08832323.2014.903889
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Transitions in Classroom Technology: Instructor
Implementation of Classroom Management
Software
David Ackerman, Christina Chung & Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun
To cite this article: David Ackerman, Christina Chung & Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun (2014) Transitions
in Classroom Technology: Instructor Implementation of Classroom Management Software,
Journal of Education for Business, 89:6, 317-323, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.903889
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.903889
Published online: 03 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 337
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:45
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 317–323, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.903889
Transitions in Classroom Technology: Instructor
Implementation of Classroom Management Software
David Ackerman
California State University Northridge, Northridge, California, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Christina Chung
Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA
Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun
National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
The authors look at how business instructor needs are fulfilled by classroom management
software (CMS), such as Moodle, and why instructors are sometimes slow to implement it.
Instructors at different universities provided both qualitative and quantitative responses
regarding their use of CMS. The results indicate that the top needs fulfilled by CMS are
distribution of materials and communication with students. They also suggest that ease of
use and usefulness of CMS are related to attitudes toward it, but that confusion in its use is
not. Lastly, lack of clarity and time were the primary concerns of those who had not yet
adopted CMS. Implications are discussed.
Keywords: classroom technology, CMS, instructors, technology adoption
In higher education, using course management systems
(CMSs) has become popular, with researchers focusing on
the benefits they afford teaching and learning. However,
except for a few studies such as Harrington et al. (2006),
there is lack of investigation into why or when instructors
should use a CMS. The purposes of this study are therefore
to understand why instructors adopt CMS to the degree that
they do, what instructional needs it fulfills, and why some
instructors do not use it. These findings will hopefully be
helpful to business schools in providing the resources and
help in more effective implementation of CMS.
There are two important sets of issues regarding CMS.
The first is whether instructors need to adopt CMS for their
classes. Business instructors may already be quite effective
teachers without the new instructional technology. They
may question what benefits they and their students will reap
by using a new technology. There are also research findings
indicating that learning technology may not be the most
important factor impacting learning outcomes (Young,
Correspondence should be addressed to David Ackerman, California State
University Northridge, Department of Marketing, 18111 Nordhoff Street,
Northridge, CA 91330-8377, USA. E-mail: david.s.ackerman@csun.edu
Klemz, & Murphy, 2003). Also, procrastination that
depends on a variety of internal and external factors is not
uncommon in academia (Ackerman & Gross, 2007).
Instructors may think that a particular instructional technology sounds like a good idea but then put it off until some
indefinite time in the future. Getting started on the adoption
of a CMS is a key to success, and, in a survey taken in both
1998 and 2000, Lincoln (2001) found that overall there was
an increase in technology usage in instruction over time.
The second issue is the nature of the benefits of classroom management technology to instructors. Classroom
management software varies in the options it offers, but in
general it must benefit student learning first and secondarily
facilitate faculty management of the classroom. Here we
look at both of these issues and explore the linkages
between them.
There are a number of benefits of classroom management software to both instructors and students. Instructors
can create content online, combine it with any number of
audio and visual content, and deliver it to students. They
may also more easily monitor student progress in class
since assignments can be uploaded and quizzes given
online. Classroom management software also provides a
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
318
D. ACKERMAN ET AL
common ground for communication in cyberspace, making
it an important tool for online classrooms. Information and
files can be transferred effortlessly between the instructor
and unlimited numbers of students. In addition, using a
CMS integrated with multimedia helps students increase
their academic performance and enhances interest in the
course (Walsh, Sun, & Riconscente, 2011). Last, students
themselves can communicate within groups and via discussion boards themselves. Study guides provided by instructors and perhaps shared commonly among students are
another important benefit of CMSs (Lewis et al., 2005).
Studies have suggested that students do find the online
learning components provided by most classroom software
packages to be effective for their overall learning (Clarke,
Flaherty, & Mottner, 1999) and student engagement (Sun
& Rueda, 2012). Moreover, this positive impact does not
seem to vary by the learning style of the student (Young
et al., 2003). Despite these potential benefits, not all is optimism when it comes to the use of classroom management
systems.
There are differences in perceptions between faculty and
students. First, students seem to adapt to classroom technology faster than instructors, although this may be a function
of the comparatively greater responsibility and amount of
work that instructors need to do to utilize such software. A
survey at one university found that students perceived classroom management software to be easier to use than faculty
did, and that a higher percentage of students than faculty
learned the use of the software on their own (Payette &
Gupta, 2009).
The major course management systems are Blackboard,
WebCT, and Moodle, although there are many other choices
available. Despite familiarity with Blackboard or WebCT,
adoption of Moodle usage has grown since its introduction
in 2003 to approximately 3,000,000 courses in 209 countries
as of October 2009. Moodle is an open source learning management system. This means it is available free of charge to
anyone under the terms of the General Public License, that
is, there is no licensing fee. Some have suggested that student motivation is a key factor in the success of Moodle in
the classroom and that they found it easier to use (Beatty &
Ulasewicz, 2006). Students tend to like Moodle better than
faculty (Payette & Gupta, 2009), but this may be a function
of greater faculty familiarity with other classroom management software. So, if classroom management software provides so many benefits as an instruction technology, why do
instructors procrastinate in implementing this technology?
Are there good reasons not to use it at all?
so for a variety of reasons. Most people procrastinate some of
the time depending on the circumstances. Distractions of various sorts lead faculty to procrastinate on projects that they
have started as more immediate tasks come up (Ackerman &
Gross, 2007). Fear is also a factor. Fear of implementing
classroom management software may delay instructors from
starting to learn it. In fact a big complaint faculty members
have regarding instruction technology is reliability (Butler &
Sellborn, 2002). What happens if the technology breaks down
when faculty really need it? The more user-friendly functions
and technical support there is for particular software, the
more these fears may be allayed. That distractions delay the
completing of projects means that the actual length of time
required to implement a classroom management software system may also impact its adoption by instructors.
A couple of months or even a couple of weeks is a long
time in the busy schedule of faculty, many of whom may
have more immediate issues to deal with. This is supported
by general findings about the adoption of academic technology which suggest that time is an important variable that
influences whether a particular technology is implemented
(Liu, Maddux, & Johnson, 2004). Those universities that provide time off or perhaps reduced units to learn new classroom
software may see increased rates of adoption. Administration
certainly can have a role in fostering the creativity that is necessary for faculty adoption of classroom innovations (Celsi &
Wolfinbarger, 2002).
Despite the difficulty of starting to use a CMS for an
instructor, there are many advantages to enhance teaching
effectiveness. Brown and Johnson (2007) discussed several
advantages of using a CMS. Among these, consistency in
delivery, performance tracking, and interactive functions
can be applied to an academic environment. Given the previous literature review, here we focused on three research
questions:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): Why do faculty procrastinate
in using a CMS? Are there differences between procrastination in using a CMS and procrastination in
using other technologies?
