Migrating Learning Management Systems in Higher Education: Faculty Members’ Perceptions of System Usage and Training When Transitioning From Blackboard Vista to Desire2Learn
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2017
Migrating Learning Management Systems in Higher Education: Faculty Members’ Perceptions of System Usage and Training When Transitioning From Blackboard Vista to Desire2Learn
This study examined a migration from Blackboard Vista to Desire2Learn (D2L) within a multiuniversity system. Faculty members’ perceptions from two of the systems’ colleges were evaluated using a questionnaire based on Davis’ technology acceptance model. Researchers analyzed responses for differences in system usage experience of faculty and in faculty usage of training and support services. Overall, faculty had positive experiences (or experienced few issues) with use of D2L and seemed to use fewer training and support resources during the migration. Although no statistically significant difference was found, recommendations were made to inform future migrations’ success.
Al-BusaidiK. (2009) The impact of learning management system characteristics and user characteristics on the acceptance of e-learning. International Journal of Global Management Studies1(2): 75–91.
2.
AvgeriouP.PapasalourosA.RetalisS.SkordalakisM. (2003) Towards a pattern language for learning management systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society6(2): 11–24.
3.
Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248.
4.
BensonR.PalaskasT. (2006) Introducing a new learning management system: An institutional case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology22(4): 548–567.
5.
BlackE.BeckD.DawsonK.JinksS.DiPietroM. (2007) The other side of the LMS: Considering implementation and use in the adoption of an LMS in online and blended learning environments. TechTrends51(2): 35–39.
6.
Daugherty, M., & Funke, B. L. (1998). University faculty and student perceptions of web-based instruction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 21–39.
7.
DavisF. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
8.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989) User acceptance of information technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
9.
ElwoodS.ChangchitC.CutshallR. (2006) Investigating students' perceptions on laptop initiative in higher education. An extension of the technology acceptance model. Campus-Wide Information Systems23(5): 336–349. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650740610714099.
10.
EynonR. (2008) The use of the world wide web in learning and teaching in higher education: Reality and rhetoric. Innovations in Education & Teaching International45(1): 15–23. Retrieved from 10.1080/1470329070175740.
11.
Gautreau, C. (2011). Motivational factors affecting the integration of a learning management system by faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 8(1), 1–25. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ917870.pdf.
12.
GeX.LubinI.ZhangK. (2010) An investigation of faculty’s perceptions and experiences when transitioning to a new learning management system. Knowledge Management & E—Learning: An International Journal2(4): 433–447.
13.
Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(3), 65–72.
14.
HallG.LoucksS.RutherfordW.NewloveB. (1975) Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education26(1): 52–56.
15.
LeeY.HsiehY.ChenY. (2013) An investigation of employees’ use of e-learning systems: Applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology32(2): 173–189.
16.
Little-WilesJ.NaimiL. L. (2011) Faculty perceptions of and experiences in using the blackboard learning management system. Conflict Resolution & Negotiation Journal4(1): 1–13.
17.
McGillT. J.KlobasJ. E. (2009) A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education52(1): 496–508.
18.
Padilla-MeléndezA.Aguila-ObraA.Garrido-MorenoA. (2013) Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education63: 306–317.
19.
RogersE. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
20.
RyanT.ToyeM.CharronK.ParkG. (2012) Learning management system migration: An analysis of stakeholder perspectives. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning13(1): 220–237.
Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices-views and experiences with online learning. Results of a National Faculty Survey, Part of the Online Education Benchmarking Study Conducted by the APLU-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED517311.
23.
SilvaL. (2007) Post-positivist review of technology acceptance model. Journal of the Association For Information Systems8(4): 256–266.
24.
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). About Carnegie Classification. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
Van De BogartW.WichadeeS. (2015) Exploring students' intention to use lINE for academic purposes based on technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning16(3): 65–85.
27.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences27(3): 451–481.
28.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
29.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisF. D.DavisG. B. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(1): 425–478.
