Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 1
Running Head: Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS
Investigating Undergraduates' Perceptions and Use of a Learning
Management System: A Tale of Two Campuses
Steven Lonn
University of Michigan
Stephanie D. Teasley
University of Michigan
Andrew E. Krumm
University of Michigan
Please address all correspondence to:
Steven Lonn
University of Michigan
Digital Media Commons & School of Education
2281 Bonisteel Blvd., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2094
Email: slonn@umich.edu
Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
San Diego, California, April 16, 2009
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 2
Investigating Undergraduates' Perceptions and Use of a Learning
Management System: A Tale of Two Campuses
Steven Lonn1, Stephanie D. Teasley2, & Andrew E. Krumm1
University of Michigan
Digital Media Commons, School of Education1, and School of Information2
Abstract: Learning Management Systems (LMS) are web-based systems allowing instructors
and/or students to share materials and interact online. We explored the differences between
undergraduate students at a large residential campus with students at a smaller commuter campus
who used the same LMS. We examined students’ survey responses, focusing on items related to
materials management and interactive teaching and learning. We also examined aggregated log
data to see if students’ use was consistent with their beliefs. Students from both campuses rate
highly all activities and tools within the LMS. Findings suggest, however, that residential students
value activities and tools for materials management more than commuter students, while
commuter students value activities and tools fostering interactive teaching and learning more than
residential students.
The use of technology for teaching and learning in higher education has grown
exponentially in the past decade, particularly the use of web-based systems. A recent report
(Hawkins & Rudy, 2007) showed that over 90% of all responding universities and colleges have
established one or more Learning Management Systems (LMS) to allow instructors and students
to share instructional materials, make class announcements, submit and return course
assignments, and communicate with each other online.
In prior research (Lonn & Teasley, 2008), we coded LMS use into two categories that
distinguished whether the LMS was used for efficient instructor communication (e.g., posting
online readings) or interactive teaching and learning (e.g., students commenting on each other's
work). We found that both instructors and students more highly valued LMS for efficient
instructor communication than for interactive teaching and learning uses. In the study presented
here, we asked if this pattern was specific to a particular type of campus or if the results were
related to the fact that the previous data set was based on the experiences of undergraduate
students at a large, mainly residential campus. We therefore extended our previous work by
examining the differences in students’ attitudes about LMS use and actual experience with a
LMS for undergraduates at a large residential campus and undergraduates at a smaller commuter
campus who were using the same LMS product. We examined students’ survey responses,
focusing on items specifically related to materials management versus more interactive teaching
and learning practices. Aggregated log data from the LMS were also examined to see if students’
system use was consistent with their beliefs as shown by the survey results.
Background
Research investigating the differences between commuter and residential students has
found that commuters tend to be the first generation to attend college in their family, their
parents are more frequently "blue collar" workers with less education than residential students,
and, overall, commuter students are less prepared for the academic demands of college
(Chickering, 1974). Despite these differences in background and preparation, Chickering found
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 3
that commuter students tend to perform academically as well as residential students. Later
studies have found whether students lived on campus was a very important factor of educational
impact, stating that residential students, compared with commuters, participate in more
extracurricular activities, interact more frequently with faculty and peers, are more satisfied, are
more likely to graduate from college, and exhibit greater gains in educational goals and
outcomes (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994). Overall, while some research in this area
posits that commuter students are at a disadvantage and face several challenges in creating
developmental experiences comparable to residential students (Smith, 1989), other researchers
argue that the most important factor affecting what students gain from college is the quality of
effort they exert in academic and social activities, regardless of their residential status (Pace,
1979; 1984). In this study, we applied this area of research in our exploration of differences
between residential and commuter students with regards to their attitudes and use of LMS.
