ADOPTION OF LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS IN RUSSIA
|
STATEMENT ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT CHARACTER OF THE MASTER THESIS 2
ABSTRACT 3
Аннотация 3
INTRODUCTION 7
CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
ADOPTION 10
1.1. Learning management system as educational technology and peculiarities of its usage10
1.2. Modeling adoption of learning management systems 12
1.3. Proposed research model and hypotheses 14
CHAPTER 2. EMPIRICAL STUDY OF RUSSIAN FACULTY MEMBERS RELATIONS WITH
LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 19
2.1. Research design 19
2.2. Obtained sample 20
2.3. Measurement model 21
2.3.1. Verification of constructs 21
2.3.2. Simultaneous CFA 24
2.4. Structural model 26
2.5. Expanding on obtained results: additional tests 27
2.6. Theoretical and practical implications 30
2.7. Limitations and further research directions 34
CONCLUSION 35
LIST OF REFERENCES 37
APPENDICES 41
Appendix 1. Questionnaire 41
Appendix 2. SPSS and AMOS outputs 49
Innovativeness (INV) 49
System quality (SQ) 51
Facilitating conditions (FC) 55
Perceived usefulness (PU) 55
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) 59
Attitude towards usage (ATU) 61
Initial measurement model 65
Final measurement model 69
Initial structural model 72
Final structural model 76
Additional tests 79
ABSTRACT 3
Аннотация 3
INTRODUCTION 7
CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
ADOPTION 10
1.1. Learning management system as educational technology and peculiarities of its usage10
1.2. Modeling adoption of learning management systems 12
1.3. Proposed research model and hypotheses 14
CHAPTER 2. EMPIRICAL STUDY OF RUSSIAN FACULTY MEMBERS RELATIONS WITH
LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 19
2.1. Research design 19
2.2. Obtained sample 20
2.3. Measurement model 21
2.3.1. Verification of constructs 21
2.3.2. Simultaneous CFA 24
2.4. Structural model 26
2.5. Expanding on obtained results: additional tests 27
2.6. Theoretical and practical implications 30
2.7. Limitations and further research directions 34
CONCLUSION 35
LIST OF REFERENCES 37
APPENDICES 41
Appendix 1. Questionnaire 41
Appendix 2. SPSS and AMOS outputs 49
Innovativeness (INV) 49
System quality (SQ) 51
Facilitating conditions (FC) 55
Perceived usefulness (PU) 55
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) 59
Attitude towards usage (ATU) 61
Initial measurement model 65
Final measurement model 69
Initial structural model 72
Final structural model 76
Additional tests 79
It is undebatable at this point that digital technologies play a focal role in education [Harrison et al., 2018]. Even though teachers and students return to classes and offline education prevail again after COVID-19 pandemic, learning management systems, along with other educational technologies, serve as indispensable assistance for instructors, striving to provide uninterrupted access to education, create knowledge-sharing culture, and encourage students to participate in curriculum activities [Fathema et al., 2015; Waheed et al., 2016]. This study investigates adoption of this type of technology among faculty members in Russia - or, in other words, how Russian professors come to accept and use learning management systems.
Research gap, which defines theoretical significance, is in absence of empirically verified model of LMS adoption in Russian context. As long as existing models for other countries are highly contextual and need to be re-considered when applied to a different setting [Fathema et al., 2015], they are to serve as a base for the current study, but by no means as a substitute. Another aspect of theoretical significance revolves around the fact that existing studies on LMS adoption treat the dependent construct of actual usage as a unidimensional latent variable consisting of items reflecting extent of usage in general (e.g., ‘To what extent do you use LMS?’ [ibid.]). However, as long as current research is focused on faculty (who are to choose functions to be used themselves), and not on students (who operate in already predefined settings), it seems justifiable herein to approach actual usage as a multidimensional variable - consisting of usage intensiveness (frequency) and usage extensiveness (number of functions used).
Summarizing on theoretical significance, current research is intended to contribute to theory via proposing empirically verified model of LMS adoption among faculty members in Russia, with the outcome construct of actual usage being treated multidimensionally. If proved statistically, the latter approach may bring new revelations into the theory of edtech adoption - for example, positive attitude towards particular technology might positively affect actual intensiveness of its usage, but not extensiveness.
