Technology, Knowledge and Learning

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09734-5

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

An Assessment of Learning Management System Use

in Higher Education: Perspectives from a Comprehensive
Sample of Teachers and Students

Patricia D. Simon1,2 · Juming Jiang1 · Luke K. Fryer1,3 · Ronnel B. King4 ·

Cherry E. Frondozo5

Accepted: 29 March 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are underutilized in universities despite them
being standard components of higher education. Given this, there is a need to gather the
perspectives of students and teachers to examine how these key end-users engage with
LMS and utilize its various features and functions. Such an endeavor could aid in address-
ing the barriers and in promoting the use of LMSs in online teaching and learning. As stud-
ies about LMS use with both teacher and student samples are limited, we simultaneously
gathered both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of Moodle from all academic faculties at
a public university in Hong Kong. Structured qualitative interviews were conducted with
eighty-two participants (41 teachers, 41 students) via Zoom. Results suggest that Moo-
dle, while previously viewed as merely a repository of course materials, transitioned from
being a supplementary tool to a key information dissemination tool during the pandemic.
Despite the availability of collaboration tools, majority of interactions still occur in alterna-
tive communication channels. Findings point to students’ and teachers’ need for familiarity,
training, and a visually and functionally improved interface to enhance their experience
in the LMS. We also found how content and pedagogy influenced how LMS was inte-
grated into teaching, with frequency and manner of LMS use varying between faculties
and departments. Given this, tailor-made information and support for each department are
needed to maximize LMS use in classes. We suggest the conduct of dialogues involving
multiple stakeholders (i.e., teachers, students, administrators, and technical support staff)
so that higher education institutions can share best practices on how to improve LMS utili-
zation to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in universities.

Keywords Learning management systems · Student and teacher perspectives · Higher

education · TPACK · TAM · LMS usage framework

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 P. D. Simon et al.

1 Introduction

Learning Management Systems (LMSs) refer to online technologies for the creation, man-
agement, and delivery of course materials (Al-Busaidi & Al-Shihi, 2012; Turnbull et al.,
2022). They play an important role both in face-to-face and virtual teaching and learn-
ing especially in the higher education context (Torres-Martín et al., 2022). LMSs provide
instructors with platforms for information dissemination and classroom management (Phil-
lipo & Krongard, 2018). LMSs are used for making announcements, giving assignments,
providing feedback, and conversing with students outside class sessions through discus-
sion forums (Wong et al., 2021). Despite the accessibility and availability of LMSs in
higher education institutions (HEIs), they tend to be underutilized (Azhar & Iqbal, 2018;
Dahlstrom et al., 2014; Kite et al., 2020). A number of studies noted resistance as a bar-
rier to successful LMS implementation in HEIs (Sakala & Chigona, 2020). This points
to the need to obtain the perspectives of key end-users of the platform. Gathering data
on students’ and teachers’ knowledge, experiences, and on how they engage with LMS
and utilize its various features and functions could help in acquiring useful insights and in
providing direction on how to address the barriers and promote the use of LMSs in online
teaching and learning.
In Asia alone, e-learning is growing at an annual rate of 17.3% (Wadhwani & Gankar,
2020). In Europe, LMS adoption increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of
almost 27% in 2020 as more European higher education institutions have started offering
online degrees to both local and international students (Clark, 2020). Demand for e-learn-
ing is likely to continue to grow along with increased access to LMS platforms of coun-
tries across the globe in the coming years (Huang, 2022). The role of LMS as a valuable
and indispensable learning resource for distance learning and asynchronous education was
further emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic where more than 1.5 billion students
globally were affected by lockdowns and school closures (UNESCO, 2022). Educators
were compelled to adapt their in-person teaching methodologies to conform to the predom-
inantly online format, while students had to familiarize themselves with attending online
classes (Anastasakis et al., 2023; Cavanaugh et al., 2022; Hickling et al., 2021; Octaberlina
& Muslimin, 2020). Prior to the pandemic, a study surveyed Hong Kong higher education
students’ acceptance of Moodle and found that perceived ease of use, perceived useful-
ness, attitude towards behavior and subjective norm are significantly related to behavio-
ral intention to use and actual LMS use (Luk et al., 2018). During the pandemic, Hong
Kong higher education students reported the challenges they encountered such as difficul-
ties accessing equipment, quality of feedback and clarity of course arrangement (Yeung &
Yau, 2022). The challenges came with the realization of the importance of technology in
learning. In another research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, students from a
Southern European university reported positive experiences about learning through LMSs,
indicating an intent to continuously use learning technologies in the post COVID-19 era
(Camilleri & Camilleri, 2022). As these studies were focused on students and were con-
ducted before and during the pandemic, we also deemed it important to examine whether
there had been a shift in both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of LMS as a consequence
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are different types of LMSs on the market, the most common of which are
Moodle, Blackboard, Brightspace, Canvas, Docebo, Google Classroom, Schoology, and
Edmodo (TeachThought Staff, 2023). Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Envi-
ronment (Moodle), an open-source software launched in 2002, was the LMS evaluated

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

in this study. By the end of 2019, Moodle has a record of having 11,289,190 members
(Hill, 2019). It was found to be the most widespread and most preferred open-source LMS
according to a recent systematic review (Altinpulluk & Kesim, 2021). It is also the official
LMS used by teachers and students at the public university in Hong Kong where the cur-
rent study was conducted.
Studies that examined experiences and perspectives on LMS use have been conducted
among undergraduate students (Alhosban & Ismaile, 2018), postgraduate students (Mpun-
gose & Khoza, 2022), and teachers (Al Meajel & Sharadgah, 2018; Almarashdeh, 2016),
with the LMS literature dominated by studies with undergraduate students relative to
teacher samples (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021). Furthermore, studies that have simulta-
neously examined LMS use in both teacher and student samples in higher education are
scarce (Anthony et al., 2022; Kite et al., 2020; Simon et al., 2023). This is a critical gap
because students and teachers could have different perspectives and experiences with
LMSs. Thus, in the present study, we employed purposive sampling in recruiting teacher
and student respondents from all faculties of a public university in Hong Kong. This
ensured equal representation across faculties. The sampling technique also allowed us to
comprehensively and simultaneously capture both student and teacher perspectives in the
use of LMSs. Having both student and teacher samples enabled us to identify similarities
and differences in how students and teachers are using various levels and functions of the
LMS, and to ascertain how LMS use impacts teaching and learning.
In the interviews, respondents were asked about their knowledge, experience, and per-
ceptions of LMS as a tool for teaching and learning. We examined how students and teach-
ers engage with LMS and utilize its various features and functions. We also asked respond-
ents about the challenges they encountered in using LMS. Through these questions, we
aimed to obtain insights on how to address the barriers and maximize the benefits of using
LMS, given its history of underutilization. As an additional aim, we also examined whether
perceptions of students and teachers regarding their LMS and other educational technology
tools changed because of the pandemic.
The current research was guided by the following research questions:

1. How knowledgeable and experienced students and teachers are in using Moodle?
2. How do students and teachers perceive Moodle as a tool for teaching and learning?
3. What are the challenges encountered by teachers and students in the use of Moodle?
4. Did teachers’ and students’ perceptions of Moodle and other educational technology
tools change as a consequence of the pandemic?
5. What would make learning management systems (e.g., Moodle) a more effective tool
for teaching and learning?

2 Literature Review

In this section, we reviewed existing literature on LMSs from both students’ and teachers’
point of view.

