Learning Management Systems (LMS) in Universities

Learning Management Systems (LMS) in UniversitiesAbstractLearning Management Systems (LMSs) be the typic on the wholey come aftered technology and they provide a signifi skunkt pawn in supporting blended reading in universities. on that pointfore, these systems are being explored from various aspects. Educational technologists conclude that every university or even departments indoors the same university differ in its experience in adopting these systems. subdivision of industrial Management, University of Kelania is adopting the LMS accession for supporting blended larn. This university administration raises considerable attention in assessing the actual extent of supply and scholar bridal of the LMS. In this hear this paper presents data tucked from the surveyed 100 students at the Department of industrial Management, university of Kelaniya regarding their LMS adoption.KeywordsIntroductionThe signifi mountaince to the advancements of web-based technologies is the d evelopment of powerful software systems, known as instruction focus systems (LMS), support become a widely- consumptiond technology and a key instrument in supporting e-learning in high educational institutions. As LMS offers numerous benefits to individuals and institutions, many universities have deployed some form of LMS. Students behind access style materials independent of succession and location. Significantly, it opens up fresh potentials for initiating academic innovations where students function as dynamic, control their own learning, develop critical thought and become collaborative participants. In addition, LMS provides an automated mechanism for instructors in the management of online courses, allowing them to create, add, modify, customize, and re usage digital content and learning objects and tracking learner progress. unify learning is defined as a combination (blend) of e-learning and grimace to face classroom learning environments (Graham,2006 Wu and Hwan g, 2010 Murshitha S.M and Wickramarachchi A.P.R, 2015) Recently, blending learning has been increasing in high education, as students are pertain in collaborative learning and fundamental interaction with instructors and classmates (Wu et al., 2010).Al some all universities in Sri Lanka have developed their own LMS portal for the habituate of their own lecturers and students. The administrators of Sri Lankan universities are keen on assessing the actual view of faculty and students usage of the LMS as the acquisition or construction of much(prenominal) a system and its annual cost of operation are significant. investigating and assessing the usage of LMS within a department and especially between unlike departments and universities is essential for its continuous expend.The objective of this study is to investigate the status (extent of physical exercise) of LMS adoption in blended learning at university level. This look will be interested to both researcher and university community, as it will significantly institute and improve the body of knowledge in the context of LMS adoption.Literature look intoAll learning management systems are not the same they can be adopted in different ways. Different ray of lights such as action mechanism joyrides (Lesson, HTML page, Glossary, Assignments, Quiz, Choice, Database, Workshop, Wiki, Chat and Forum etc.), blocks (People, Calendar, Online Users, Latest News, Upcoming Events, Search, etc.) and filters (associated components to the activity tools and the blocks) are integrated in a single system which offers all necessary tools to run and manage an e-learning course. All learning activities and materials in a course are organized and managed by and within the system.Significant loyalty in universities utilize an LMS is how to evaluate the actual extent of LMS usage by the staff and student. While the trends are towards more student centric learning tools, the research done has shown that yet the article of faith staff is the key de transgression driver of an LMS usage. The need for a reliable guide of the extent of LMS usage becomes unmistakable when one considers the complexity of assessing to what extent an LMS is real used within an university. In this direction, range of aspects of LMS adoption, implementation, support, and usage have been the subject of numerous studies (McQuiggan, C. A. 2007).Lane dictated that the manner of LMS usage was largely shaped by the nature of the product as introduced to faculty 14. Kincannon earlier studied the reaction of faculty to use of a C/LMS and determined that faculty expressed dissatisfaction at the time demands lowerd by using it 13. Amrein-Beardsley, et. al 4, Allen and Seamans for the Sloan Consortium 2, the Georgiapersuasion Implementation Enterprise Wide study 25, Harrington 12 and Morgan 19 allattempted to overhear insight into C/LMS usage via student or instructor-supplied data, and to assess