When LMS first began to gain popularity, the early adopters cited efficiency affordances
of the technology more frequently than teaching and learning activities (Morgan, 2003). Other
survey-based studies have similarly found that instructors and students value materials
management and housekeeping activities over more interactive uses of LMS (e.g., Ansorge &
Bendus, 2003; Herse & Lee, 2005; Holm, Röllinghoff, & Ninck, 2003; Yohon, Zimmerman, &
Keeler, 2004). However, a study by Hanson & Robson, (2004) suggests that connecting
perception with actual use is not easy. They examined the use of two commercial LMS (WebCT
and Blackboard) and found that more students than faculty reported that these systems
"improved learning." When asked to select the specific benefits of using these systems, however,
both instructors and students chose "saves time" more often than "improves learning." Therefore
it is important to examine both perceptions about use and actual use of these systems.
Although there have been some multi-campus studies of LMS (e.g., Harrington, Gordon,
& Schibik, 2004; Morgan, 2003), none have focused on students’ perceptions of use nor on the
possible differences in use between residential and commuter institutions. While researchers
who focus on commuter students and their experiences note that information and communication
technologies are a significant force affecting the nature of student interaction with each other and
with their instructors (Krause, 2007), there continues to be little scholarly exploration about the
nature of the commuter student experience (Pascarella, 2006; Pascarella, Duby, & Iverson, 1983)
particularly with respect to the role of IT in their educational experience.
Our study serves to fill several gaps in the literature by examining students' perceptions
and actual use of the same LMS at a residential campus and a commuter campus, focusing
specifically on activities related to materials management and interactive teaching and learning
practices.
Methods
Data Sources
We administered an online survey in the spring of 2008 at the main campus of a large
American Midwestern research university (the residential campus) and at a smaller satellite
campus of the research university (the commuter campus). According to the Carnegie
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 4
Classification of Institutions of Higher Education
(http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/), the residential campus is a large, public,
four-year research university with very high research activity and a majority undergraduate
enrollment. The commuter campus is a medium, public, four-year master's university with a
large overall program and a high undergraduate enrollment.
We used the system's event logs to create aggregated data representing the activity in the
course sites in which the student participants were enrolled during the survey period (Winter
term 2008). Event logs capture when a user takes a particular action with a specific tool, such as
downloading a document or posting an announcement.
Participants
All students from the commuter campus and a random sample (stratified by
school/college) of 25% of students from the residential campus were invited to participate in the
survey. The sample for this study included only undergraduate students who participated in the
online survey and were enrolled in at least one course that had an active site within the LMS
(residential campus, n=1,686; commuter campus, n=898).
The demographics for the two campuses were very similar. For gender, 58% of the
residential students were female compared with 63% of the commuter students. For ethnicity,
65% of the residential students identified themselves as white compared with 67% of the
commuter students. For the number of years in school, 26% of the residential students were firstyear undergraduates, 19% were second-year, 25% were third-year, and 30% were undergraduates
for four or more years. On the commuter campus, 19% of the students were first-year
undergraduates, 19% were second-year, 27% were third-year, and 35% were undergraduates for
four or more years. Finally, when looking at students' majors (see Table 1), the most popular
category was social sciences on both the residential campus (30%) and the commuter campus
(28%).
Table 1: Category of Students' Majors by Campus
16%
Natural
Sciences
19%
Social
Sciences
30%
Professional
School
8%
13%
18%
28%
24%
Campus
Engineering
Humanities
Residential
18%
Commuter
13%
Undeclared
9%
4%
Nearly all courses at the residential campus are conducted in traditional lecture sections
where students have direct face time with the course instructor. The commuter campus offers
three types of course experiences, so we asked those students to identify their main experience:
traditional face-to-face courses (83%), blended courses that have some face-to-face components
and some online components (16%), and virtual courses conducted solely online (1%).
Design & Procedure
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 5
The LMS examined in this study is based on the Sakai community-source architecture
(http://sakaiproject.org). This environment is comparable to other popular systems such as
Blackboard (http://blackboard.com) and Moodle (http://moodle.org). A total of 1,584 course sites
from the residential campus and 248 sites from the commuter campus were analyzed in this
study. Within LMS course sites, instructors may elect to use any of the following tools:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Announcements: Non-threaded, asynchronous messages for all site participants to read.