2.1 Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of LMS

A study that examined Hong Kong higher education students’ acceptance of using Moo-
dle found that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude towards behavior and

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

subjective norms influence behavioral intention to use and actual use of the platform
(Luk et al., 2018). Another study also demonstrated that higher education students’ per-
ceived usefulness had a strong influence on their continued intention to use LMSs (Goh
& Yang, 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the sudden shift to online learning
made Hong Kong higher education students reflect on the critical role of technology to
make learning accessible despite the challenges (Yeung & Yau, 2022). Additionally, stu-
dents from a Southern European university reported positive experiences about learning
through LMSs, indicating an intent to continuously use learning technologies in the post
COVID-19 era (Camilleri & Camilleri, 2022).
However, it has been noted that more than 90% of students use LMSs only as a data
repository and as a platform for taking online tests (Al-Shaikhli et al., 2022). A very
small percentage of learners utilize LMS for online collaboration or forum discussion
(Awad et al., 2019). The average use of an LMS is said to fall between 19 and 36% of
the total number of students enrolled in a course (Medved, 2017). Thus, despite huge
investments made by higher education institutions to make LMSs highly accessible
and available, it is apparent that they remain to be underutilized (Azhar & Iqbal, 2018;
Dahlstrom et al., 2014; Kite et al., 2020). This problem could be partly attributed to
technical difficulties encountered by students while using LMS, prompting them and
the teachers to raise the issue of needing training on basic and advanced LMS features
(Dahlstrom et al., 2014).
In a study that explored higher education teachers’ perception of Google Classroom
as a tool for teaching, they perceived LMS merely as a platform for document manage-
ment and basic classroom management (Azhar & Iqbal, 2018). This is echoed by find-
ings from interviews with lecturers and postgraduate public health students suggesting
that LMS is merely perceived as a repository for course materials (Kite et al., 2020).
There was no indication in these studies that teachers found the LMS especially useful
in improving their pedagogy. Findings that showed how perceived usefulness and low
perceived ease of use are associated with higher education teachers’ low intention to
use an LMS (Schoonenboom, 2014) can perhaps explain why LMSs are underutilized.
Teachers reported that system glitches, design problems, and complicated interfaces
made LMS difficult to use (Azhar & Iqbal, 2018; Kite et al., 2020). On the other hand,
teachers in one study scored high in intentions to use LMS, motivation to continue to
use LMS, perceived importance of use and perceived ease of use (Huang, 2022). Teach-
ers also expressed belief that technology will aid them in accomplishing their tasks
effectively (Sharma & Srivastava, 2019). Attending a professional development course
appeared to have made Hong Kong higher education teachers use the features and
functions of their LMS in blended learning more extensively (Evans et al., 2020). The
training the teachers received gave them an authentic student perspective and helped
them use LMS better in teaching. Lastly, in-service teachers enrolled as students in an
instructional technology program reported varying levels of subjective satisfaction,
ease of use, and functionality based on the type of LMS they used (Demir et al., 2022),
affirming how examining specific features of LMSs and their functionality is needed to
determine what characteristics appeal to users the most.
While both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of LMS have already been explored
in the literature, a systematic review noted the lack of simultaneous examination of
perspectives from multiple stakeholders such as students and teachers (Anthony et al.,
2022). This is a gap that this study aimed to fill. In the next section of the paper, we fur-
ther note important gaps that the current study aimed to address.

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

3 Research Gaps

The review of literature presented highlights critical gaps that the current study aimed
to address. First, a gap remains in terms of describing how specific features and func-
tions of LMS are perceived by its users and how these features and functions are being
used by both students and teachers (Demir et al., 2022). Second, even though teaching
and learning are closely linked with each other, most LMS studies focus on students
(Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021; Camilleri & Camilleri, 2022, 2023; Luk & Lam, 2018;
Mpungose & Khoza, 2022; Şahin & Yurdugül, 2022; Yeung & Yau, 2022), and sel-
dom do studies simultaneously obtain the perspectives of both students and teachers
(Anthony et al., 2022; Simon et al., 2023). Third, purely quantitative studies on LMS
are at times conducted with no sufficient contextualization (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran,
2021; Luk & Lam, 2018). Lastly, studies tend to focus on specific departments (Al-
Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021), but we aimed to be more comprehensive by recruiting from
all faculties at a university, acknowledging that the content knowledge, pedagogy, and
even the technological capability of teachers from each faculty could differ.
The identified gaps in the literature reinforce the value of obtaining the perspectives
of both students and teachers about LMSs as key end-users of the platform. As there are
limited studies conducted on both student and teacher samples (Anthony et al., 2022;
Kite et al., 2020), we aimed to fill an important gap that enables comparisons between
two distinct perspectives. In the subsequent section, we describe in detail the theoretical
framework that guided the present study in light of previous research findings.

4 Theoretical Framework

In this study, we employed a combination of the Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge framework (TPACK; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM; Davis, 1989), and the LMS Usage Framework (Rankine et al., 2009).

4.1 TPACK Framework

The TPACK framework is a model that accounts for the types of knowledge necessary
for instructors to teach their courses successfully with technology (Mishra & Koehler,
2006). In this framework, efficient technology integration in courses is assumed to be
impacted by teacher’s technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, content knowl-
edge and intersections among these three. In this study, we employed the TPACK by
asking the teachers about their knowledge, experience and background in using LMS,
and exploring how the course content and the manner they teach the course (pedagogy)
influence how they are engaging with the LMS as a teaching tool. Likewise, students
were asked about their experiences of using LMS as a tool for learning and their percep-
tions of how their teachers are using the technology.

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

4.2 Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness

As perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness were identified as factors that impact
people’s behavioral intention and their actual use of a system (Cigdem & Topcu, 2015;
Luk et al., 2018; Teo et al., 2019; Watty et al., 2016), we tied these two constructs from
the TAM with the TPACK framework to guide our data analyses. Perceived ease of use
is defined as the extent to which a person believes that using a specific system would
be free from effort. Perceived usefulness denotes the extent to which a person believes
that a specific system would enhance their performance of a task. With the assumption
that previous knowledge and experience with the LMS shape not only students’ and
teachers’ use of the tool but also their perceptions of it, we integrated these two frame-
works to describe how teachers and students are currently utilizing the platform for
online teaching and learning. Also, given the evidence for perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness’s explanatory power (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021; Cigdem &
Topcu, 2015; Teo et al., 2019; Watty et al., 2016), we deemed them as useful in organ-
izing the present study’s findings.

4.3 LMS Usage Framework

One of the major challenges identified by researchers is the variations in the level of
LMS use (Al-Shaikhli et al., 2022). In a study among in-service teachers, users of
different LMSs (Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle) had varying levels of subjective satis-
faction, ease of use and perceived functionality (Demir et al., 2022). Some functions
were used more in Moodle such as the assignment and announcement functions, due
to ease of use and accessibility. Another study on postgraduate students’ experiences
in using Moodle and Canvas LMSs revealed that students mainly used their LMS for
downloading readings and for participating in discussion forums (Mpungose & Khoza,
2022). Depending on the type of learner using the LMS, they might expect affordances
that could potentially improve their motivation to use the technology for learning such
as gamification, notifications about assessment tasks, and functions that enable self-
monitoring (Şahin & Yurdugül, 2022). These studies highlight the importance of LMS
functionality and of having specific features that appeal to users and that meet their
expectations of a learning environment.
To make assessing what and how the various LMS features and functions are used,
we employed the LMS Usage Framework in this study. The LMS Usage Framework
was developed previously to enable comparison of LMS usage across different institu-
tions (Rankine et al., 2009). The framework was applied in the current study to cap-
ture various levels of pedagogical content types and tools common to online courses,
and what particular features and functions in the LMS are used: Content and Com-
munication, Assessment, Collaboration and Advanced Learner Support. Content and
communication tools are functions involved in the provision of instructional materials
to students (e.g. File Upload, News Announcements). Assessment tools are functions
employed in assessing students’ performance and in providing feedback (e.g. Assign-
ment, Turnitin, Quiz). Features that were intended to promote collaboration among
users and other forms of support (e.g. Forum, Chat, Scheduler) were classified under
collaboration and advanced learner support.

