities. Information Development, 35(2), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666917741923
  • Rambe, P. (2016). The role of educational technology in design and delivery of curricula programmes at a South African university: The case of STEPS at the Central University of Technology. The African Journal of Information Systems, 8(2), 86-113.
  • Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guardia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 Crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 923-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
  • Roztocki, N., Soja, P., & Weistroffer, H. R. (2019). The role of information and communication technologies in socioeconomic development: Towards a multi-dimensional framework. Information Technology for Development, 25(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1596654
  • Shih, P. C., Munoz, D., & Sánchez, F. (2006). The effect of previous experience with information and communication technologies on performance in a web-based learning program. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 962-970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.016
  • Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. Link Research Lab. http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf
  • Stauffer, B. (2020). What’s the difference between online learning and distance learning? The Applied Education System. https://www.aeseducation.com/blog/online-learning-vs-distance-learning
  • Sulaymani, O., Pratama, A. R., Alshaikh, M., & Alammary, A. (2022). The effects of previous experience and self-efficacy on the acceptance of e-learning platforms among younger students in Saudi Arabia. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(2), ep349. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11524
  • Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
  • Tinmaz, H., & Lee, J. H. (2020). An analysis of users’ preferences on learning management systems: A case on German versus Spanish students. Smart Learning Environments, 7(30), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00141-8
  • Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Maruping, L. M., & Bala, H. (2008). Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: the competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Quarterly, 32, 483-502. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148853
  • Vo, K. N., Le, A. N. H., Tam, L. T., & Xuan, H.H. (2022). Immersive experience and customer responses towards mobile augmented reality applications: The moderating role of technology anxiety. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2063778. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2063778
  • Yakubu, M. N. (2019). The effect of quality antecedents on the acceptance of learning management systems: A case of two private universities in Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(4), 101-115.
  • Yan, Z. (2020). Unprecedented pandemic, unprecedented shift, and unprecedented opportunity. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 110-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.192
  • Zhao, Y. (2020). COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49, 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09477-y
  • 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