Email notifications may be sent as well.
Assignments: Allows students to upload and submit assignments and projects and
instructors to grade and comment on students' submissions.
Chat: Synchronous conversation tool. All messages are automatically saved and are
viewable for all site participants.
Content Sharing: File storage space. Any file type may be stored; URLs to other
websites may be created, and shared citation lists may be created. Email notifications of
new content may be sent as well.
Discussion: Threaded, asynchronous messages for all site participants to read.
Drop Box: Private file storage space for sharing between individual students and the
instructor.
Email Archive: All email sent via a site-specific email address is delivered to all
participants and also saved online for archival and searching.
Forums: A threaded, asynchronous messaging tool, similar to the Discussion tool but
with more finely grained options and permission settings.
Gradebook: An online grading tool that allows the instructor to grade any assignment or
exam and share that information with students, who view only their own scores.
Messages: A non-threaded, asynchronous messaging tool that can either send messages
to groups of students or individuals.
News: Allows site participants to view RSS feeds from external sources.
Schedule: A shared calendar used to post deadlines, due dates, etc.
Syllabus: Instructors may use this tool to post their syllabus as HTML or an attachment.
Web Content: Allows site participants to view external websites.
Wiki: A collaborative document-writing tool. Any site participant may add or modify
additional pages and a history of changes is automatically recorded.
Our analysis of the survey data examined questions that could be categorized as either
materials management or interactive teaching & learning items. These results were then
compared to patterns of use shown in the system log data that reported aggregated user actions in
the LMS sites for the courses in which the student participants were enrolled. Given the different
sample sizes, we also analyzed the effect sizes of the significant statistical results, typically
generating a small effect size (Cohen's d greater than .15 and less than .40).
Results
Materials Management and Interactive Teaching & Learning Activities
Our analysis for this study categorized several survey items about specific activities
within the LMS as either supporting "materials management" or "teaching & learning" (see
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 6
Table 2). These items asked the students to rate their agreement that the LMS was valuable for
the various activities on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.
Table 2: Survey Items by Category
Materials Management •
•
•
•
•
•
Interactive Teaching & Learning Access a syllabus online
Receive messages or notifications from
the instructor
Access online readings & supplementary
course materials
Access sample exams & quizzes for
learning purposes
Access lecture outline or notes after the
lecture
View calendar / schedule of activities
•
•
•
•
•
•
Students turn in assignments online
Instructors return assignments to students
online with comments & grade
Visit online office hours
Students post questions before lecture
Students post questions after lecture
Students work together on a task or
assignment
In general, all students rated the activities provided by the LMS quite positively as almost
all items received a rating at 4.0 or above (see Tables 3 & 4). There were some significant
differences in how residential and commuter students rated the materials management items (see
Table 3). The residential students rated two of the items significantly higher than the commuter
students: Access online readings (t (1,298) = 4.907, p < .001; Cohen's d = .27) and Access
lecture outline after the lecture (t (1,222) = 2.840, p = .005; Cohen's d = .16). The commuter
students rated the View calendar / schedule item significantly higher than the residential
students: (t (1,690) = 4.230, p < .001; Cohen's d = .21).
Table 3: Mean Differences between Students' Answers on the Materials Management Survey Items
Item
Access a syllabus online
Residential
Students
Commuter
Students
Mean
Difference
4.53
4.48
(n=1,470)
(n=784)
.05
Receive messages /
notifications from instructor
4.38
4.31
(n=1,460)
(n=780)
Access online readings &
supplementary materials
4.54
4.37
(n=1,467)
(n=780)
Access sample
exams & quizzes
4.47
4.37
(n=1,462)
(n=778)
Access lecture outline or
notes after the lecture
4.57
4.46
(n=1,464)
(n=781)
View calendar /
schedule of activities
3.89
4.14
(n=1,462)
(n=781)
Note: * p < .001
.07
.17*
.10
.09**
.25*
** p < .05
There were also significant differences in how residential and commuter students rated
several of the interactive teaching & learning items (see Table 4). The commuter students rated
two of the items significantly higher than the residential students: Instructors return assignments
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 7
to students online (t (1,622) = 4.101, p < .001; Cohen's d = .20) and Post questions after lecture
(t (1,742) = 1.992, p = .047; Cohen's d = .10).