Practical significance (relevance) is emphasized by the current trend on the Russian market, where organizations (and universities in particular) have to switch from foreign technologies to local ones, as long as substantial number of foreign solutions are no longer available in Russia. Hence a lot of faculty members are adopting new learning management systems now or will do it soon, when licenses for foreign LMS are expired. This fact makes the issue of edtech adoption increasingly relevant and topical in Russia, with heads of higher educational institutions drastically needing a contextually verified model to understand and foster adoption of local LMS among teaching staff.
Consequently, in terms of expected practical contribution, the final model is to be used by the management of Russian universities, who invest substantial funds and efforts into learning management systems and are interested in its intensive and extensive usage. The verified model will help provide directors with recommendations on what to consider in the first place when fostering adoption of LMS among faculty members (especially when switched from foreign to local, as can be expected now). Moreover, local providers of learning management systems might also be interested in the results, as long as the longevity of cooperation with an institution seems to depend on the extent of the technology adoption among target users (professors). For example, if a new system is not accepted by academicians, it is likely to be changed for another one. Thus, the findings might be useful for local LMS providers who need to shape their product and its promotion in a way that it will be accepted vastly by users, the majority of whom were forced to change from a foreign one.
Consequently, the current research aims to find out how to predict and stimulate full-capacity usage of learning management systems among faculty members in Russia.
The stated goal can be achieved via accomplishing the following tasks:
1. To propose a model that could explain LMS adoption in Russia based on existing studies and local context
2. To empirically verify proposed model of LMS adoption in Russia
3. To formulate practical recommendations for directors of universities and providers of LMS based on verified model of LMS adoption in Russia
In terms of structure of the work, chapter 1 will provide theoretical background for an empirical study in chapter 2. Chapter 1 starts with introducing the phenomenon of learning management systems and existing findings on peculiarities of their usage. Then we make and justify the choice of the model that is meant to explain the adoption of those technologies. With the aim of specifying the model correctly in given settings, we proceed to the analysis of similar studies, followed by proposing a research model that illustrates a set of research hypotheses. In chapter 2, we begin with describing the methodology of current research, then outline the characteristics of sample obtained. After that, measurement model is introduced and refined, so that it is possible to safely proceed with structural model and report its findings in paths analysis further on, accepting or rejecting formulated hypotheses. Subsequently, some additional statistical tests are made based on obtained findings, leading to more precise practical recommendations along with theoretical implications. The chapter ends with outlining limitations of the current research, and suggesting directions for further studies on LMS adoption among faculty members.
...
Research gap, which defines theoretical significance, is in absence of empirically verified model of LMS adoption in Russian context. As long as existing models for other countries are highly contextual and need to be re-considered when applied to a different setting [Fathema et al., 2015], they are to serve as a base for the current study, but by no means as a substitute. Another aspect of theoretical significance revolves around the fact that existing studies on LMS adoption treat the dependent construct of actual usage as a unidimensional latent variable consisting of items reflecting extent of usage in general (e.g., ‘To what extent do you use LMS?’ [ibid.]). However, as long as current research is focused on faculty (who are to choose functions to be used themselves), and not on students (who operate in already predefined settings), it seems justifiable herein to approach actual usage as a multidimensional variable - consisting of usage intensiveness (frequency) and usage extensiveness (number of functions used).
Summarizing on theoretical significance, current research is intended to contribute to theory via proposing empirically verified model of LMS adoption among faculty members in Russia, with the outcome construct of actual usage being treated multidimensionally. If proved statistically, the latter approach may bring new revelations into the theory of edtech adoption - for example, positive attitude towards particular technology might positively affect actual intensiveness of its usage, but not extensiveness.
Practical significance (relevance) is emphasized by the current trend on the Russian market, where organizations (and universities in particular) have to switch from foreign technologies to local ones, as long as substantial number of foreign solutions are no longer available in Russia. Hence a lot of faculty members are adopting new learning management systems now or will do it soon, when licenses for foreign LMS are expired. This fact makes the issue of edtech adoption increasingly relevant and topical in Russia, with heads of higher educational institutions drastically needing a contextually verified model to understand and foster adoption of local LMS among teaching staff.