RQ2: How do faculty feel about CMSs in terms of the difficulty, usefulness, and favorability of using them?
RQ3: Are there relationships between the perceptions (difficulty, usefulness, and favorability) and the effectiveness of using a CMS?
In the present study we investigated faculty perceptions
of adopting and using a CMS in their teaching and how
their perceptions impact on their effective use of the CMS.
WHY DO INSTRUCTORS USE OR NOT USE
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE?
METHOD
It is likely that many instructors intend to fully implement
classroom management software, but procrastinate in doing
We administered a survey designed to measure perceptions
of CMSs among higher education instructors. Data were
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
TRANSITIONS IN CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
collected primarily from the members of a marketing academic association using a convenience sampling method.
The sample consists of instructors that were teaching at a
college or university. A web-survey invitation was sent to
those in the sample frame, asking them to participate in a
self-administered survey. The sample frame is appropriate
and reliable since it consists of faculty members who teach
at a school that provides a course management system for
the faculty. Among 152 participants, eight respondents
answered that they had never used a CMS. The other 144
stated that they had used such software. After deleting
incomplete surveys, 126 were suitable for analysis. The
participants were 55% male and 45% female. They had
teaching experience ranging from 6 months to 38 years
with a mean of 15 years.
The measurement items can be found in the Appendix.
First, respondents were asked if they had ever used a CMS
as a screening question. If they had never used a CMS, they
were asked what they think about web-based CMSs.
Queries concerning interest, confidence and desire to use a
CMS, whether or not it is important to use a CMS, as well
as the mental efforts employed in and the effectiveness of
using CMSs were incorporated.
The nonuser part of the survey was based on the survey
on instructor procrastination found in Ackerman and Gross
(2007) modified to measure instructor adoption of classroom management software technology. There were 10 variables each measured by three associated individual items.
Questions consisted of a 7-point Likert-type scale with
responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). There were measures of fear or worry about adopting a CMS, norms or expectations that projects are started
early, competing demands from other project deadlines,
incentives and rewards for not delaying the adoption of a
CMS and a measure of interdependence between adoption
of a CMS and other work.
There were two measures of appeal of CMSs, a measure
of the faculty member’s interest in adopting CMS and a
measure of skill variety required for the adoption of a
CMS. There were three constructs measuring the perceived
difficulty of adopting a CMS. There was a measure of how
time-consuming the respondent anticipated adopting a
CMS would be, a measure of how difficult respondents
believed that adopting a CMS would be and a measure of
how clear they were on how to adopt a CMS. Finally,
respondents were asked about their own general propensity
to procrastinate.
For those who had used a CMS, several close-ended
questions were asked concerning Confusion in using the
CMS, ease of use, and functional usefulness in resolving
classroom needs. For all questions, the response options
consisted of a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
There were items for measuring the usefulness of CMSs
(M D 4.42, SD D 1.57; Cronbach’s a D .95), items related
319
to confusion encountered in using a CMS (M D 3.04, SD D
1.74; Cronbach’s a D .85), and items measuring how easy
it was to use a CMS in instruction (M D 4.83, SD D 1.71;
Cronbach’s a D .80).
In addition, an open-ended question was asked, “What
classroom needs are fulfilled by your use of a CMS?
RESULTS
Nonadopters of CMS
Those faculty members who had never used a CMS
revealed that they were interested in and saw the benefits of
using a CMS, but were not clear about how to use it and
felt that it may be difficult or time-consuming to implement. On the one hand, most respondents felt there would
be benefits, such as management of paperwork, providing
timely feedback and communication with students, providing a sense of satisfaction from mastering technology, and
helping integrate information technology.
On the other hand, they were not fully clear about how to
get started on implementing the software and were putting
if off. Most respondents agreed with the following statements: (a) It is not clear how I could use a CMS with my
classes, (b) I don’t fully understand how a CMS could be
successfully used in my class, and (c) I don’t know exactly
what is necessary to successfully use a CMS in my class.
The respondents also agreed with these statements: (a)
using a CMS requires using a variety of skills, (b) I need to
use a lot of different skills to use a CMS, and (c) I have to
approach learning a CMS using many different types of
skills. In addition, respondents are under time constraints
that cause delays in learning to use a CMS. Most respondents agreed with the statements: (a) I have many other projects to complete before starting to use a CMS, (b) many
other projects have to be finished before I start to learn to
use a CMS, and (c) I have other projects with deadlines
before I start to learn to use a CMS.
Given the small sample size, statistical comparison
between the two groups, users and non-users, is not possible. Yet, it is interesting to note that procrastination as a
personality characteristic does not seem to be higher for the
non-user than for the user group, even though both had
highly favorable attitudes toward CMSs. The mean for the
user group was 3.46 whereas that for the nonuser group was
1.93.
Needs Fulfilled by CMSs
For the open-ended question, “What classroom needs are
fulfilled by your use of a CMS?” the respondents provided
detailed information as displayed in Table 1. Sharing of
course content with students was the need most frequently
mentioned by the instructors, who said they shared course
320
D. ACKERMAN ET AL
TABLE 1
Needs Fulfilled by Classroom Management Software
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Need
Sharing course content with students
Providing grades to students
Communication with class
Providing assignments to students
Distributing the syllabus
Assignment submission from students
Integration with emails
Sharing learning tools (outside the class)
Administration of quiz/exams
Medium for online class
Calendar
Class interaction
Record keeping
Archival of material
Student collaboration
Hosting of video for in- and out-of-class use
Reduces paperwork
Increases speed of course preparation
Keeps up with student expectations
Organizes material
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
lecture slides, readings, and supplemental materials with
students. The second most frequently mentioned need was
grading. The CMS functioned as a grade book and a tool to
let large numbers of students know about their progress in
the course without the time involved in face-to-face interaction. Communication with the class was the third most frequently mentioned need fulfilled by the CMSs. Announcements, schedule changes and reminders were easily
facilitated via the CMSs. The next frequently mentioned
function was the handing out and receipt of assignments.
The instructors mentioned that a CMS was an efficient way
of giving out and receiving assignments from large numbers of students. Less frequently mentioned were student
interaction and online exams/quizzes. Perhaps these require
more technological expertise to administer, and in the case
of student interaction, do not directly impact on the
instructor’s teaching experience.
Instructors’ Use of Moodle
Several close-ended questions using a 7-point Likert-type
scale were created to examine ease of use (EAU), confusion
in the use of a CMS (COFU), usefulness (USFU), and attitudes toward CMSs (ATT). The four constructs include
24 items, EAU (4), COFU (7), USFU (5), and ATT (5).
Cronbach’s alpha was used for testing the internal consistency of the measurement and increasing the precision of
the measurement by precluding the obstructive items from
the instruments. The alpha values for EAU, COFU, USFU,
and ATT were .88, .91, .95, and .75, respectively. These
values indicate that strong associations and implied measurements were consistent.
Correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the
strength of relationships among the three constructs. As a
result, there were significant relationships between the three
constructs, ease of use, confusion in the use of a CMS, and
usefulness.
Then, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to
evaluate how COFU, EAU, and USFU are related to ATT.
The predictors were COFU, EAU, and USFU, while the criterion variable was ATT. The result indicated that the linear
combination of COFU, EAU, and USFU was significantly
related to ATT, F(3, 105) D 48.13, p < .01. The results
indicate that approximately 58% of the variance of the
effectiveness of using CMS was accounted for by the combination of these three constructs. The results also indicate
that COFU was not significant, but EAU and USFU were
significant. Thus, usefulness and ease of use are strong predictors of attitudes toward CMS.
Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to
evaluate the relationships among the three independent variables. As shown in Figure 1, result indicated that COFU
was significant (p < .01) and had a negative relationship
(b D –.374) with USFU. Also, COFU was significant
(p < .01) and had a negative relationship (b D –.554) with
EAU. In the relationship between USFU and EAU, there
was a significant and positive relationship (b D .595). The
results explain that ease of use and usefulness increase positive attitudes toward CMS. There was no direct relationship
between confusion in using a CMS and ATT, but it indirectly affects ATT by increasing usefulness and ease of use.
DISCUSSION
Analysis of Instructor Use of Moodle
The results show that ease of use and usefulness are significantly related to attitude toward CMS, but not confusion in
using it. It is possible that some aspects of CMSs are easy
to use, but that frustration with completing a particular task
or perhaps bugs in the system software can lead to confusion in use. As both impact instructors’ perceived usefulness of CMS, it may be necessary for departments or
Usefulness
.62
-.37
.60
Confusion
Attitude
Ease of use
-.55
.30
FIGURE 1 Summary of regression analysis.
TRANSITIONS IN CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 2
Correlations
1. COFU
2. EAU
3. USFU
4. ATT
1.
2.
3.
4.
—
¡.554**
¡.374**
¡.286**
—
.595**
.566**
—
.729**
—
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Note: COFU: Confusion in the use of CMS; EAU: Ease of use; USFU:
Usefulness; ATT: Attitude toward CMS.
**
p D .01 (two-tailed).
school administrators to consider two issues in order to
ensure the most effective use of their classroom management technology systems.
First, despite the fact that some CMSs such as Moodle
may be easy to start to use, for faculty to figure out how it
can perform functions that meet their classroom needs, they
may just require time to adjust. This notion is supported by
the finding that the instructors’ perceived usefulness of
CMSs was positively related to the number of years they
had been teaching, and this despite the fact that new
instructors tend to be more technologically savvy. Newer
instructors may find the software easier to use, but also find
it more confusing to set it up and apply it to their busy
teaching schedules.
Perhaps instructors could receive written instruction or
seminars on using a new CMS, but confusion in the use of
the CMS comes in applying it to particular problems and
issues during the course of a semester. There may just be a
learning curve so that the longer a particular CMS is in
place, the better instructors will be at applying it to their
courses. This would also apply to new uses for a CMS such
as online or distance learning. Instructors would need time
to apply the different facets and features of the CMS that
would be applicable to these courses.
Second, to reduce the amount of downtime and perhaps
lost information from bugs in the system, technical assistance needs to be available. Troubleshooting is the issue.
This may take the form of paid personnel available to
answer questions or deal with issues. This type of assistance
may also take the form of discussion boards where other faculty can trade tips or war stories of workarounds to problems
that have arisen in the use of the CMS in the classroom.
The results also indicate that the confusion in using CMS
for an instructor is not related to its perceived usefulness or
ease of use. This suggests that there are unique aspects of
CMSs that are confusing, unrelated to the ease with which
an instructor can start using a classroom management software package. There are aspects of CMSs that go beyond
the software learning curve to the way the class is conducted. Online chat rooms and group cooperation, asynchronous discussion, and fast distribution of grades to
students are just a few of the aspects of CMSs that involve
changing the way instructors manage a class. Instructors
321
can feel confusion from these changes in the class enabled
by the CMS, and not from ease or difficulty of the use of
the software itself.
Discussion forums might be helpful for instructors to
trade tips and suggestions about how to implement the
improvements in the classroom allowed by the CMS.
Requiring students to monitor incoming information during
the week or grading discussion is something that instructors
more experienced with CMSs in the classroom could help
with. Time and experience with adoption of a CMS will in
time reduce this problem. New instructors who start off
teaching with a CMS will expect the benefits provided by
the system, and those who are learning to work with it will
get used to it.
Another area where confusion can be an issue is that various CMSs continue to be introduced and sometimes a faculty member will have to learn a new CMS system. For
example, the transition to a new CMS such as Moodle
might be challenging with instructors confused about features and protocols that are different from those which they
encountered previously. In support of this contention is that
fewer participants found the more difficult features such as
online exams and quizzes and interactive features helpful.
This suggests that giving technical support in these areas to
instructors who are already using a CMS for their courses
would be helpful in making them more useful.
Analysis of Needs Fulfilled by CMSs
There are clearly some basic needs related to facilitation of
communication with the class and the distribution of materials that are high on the list of most instructors. Routine
tasks, such as distribution of course materials, feedback,
and receipt of student assignments are time-consuming
tasks for instructors. Anything in classroom management
software that makes these routine class tasks easier will be
looked upon favorably and adopted more quickly.
In developing the use of a CMS, departments and administrators could focus on developing efficient protocols in the
handling of these basic tasks. For example, a basic introduction to a particular CMS could highlight tips for disseminating classroom material or feedback to students.
Similarly, there could be a guide or instruction on commonly made mistakes in receiving student assignments on
the system.
Also important, though not quite as much as the basic
needs mentioned previously, are the needs revolving around
communication with the class. Instructors have other means
of communicating. There is also email, direct contact, the
occasional phone call, and other forms of social media.
CMS is a powerful means not just of instructor-class communication, but also of communication within the class
itself. The questions for instructors are whether or not and
the extent to which they and their students will use it. Given
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
322
D. ACKERMAN ET AL
inertia and the fact that instructors may already be familiar
with other means of communication, it is not surprising that
communication via CMS does not rate as highly as the
basic needs mentioned above. On the one hand, instructors
may over time become used to communicating with their
classes via a particular CMS, replacing old patterns of communication. On the other hand, students are there for a limited period of time and will clearly have more experience
with other forms of communication such as social media. It
is not yet clear whether experience communicating with,
for example, Facebook will transfer easily to the habit of
communicating with their instructors and classmates on the
class Moodle page.