the level of faculty adoption o f C/LMS via the use of surveys, determining that 96% of the largest institutions of higher learning were, as of 2006, using C/LMS to support online learning in addition to in-class courses. Vonderwell, et. al 26, Cramer, et. al 9, Mandinach 15, Tobin 23, Shiratuddin 22, and Bork 8 attempted to evolve methods for the estimate of student performance, or propose reasoned suggestions for the improvement of performance, when C/LMS software was involved in the process of education. Yet a glaring omission exists in the empirical measurement of the actual extent of usage of C/LMS by faculty derived from the databases supporting a given C/LMS, that is, regularly quantity the extent of faculty usage of the C/LMS as evidenced by the contents of the database supporting it, making it possible to detect and respond to trends.The escape of adequate means of assessing C/LMS usage has prompted some researchers to propose the covering of data warehousing technology to the problem of providing a b ase of quickly accessible faculty and student C/LMS usage data. Van Dyk and Conradie 24 proposed such an approach in 2007 in support of action research, defined by ZuberSkerrit as a critical enquiry by academics themselves into their own teaching practice, into problems of student learning and into curriculum problems30. The prototype data warehouse they proposed was intend to be used directly by instructors who were interested in canvas the relationship between learning styles as defined and measured using the Felder index of learning styles 11and student interaction with the C/LMS, and potentially conducting other similar ad hoc studies. Their prototype data warehouse was formed gibe to established dimensional techniques andIn order to assess the usage and extent of use of LMS this research adopted Janossys, J (2008) assessment method that induct it possible to assess usage between units of a university and between universities, flock the development and proposal outlined in detail in account 2.2 , which depicts a model for the derivation of a simple metric expressed as a number from 0 through with(predicate) 13.Figure 2. 2 Janossys LMS Usage Level and Metric Values The formation of this model bribe from the definition of five overall levels of possible C/LMS use. These five levels swing out the continuum from no use of the C/LMS by an instructor through a level which exceeds the capabilities of most C/LMS systems using the technology currently getable to many institutions (Janossy,J., 2008). The Figure 2.3 provides greater detail concerning the functional usage represent by each metric value, proceeding from the lowest value through the highestFigure 2. 3 A Level-Model for Assessing The LMS Usage among Staff and studentsLevel 0 refers to no LMS usage. Thus, the lecturer does not create a course in LMS or does not activate student access to the LMS for the students in the course if a course is automatically created in the LMS.Level 1, refers to the very basal usage of the system solitary(prenominal) for uploading lesson content by the teaching staff and transfering lesson content or submitting assignments by the students.Level 2, refers to the usage of communion tool in an LMS. It includes the usage of modules such as email, word of honor forum or chat.Level 3, refers to the usage of the testing tool (quizzes, pool or survey). For instance, students can take some quizzes and tests online, with some scores provided immediately possibly with feedback answers for ludicrous items and similar.Level 4, is defined with a view to the current technological developments which submit to share knowledge and to treat users as co-developers. catamenialy this was achieved by adding a blog module on the system but in the future day there might be other modules to enrich this level of LMS usage.It is enkindle to note that one could draw a parallel between the levels of this model and the theories of learning. In fact, the lowest levels of the LMS usage actually correspond to the more teacher centered approach which is typical for a basic level of learning and behaviorism. As we go upper in the level spectrum of LMS usage actually we move towards constructivism and social constructivism and end up in Level 4 which promotes building knowledge through sharing experiences and co-developing which on the other flip are some of the main principles of connectivism.Assessment of the LMS adoption in learning process.A total of 100 questionnaires are distributed and all of them are returned and usable. control panel 1 summarizes the demographic indite and descriptive statistics of the respondents.ItemFrequency componentGenderMaleFemale38623862Age or Level20-22 (Level 2)23-25 (Level 3)48524852PC ownershipYesNo84168416Laptop ownershipYesNo94069406Often of LMS useRegularJust-to download30703070 knock back 1 Demographic profile and descriptive statistics of surveyed studentsThis section describes the answer for the re search question, thus how is the status of LMS adoption in learning process? In doing so, descriptive profiles for each of the adoption variables are explored. Table 4.59 exhibits the descriptive profile of the five LMS adoption tools i.e. downloading lesson, chat, discussion forum, email and assessment.Table 4. 