Consequently, in terms of expected practical contribution, the final model is to be used by the management of Russian universities, who invest substantial funds and efforts into learning management systems and are interested in its intensive and extensive usage. The verified model will help provide directors with recommendations on what to consider in the first place when fostering adoption of LMS among faculty members (especially when switched from foreign to local, as can be expected now). Moreover, local providers of learning management systems might also be interested in the results, as long as the longevity of cooperation with an institution seems to depend on the extent of the technology adoption among target users (professors). For example, if a new system is not accepted by academicians, it is likely to be changed for another one. Thus, the findings might be useful for local LMS providers who need to shape their product and its promotion in a way that it will be accepted vastly by users, the majority of whom were forced to change from a foreign one.
Consequently, the current research aims to find out how to predict and stimulate full-capacity usage of learning management systems among faculty members in Russia.
The stated goal can be achieved via accomplishing the following tasks:
1. To propose a model that could explain LMS adoption in Russia based on existing studies and local context
2. To empirically verify proposed model of LMS adoption in Russia
3. To formulate practical recommendations for directors of universities and providers of LMS based on verified model of LMS adoption in Russia
In terms of structure of the work, chapter 1 will provide theoretical background for an empirical study in chapter 2. Chapter 1 starts with introducing the phenomenon of learning management systems and existing findings on peculiarities of their usage. Then we make and justify the choice of the model that is meant to explain the adoption of those technologies. With the aim of specifying the model correctly in given settings, we proceed to the analysis of similar studies, followed by proposing a research model that illustrates a set of research hypotheses. In chapter 2, we begin with describing the methodology of current research, then outline the characteristics of sample obtained. After that, measurement model is introduced and refined, so that it is possible to safely proceed with structural model and report its findings in paths analysis further on, accepting or rejecting formulated hypotheses. Subsequently, some additional statistical tests are made based on obtained findings, leading to more precise practical recommendations along with theoretical implications. The chapter ends with outlining limitations of the current research, and suggesting directions for further studies on LMS adoption among faculty members.
...
Current study was devoted to adoption of learning management systems among faculty members in Russia, and aimed to find out how to predict and stimulate full-capacity usage of those systems, with the view of providing managerial recommendations to directors of universities and LMS suppliers.
In chapter 1 a theoretical base was developed. First, a notion of learning management systems as an educational technology was introduced, with emphasizing of the problem of its non-extensive usage among faculty members. Then technology acceptance model (TAM) was chosen as a base to model the process of adoption of the technology in question, given its high applicability in similar studies. The specification of this base model required coming up with the set of contextual external variables, which are contingent upon region and particular technology. As long as no one has applied this model for LMS in Russia, similar studies in other countries were reviewed in search of relevant external variables. Ultimately, personal innovativeness, perceived system quality and facilitating conditions (plus gender as a commonly used control variable) were chosen as ones giving the most comprehensive overview on possible externalities and having the most promising perspectives in achieving research tasks (namely, to formulate practical recommendations for research stakeholders). Additionally, the response variable of actual usage was attempted to be treated multidimensionally (as usage intensiveness and usage extensiveness separately), given the stated problem of specifically non-extensive usage. Other relationships were taken directly from the base TAM model, and this constituted the proposed research model.
In chapter 2 empirical study was presented. Methodology presupposed applying PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) as the main method of data analysis (quantitative), given the subject of the study (process of adoption, which is a chain of effects with latent constructs). Partnership with Federal Educational and Methodical Association allowed to obtain a sample of 403 representatives of formulated population (faculty members of Russian higher education institutions with an LMS at the workplace), which exceeds the minimum threshold of 100 for SEM studies. After a set of refinements, all constructs proved to be reliable and valid, with measurement model enjoying decent goodness of fit. This allowed us to proceed with the structural model, where the response variables (AUI and AUE) obviously fell into a single construct of actual usage, which helped increase the quality of the model and get results that are reliable enough to be interpreted. Like this, path analysis resulted in all research hypotheses being accepted on the significance level of 0.001. Additional correlation tests were run to specify the obtained results - namely, it was revealed that among system quality parameters the most important ones are functionality, interface and effectiveness in tracking students’ performance (correlate significantly with both usage intensiveness and extensiveness), and among facilitating conditions the most robust (by the same criterion) are guidelines and multimedia instructions on LMS usage, along with internal LMS experts in each faculty, whereas financial stimuli turned out to be ineffective.