Farthest down the list of needs fulfilled by CMS are
those that relate to the customization of courses such as videos, facilitating collaboration and online class needs. These
are areas in which the CMS functions to transform a class
beyond what could normally be done in a semester by an
instructor. Completely online classes and hybrid classes
extend the reach of a university to non-traditional and
working students, but customization can impact the traditional student in a face-to-face classroom as well. It is very
time-consuming to customize the learning experience in the
classroom to the needs of different students, but with CMS
it is possible to cluster course materials into types of interests and needs for use by different segments of the student
population in any particular course. For example, in a marketing research class, multi-media, in-depth study material
and even examination of the material could be provided for
students who are interested in specific techniques such as
qualitative research, surveys or experiments. Chat rooms
broken down by category could provide support and guidance for students who are working on projects in each of
these areas.
Nonadopters of CMSs
It is more surprising that a large percentage of nonusers of
CMS also had highly favorable attitudes toward CMS.
Given that everyone finds CMSs to be appealing to some
degree, what leads to the difference in their usage? Though
no definitive answers can be drawn from this study, two
factors stood out. First was the lack of clarity about how to
implement CMSs. The instructors knew the value of CMSs
and, as pointed out, had favorable attitudes toward them,
but they were not clear about how to implement one for
their course and so procrastinated. It would be helpful for
technology personnel to walk instructors through the process of implementing a course on a CMS and to be available to troubleshoot throughout the semester.
Time available was another important factor mentioned
in not adopting a CMS. Making a major change in
instruction technology, such as adopting a CMS, often takes
a considerable amount of time. Instructors may see others
using a CMS seemingly effortlessly to save time and effort,
but procrastinate in doing so themselves because of the perceived upfront investment of time. Perhaps departments
could have a CMS already set up and linked to instructors’
courses in order to get them started. If it is already set up,
that would reduce the concern or inertia of instructors having to take the first step. Also, given the earlier findings,
perhaps first implementation of a CMS could focus on satisfying more basic classroom needs such as distribution of
class materials and receipt of student assignments. That
would reduce the time required while providing significant
benefits to the instructor.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, D., & Gross, B. (2007). I can start that JME manuscript next
week, can’t I? The task characteristics behind why faculty procrastinate.
Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 97–110.
Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Online teaching and learning in transition: Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle
Learning Management System. TechTrends, 50, 36–45.
Butler, D. L., & Sellborn, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for
teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 25, 22–28.
Celsi, R. L., & Wolfinbarger, M. (2002). Discontinuous classroom innovation: Waves of change for marketing education. Journal of Marketing
Education, 24, 64–72.
Clarke, I. III, Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (1999). Student perceptions of
educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23,
69–77.
Lewis, B. A., MacEntee, V. M., DeLaCruz, S., Englander, C., Jeffrey, T.,
Takach, E., . . . Woodall, J. (2005). Learning management systems comparison. Proceedings of the 2005 Informing Science and IT Education
Joint Conference, 17–29.
Lincoln, D. (2001). Marketing educator internet adoption in 1998 versus
2000: Significant progress and remaining obstacles. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 103–116.
Liu, L. P., Maddux, C., & Johnson, L. (2004). Computer attitude and
achievement: Is time an intermediate variable? Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 12, 593–607.
Payette, D. L., & Gupta, R. (2009). Transitioning from Blackboard to
Moodle–course management software: Faculty and student opinions.
American Journal of Business Education, 2, 67–73.
Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer selfefficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43,
191–204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
Walsh, J. P., Sun, J. C.-Y., & Riconscente, M. (2011). Online teaching tool
simplifies faculty use of multimedia and improves student interest and
knowledge in science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10, 298–308.
doi:10.1187/cbe.11-03-0031
Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning
outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles,
instructional methods and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 130–142.
TRANSITIONS IN CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
APPENDIX
Non-Users
Fear
1. I am worried I won’t to do a good job with a CMS.
2. I’ll perform poorly with a CMS.
3. I’m not confident I could do a good job with a CMS.
Norms
4. In my department, most faculty members use a CMS.
5. It is expected in my department that faculty use a CMS.
6. Most faculty use a CMS for classes.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Interest
7. I am interested in a CMS.
8. CMS holds my interest.
9. I could really get involved with a CMS.
Scope of Task (Time Consuming)
10. A CMS requires a lot of time.
11. Using a CMS will occupy a lot of my time.
12. Using a CMS will be time consuming.
Difficulty
13. Using a CMS will be tough in my classes.
14. It will be really difficult to use a CMS for my classes.
15. I know that using a CMS will not be easy in my classes.
Clarity
16. It is not clear how I could use a CMS with my classes.
17. I don’t fully understand how a CMS could be successfully
used in my classes.
18. I don’t know exactly what is necessary to successfully use a
CMS in my classes.
Deadline Pressure
19. I have many other projects to complete before starting to use a
CMS.
20. Many other projects have to be finished before I start to learn a
CMS
21. I have other projects with deadlines before I start to learn a
CMS.
Skill Variety
22. Using a CMS requires using a variety of skills.
23. I need to use a lot of different skills to use a CMS.
24. I have to approach learning a CMS using many different types
of skills.
Incentives and Rewards
25. There are incentives for getting an early start on learning a
CMS.
26. There is a real benefit to starting to learn a CMS soon.
27. There are rewards for getting an early start on learning a CMS.
323
Interdependence
28. Doing other projects I desire to work on depends on first learning a CMS.
29. I have to learn a CMS before I can do
other projects I want to do.
30. I need to learn a CMS before I can start other work I want to
do.
Self-Reported Propensity to Procrastinate
1. I delay starting projects.
2. I procrastinate on projects
3. I wait until the last minute to work on projects.
Users
Which CMS(s) have you used? (Please mark as many as needed.)
(1) Blackboard (2) WebCT (3) Moodle (4) other system
___________________
How long have you used course management systems?
(1) Less than 1 year (2) 1–3 years (3) More than 3 years
Currently, what course management system do you use?
(1) Moodle (2) Blackboard (3) WebCT (4) None (5)
other ___________
Confusion in using a CMS
1. I often become confused when I use a CMS
2. I make errors frequently when using a CMS.
3. Interacting with a CMS is often frustrating.
4. I need to consult the user manual often when using a
CMS.
5. Interacting with a CMS requires a lot of my mental effort.
6. A CMS is rigid and inflexible to interact with.
7. A CMS often behaves in unexpected ways.
Ease of Use
1. Interaction with a CMS is easy for me to understand.
2. It is easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using a
CMS.
3. A CMS provides helpful guidance in performing tasks.
4. Overall, I find a CMS easy to use.
Functional Usefulness
1. A CMS enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly.
2. Using a CMS allows me to accomplish more work than would
otherwise be possible.
3. Using a CMS reduces the time I spend on unproductive
activities.