59 descriptive Profile of LMS Adoption ToolsThe conceptualization of students LMS adoption consists of five LMS tools namely, downloading lesson content, chat, discussion forum, e-mail and assessment. However based on the analyzed data only cardinal LMS tools i.e. downloading lesson content and assessment were prominently adopted by students at Department of Industrial Management, University of Kelaniya.Downloading lesson content relates to the utilization of LMS for downloading notes that are uploaded by their lecturers. In this instance, lecturers impose the students to use this tool by uploading their lesson contents. In fact, findings of this study revealed that studen ts downloading lesson contents was the highest in terms of mean compared to other LMS tools. Since being a student, one is unceasingly subject to lecturers decision. Hence, by uploading lesson content lecturers swear or impose students to use this tool and students without any questions must abide and adhere. Moreover, findings from lecturers questionnaire also indicted that all most all lecturers use this tool to upload their lesson content.Chat denotes to the utilization of LMS for the object of pedagogical chatting via LMS and students are being monitored by the administrator. Hence, they use this tool only for the above solve. Findings of this study showed that chat tool recorded the lowest mean. There would be 2 reasons behind this lowest mean. The first reason is, unremarkably students are being more interested and constantly engaged in chatting other than pedagogical one and use chatting tools such as facebook, twitter, skype, whatsup, viber, trip the light fantastic t oe etc. The second reason is, a very few lecturers use this chatting tool as evident bylecturers questionnaire and they do not insist or impose the students to use this tool as they insist the students to download the lesson content.Discussion forum, relates to the utilization of LMS for the purpose of discussing on a certain outcome with their peers and lecturers to enhance the critical thinking, analytical skills and exchange of their knowledge. Findings of this study showed that the tool of discussion forum also recorded lower mean. There would be two reasons behind this. The first reason is, as the respondents are the internal students, they have enough time for discussing face to face. The second reason is, according to the data derived from lecturers questionnaire only 25% of lectures use this discussion forum. Hence, students also do not give preference to this tool as their lecturers.E-mail denotes the adoption of LMS for communication purposes. This is also same as the pre vious two tools. Thus students use other mail accounts in yahoo, gmail for their e-mailing purpose.Assessment tool relates to the utilization of LMS for the purpose of assessing students through various sub assessment tools such as quizzes, slight answers, multiple choice, essay questions etc. Results revealed second scoring for assessment tool in adopting LMS. This is because students are being imposed by their lecturers to adopt this tool, as they are imposed by lecturers to download lesson contents. Findings from lecturers questionnaire indicted that 80% of lecturers use the assessment tool to assess their students.From the above discussion it is obvious that, prejudiced average has a strong predictive power in determining individuals behavior. Thus, subjective norm in the form of lecturers acceptance and use of technology were effectuate to influence students acceptance and use of the same. Thus if lecturers use or adopt LMS, students also believe it as important to them and they also imitate their lecturers and vice versa.Research MethodsThis study is descriptive in nature and self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data. The questionnaire was divided into three sections.ReferencesGraham, C.R. (2006) Chapter 1 Blended Learning System Definition,Current Trends, Future Directions in Bonk, C. J. and C.R. Graham(eds.) Handbook of Blended Learning, San Francisco, CA Pfeiffer.McQuiggan, C. A. (2007). The role of faculty development in online teachings potential to question teaching beliefs and assumptions. Online ledger of Distance Learning Administration, 10(3).Lane, L. M. (2007). Course Management Systems and Pedagogy. Retrieved October 10, 2007, fromhttp//lisahistory.net/pages/CMSandPedagogy.htmWu, W. C, Hwang, L. Y.(2010) The Effectiveness of e-Learning forBlended Courses in Colleges International Journal of ElectronicBusiness Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.312-322 (2010)