13
 Table 1  Students’ sample breakdown by gender, year and faculty (N = 41)

Gender
Female Male
19 22
Year
1 2 3 4
9 10 9 12
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

Faculty
Architecture Arts Business Dentistry Education Engineering Law Medicine Science Social Sciences
4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

13
13
Table 2  Teachers’ sample breakdown by gender, teaching experience and faculty (N = 41)

Gender
Female Male
15 26
Teaching experience (including outside the current university)
1–10 years 11–20 years 21–30 years 31–40 years
20 15 5 1
Number of students taught in one academic year
Not specified Less than 100 stu- 101–300 students 301–500 students 501–700 students 701–900 students More than 900
dents students
3 5 17 12 2 4 1
Faculty
Architecture Arts Business Dentistry Education Engineering Law Medicine Science Social Sci-
ences
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
P. D. Simon et al.
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

4.4 Integration

The current study extends previous research through applying the LMS Usage Framework
in examining students’ and teachers’ perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of
each of the three levels identified in the framework. To date, there are no existing studies
that integrated the TPACK framework with perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness
from TAM, and assessed the different levels of LMS pedagogical content types and tools
in terms of students’ and teachers’ perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of these
various LMS features and functions. In conducting structured interviews with students and
teachers across all 10 faculties, we aimed to foreground the entangled nature of teaching
and learning and to find ways to address the problem of LMS underutilization by gathering
users’ perspectives. Employing the LMS Usage Framework in combination with TAM’s
core variables—perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness—is one way to portray
LMS usage in a specific higher education context with a representative sample of teachers
responding with varying levels of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. The
merging of three frameworks aimed to provide a lens by which we can come up with useful
recommendations on how to make LMSs more effective tools for teaching and learning.

5 Methods

5.1 Sampling

Structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a total of eighty-two participants (41
teachers, 41 students) from all 10 colleges of the university where the study took place.
Tables 1 and 2 present sample distribution by gender, year (student sample), teaching expe-
rience (teacher sample), number of students taught in one academic year (teacher sample),
and faculty (student and teacher samples).
Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that a representative sample of students
and teachers were recruited. It is a non-probability sampling method in which participants
are selected because they possess the characteristics required in the sample. Four students
and four teachers in each of the 10 faculties (i.e., Architecture, Arts, Business, Dentistry,
Education, Engineering, Law, Medicine, Science, and Social Sciences) were recruited for
the interviews. Administrative staff were approached to request help in nominating teacher
and student participants for the interviews, with endorsement from the deans and associ-
ate deans. Collecting data from multiple sources was one way of ensuring that the data
are comprehensive and representative of a diverse set of perspectives on the phenomenon
under study (Neuman, 2014).
The public university in Hong Kong where the study was conducted has around 2957
faculty staff and its undergraduate student body consists of around 19,958 students at the
time of the study. Ethical clearance was obtained from the university’s ethical review board
[IRB number removed for anonymous peer review] prior to data collection. Based on the
university’s Information Technology Services, the current version being used in the institu-
tion is Moodle version 3.11.

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

5.2 Interview Settings

The selected respondents were contacted via email. The email contained information about
the study’s purpose and a request for an appointment based on their convenience. Once
a schedule was agreed on, a Zoom link was sent to the student/teacher interviewee along
with the informed consent form for their review. Interviews were conducted online through
Zoom between July 2022 to January 2023, for participants’ convenience and for more flex-
ibility in scheduling (as some respondents had been overseas at the time of data gathering).
Videoconferencing can mimic the natural back-and-forth of face-to-face communication,
including verbal and nonverbal signals (Salmons, 2012). This made it a viable alternative
to in-person interviews.
All participants gave their consent to voice record the interviews. The duration of each
interview varied between 15 and 30 min. The study was approved by the university ethics
board.

6 Research Instrument

Data were collected through structured interviews with a mix of close ended and open
ended questions. Adhering to Bolarinwa’s recommendation (2015), the research instrument
was composed and reviewed by a panel consisting of three experienced researchers and
teachers who have all used LMS in their work. After a thorough review and an exchange of
feedback and suggestions among the panel, the tool was finalized and utilized in the study.

6.1 Data Coding and Analysis

The automatically generated transcripts and the notes taken down during the interviews
were reviewed to check their alignment with the video recordings. A content analysis of
the interviews was conducted by two postdoctoral fellows who both have PhD degrees in
Psychology. Both also had prior experience in using LMS to teach. A qualitative data anal-
ysis software (QDA Miner Lite) was utilized for coding responses. Quantitative descrip-
tive analysis was performed on quantifiable answers, while key points from the qualitative
answers were highlighted, guided by the study’s frameworks.

7 Findings and Discussion

Data were coded and organized based on the research questions that were also guided by
the theoretical framework. At the beginning of this section, we provided information about
participants’ knowledge and experience in using Moodle and other LMSs. Subsequently,
we presented students’ and teachers’ perceptions of ease of use and usefulness of the vari-
ous functions and features of Moodle based on the LMS Usage Framework—Content and
Communication, Assessment, Collaboration and Advanced Learner Support. Addition-
ally, we noted the challenges the students and teachers encountered in the use of Moo-
dle and how their perceptions of Moodle and other educational technology tools changed
as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. We ended with recommendations on how

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

to make Moodle a more effective tool for teaching and learning. We presented the find-
ings on teachers and students separately and noted similarities and differences between the
responses when applicable.

7.1 Knowledge and Experience of Teachers in Using Moodle and other LMSs

Almost half (41.5%) of the teachers interviewed received no training in LMS functions.
This is consistent with findings from a previous study where majority of the lecturers
shared their perception of lack of support from their institutions in terms of integrating
ICTs in teaching and learning (Mwalongo & Mkonongwa, 2023). Others attended a brief
in-house training when Moodle was first introduced in the university more than a decade
ago, taught themselves as they used it in their classes, or learned from colleagues, IT staff,
or through a guidebook provided by the university’s teaching and learning center. Most
teachers (44%) have been using Moodle for between more than a year to five years, with
average years of Moodle use at seven years.
Apart from the official LMS used by the university, teachers found other tools to supple-
ment their teaching. While Moodle had features similar to other platforms that they used,
they often picked a tool that suited their technological and pedagogical needs better. When
asked about other LMS tools used, 11 teachers claimed they used Mentimeter, 11 used
Blackboard, three used Open edX, three used Panopto, three used Google Classroom, and
three used Slack. Other platforms used by at least one teacher included Adobe Connect,
WebCT, Canvas, InLearn, PETAL, Curios, iClass, and ELearn. Some of these tools were
homegrown tools that teachers developed themselves based on course needs.

7.2 Knowledge and Experience of Students in Using Moodle and other LMSs

Students have used Moodle for an average of 2.77 years. The majority of students (80.5%)
reported that they received no training on the use of Moodle and had to learn it by them-
selves. Only three students said they received some basic level of training, and three stu-
dents reported that they had some training experience in LMS but not in Moodle. One stu-
dent mentioned that some teachers taught their class how to use Moodle at the beginning
of the course.
Among the 41 student interviewees, 18 of them had also used LMSs other than Moodle
such as Google Classroom (29.3%). Other LMSs that have been used by more than one stu-
dent were Blackboard (9.8%), Panopto (7.3%), and Kahoot! (4.9%). Students’ experience in
Moodle (i.e., how many years they have been using Moodle) was not necessarily equal to
how many years they have been studying in the university. Some of the students reported
that they have been using Moodle since before they entered the university, and some stu-
dents reported that the university and their teachers did not promote Moodle at all, so that
they only heard it from other senior students:
“Can I say that I know the existence of Moodle because of my friend? Because they
are [institution removed for anonymous review] students and they got in [institution
removed for anonymous review] earlier than me, so that I know Moodle and this year
I am the ambassador, a mentor for year one students. And I just tell them Moodle and
they have no idea what that is. They don’t even know that exists. And I just tell them
that you need to read, I basically tell them that thing exists and how to use and what
it is for. No one tells them anything.”