Table 4: Mean Differences between Students' Answers on the Interactive Teaching & Learning Survey Items
Item
Residential
Students
Commuter
Students
Mean
Difference
.04
Students turn in
assignments online
4.27
4.31
(n=1,457)
(n=778)
Instructors return assignments
to students online
4.01
4.25
(n=1,461)
(n=780)
Visit online office hours
Post questions before lecture
Post questions after lecture
Students work together on a
task or assignment
Note: * p < .001
4.35
4.42
(n=1,461)
(n=778)
4.21
4.32
(n=1,462)
(n=779)
4.27
4.38
(n=1,456)
(n=777)
4.08
4.16
(n=1,458)
(n=778)
.24*
.07
.11
.11*
.08
** p < .05
Student Attitudes About LMS Tools
The activities described above occur within several LMS tools. We therefore categorized
the tools available to students into materials management or interactive teaching and learning
based on the tools' predominant mode of use. The students were asked to rate their agreement
that the LMS tools were valuable for their course-related activities on a 5-point Likert scale from
1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Like the activities described in Table 1, all students
rated the tools within the LMS quite positively as almost all items received a rating at 4.0 or
above (see Table 5). For the materials management tools, the residential students rated the
Announcements tool significantly higher than the commuter students (t (1,383) = 2.237, p =
.025; Cohen's d = .12) and the commuter students rated two tools significantly higher than the
residential students: Drop Box (t (1,509) = 3.276, p = .001; Cohen's d = .17) and Schedule (t
(1,819) = 4.427, p < .001; Cohen's d = .21). The commuter students also rated four interactive
teaching and learning tools significantly higher than the residential students: Chat Room (t
(1,603) = 6.858, p < .001; Cohen's d = .34), Discussion (t (1,786) = 8.018, p < .001; Cohen's d =
.38), Email Archive (t (1,551) = 2.656, p = .008; Cohen's d = .13), and Forums (t (1,739) =
2.318, p = .021; Cohen's d = .06).
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 8
Table 5: Mean Differences between Students for Attitudes about LMS Tools
Category
Tool
Announcements
Drop Box
Gradebook
Materials
Management
News
Content Sharing
Schedule
Syllabus
Assignments
Chat Room
Discussion
Interactive
Teaching &
Learning
Email Archive
Forums
Messages
Wiki
Note: * p < .001
Residential
Students
Commuter
Students
Mean
Difference
4.50
4.43
(n=1,454)
(n=783)
.07**
4.19
4.37
(n=1,454)
(n=778)
4.27
4.47
(n=1,454)
(n=779)
4.42
4.45
(n=1,448)
(n=775)
4.56
4.50
(n=1,448)
(n=779)
4.22
4.45
(n=1,452)
(n=776)
4.46
4.51
(n=1,452)
(n=777)
4.44
4.39
(n=1,454)
(n=782)
3.81
4.23
(n=1,455)
(n=782)
3.83
4.28
(n=1,454)
(n=781)
4.25
4.42
(n=1,451)
(n=781)
4.30
4.45
(n=1,452)
(n=775)
4.32
4.40
(n=1,449)
(n=778)
4.53
4.60
(n=1,436)
(n=772)
.18**
.20*
.03
.06
.23*
.05
.05
.42*
.45*
.17**
.15**
.08
.07
** p < .05
LMS Event Log Data
We investigated LMS event logs to see if actual system use was consistent with
preferences expressed in the survey data. We began this phase of the analysis by comparing
whether each LMS tool was turned on across all course sites in which the student participants
were enrolled in order to help determine if the students were exposed to the same tools on both
campuses. This preliminary analysis revealed that tool activation was consistent across
campuses.