These findings contributed to theory via proposing the first empirically verified model of LMS adoption among faculty members in Russia, proving unidimensionality of actual usage with a different measurement approach, and finding positive effect of personal innovativeness on perceived usefulness of a system with controlling for age. Also, a set of practical recommendations were developed based on those results. Like that, directors of universities were advised to prioritize LMS quality over facilitating conditions, focus on simple and reactive assistance in LMS usage and neglect positive motivation to use an LMS. Providers of LMS are recommended to focus on innovative organizations with a developed system of facilitating conditions; prioritize system’s functionality, interface and effectiveness in tracking students’ progress in developing a system; emphasize diverse functionality, user-friendly interface and aesthetically pleasing design in promoting a system to end-users. Main limitations, which define suggested research directions, are connected with self-reported and thus unreliable measurement of the response variable, failure to cover professors in colleges and corporate universities, and inability to address previous LMS experience in model specification.
Taking everything into consideration, it can be concluded that the research aim was attained, and all of the tasks accomplished, so the work is of decent usefulness for academicians and practitioners related to technology acceptance (and learning management systems in particular).
In chapter 1 a theoretical base was developed. First, a notion of learning management systems as an educational technology was introduced, with emphasizing of the problem of its non-extensive usage among faculty members. Then technology acceptance model (TAM) was chosen as a base to model the process of adoption of the technology in question, given its high applicability in similar studies. The specification of this base model required coming up with the set of contextual external variables, which are contingent upon region and particular technology. As long as no one has applied this model for LMS in Russia, similar studies in other countries were reviewed in search of relevant external variables. Ultimately, personal innovativeness, perceived system quality and facilitating conditions (plus gender as a commonly used control variable) were chosen as ones giving the most comprehensive overview on possible externalities and having the most promising perspectives in achieving research tasks (namely, to formulate practical recommendations for research stakeholders). Additionally, the response variable of actual usage was attempted to be treated multidimensionally (as usage intensiveness and usage extensiveness separately), given the stated problem of specifically non-extensive usage. Other relationships were taken directly from the base TAM model, and this constituted the proposed research model.
In chapter 2 empirical study was presented. Methodology presupposed applying PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) as the main method of data analysis (quantitative), given the subject of the study (process of adoption, which is a chain of effects with latent constructs). Partnership with Federal Educational and Methodical Association allowed to obtain a sample of 403 representatives of formulated population (faculty members of Russian higher education institutions with an LMS at the workplace), which exceeds the minimum threshold of 100 for SEM studies. After a set of refinements, all constructs proved to be reliable and valid, with measurement model enjoying decent goodness of fit. This allowed us to proceed with the structural model, where the response variables (AUI and AUE) obviously fell into a single construct of actual usage, which helped increase the quality of the model and get results that are reliable enough to be interpreted. Like this, path analysis resulted in all research hypotheses being accepted on the significance level of 0.001. Additional correlation tests were run to specify the obtained results - namely, it was revealed that among system quality parameters the most important ones are functionality, interface and effectiveness in tracking students’ performance (correlate significantly with both usage intensiveness and extensiveness), and among facilitating conditions the most robust (by the same criterion) are guidelines and multimedia instructions on LMS usage, along with internal LMS experts in each faculty, whereas financial stimuli turned out to be ineffective.
These findings contributed to theory via proposing the first empirically verified model of LMS adoption among faculty members in Russia, proving unidimensionality of actual usage with a different measurement approach, and finding positive effect of personal innovativeness on perceived usefulness of a system with controlling for age. Also, a set of practical recommendations were developed based on those results. Like that, directors of universities were advised to prioritize LMS quality over facilitating conditions, focus on simple and reactive assistance in LMS usage and neglect positive motivation to use an LMS. Providers of LMS are recommended to focus on innovative organizations with a developed system of facilitating conditions; prioritize system’s functionality, interface and effectiveness in tracking students’ progress in developing a system; emphasize diverse functionality, user-friendly interface and aesthetically pleasing design in promoting a system to end-users. Main limitations, which define suggested research directions, are connected with self-reported and thus unreliable measurement of the response variable, failure to cover professors in colleges and corporate universities, and inability to address previous LMS experience in model specification.
Taking everything into consideration, it can be concluded that the research aim was attained, and all of the tasks accomplished, so the work is of decent usefulness for academicians and practitioners related to technology acceptance (and learning management systems in particular).