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

7.3 Perception of Moodle as a Tool for Teaching and Learning

Twenty-nine percent of the teachers view Moodle as a centralized platform and as a one-
stop shop for course materials and information. As one teacher noted:
“My understanding at least the way I use it, is that it’s a central platform for courses
that I teach. So it is a central repository where students can come and everybody can
have access to all the needed information for the course as well as all of the other
resources such as links to readings and, you know, assessment guidelines and sub-
mission portal. So it’s like a one stop shop for completing the class basically.”
A good percentage of teachers (41.5%) also saw Moodle as a tool that facilitated com-
munication between students and teachers (although communication in the platform tended
to be one-way). This is in line with a previous study that found how three different types of
LMSs were frequently used by teachers only for posting announcements, posting assign-
ments, posting syllabus, conducting tests and quizzes, and posting grades through grade
book (Demir et al., 2022). While Moodle was viewed as a helpful tool to assist teaching,
31.7% of teachers did not perceive it as helpful in motivating students to learn since they
perceived it as “just a platform.” As one teacher stated:
“I’m not sure it’s the tool. I mean, if you, if you expect to motivate your students only
with Moodle, I think you are wrong. I think motivation has to do with the activities
you do and everything. But of course, you can use Moodle, maybe to support some
of your activities. But Moodle in itself is mostly I think, to share information and to
offer some tools to like collect information or deliver information but is it very moti-
vational in itself? I wouldn’t say that.”
Seventeen percent of teachers claimed that students’ motivation to learn in Moodle
depends on how teachers design the activities and structure the courses in the platform.
Past literature noted how learners prefer entertaining, competitive, and self-monitoring
learning environments (Şahin & Yurdugül, 2022). As one teacher noted:
“Moodle is just a vehicle or a blank canvas, but not a source of inspiration or motiva-
tion. It’s what you put on it that will motivate students.”
As for students’ perception of the purpose of Moodle, most students (92.7%) per-
ceived Moodle as a platform to manage learning materials. Many students also thought
of Moodle as a tool that teachers used to give assignments (63.4%). Some students
mentioned that Moodle could be used to facilitate communication between students
and teachers, and also among students (43.9%). Over half of the students (55.7%)
thought that Moodle was merely a learning tool and not relevant to students’ motivation
towards learning. On the other hand, some students reported that Moodle can be used
for motivating students to learn because it allows them to collaborate or have discus-
sions (12.2%). Students also noted that the information in Moodle is well organized so it
makes their learning more efficient (19.5%).
Below, we outlined teachers’ and students’ perception of Moodle based on two
variables drawn from the TAM (perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness). We
also presented their responses based on the three levels identified in the LMS Usage
Framework.

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

Table 3  Teachers’ perceptions Level (LMS usage framework) Cases Percent of

of ease of use according to cases (%)
functions
Level 1 11 26.8
Level 2 8 19.5
Level 3 6 14.6

Level 1 = Content and Communication; Level 2 = Assessment; Level

3 = Collaboration and Advanced Learner Support

Table 4  Students’ perceptions Level (LMS Usage Frame- Cases Percent of cases
of ease of use according to work)
functions
Level 1 31 75.6%
Level 2 30 73.2%
Level 3 20 48.8%

Level 1 = Content and Communication; Level 2 = Assessment; Level

3 = Collaboration and Advanced Learner Support

7.3.1 Perceived Ease of Use from Teachers’ Perspectives

Table 3 displays the number and percentage of teachers who perceived the functions and
features of Moodle as user-friendly.
More teachers found content and communication tools easy to use, relative to func-
tions in other levels. This could be due to teachers’ using level one functions more than
they used other features, which is what past research suggests (Demir et al., 2022).
However, teachers also noted that there was a learning curve to be overcome, and using
Moodle simply gets easier over time the more one uses it:
“There is a learning curve when first exposed to Moodle. It’s not it’s not that intui-
tive. But I don’t, I don’t think that it’s impenetrable. I think it can be learned. And
I’ve learned that my colleagues have learned it.”
Despite a number of teachers finding Moodle user-friendly enough, perception of
ease of use did not always translate into perception of usefulness. This finding is incon-
sistent with TAM’s proposition that perceived ease of use predicts perceived usefulness
(Davis, 1989).

7.3.2 Perceived Ease of Use from Students’ Perspectives

As presented in Table 4, majority of the students perceived the different functions of Moo-
dle as user-friendly. It appears that compared to teachers, students had fewer difficulties
when using Moodle. This difference in perception could be attributed to the effect of age as
in other information and communication technologies applied in the education field (Cat-
taneo et al., 2022; Lucas et al., 2021). Alternatively, it could also be because understand-
ing and actively utilizing the different functions of Moodle cost more time and effort for

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

the teachers who need to prepare for classes compared to the students. Thus, teachers per-
ceived the platform as less user-friendly than students.
Similar to teachers’ perceptions on the ease of use of the different functions of Moo-
dle, less students perceived the level three functions (collaboration and advanced learner
support) as user-friendly compared to the other two levels. This potentially explains why
previous research found a very small percentage of learners utilized LMS for online col-
laboration or forum discussion (Awad et al., 2019), and why in-service teachers enrolled
as students in an instructional technology program only used their LMSs for posting and
not for collaborating (Demir et al., 2022). Some students complained that it was difficult to
raise questions or have discussions using a function like Forum in Moodle, because it did
not allow students to leave comments anonymously. As one student noted:
“People are just shy and whenever you post a message in the Forum, they will record
your name. I think people tend to cover their names when asking questions.”
Some students even reported that the Forum was only utilized when teachers gave credit
for using it:
“People just discuss in Forum when it contains mark, otherwise students don’t care.”
The statement above is supported by a previous finding of how students’ valuation of
e-learning appeared to be limited to what could be interpreted as a type of internalized
extrinsic motivation (Fryer et al., 2014). Students’ Moodle use seemed to be largely driven
by the desire to obtain good grades.

7.3.3 Perceived Usefulness from Teachers’ Perspectives

7.3.3.1 Level 1: Content and Communication Among all content and communication tools,
File Upload (68.3%) and News Announcements (58.5%) were most commonly employed.
Among three levels in the LMS Usage Framework, Moodle was mostly utilized as a content
and communication tool that can be used to disseminate course content (e.g. video recording
of lectures) and information to a large number of students (39%). Moodle aids teachers in
organizing course materials (36.6%), and saves students time in locating materials by mak-
ing the materials accessible, as noted by 31.7% of the teachers sampled.

7.3.3.2 Level 2: Assessment Teachers noted how the usefulness of assessment tools were
course-dependent. For instance, engineering assessments are usually in the format of multi-
ple-choice questions and calculations, while assessments in most law courses are case-based
and thus are in no need for extensive technology. In marking multiple choice questions, auto-
grading is useful as it saves teachers’ time. However, some teachers noted that the assess-
ment tools in Moodle are not very useful for projects without a written component. Further-
more, 34.1% of teachers still gave their feedback outside of the LMS. Teachers marked the
submitted assignments offline and used the platform to upload grades and feedback.
Among all assessment functions, assignment (70.7%) and Turnitin (63.4%) were the
most utilized. Assessment tools, particularly Turnitin, were perceived to be useful in pro-
moting academic integrity by 51.2% of teacher respondents. According to teachers, Tur-
nitin was useful in detecting plagiarism and in assessing students’ performance in written
work. On the contrary, other teachers believed that Turnitin was not an effective tool for
assessment. While they recognized its usefulness for checking plagiarism, they perceived

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

it very easy for students to get around the system, especially since some classes allowed
resubmission of assignments. Some teachers believed that the use of Turnitin encourages
the wrong idea about academic integrity:
“So in my experience, there are plenty of students who have a poor understanding of
what is academic integrity. And I think Turn It In can support some misunderstand-
ings. Students feel academic integrity is about paraphrasing other people’s ideas into
their own words. I think this is incorrect understanding of academic integrity. Yeah,
I think academic integrity is about giving credit to other people’s ideas when you use
them. So students seem to feel like there’s some level of turning in similarity score.
And if they’re above that level, they cheated. If they’re below that level, they didn’t
cheat.”

7.3.3.3 Level 3: Collaboration and Advanced Learner Support Eight (19.5%) of the teachers
noted that collaboration tools are not effective in facilitating collaboration among students.
Teachers claimed that students did not check Moodle often, and that they preferred to send
individual emails rather than discussing in the Forum. Teachers attributed the unwilling-
ness of students to participate in online discussions to the lack of anonymity when posting
answers in the platform. Another reason for the low use of collaboration functions was the
nature of some courses that did not require much collaboration among students.
Overall, Moodle was seen as not useful for social connection and group discussions.
Despite this, Forum was still the most often used function among all the other functions
under level three, with 53.7% of teachers reporting its use in their courses. Forum was
identified to be most useful for teachers giving group feedback and for teachers communi-
cating with their classes, but communication tends to be only in one direction (from teacher
to student). This is concerning since teaching quality is in part influenced by the quality of
interaction between teachers and students (Xie et al., 2023).