To better understand the use of these tools, we calculated the average percentage of total
events for each LMS tool by aggregating the events for all LMS course sites in which the student
participants were enrolled (see Table 6). Tool use was generally consistent across campuses for
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 9
the materials management tools except for the Content Sharing / Drop Box tools which had a
significantly higher average percentage of use by the residential campus sites than the commuter
campus sites (t (301) = 4.013, p < .001; Cohen's d = .46). The residential campus sites also had a
significantly higher average percentage of use than the commuter campus sites for one
interactive teaching and learning tool, Email Archive (t (1,725) = 4.199, p < .001; Cohen's d =
.20). The commuter campus sites had a significantly higher average percentage of use than the
residential campus sites for three interactive teaching and learning tools: Assignments (t (298) =
2.688, p = .008; Cohen's d = .31), Discussion (t (274) = 4.164, p < .001; Cohen's d = .50), and
Forums / Messages (t (286) = 2.109, p = .036; Cohen's d = .25).
Table 6: Mean Percentage (of Total Site Events) Differences Between Institutions for LMS Tool Use Based on
Event Logs
Category
Materials
Management
Interactive
Teaching &
Learning
Note: * p < .001
Residential
Campus
(n=1,584 sites)
Commuter
Campus
(n=248 sites)
Mean
Difference
Announcements
2.49%
2.74%
.25
Gradebook
1.25%
0.9%
.35
News
0.39%
0.39%
0
Content Sharing
/ Drop Box
83.43%
75.64%
7.79*
Schedule
0.35%
0.39%
.04
Syllabus
0.42%
0.67%
.25
Assignments
6.00%
9.16%
3.16**
Chat Room
1.12%
1.36%
.24
Discussion
1.43%
4.56%
3.13*
Email Archive
0.75%
0.06%
.69*
Forums /
Messages
2.16%
4.05%
1.89**
Wiki
0.20%
0.06%
.14
Tool
** p < .05
Student Opinions of LMS Affect of Instructors' Use of In-Class Time
After examining students' perceptions of activities and specific tools, we wanted to
explore if LMS use changed the nature of their in-class experiences. On our survey, students
from both campuses were asked a qualitative question: "Do you think using (the LMS) has
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 10
affected instructors' use of in-class time? If so, how?" Each student's answer was coded by two
raters with an inter-rater reliability of α = .870 (n=375). There were a total of 1,168 comments
(n=1,100 students) from the residential campus and 639 comments (n=621 students) from the
commuter campus. We organized the comments into three categories (eliminating comments
coded as "not applicable"): Positive Effect, No Effect, and Negative Effect (see Table 7). In
general, the majority of students on both campuses believed that the LMS had a positive effect
on the use of class time, although more of the residential students reported a positive effect.
More of the commuter students reported no effect than did the residential students. Very few
students on either campus stated a negative effect regarding class time. There was a significant
difference in the type of student comments from each campus (F (1,1,726) = 4.947, p = .026;
Cohen's d = .10).
Table 7: Categorical Breakdown by University of Student Comments About LMS Effect of Instructors' Use
of In-Class Time
University
Positive
Effect
No Effect
Negative
Effect
Residential
Students
64.8%
29.7%
5.5%
(n=733)
(n=336)
(n=62)
Commuter
Students
58.6%
35.3%
6.0%
(n=350)
(n=211)
(n=36)
In order to understand why students believed the LMS had a positive effect of class time,
we further coded their comments into materials management or interactive teaching and learning
categories (see Table 8). Although there was no significant difference between residential and
commuter students for the global materials management versus interactive teaching and learning
categories, there were significant differences between students for the individual coded
categories (X2(11, N=1,032) = 33.291, p < .001). For both types of students, most of the positive
effects in the classroom were related to materials management issues. Specifically, the use of the
LMS led to more efficient use of class time was the most frequent answer offered by students on
both campuses, although somewhat higher for commuter students. There were fewer positive
comments about interactive teaching and learning effects, although students on both campuses
said that class time was improved because the posting of lecture slides allowed more focus
during lectures.