4. Using a CMS increases my productivity.
5. Using a CMS makes it easier to do my job.
Favorable Attitude toward CMS
1. I am likely to recommend a CMS to my colleagues.
2. I strongly feel that faculty should use a CMS.
3. Using a CMS is favorable.
4. Using a CMS is wise.
5. Learning to use a CMS is time consuming.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Transitions in Classroom Technology: Instructor
Implementation of Classroom Management
Software
David Ackerman, Christina Chung & Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun
To cite this article: David Ackerman, Christina Chung & Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun (2014) Transitions
in Classroom Technology: Instructor Implementation of Classroom Management Software,
Journal of Education for Business, 89:6, 317-323, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.903889
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.903889
Published online: 03 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 337
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:45
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 89: 317–323, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.903889
Transitions in Classroom Technology: Instructor
Implementation of Classroom Management Software
David Ackerman
California State University Northridge, Northridge, California, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Christina Chung
Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA
Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun
National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
The authors look at how business instructor needs are fulfilled by classroom management
software (CMS), such as Moodle, and why instructors are sometimes slow to implement it.
Instructors at different universities provided both qualitative and quantitative responses
regarding their use of CMS. The results indicate that the top needs fulfilled by CMS are
distribution of materials and communication with students. They also suggest that ease of
use and usefulness of CMS are related to attitudes toward it, but that confusion in its use is
not. Lastly, lack of clarity and time were the primary concerns of those who had not yet
adopted CMS. Implications are discussed.
Keywords: classroom technology, CMS, instructors, technology adoption
In higher education, using course management systems
(CMSs) has become popular, with researchers focusing on
the benefits they afford teaching and learning. However,
except for a few studies such as Harrington et al. (2006),
there is lack of investigation into why or when instructors
should use a CMS. The purposes of this study are therefore
to understand why instructors adopt CMS to the degree that
they do, what instructional needs it fulfills, and why some
instructors do not use it. These findings will hopefully be
helpful to business schools in providing the resources and
help in more effective implementation of CMS.
There are two important sets of issues regarding CMS.
The first is whether instructors need to adopt CMS for their
classes. Business instructors may already be quite effective
teachers without the new instructional technology. They
may question what benefits they and their students will reap
by using a new technology. There are also research findings
indicating that learning technology may not be the most
important factor impacting learning outcomes (Young,
Correspondence should be addressed to David Ackerman, California State
University Northridge, Department of Marketing, 18111 Nordhoff Street,
Northridge, CA 91330-8377, USA. E-mail: david.s.ackerman@csun.edu
Klemz, & Murphy, 2003). Also, procrastination that
depends on a variety of internal and external factors is not
uncommon in academia (Ackerman & Gross, 2007).
Instructors may think that a particular instructional technology sounds like a good idea but then put it off until some
indefinite time in the future. Getting started on the adoption
of a CMS is a key to success, and, in a survey taken in both
1998 and 2000, Lincoln (2001) found that overall there was
an increase in technology usage in instruction over time.
The second issue is the nature of the benefits of classroom management technology to instructors. Classroom
management software varies in the options it offers, but in
general it must benefit student learning first and secondarily
facilitate faculty management of the classroom. Here we
look at both of these issues and explore the linkages
between them.
There are a number of benefits of classroom management software to both instructors and students. Instructors
can create content online, combine it with any number of
audio and visual content, and deliver it to students. They
may also more easily monitor student progress in class
since assignments can be uploaded and quizzes given
online. Classroom management software also provides a
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
318
D. ACKERMAN ET AL
common ground for communication in cyberspace, making
it an important tool for online classrooms. Information and
files can be transferred effortlessly between the instructor
and unlimited numbers of students. In addition, using a
CMS integrated with multimedia helps students increase
their academic performance and enhances interest in the
course (Walsh, Sun, & Riconscente, 2011). Last, students
themselves can communicate within groups and via discussion boards themselves. Study guides provided by instructors and perhaps shared commonly among students are
another important benefit of CMSs (Lewis et al., 2005).
Studies have suggested that students do find the online
learning components provided by most classroom software
packages to be effective for their overall learning (Clarke,
Flaherty, & Mottner, 1999) and student engagement (Sun
& Rueda, 2012). Moreover, this positive impact does not
seem to vary by the learning style of the student (Young
et al., 2003). Despite these potential benefits, not all is optimism when it comes to the use of classroom management
systems.
There are differences in perceptions between faculty and
students. First, students seem to adapt to classroom technology faster than instructors, although this may be a function
of the comparatively greater responsibility and amount of
work that instructors need to do to utilize such software. A
survey at one university found that students perceived classroom management software to be easier to use than faculty
did, and that a higher percentage of students than faculty
learned the use of the software on their own (Payette &
Gupta, 2009).
The major course management systems are Blackboard,
WebCT, and Moodle, although there are many other choices
available. Despite familiarity with Blackboard or WebCT,
adoption of Moodle usage has grown since its introduction
in 2003 to approximately 3,000,000 courses in 209 countries
as of October 2009. Moodle is an open source learning management system. This means it is available free of charge to
anyone under the terms of the General Public License, that
is, there is no licensing fee. Some have suggested that student motivation is a key factor in the success of Moodle in
the classroom and that they found it easier to use (Beatty &
Ulasewicz, 2006). Students tend to like Moodle better than
faculty (Payette & Gupta, 2009), but this may be a function
of greater faculty familiarity with other classroom management software. So, if classroom management software provides so many benefits as an instruction technology, why do
instructors procrastinate in implementing this technology?
Are there good reasons not to use it at all?
so for a variety of reasons. Most people procrastinate some of
the time depending on the circumstances. Distractions of various sorts lead faculty to procrastinate on projects that they
have started as more immediate tasks come up (Ackerman &
Gross, 2007). Fear is also a factor. Fear of implementing
classroom management software may delay instructors from
starting to learn it. In fact a big complaint faculty members
have regarding instruction technology is reliability (Butler &
Sellborn, 2002). What happens if the technology breaks down
when faculty really need it? The more user-friendly functions
and technical support there is for particular software, the
more these fears may be allayed. That distractions delay the
completing of projects means that the actual length of time
required to implement a classroom management software system may also impact its adoption by instructors.
A couple of months or even a couple of weeks is a long
time in the busy schedule of faculty, many of whom may
have more immediate issues to deal with. This is supported
by general findings about the adoption of academic technology which suggest that time is an important variable that
influences whether a particular technology is implemented
(Liu, Maddux, & Johnson, 2004). Those universities that provide time off or perhaps reduced units to learn new classroom
software may see increased rates of adoption. Administration
certainly can have a role in fostering the creativity that is necessary for faculty adoption of classroom innovations (Celsi &
Wolfinbarger, 2002).
Despite the difficulty of starting to use a CMS for an
instructor, there are many advantages to enhance teaching
effectiveness. Brown and Johnson (2007) discussed several
advantages of using a CMS. Among these, consistency in
delivery, performance tracking, and interactive functions
can be applied to an academic environment. Given the previous literature review, here we focused on three research
questions:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): Why do faculty procrastinate
in using a CMS? Are there differences between procrastination in using a CMS and procrastination in
using other technologies?