7.3.4 Perceived Usefulness from Students’ Perspectives

7.3.4.1 Level 1: Content and Communication For level one functions, over half of the stu-
dent sampled used URL (90.2%), File Upload (87.8%), Folders (85.4%), News Announce-
ment (80.5%), and Deadline Reminder (65.9%). Majority of the students (75.6%) perceived
these functions as useful. These findings are consistent with their perception of the purpose
of Moodle as a platform for managing learning materials. Students’ perceived usefulness
of the news announcement and deadline reminder features also confirmed previous find-
ings about learners preferring to receive notifications and reminders about assessment tasks,
especially the learners who have procrastination behavior (Şahin & Yurdugül, 2022).

7.3.4.2 Level 2: Assessment As for level two functions, Turnitin (82.9%), Assignment
(61%), and Quiz (58.5%) were the functions that over half of the student interviewees have
used before. Majority of the students (68.3%) agreed that using Turnitin could be useful in
promoting students’ academic integrity because it is useful for checking plagiarism. How-
ever, a student expressed that it is difficult to promote academic integrity for numerical
assignments:
“I think it is difficult to promote academic integrity for numerical assignments
because it is very difficult to track and verify whether students have actually done the
calculation themselves.”

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

A substantial percentage of the students (39%) also thought that Moodle is useful for
receiving feedback from teachers. However, they reported that feedback in Moodle tended
to be short and simple, and most of the teachers preferred to provide feedback through
email (41.5%).

7.3.4.3 Level 3: Collaboration and Advanced Learner Support Regarding level three func-
tions, majority of the students have used Forum before (82.9%), but only less than 20% of
the students have used other level three functions. This was expected, as a previous study
found participation in discussion forums as one of the activities that students engage in most
when using LMS, apart from downloading readings (Mpungose & Khoza, 2022). Students
reported that the Forum function was quite useful because it allowed students to share ideas,
and teachers could even pin the important threads and make sure the most useful informa-
tion is on top of the Forum. Forum can be a platform for facilitating asynchronous online
discussions and for fostering social interactions in online and blended learning environ-
ments (Rolim et al., 2019). But in the current study, while we found that the Forum func-
tion is perceived to be useful, and the most used by students among level three functions,
students expressed wanting an option for anonymity when posting answers and used Forum
more for responding to questions rather than collaborating with their peers.
In the subsequent sections, we present the challenges reported by both teachers and stu-
dents in the use of Moodle.

7.4 Challenges Encountered in the Use of Moodle from Teachers’ Perspectives

Twenty percent of the teachers shared how Moodle is slow and how some of its func-
tions take a while to load (e.g. assignment, Turnitin, grading feature). They also noted the
file size limit, which made it hard for both teachers and students to upload videos. One
of the main challenges teachers also shared was Moodle’s complicated interface, and they
reported being confused about having too many buttons, functions, and information that
they personally did not find useful or relevant. As one teacher shared,
“It’s dazzling to have too many buttons and content, dazzling and confusing. Yeah,
and many functions that I don’t use…I mean, I know some teachers will find those
functions useful. But to me, I may only find about 1/3 of them useful to me.”
Teachers also described using Moodle as “step-heavy.” For example, teachers shared
about having to manually search for their classes and add to their page. For more senior
students, it becomes difficult as time progresses as the Moodle page becomes quite long,
the more courses they accumulate. As one teacher noted,
“And then there’s a long list and then you have to scroll down.”
Teachers recognized that most of the challenges they encountered stemmed from their
lack of training and unfamiliarity with the full functions of Moodle. This finding is con-
sistent with evidence for teachers’ self-assessment of their low or medium–low digital
competencies, pointing to the need for more practical and personalized training programs
responsive to teachers’ needs (Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al., 2022; Sáiz-Manzanares et al.,
2021). The latter is important since a previous study found that teachers made more exten-
sive use of features/tools in their LMS after attending a professional development course
(Evans et al., 2020).

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

Furthermore, teachers from the current study noted how the use of Moodle was not rel-
evant for all pedagogies, and this led other teachers to prefer using other platforms or sys-
tems that suited their teaching needs. As one teacher noted:
“It’s just one of many choices. Because I do a lot of flipped classrooms. I do a lot at a
studio based teaching thesis in small seminar groups, I have different pedagogies dif-
ferent needs for each of those courses, some of which Moodle is very good for some
of which is not.”

7.5 Challenges Encountered in the Use of Moodle from Students’ Perspectives

With regard to the challenges and difficulties encountered by students in Moodle, over half
of the students reported difficulty finding the information they wanted (53.7%). It appears
that the current version of Moodle in the institution did not contain a search function. Since
every course they have taken before remained in their home page, they needed to scroll
down the page from the top to the end whenever they had to find any content from a course,
a process that they found time consuming and frustrating.
Another challenge that many students shared was teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills
in using Moodle (26.8%). For instance, one student complained about the teacher’s disor-
ganized manner of handling the learning materials, causing confusion for students:
“Lecturer posts a lot of materials that are not well-named and tend to be in a mess,
and sometimes when it’s compressed, I have to download the compressed folder, I
cannot open, rename or uncompress it because file name is too long, error comes
up.”
And because some teachers were not familiar with Moodle, they often had to ask for
help from the admin staff, as noted by one student:
“Some teachers do not know how to use Moodle, so they rely on the admin staff. The
admin staffs are busy so for some courses it’s not very efficient.”
In the next section, we present findings about COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on teach-
ers’ and students’ perceptions of Moodle and other educational technology tools.

7.6 COVID‑19 Pandemic’s Influence on Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions

of Moodle and other Educational Technology Tools

A substantial percentage of teachers (36.6%) did not perceive Moodle differently from
how they perceived it prior to the pandemic. However, they reported an increase in
usage of Moodle and other educational technology tools (e.g., Zoom) among teachers
during the global health crisis. Despite this, teachers still expressed preference for face-
to-face learning over the use of online tools.
Teachers believed that the integration between Moodle and other online learning
tools was a good thing, particularly with Zoom. Despite teachers’ reluctance in using
the LMS, the pandemic made teachers understand better the importance of online inter-
actions and made them appreciate the importance of other technologies in education. As
two teachers noted:

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

“I think the significance of Moodle was further recognized during the COVID
pandemic, especially when we had the lectures recorded.”
“The action of recording videos and sharing them online has become crucial for
online teaching & learning for both teachers/students.”
Ten students (24.4%) reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had no impact at all
on their perception of Moodle and other educational technologies. Since some of the
students entered the university after the pandemic broke out, they had no experience in
learning in a university before the pandemic to compare with. However, a large propor-
tion of the student sample (87.8%) also reported that after the start of the pandemic, the
use and the value of Moodle and other software like Zoom significantly increased. Find-
ings confirmed that perceived usefulness of online technologies during the global health
crisis had a positive effect on students’ attitudes toward remote learning (Camilleri &
Camilleri, 2022). As one student noted:
“I think because of the pandemic, the perception I have towards Moodle was quite
positive perception. For the online learning, I think Moodle plays a very important
role because the teachers need to upload everything on Moodle and students can
just check the Moodle to know what the teachers need to say. I think maybe the
COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened the positive perception of Moodle. In my
case, it is really useful, especially during online learning, as I mentioned it organ-
ized things well.”