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 11
Table 8: Percentages of Student Comments About LMS Effect of Instructors' Use of In-Class Time by
University Categorized as Positive Effect
Category
SubCategory
Efficiency
Code
Example Quote
Residential
Students
% of
Positive
Effect
More efficient
use of class
time
"Typically it reduces time needed to pass
out notes or other documents, etc., so more
time can be used to teach."
53.4%
57.0%
10.0%
4.4%
1.3%
0.6%
8.3%
10.9%
0.8%
3.1%
1.3%
0.9%
8.0%
5.9%
2.0%
1.2%
85.1%
84.1%
9.3%
8.1%
2.8%
1.9%
2.7%
4.0%
0.1%
1.9%
14.9%
15.9%
"I think it has. They go over lecture slides
much quicker, which allows them to put
more on the tests and cover more material
in a class."
"Yes. Instructors can post power-point
lectures so that students can be more
attentive during class & not worry about
taking so many notes."
"(Instructors) can instruct students to view
the material and comment or just view the
material for the next class."
Cover more
material
Less Note
Taking
To materials
Materials
Management
Access
To assignments
To
supplementary
materials
Better
Preparation
By students
for class
By instructors
for class
"Yes, they post assignments online and give
detailed descriptions, so they don't have to
describe the assignments in class."
“Professors can put supplemental material
or information on (the LMS) and therefore
give the student the ability to enrich their
learning without spending valuable class
time on it."
"I think it is helpful in that the instructors can
provide handouts and assignments before
class, so the students can come in already
prepared for lecture."
"Yes it does, using (the LMS) helped my
instructors plan ahead to optimize the use of
class time for more important matters."
SUBTOTAL
More
Focused
Interactive
Teaching &
Learning
Communication
Instruction /
lecture
In-class
discussion
Improved
overall
Better follow-up
discussions
"Instructors who post lecture slides
before/after class tend to be more focused
in their lectures and more clear in their
content."
" We can come in focused and continue a
discussion that was already started online,
using (the LMS)."
"Yes, (the LMS) has allowed instructors to
connect with their students more fully
outside of class. (It) permit(s) instructors to
keep students updated on what will be
happening in class, and allow(s) students to
comment on/shape the structure of the
class to best suit their learning needs."
"Yes, I believe that is a great tool for
questions or answers that could not be
covered during class time."
SUBTOTAL
Commuter
Students
% of
Positive
Effect
Discussion
Overall, students on both residential and commuter campuses rated course-related
activities within the LMS very highly. They likewise rated the LMS tools supporting those
activities quite highly. When asked about the effect of the LMS on their instructors' use of inclass time, a majority of students (65% of the residential and 59% of commuter students)
reported a positive effect, particularly with regards to improved efficiency and access to
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 12
materials. Although 30% of residential student and 35% of commuter students felt there was no
effect on class time, very few students from either campus reported a negative effect of the LMS.
In general, students enjoy the use of the LMS for their courses and view their activities using the
system as valuable and positive.
When we specifically examined the reasons underlying the positive ratings of the
activities and tools in the LMS, a distinctive pattern emerged: residential students rated materials
management activities more highly than commuter students, and commuter students rated
interactive teaching and learning activities more highly than residential students. For materials
management, this pattern is most pronounced in the activities of accessing online readings and
supplementary materials and accessing lecture outlines, replicating findings found in previous
LMS studies for both instructors (Hanson & Robson, 2004; Holm et al., 2003; Yohon et al.,
2004) and students (Herse & Lee, 2005; Maslowski, Visscher, & Collis, 2000; Parker, Bianchi,
& Cheah, 2008). For interactive teaching and learning, the commuter campus students rated
activities such as posting questions after lecture and receiving assignments from instructors
significantly higher than residential students. While this pattern was not evident in the tool
ratings for materials management tools, the commuter students rated four interactive tools higher
than residential students. The log data supported these findings showing higher activity in the
most heavily used materials management tools for the residential campus and higher activity in
three of the interactive teaching and learning tools for the commuter campus.