RQ2: How do faculty feel about CMSs in terms of the difficulty, usefulness, and favorability of using them?
RQ3: Are there relationships between the perceptions (difficulty, usefulness, and favorability) and the effectiveness of using a CMS?
In the present study we investigated faculty perceptions
of adopting and using a CMS in their teaching and how
their perceptions impact on their effective use of the CMS.
WHY DO INSTRUCTORS USE OR NOT USE
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE?
METHOD
It is likely that many instructors intend to fully implement
classroom management software, but procrastinate in doing
We administered a survey designed to measure perceptions
of CMSs among higher education instructors. Data were
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
TRANSITIONS IN CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
collected primarily from the members of a marketing academic association using a convenience sampling method.
The sample consists of instructors that were teaching at a
college or university. A web-survey invitation was sent to
those in the sample frame, asking them to participate in a
self-administered survey. The sample frame is appropriate
and reliable since it consists of faculty members who teach
at a school that provides a course management system for
the faculty. Among 152 participants, eight respondents
answered that they had never used a CMS. The other 144
stated that they had used such software. After deleting
incomplete surveys, 126 were suitable for analysis. The
participants were 55% male and 45% female. They had
teaching experience ranging from 6 months to 38 years
with a mean of 15 years.
The measurement items can be found in the Appendix.
First, respondents were asked if they had ever used a CMS
as a screening question. If they had never used a CMS, they
were asked what they think about web-based CMSs.
Queries concerning interest, confidence and desire to use a
CMS, whether or not it is important to use a CMS, as well
as the mental efforts employed in and the effectiveness of
using CMSs were incorporated.
The nonuser part of the survey was based on the survey
on instructor procrastination found in Ackerman and Gross
(2007) modified to measure instructor adoption of classroom management software technology. There were 10 variables each measured by three associated individual items.
Questions consisted of a 7-point Likert-type scale with
responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). There were measures of fear or worry about adopting a CMS, norms or expectations that projects are started
early, competing demands from other project deadlines,
incentives and rewards for not delaying the adoption of a
CMS and a measure of interdependence between adoption
of a CMS and other work.
There were two measures of appeal of CMSs, a measure
of the faculty member’s interest in adopting CMS and a
measure of skill variety required for the adoption of a
CMS. There were three constructs measuring the perceived
difficulty of adopting a CMS. There was a measure of how
time-consuming the respondent anticipated adopting a
CMS would be, a measure of how difficult respondents
believed that adopting a CMS would be and a measure of
how clear they were on how to adopt a CMS. Finally,
respondents were asked about their own general propensity
to procrastinate.
For those who had used a CMS, several close-ended
questions were asked concerning Confusion in using the
CMS, ease of use, and functional usefulness in resolving
classroom needs. For all questions, the response options
consisted of a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
There were items for measuring the usefulness of CMSs
(M D 4.42, SD D 1.57; Cronbach’s a D .95), items related
319
to confusion encountered in using a CMS (M D 3.04, SD D
1.74; Cronbach’s a D .85), and items measuring how easy
it was to use a CMS in instruction (M D 4.83, SD D 1.71;
Cronbach’s a D .80).
In addition, an open-ended question was asked, “What
classroom needs are fulfilled by your use of a CMS?
RESULTS
Nonadopters of CMS
Those faculty members who had never used a CMS
revealed that they were interested in and saw the benefits of
using a CMS, but were not clear about how to use it and
felt that it may be difficult or time-consuming to implement. On the one hand, most respondents felt there would
be benefits, such as management of paperwork, providing
timely feedback and communication with students, providing a sense of satisfaction from mastering technology, and
helping integrate information technology.
On the other hand, they were not fully clear about how to
get started on implementing the software and were putting
if off. Most respondents agreed with the following statements: (a) It is not clear how I could use a CMS with my
classes, (b) I don’t fully understand how a CMS could be
successfully used in my class, and (c) I don’t know exactly
what is necessary to successfully use a CMS in my class.
The respondents also agreed with these statements: (a)
using a CMS requires using a variety of skills, (b) I need to
use a lot of different skills to use a CMS, and (c) I have to
approach learning a CMS using many different types of
skills. In addition, respondents are under time constraints
that cause delays in learning to use a CMS. Most respondents agreed with the statements: (a) I have many other projects to complete before starting to use a CMS, (b) many
other projects have to be finished before I start to learn to
use a CMS, and (c) I have other projects with deadlines
before I start to learn to use a CMS.
Given the small sample size, statistical comparison
between the two groups, users and non-users, is not possible. Yet, it is interesting to note that procrastination as a
personality characteristic does not seem to be higher for the
non-user than for the user group, even though both had
highly favorable attitudes toward CMSs. The mean for the
user group was 3.46 whereas that for the nonuser group was
1.93.
Needs Fulfilled by CMSs
For the open-ended question, “What classroom needs are
fulfilled by your use of a CMS?” the respondents provided
detailed information as displayed in Table 1. Sharing of
course content with students was the need most frequently
mentioned by the instructors, who said they shared course
320
D. ACKERMAN ET AL
TABLE 1
Needs Fulfilled by Classroom Management Software
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Need
Sharing course content with students
Providing grades to students
Communication with class
Providing assignments to students
Distributing the syllabus
Assignment submission from students
Integration with emails
Sharing learning tools (outside the class)
Administration of quiz/exams
Medium for online class
Calendar
Class interaction
Record keeping
Archival of material
Student collaboration
Hosting of video for in- and out-of-class use
Reduces paperwork
Increases speed of course preparation
Keeps up with student expectations
Organizes material
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
lecture slides, readings, and supplemental materials with
students. The second most frequently mentioned need was
grading. The CMS functioned as a grade book and a tool to
let large numbers of students know about their progress in
the course without the time involved in face-to-face interaction. Communication with the class was the third most frequently mentioned need fulfilled by the CMSs. Announcements, schedule changes and reminders were easily
facilitated via the CMSs. The next frequently mentioned
function was the handing out and receipt of assignments.
The instructors mentioned that a CMS was an efficient way
of giving out and receiving assignments from large numbers of students. Less frequently mentioned were student
interaction and online exams/quizzes. Perhaps these require
more technological expertise to administer, and in the case
of student interaction, do not directly impact on the
instructor’s teaching experience.
Instructors’ Use of Moodle
Several close-ended questions using a 7-point Likert-type
scale were created to examine ease of use (EAU), confusion
in the use of a CMS (COFU), usefulness (USFU), and attitudes toward CMSs (ATT). The four constructs include
24 items, EAU (4), COFU (7), USFU (5), and ATT (5).
Cronbach’s alpha was used for testing the internal consistency of the measurement and increasing the precision of
the measurement by precluding the obstructive items from
the instruments. The alpha values for EAU, COFU, USFU,
and ATT were .88, .91, .95, and .75, respectively. These
values indicate that strong associations and implied measurements were consistent.
Correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the
strength of relationships among the three constructs. As a
result, there were significant relationships between the three
constructs, ease of use, confusion in the use of a CMS, and
usefulness.
Then, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to
evaluate how COFU, EAU, and USFU are related to ATT.
The predictors were COFU, EAU, and USFU, while the criterion variable was ATT. The result indicated that the linear
combination of COFU, EAU, and USFU was significantly
related to ATT, F(3, 105) D 48.13, p < .01. The results
indicate that approximately 58% of the variance of the
effectiveness of using CMS was accounted for by the combination of these three constructs. The results also indicate
that COFU was not significant, but EAU and USFU were
significant. Thus, usefulness and ease of use are strong predictors of attitudes toward CMS.
Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to
evaluate the relationships among the three independent variables. As shown in Figure 1, result indicated that COFU
was significant (p < .01) and had a negative relationship
(b D –.374) with USFU. Also, COFU was significant
(p < .01) and had a negative relationship (b D –.554) with
EAU. In the relationship between USFU and EAU, there
was a significant and positive relationship (b D .595). The
results explain that ease of use and usefulness increase positive attitudes toward CMS. There was no direct relationship
between confusion in using a CMS and ATT, but it indirectly affects ATT by increasing usefulness and ease of use.
DISCUSSION
Analysis of Instructor Use of Moodle
The results show that ease of use and usefulness are significantly related to attitude toward CMS, but not confusion in
using it. It is possible that some aspects of CMSs are easy
to use, but that frustration with completing a particular task
or perhaps bugs in the system software can lead to confusion in use. As both impact instructors’ perceived usefulness of CMS, it may be necessary for departments or
Usefulness
.62
-.37
.60
Confusion
Attitude
Ease of use
-.55
.30
FIGURE 1 Summary of regression analysis.
TRANSITIONS IN CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 2
Correlations
1. COFU
2. EAU
3. USFU
4. ATT
1.
2.
3.
4.
—
¡.554**
¡.374**
¡.286**
—
.595**
.566**
—
.729**
—
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Note: COFU: Confusion in the use of CMS; EAU: Ease of use; USFU:
Usefulness; ATT: Attitude toward CMS.
**
p D .01 (two-tailed).
school administrators to consider two issues in order to
ensure the most effective use of their classroom management technology systems.
First, despite the fact that some CMSs such as Moodle
may be easy to start to use, for faculty to figure out how it
can perform functions that meet their classroom needs, they
may just require time to adjust. This notion is supported by
the finding that the instructors’ perceived usefulness of
CMSs was positively related to the number of years they
had been teaching, and this despite the fact that new
instructors tend to be more technologically savvy. Newer
instructors may find the software easier to use, but also find
it more confusing to set it up and apply it to their busy
teaching schedules.
Perhaps instructors could receive written instruction or
seminars on using a new CMS, but confusion in the use of
the CMS comes in applying it to particular problems and
issues during the course of a semester. There may just be a
learning curve so that the longer a particular CMS is in
place, the better instructors will be at applying it to their
courses. This would also apply to new uses for a CMS such
as online or distance learning. Instructors would need time
to apply the different facets and features of the CMS that
would be applicable to these courses.
Second, to reduce the amount of downtime and perhaps
lost information from bugs in the system, technical assistance needs to be available. Troubleshooting is the issue.
This may take the form of paid personnel available to
answer questions or deal with issues. This type of assistance
may also take the form of discussion boards where other faculty can trade tips or war stories of workarounds to problems
that have arisen in the use of the CMS in the classroom.
The results also indicate that the confusion in using CMS
for an instructor is not related to its perceived usefulness or
ease of use. This suggests that there are unique aspects of
CMSs that are confusing, unrelated to the ease with which
an instructor can start using a classroom management software package. There are aspects of CMSs that go beyond
the software learning curve to the way the class is conducted. Online chat rooms and group cooperation, asynchronous discussion, and fast distribution of grades to
students are just a few of the aspects of CMSs that involve
changing the way instructors manage a class. Instructors
321
can feel confusion from these changes in the class enabled
by the CMS, and not from ease or difficulty of the use of
the software itself.
Discussion forums might be helpful for instructors to
trade tips and suggestions about how to implement the
improvements in the classroom allowed by the CMS.
Requiring students to monitor incoming information during
the week or grading discussion is something that instructors
more experienced with CMSs in the classroom could help
with. Time and experience with adoption of a CMS will in
time reduce this problem. New instructors who start off
teaching with a CMS will expect the benefits provided by
the system, and those who are learning to work with it will
get used to it.
Another area where confusion can be an issue is that various CMSs continue to be introduced and sometimes a faculty member will have to learn a new CMS system. For
example, the transition to a new CMS such as Moodle
might be challenging with instructors confused about features and protocols that are different from those which they
encountered previously. In support of this contention is that
fewer participants found the more difficult features such as
online exams and quizzes and interactive features helpful.
This suggests that giving technical support in these areas to
instructors who are already using a CMS for their courses
would be helpful in making them more useful.
Analysis of Needs Fulfilled by CMSs
There are clearly some basic needs related to facilitation of
communication with the class and the distribution of materials that are high on the list of most instructors. Routine
tasks, such as distribution of course materials, feedback,
and receipt of student assignments are time-consuming
tasks for instructors. Anything in classroom management
software that makes these routine class tasks easier will be
looked upon favorably and adopted more quickly.
In developing the use of a CMS, departments and administrators could focus on developing efficient protocols in the
handling of these basic tasks. For example, a basic introduction to a particular CMS could highlight tips for disseminating classroom material or feedback to students.
Similarly, there could be a guide or instruction on commonly made mistakes in receiving student assignments on
the system.
Also important, though not quite as much as the basic
needs mentioned previously, are the needs revolving around
communication with the class. Instructors have other means
of communicating. There is also email, direct contact, the
occasional phone call, and other forms of social media.
CMS is a powerful means not just of instructor-class communication, but also of communication within the class
itself. The questions for instructors are whether or not and
the extent to which they and their students will use it. Given
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
322
D. ACKERMAN ET AL
inertia and the fact that instructors may already be familiar
with other means of communication, it is not surprising that
communication via CMS does not rate as highly as the
basic needs mentioned above. On the one hand, instructors
may over time become used to communicating with their
classes via a particular CMS, replacing old patterns of communication. On the other hand, students are there for a limited period of time and will clearly have more experience
with other forms of communication such as social media. It
is not yet clear whether experience communicating with,
for example, Facebook will transfer easily to the habit of
communicating with their instructors and classmates on the
class Moodle page.