7.7 Teachers’ Recommendations on How to Make Moodle a More Effective Tool

for Teaching and Learning

Teachers recommended having constant technical support that is tailor-made for each
faculty. As stated by one teacher:
“If they could be specific, tailor-made information that’s available to law faculty,
to, to social sciences and to different faculties. And I think that that that might
incentivize teachers to make better use of them.”
Given their packed schedule, having short tutorial videos they can access in their
own time would be helpful. As one teacher noted:
“If you just do a document, no one’s going to read it. I think short video record-
ing, highlighting how to use it is the best.”
This is a good solution for teachers who expressed preference for workshops with
flexible schedule. One teacher also expressed the desire to see more showcases of Moo-
dle usage from fellow teachers:
“I think it will be very helpful if I know how other faculties or other universities are
making use of Moodle’s features, because I haven’t seen how those features might
impact my teaching.”
This finding reflects people’s tendency to perform a behavior more due to the influence
of important others, or what is labeled as subjective norms in the TAM (Schepers & Wet-
zels, 2007). Following the above recommendation can also be anticipated to increase users’

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

behavioral intention to use and actual LMS use as shown in a previous survey conducted in
Hong Kong (Luk et al., 2018).
A cleaner interface with fewer and streamlined functions was also suggested by the
teachers to make Moodle more user-friendly. According to one teacher:
“There’s a lot of content on Moodle that is, for me, very unnecessary. I’m not sure
specifically, but they’re just a lot of you can hide and delete a lot of them once you
have a course page. But again, for me, less is more.”
Some teachers noted their preference to customize Moodle’s design for their courses.
Even though the current version already allowed for adding external plug-ins, a few teach-
ers recommended embedding and integrating other programs into Moodle. Teachers also
preferred to have more learning analytics functions to monitor student engagement (e.g.
to see if students read feedback or participate in group projects). The value of this rec-
ommendation is supported by findings from studies that employed digital trace data from
LMS to monitor students’ behavior patterns and topic-based social interactions in an online
learning environment (Wong et al., 2021; Ye & Pennisi, 2022). In the latter study, learn-
ing analytics was found to be a more powerful predictor of student academic performance
compared to self-reported self-regulated learning. As one teacher noted:
“It would be good to have students’ overall activity report— more specific reports
such as showing outliers like those who have visited the Moodle course page less
than five times in the semester and allowing teachers to download the report with
students’ names to follow up.”
A few teachers suggested having a Moodle app that can be accessed through mobile
phones so that students can receive notifications for announcements easier. The feasibility
of this recommendation is supported by findings from a study that revealed how students
are well-acquainted and habituated with the use of mobile devices and their applications in
learning (Camilleri & Camilleri, 2022).
As teachers identified lack of anonymity as one of the major reasons for lack of student
participation in online discussions, teachers also suggested having an option for anonymiz-
ing responses in the Forum. As stated by one teacher,
“If the Forum is anonymous, students are more willing to speak and will be more
active.”

7.8 Students’ Recommendations on How to Make Moodle a More Effective Tool

for Teaching and Learning

As mentioned earlier, one challenge that many students shared was the difficulty in finding
the information they wanted in Moodle. Thus, almost half of the students (48.8%) reported
that they wished they could customize their home page so that the content would be more
organized. They also suggested adding a search function to help them locate the course
they were looking for:
“I wish I could arrange the courses according in the order of the year, or the code or
the name, so I can find the information I need easier.”
There were also some students who recommended having a workshop or tutorial that
can teach them how to use Moodle:

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

“I think it is not about the (functions of) the app but how to use it. Students need to
be taught how to use Moodle.”
“I think Moodle will be more useful to me if I learnt more functions of it.”
Considering that workshops or tutorials might not be convenient for students to join
due to scheduling conflicts, students brought up the need for recorded training videos. Like
teachers, they recommended the videos be tailor-made for each faculty or department so
users could modify Moodle based on their needs.

8 Conclusion

The bulk of LMS research had respondents from very specific departments (Al-Nuaimi &
Al-Emran, 2021) which limited insights that could have been derived from having more
diverse samples from other fields. The current study contributes to the literature by apply-
ing purposive sampling in recruiting a comprehensive sample of teachers and students
from all 10 faculties of [institution removed for anonymous review], allowing us to glimpse
the different contexts where LMS is used.
Furthermore, as most studies have simply examined LMS use as a whole (Al-Nuaimi &
Al-Emran, 2021), assessing the adoption of specific tools and features of LMS across all
colleges can be considered a major strength of the current study. The present study is a rich
source of insight, since LMS research has predominantly employed quantitative self-report
survey instruments, often without sufficient contextualization (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran,
2021).
Most studies using TPACK previously neglected to account for context in their
research (Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015). Through large-scale qualitative interviews, the
current study showed the importance of context in determining how a particular tech-
nology will be used in teaching and learning. Consistent with the TPACK framework,
this study provided evidence that technological knowledge, teachers’ content knowl-
edge and pedagogical knowledge individually and in interaction with each other influ-
ence how LMS is integrated into teaching, with frequency and manner of Moodle use
varying between colleges and departments. The general resistance in LMS use previ-
ously observed (Sakala & Chigona, 2020) still exists among teachers despite pandemic-
induced adjustments. Findings suggest that the LMS is still not systematically used
throughout [institution removed for anonymous review], as some teachers reverted to
previous practices with minimal LMS use after shifting back to face-to-face learning.
Furthermore, the perception of Moodle as merely a centralized platform for organizing
and accessing course materials was shared by majority of the respondents. This par-
ticular finding is aligned with results of past research (Al-Shaikhli et al., 2022; Azhar
& Iqbal, 2018; Kite et al., 2020). As most teachers lacked the necessary training on the
use of Moodle, students expressed their desire for their teachers to be more adept at
using the tool. However, we also found that increasing motivation to use and actual use
of LMS goes beyond increasing ease of use, as teachers have noted how they found the
tool user-friendly enough, but not useful in teaching their courses. Similarly, most stu-
dents found the functions of Moodle easy to use. However, how students used the LMS
largely depended on how their teachers were using it in their courses. Therefore, there
is much to learn from studies that demonstrated how helpful attending professional
development courses is for higher education teachers, especially trainings that enable

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

teachers to approach teaching with technology from students’ perspectives (Evans et al.,
2020). This is aligned with the theory of constructivist learning, where teachers are
viewed as facilitators that adapt their lessons to accommodate their students’ level of
understanding (Kurt, 2021). Lecturers’ attitude, teaching style, level of responsiveness
and communication are all essential elements that motivate students in online learning
environments (Anthony et al., 2022). Overall, findings point to students’ and teachers’
need for familiarity, training, sufficient technical support, and a visually and function-
ally improved interface to enhance their experience in the LMS.
Communication should be a primary function of LMSs, and to some extent it is good for
one-way communication and mass announcements, but not for collaborations and private or
formative feedback processes (Demir et al., 2022). Despite the availability of collaboration
tools and tools for providing feedback on submitted requirements, we found that majority
of interactions still occur in alternative communication channels. This is consistent with a
past study that found few students utilize LMS for online collaboration or forum discus-
sion (Awad et al., 2019), and even teachers used communication and collaboration tools the
least across different LMSs (Demir et al., 2022). Constructivism forwards the idea of learn-
ing as an active process and as a social activity where interactions are deemed essential
for knowledge construction (Kang et al., 2007; Kurt, 2021). Thus, the limited use of more
interactive features of LMSs contradicts the essence of effective teaching and learning that
hinges on student–teacher interaction. This could partly explain why a number of teach-
ers in the present study, similar to what past literature has indicated, believe that learning
happens more in person than online (Kite et al., 2020). This implies a need to promote
LMSs as learning communities (Kwon et al., 2021) and as avenues for collaboration (Sáiz-
Manzanares et al., 2021) and not just course material repositories. This would entail strong
institutional support in endorsing the interactive and relational features of online learning
and teaching through LMSs and other educational technology tools.
In the literature, there is very limited LMS research that had both student and teacher
samples (Simon et al., 2023), and studies have been skewed towards students relative
to teacher samples (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021). We addressed this issue by obtain-
ing the perspectives of both students and teachers regarding LMS use. This comes with
the acknowledgement that teaching and learning go hand in hand. Taken together, our
findings highlight the important role that teachers play in the success of e-learning envi-
ronments (Al-Busaidi & Al-Shihi, 2012; Fryer & Bovee, 2016, 2018). Both students
and teachers attested that the value and relevance of LMS as a learning tool are heavily
dependent on teachers’ proficiency with the medium, on the course content and on how
teachers design the activities and lessons in the platform. Digital technologies continue
to bring challenges to teacher education, especially in the area of developing new com-
petences to keep up with evolving learning environments (Kaminskienė et al., 2022).
Given this, tailor-made information, training, and support for teachers are needed to
maximize the use of LMSs in teaching and learning.