One explanation for our results is that commuter students may have relied on interactive
tools within the LMS to communicate with instructors and students with whom they do not
otherwise have opportunities for face-to-face interaction. This may indeed be why we saw that
the LMS sites at the commuter campus had a higher use of discussion board tools. The use of
these tools may help compensate for a previous lack of interaction with instructors by commuter
students, as compared with residential students (Pascarella et al., 1994) Furthermore, instructors
at the commuter campus may have structured their courses to include more student interaction
through the LMS as a consequence of diminished face-to-face time that is likely to be more
easily accomplished at the residential campus. Thus, instructors and students at the two
campuses may use the same tools, but in different ways and for different purposes.
Our study highlights the need for further exploration into the differences between the use
of LMS technologies at residential and commuter campuses. Our results indicate that while all
students rate LMS activities and tools quite highly, statistically significant differences in use
exist between campuses. We argue that this difference is attributable, at least in part, to different
patterns of interaction between students and instructors at residential and commuter campuses.
Further study into exactly how residential and commuter courses structure the use of the LMS
for course-related activities outside the classroom may help instructors and students at both types
of campuses use this technology to its fullest potential. By looking more deeply at the potential
ways to use LMS within the context of all university courses, researchers can help instructors
and students realize the full benefits of Learning Management Systems.
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 13
References
Ansorge, C. J., & Bendus, O. (2003). The pedagogical impact of course management systems on
faculty, students, and institution. In R. H. Bruning, C. A. Horn, & L. M. PytlikZillig
(Eds.), Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 169-190).,
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing
Hanson, P., & Robson, R. (2004). Evaluating course management technology: A pilot study.
Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, Issue 24.
Harrington, C. F., Gordon, S. A., & Schibik, T. J. (2004). Course management system utilization
and implications for practice: A national survey of department chairpersons. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(4)
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter74/harrington74.htm
Hawkins, B. L., & Rudy, J. A. (2007). Educause core data service: Fiscal year 2006 summary
report. Boulder, CO: Educause.
Herse, P., & Lee, A. (2005). Optometry and WebCT: A student survey of the value of web-based
learning environments in optometric education. Clinical and Experimental Optometry,
88(1), 46-52.
Holm, C., Röllinghoff, A., & Ninck, A. (2003). WebCT and elearning in Switzerland.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on New Educational Environments,
Luzerne. 139-143.
Koszalka, T. A., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic
use of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education.
Distance Education, 25(2), 243-256.
Krause, K-L.D. (2007). Social involvement and commuter students: The first-year student voice.
Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 19(1), 27-45.
Lonn, S. & Teasley, S. D. (2008). Investigating Perceptions and Uses of Learning Management
Systems: Saving Time or Innovating Practice? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. New York, March 26.
Maslowski, R., Visscher, A. J., & Collis, B. (2000). The formative evaluation of a web-based
course-management system within a university setting. Educational Technology, 40(3),
5-19.
Pace, C. R. (1979). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty years of findings and recommendations
for the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education, University of Los Angeles.
Parker, R. E., Bianchi, A. & Cheah, T. Y. (2008). Perceptions of instructional technology:
Factors of influence and anticipated consequences. Educational Technology & Society,
11(2), 274-293.
Pascarella, E. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal
of College Student Development, 47(5), 508-520.
Pascarella, E., Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. K. (1983). A text and reconceptualization of a
theoretical model of college withdrawal in a commuter institution setting. Sociology of
Education, 56(2), 88-100.
Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P. T., & Blimling, G. (1994). The impact of residential life on students.
In C. Schoeder, P. Mable, and Associates (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of
residence life on students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Undergraduates' Perceptions & Use of a LMS 14
Smith, B. M. (1989). The personal development of the commuter student: What is known from
the comparisons with resident students? An ERIC review. Community College Review,
17, 47-56.
Yohon, T., Zimmerman, D., & Keeler, L. (2004). An exploratory study of adoption of course
management software and accompanying instructional changes by faculty in the liberal
arts and sciences. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(2), 313-320.