Farthest down the list of needs fulfilled by CMS are
those that relate to the customization of courses such as videos, facilitating collaboration and online class needs. These
are areas in which the CMS functions to transform a class
beyond what could normally be done in a semester by an
instructor. Completely online classes and hybrid classes
extend the reach of a university to non-traditional and
working students, but customization can impact the traditional student in a face-to-face classroom as well. It is very
time-consuming to customize the learning experience in the
classroom to the needs of different students, but with CMS
it is possible to cluster course materials into types of interests and needs for use by different segments of the student
population in any particular course. For example, in a marketing research class, multi-media, in-depth study material
and even examination of the material could be provided for
students who are interested in specific techniques such as
qualitative research, surveys or experiments. Chat rooms
broken down by category could provide support and guidance for students who are working on projects in each of
these areas.
Nonadopters of CMSs
It is more surprising that a large percentage of nonusers of
CMS also had highly favorable attitudes toward CMS.
Given that everyone finds CMSs to be appealing to some
degree, what leads to the difference in their usage? Though
no definitive answers can be drawn from this study, two
factors stood out. First was the lack of clarity about how to
implement CMSs. The instructors knew the value of CMSs
and, as pointed out, had favorable attitudes toward them,
but they were not clear about how to implement one for
their course and so procrastinated. It would be helpful for
technology personnel to walk instructors through the process of implementing a course on a CMS and to be available to troubleshoot throughout the semester.
Time available was another important factor mentioned
in not adopting a CMS. Making a major change in
instruction technology, such as adopting a CMS, often takes
a considerable amount of time. Instructors may see others
using a CMS seemingly effortlessly to save time and effort,
but procrastinate in doing so themselves because of the perceived upfront investment of time. Perhaps departments
could have a CMS already set up and linked to instructors’
courses in order to get them started. If it is already set up,
that would reduce the concern or inertia of instructors having to take the first step. Also, given the earlier findings,
perhaps first implementation of a CMS could focus on satisfying more basic classroom needs such as distribution of
class materials and receipt of student assignments. That
would reduce the time required while providing significant
benefits to the instructor.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, D., & Gross, B. (2007). I can start that JME manuscript next
week, can’t I? The task characteristics behind why faculty procrastinate.
Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 97–110.
Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Online teaching and learning in transition: Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle
Learning Management System. TechTrends, 50, 36–45.
Butler, D. L., & Sellborn, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for
teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 25, 22–28.
Celsi, R. L., & Wolfinbarger, M. (2002). Discontinuous classroom innovation: Waves of change for marketing education. Journal of Marketing
Education, 24, 64–72.
Clarke, I. III, Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (1999). Student perceptions of
educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23,
69–77.
Lewis, B. A., MacEntee, V. M., DeLaCruz, S., Englander, C., Jeffrey, T.,
Takach, E., . . . Woodall, J. (2005). Learning management systems comparison. Proceedings of the 2005 Informing Science and IT Education
Joint Conference, 17–29.
Lincoln, D. (2001). Marketing educator internet adoption in 1998 versus
2000: Significant progress and remaining obstacles. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 103–116.
Liu, L. P., Maddux, C., & Johnson, L. (2004). Computer attitude and
achievement: Is time an intermediate variable? Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 12, 593–607.
Payette, D. L., & Gupta, R. (2009). Transitioning from Blackboard to
Moodle–course management software: Faculty and student opinions.
American Journal of Business Education, 2, 67–73.
Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer selfefficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43,
191–204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
Walsh, J. P., Sun, J. C.-Y., & Riconscente, M. (2011). Online teaching tool
simplifies faculty use of multimedia and improves student interest and
knowledge in science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10, 298–308.
doi:10.1187/cbe.11-03-0031
Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning
outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles,
instructional methods and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 130–142.
TRANSITIONS IN CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
APPENDIX
Non-Users
Fear
1. I am worried I won’t to do a good job with a CMS.
2. I’ll perform poorly with a CMS.
3. I’m not confident I could do a good job with a CMS.
Norms
4. In my department, most faculty members use a CMS.
5. It is expected in my department that faculty use a CMS.
6. Most faculty use a CMS for classes.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:45 11 January 2016
Interest
7. I am interested in a CMS.
8. CMS holds my interest.
9. I could really get involved with a CMS.
Scope of Task (Time Consuming)
10. A CMS requires a lot of time.
11. Using a CMS will occupy a lot of my time.
12. Using a CMS will be time consuming.
Difficulty
13. Using a CMS will be tough in my classes.
14. It will be really difficult to use a CMS for my classes.
15. I know that using a CMS will not be easy in my classes.
Clarity
16. It is not clear how I could use a CMS with my classes.
17. I don’t fully understand how a CMS could be successfully
used in my classes.
18. I don’t know exactly what is necessary to successfully use a
CMS in my classes.
Deadline Pressure
19. I have many other projects to complete before starting to use a
CMS.
20. Many other projects have to be finished before I start to learn a
CMS
21. I have other projects with deadlines before I start to learn a
CMS.
Skill Variety
22. Using a CMS requires using a variety of skills.
23. I need to use a lot of different skills to use a CMS.
24. I have to approach learning a CMS using many different types
of skills.
Incentives and Rewards
25. There are incentives for getting an early start on learning a
CMS.
26. There is a real benefit to starting to learn a CMS soon.
27. There are rewards for getting an early start on learning a CMS.
323
Interdependence
28. Doing other projects I desire to work on depends on first learning a CMS.
29. I have to learn a CMS before I can do
other projects I want to do.
30. I need to learn a CMS before I can start other work I want to
do.
Self-Reported Propensity to Procrastinate
1. I delay starting projects.
2. I procrastinate on projects
3. I wait until the last minute to work on projects.
Users
Which CMS(s) have you used? (Please mark as many as needed.)
(1) Blackboard (2) WebCT (3) Moodle (4) other system
___________________
How long have you used course management systems?
(1) Less than 1 year (2) 1–3 years (3) More than 3 years
Currently, what course management system do you use?
(1) Moodle (2) Blackboard (3) WebCT (4) None (5)
other ___________
Confusion in using a CMS
1. I often become confused when I use a CMS
2. I make errors frequently when using a CMS.
3. Interacting with a CMS is often frustrating.
4. I need to consult the user manual often when using a
CMS.
5. Interacting with a CMS requires a lot of my mental effort.
6. A CMS is rigid and inflexible to interact with.
7. A CMS often behaves in unexpected ways.
Ease of Use
1. Interaction with a CMS is easy for me to understand.
2. It is easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using a
CMS.
3. A CMS provides helpful guidance in performing tasks.
4. Overall, I find a CMS easy to use.
Functional Usefulness
1. A CMS enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly.
2. Using a CMS allows me to accomplish more work than would
otherwise be possible.
3. Using a CMS reduces the time I spend on unproductive
activities.
4. Using a CMS increases my productivity.
5. Using a CMS makes it easier to do my job.
Favorable Attitude toward CMS
1. I am likely to recommend a CMS to my colleagues.
2. I strongly feel that faculty should use a CMS.
3. Using a CMS is favorable.
4. Using a CMS is wise.
5. Learning to use a CMS is time consuming.