8.1 Practical Implications

This study was conducted to examine students’ and teachers’ perception of LMS and how
they engage with the educational platform. This was aimed at finding ways to address
LMSs’ reported underutilization despite their availability in higher education institu-
tions. Based on our findings, we note some practical implications that could aid in the

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

improvement of LMS as a tool for teaching and learning and consequently, in the promo-
tion of its use.
Results imply that the problem of lack of training identified in previous studies has per-
sisted. Thus, higher education institutions must prioritize investing in good LMS training
opportunities that are responsive to the unique needs of both students and teachers. As
teachers were found to be the main drivers of LMS adoption, there should be readily acces-
sible training and technical support for them to maximize the various features and func-
tions available in LMSs. This is important as a recent systematic review noted that teach-
ers tend to report low or medium–low digital competencies (Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al.,
2022). As suggested by the respondents, one good approach is to create and make available
brief but informative training videos for each program or department that demonstrate how
to use the various LMS functions. Instructional designers could customize the videos, con-
sidering the diversity of pedagogies employed by higher education teachers from different
programs. More knowledgeable and experienced teachers who are adept at using LMSs can
also be tapped as trainers and content creators as part of technical support teams.
Respondents expressed their preference for a cleaner interface with fewer and stream-
lined functions. They also noted some limitations of the platform such as the lack of a
search function that would enable quick access to relevant information. This shows the
need for information technology teams to conduct constant and frequent updates of institu-
tional LMSs for overall system improvement. As online educational technology tools such
as LMSs continue to evolve, resources should also be directed at a continuous and sys-
tematic evaluation of the LMS used in institutions. Finally, dialogues that involve multi-
ple stakeholders (i.e., teachers, students, administrators, and technical support staff) can be
held so that higher education institutions can share best practices on how to improve LMS
utilization to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in universities.

8.2 Limitations and Future Directions

It is important to note the current study’s limitations to guide future research. First, the pre-
sent study was conducted at one public university in Hong Kong within the context of one
type of LMS. While most of the findings can be generalized to other LMSs, it would be
interesting to conduct a similar study in other universities (both public and private) to allow
for meaningful comparisons across various contexts. Second, given the qualitative approach
employed in this research, generalizability might be improved by executing well-designed,
large-scale surveys using instruments with good psychometric properties. Third, future
research can also consider utilizing mixed method research designs to combine detailed
insights from qualitative inquiry with easily replicable quantitative evidence. Fourth, to
avoid overreliance on self-report data from surveys and interviews, other means of capturing
LMS usage (e.g. social network analysis, log data) such as those used in previous studies
should be explored (Norz et al., 2023). Lastly, given that the current study’s focus was on
the perspectives of teachers and students, researchers are encouraged to extend investiga-
tions on LMS use to include perceptions of other stakeholders in higher education institu-
tions such as technical support teams, instructional designers, and administrators.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​024-​09734-5.

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Yijin Li, Yang SU, Fung Man Chong Joyce, Chung Hoi In Col-
leen, and Kong Jia Lang Sunny for all their help in this project.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

Data Availability Not applicable.

Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval The study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee
(HREC) of The University of Hong Kong (HKU) with Reference Number [EA220016].

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Al-Busaidi, K. A., & Al-Shihi, H. (2012). Key factors to instructors’ satisfaction of learning management
systems in blended learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24, 18–39. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s12528-​011-​9051-x
Alhosban, F., & Ismaile, S. (2018). Perceived promoters of and barriers to use of a learning management
system in an undergraduate nursing program. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in
Learning, 13, 226–233.
Almarashdeh, I. (2016). Sharing instructors experience of learning management system: A technology per-
spective of user satisfaction in distance learning course. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 249–255.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2016.​05.​013
Al Meajel, T. M., & Sharadgah, T. A. (2018). Barriers to using the Blackboard System in teaching and
learning: Faculty perceptions. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 23, 351–366. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10758-​017-​9323-2
Al-Nuaimi, M. N., & Al-Emran, M. (2021). Learning management systems and technology acceptance
models: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5499–5533. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10639-​021-​10513-3
Al-Shaikhli, D., Jin, L., Porter, A., & Tarczynski, A. (2022). Visualising weekly learning outcomes
(VWLO) and the intention to continue using a learning management system (CIU): the role of cogni-
tive absorption and perceived learning self-regulation. Education and Information Technologies, 1–29.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10639-​021-​10703
Altinpulluk, H., & Kesim, M. (2021). A systematic review of the tendencies in the use of learning manage-
ment systems. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 40–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
17718/​tojde.​961812
Anastasakis, M., Triantafyllou, G., & Petridis, K. (2023). Undergraduates’ barriers to online learning during
the pandemic in Greece. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(3), 1383–1400. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10758-​021-​09584-5
Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. L. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming,
G. L. (2022). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and
systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 531–578. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10758-​020-​09477-z
Awad, M., Salameh, K., & Leiss, E. L. (2019). Evaluating learning management system usage at a small
university. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​33259​17.​33259​29

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

Azhar, K. A., & Iqbal, N. (2018). Effectiveness of Google classroom: Teachersâ perceptions. Prizren
Social Science Journal, 2(2), 52–66.
Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos, V., Matarranz, M., Casado-Aranda, L. A., & Otto, A. (2022). Teachers’ digital
competencies in higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educa-
tional Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41239-​021-​00312-8
Bolarinwa, O. A. (2015). Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used
in social and health science researches. The Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 22(4), 195.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4103/​1117-​1936.​173959
Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2022). The acceptance of learning management systems and video
conferencing technologies: Lessons learned from COVID-19. Technology, Knowledge and Learn-
ing, 27(4), 1311–1333. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​021-​09561-y
Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2023). Learning from anywhere, anytime: Utilitarian motivations
and facilitating conditions for mobile learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(4), 1687–
1705. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​022-​09608-8
Cattaneo, A. A., Antonietti, C., & Rauseo, M. (2022). How digitalised are vocational teachers? Assess-
ing digital competence in vocational education and looking at its underlying factors. Computers &
Education, 176, 104358.
Cavanaugh, J., Jacquemin, S. J., & Junker, C. R. (2022). Variation in student perceptions of higher edu-
cation course quality and difficulty as a result of widespread implementation of online education
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10758-​022-​09596-9
Cigdem, H., & Topcu, A. (2015). Predictors of instructors’ behavioral intention to use learning manage-
ment system: A Turkish vocational college example. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 22–28.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2015.​05.​049
Clark, D. (2020). Eu: Share of individuals doing an online course 2019. Statista.
Dahlstrom, D., Brooks, C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of Learning Management Sys-
tems in higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis
and Research. http://​www.​educa​use.​edu/​ecar
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information tech-
nology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​249008
Demir, F., Bruce-Kotey, C., & Alenezi, F. (2022). User experience matters: Does one size fit all? Evalua-
tion of learning management systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1), 49–67. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​021-​09518-1
Evans, J. C., Yip, H., Chan, K., Armatas, C., & Tse, A. (2020). Blended learning in higher education:
Professional development in a Hong Kong university. Higher Education Research & Development,
39(4), 643–656. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07294​360.​2019.​16859​43
Fryer, L. K., Bovee, H. N., & Nakao, K. (2014). E-learning: Reasons students in language learning
courses don’t want to. Computers & Education, 74, 26–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2014.​
01.​008
Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: Teachers matter on and
offline. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 21–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iheduc.​2016.​03.​003
Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2018). Staying motivated to e-learn: Person- and variable-centred perspec-
tives on the longitudinal risks and support. Computers & Education, 120, 227–240. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2018.​01.​006
Goh, T.T., & Yang, B. (2021). The role of e-engagement and flow on the continuance with a learning
management system in a blended learning environment. International Journal of Educational Tech-
nology in Higher Education, 18(49), https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41239-​021-​00285-8
Hickling, S., Bhatti, A., Arena, G., Kite, J., Spencer, N. L. I., & Bowles, D. C. (2021). Adapting to teach-
ing during a pandemic: Pedagogical adjustments for the next semester of teaching during COVID-
19 and future online learning. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 1–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​23733​
79920​987264
Hill, P. (2019). State of higher ed LMS market for US and Canada: 2019 mid-year edition. PhilOnEdTech.
Huang, Q. (2022). Teachers’ intention to use an electronic learning management system in the long term.
Interactive and Learning Environments, 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10494​820.​2022.​20626​07
Kaminskienė, L., Järvelä, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2022). How does technology challenge teacher education?
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 1–9. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1186/​s41239-​022-​00375-1
Kang, I., Choi, J. I., & Chang, K. (2007). Constructivist research in educational technology: A retrospec-
tive view and future prospects. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8, 397–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
BF030​26469

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

Kite, J., Schlub, T. E., Zhang, Y., Choi, S., Craske, S., & Dickson, M. (2020). Exploring lecturer and student
perceptions and use of a learning management system in a postgraduate public health environment.
E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(3), 183–198. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​20427​53020​909217
Kurt, S. (2021). Constructivist learning theory. Educational Technology. https://​educa​tiona​ltech​nology.​net/​
const​ructi​vist-​learn​ing-​theory/
Kwon, S., Kim, W., Bae, C., Cho, M., Lee, S., & Dreamson, N. (2021). The identity changes in online
learning and teaching: Instructors, learners, and learning management systems. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s41239-​021-​00304-8
Lucas, M., Bem-Haja, P., Siddiq, F., Moreira, A., & Redecker, C. (2021). The relation between in-service
teachers’ digital competence and personal and contextual factors: What matters most?. Computers &
Education, 160, 104052. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2020.​104052
Luk, C. H., Ng, K. K., Lam, W. M. (2018). The acceptance of using open-source learning platform (moodle)
for learning in Hong Kong’s Higher Education. In S. Cheung, J. Lam, K. Li, O. Au, W. Ma, W. Ho (Eds)
Technology in education. innovative solutions and practices. ICTE 2018. Communications in computer
and information science, vol 843. Springer, Singapore.
Medved, J. P. (2017). LMS industry user research report. In Capterra Inc. (p. 1). http://​www.​capte​rra.​com/​
learn​ing-​manag​ement-​system-​softw​are/​user-​resea​rch.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for inte-
grating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​9620.​2006.​00684.x
Mpungose, C. B., & Khoza, S. B. (2022). Postgraduate students’ experiences on the use of Moodle and Can-
vas Learning Management System. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1), 1–16. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s10758-​020-​09475-1
Mwalongo, A. I., & Mkonongwa, L. M. (2023). Lecturers’ perceptions of support for integrating Informa-
tion and Communication Technologies in teaching and learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learn-
ing, 28(3), 1199–1221. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​021-​09576-5
Neuman, D. (2014). Qualitative research in educational communications and technology: A brief introduc-
tion to principles and procedures. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 69–86. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12528-​014-​9078-x
Norz, L. M., Dornauer, V., Hackl, W. O., & Ammenwerth, E. (2023). Measuring social presence in online-
based learning: An exploratory path analysis using log data and social network analysis. The Internet
and Higher Education, 56, 100894. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iheduc.​2022.​100894
Octaberlina, L. R., & Muslimin, A. I. (2020). EFL students perspective towards online learning barriers and
alternatives using Moodle/Google Classroom during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Higher Education, 9(6), 1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5430/​ijhe.​v9n6p1
Phillipo, J., & Krongard, S. (2018). (LMS): The missing link and great enabler. NANONPDF.COM. https://​
nanop​df.​com/​downl​oad/​lms-​the-​missi​ng-​link-​and-​great-​enabl​er_​pdf
Rankine, L., Stevenson, L., Malfroy, J. & Ashford-Rowe, K. (2009). Benchmarking across universities: a
framework for LMS analysis. Ascilite Conference ‘Same places, different spaces’ 6–9 December 2009,
Auckland New Zealand.
Rolim, V., Ferreira, R., Lins, R. D., & Gǎsević, D. (2019). A network-based analytic approach to uncovering
the relationship between social and cognitive presences in communities of inquiry. The Internet and
Higher Education, 42, 53–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iheduc.​2019.​05.​001
Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15391​523.​2015.​10526​63
Şahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2022). Learners’ needs in online learning environments and third generation
Learning Management Systems (LMS 3.0). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1), 33–48.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​020-​09479-x
Sáiz-Manzanares, M. C., Marticorena-Sánchez, R., Rodríguez-Díez, J. J., Rodríguez-Arribas, S., Díez-Pas-
tor, J. F., & Ji, Y. P. (2021). Improve teaching with modalities and collaborative groups in an LMS:
An analysis of monitoring using visualization techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
33(3), 747–778.
Sakala, L. C., & Chigona, W. (2020). How lecturers neutralize resistance to the implementation of learning
management systems in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(2), 365–388.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12528-​019-​09238-7
Salmons, J. (Ed.) (2012). Cases in online interview research. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://​doi.​org/​10.​
4135/​97815​06335​155

13
 P. D. Simon et al.

Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating sub-
jective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90–103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​im.​2006.​10.​007
Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why
instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others.
Computers & Education, 71, 247–256. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2013.​09.​016
Sharma, L., & Srivastava, M. (2019). Teachers’ motivation to adopt technology in higher educa-
tion. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(4), 673–692. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
JARHE-​07-​2018-​0156
Simon, P. D., Jiang, J., & Fryer, L. (2023). Measurement of higher education students’ and teachers’ experi-
ences in learning management systems: A scoping review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educa-
tion. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02602​938.​2023.​22661​54
TeachThought Staff. (2023). The most popular Learning Management Systems for schools. TeachThought.
https://​www.​teach​thoug​ht.​com/​techn​ology/​tmost-​popul​ar-​learn​ing-​manag​ement-​syste​ms-​for-​schoo​ls/
Teo, T., Zhou, M., Fan, A. C. W., & Huang, F. (2019). Factors that influence university students’ intention to
use Moodle: A study in Macau. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 749–766.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11423-​019-​09650-x
Torres-Martín, C., Acal, C., El-Homrani, M., & Mingorance-Estrada, Á. C. (2022). Implementation of the
flipped classroom and its longitudinal impact on improving academic performance. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 70(3), 909–929. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11423-​022-​10095-y
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2022). An overview of the common elements of learning management
system policies in higher education institutions. TechTrends, 66(5), 855–867. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11528-​022-​00752-7
UNESCO. (2022). UNESCO’s education response to COVID-19. https://​www.​unesco.​org/​en/​covid-​19/​
educa​tion-​respo​nse
Wadhwani, P., & Gankar, S. (2020). E-learning market industry analysis report, regional outlook, growth
potential, competitive market share & forecast, 2020–2026. GMInsights.
Watty, K., McKay, J., & Ngo, L. (2016). Innovators or inhibitors? Accounting faculty resistance to new edu-
cational technologies in higher education. Journal of Accounting Education, 36, 1–15. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​jacce​du.​2016.​03.​003
Wong, G. K., Li, Y. K., & Lai, X. (2021). Visualizing the learning patterns of topic-based social interaction
in online discussion forums: An exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
ment, 69(5), 2813–2843. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11423-​021-​10040-5
Xie, Y., Huang, Y., Luo, W., Bai, Y., Qiu, Y., & Ouyang, Z. (2023). Design and effects of the teacher-student
interaction model in the online learning spaces. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(1),
69–90.
Ye, D., & Pennisi, S. (2022). Using trace data to enhance Students’ self-regulation: A learning analytics
perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 54, 100855. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iheduc.​2022.​
100855
Yeung, M. W. L., & Yau, A. H. Y. (2022). A thematic analysis of higher education students’ perceptions of
online learning in Hong Kong under COVID-19: Challenges, strategies and support. Education Infor-
mation Technologies, 27, 181–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10639-​021-​10656-3

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Authors and Affiliations

Patricia D. Simon1,2 · Juming Jiang1 · Luke K. Fryer1,3 · Ronnel B. King4 ·

Cherry E. Frondozo5

* Patricia D. Simon
[email protected]
Juming Jiang
[email protected]
Luke K. Fryer
[email protected]

13
An Assessment of Learning Management System Use in Higher…

Ronnel B. King
[email protected]
Cherry E. Frondozo
[email protected]
1
Teaching and Learning Innovation Centre, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam,
Hong Kong SAR, China
2
Department of Psychology, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
3
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong SAR, China
4
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong
Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China
5
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Ting Kok,
Hong Kong SAR, China

13