IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdataj/v8y2023i3p45-d1077114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Level Analysis of Learning Management Systems’ User Acceptance Exemplified in Two System Case Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Parisa Shayan

    (School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands)

  • Roberto Rondinelli

    (Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cintia 26, 80126 Naples, Italy)

  • Menno van Zaanen

    (South African Centre for Digital Language Resources, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa)

  • Martin Atzmueller

    (Semantic Information Systems Group, Osnabrück University, 49090 Osnabrück, Germany
    German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DKFI), 49090 Osnabrück, Germany)

Abstract

There has recently been an increasing interest in Learning Management Systems (LMSs). It is currently unclear, however, exactly how these systems are perceived by their users. This article analyzes data on user acceptance for two LMSs (Blackboard and Canvas). The respective data are collected using a questionnaire modeled after the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM); it relates several variables that influence system acceptability, allowing for a detailed analysis of the system acceptance. We present analyses at two levels of the questionnaire data: questions and constructs (taken from TAM) as well as on different analysis levels using targeted methods. First, we investigate the differences between the above LMSs using statistical tests ( t -test). Second, we provide results at the question level using descriptive indices, such as the mean and the Gini heterogeneity index, and apply methods for ordinal data using the Cumulative Link Mixed Model (CLMM). Next, we apply the same approach at the TAM construct level plus descriptive network analysis (degree centrality and bipartite motifs) to explore the variability of users’ answers and the degree of users’ satisfaction considering the extracted patterns. In the context of TAM, the statistical model is able to analyze LMS acceptance on the question level. As we are also very much interested in identifying LMS acceptance at the construct level, in this article, we provide both statistical analysis as well as network analysis to explore the connection between questionnaire data and relational data. A network analysis approach is particularly useful when analyzing LMS acceptance on the construct level, as this can take the structure of the users’ answers across questions per construct into account. Taken together, these results suggest a higher rate of user acceptance among Canvas users compared to Blackboard both for the question and construct level. Likewise, the descriptive network modeling for Canvas indicates a slightly higher concordance between Canvas users than Blackboard at the construct level.

Suggested Citation

  • Parisa Shayan & Roberto Rondinelli & Menno van Zaanen & Martin Atzmueller, 2023. "Multi-Level Analysis of Learning Management Systems’ User Acceptance Exemplified in Two System Case Studies," Data, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-27, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:8:y:2023:i:3:p:45-:d:1077114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/8/3/45/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/8/3/45/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ritu Agarwal & Jayesh Prasad, 1998. "A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 204-215, June.
    2. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    3. Müller-Seitz, Gordon & Dautzenberg, Kirsti & Creusen, Utho & Stromereder, Christine, 2009. "Customer acceptance of RFID technology: Evidence from the German electronic retail sector," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 31-39.
    4. Mari Ervasti & Heli Helaakoski, 2010. "Case study of application-based mobile service acceptance and development in Finland," International Journal of Information Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 243-259.
    5. Heijden, Hans van der, 2000. "Using the technology acceptance model to predict website usage : extensions and empirical test," Serie Research Memoranda 0025, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    6. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seok Chan Jeong & Beom-Jin Choi, 2022. "Moderating Effects of Consumers’ Personal Innovativeness on the Adoption and Purchase Intention of Wearable Devices," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, November.
    2. Iviane Ramos-de-Luna & Francisco Montoro-Ríos & Francisco Liébana-Cabanillas, 2016. "Determinants of the intention to use NFC technology as a payment system: an acceptance model approach," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-314, May.
    3. Priyanka Surendran, 2012. "Technology Acceptance Model: A Survey of Literature," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 2(4), pages 175-178, August.
    4. Pizzi, Gabriele & Scarpi, Daniele, 2020. "Privacy threats with retail technologies: A consumer perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    5. Francisco Liébana-Cabanillas & Nidhi Singh & Zoran Kalinic & Elena Carvajal-Trujillo, 2021. "Examining the determinants of continuance intention to use and the moderating effect of the gender and age of users of NFC mobile payments: a multi-analytical approach," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 133-161, June.
    6. Cristopher Siegfried Kopplin, 2021. "Two heads are better than one: matchmaking tools in coworking spaces," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1045-1069, May.
    7. Riffat Ara Zannat Tama & Md Mahmudul Hoque & Ying Liu & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Mark Yu, 2023. "An Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Examining Farmers’ Behavioral Attitude and Intention towards Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    8. Kostas Zafiropoulos & Ioannis Karavasilis & Vasiliki Vrana, 2012. "Assessing the Adoption of e-Government Services by Teachers in Greece," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Nistor, Cristian, 2013. "A conceptual model for the use of social media in companies," MPRA Paper 44224, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Francisco Rejón-Guardia & Juán Sánchez-Fernández & Francisco Muñoz-Leiva, 2011. "Motivational Factors that influence the Acceptance of Microblogging Social Networks: The µBAM Model," FEG Working Paper Series 06/11, Faculty of Economics and Business (University of Granada).
    11. Amit Shankar & Biplab Datta, 2018. "Factors Affecting Mobile Payment Adoption Intention: An Indian Perspective," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 19(3_suppl), pages 72-89, June.
    12. Md. Alamgir Hossain & Ruhul Amin & Abdullah Al Masud & Md. Imran Hossain & Mohammad Awal Hossen & Mohammad Kamal Hossain, 2023. "What Drives People’s Behavioral Intention Toward Telemedicine? An Emerging Economy Perspective," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    13. Gansser, Oliver Alexander & Reich, Christina Stefanie, 2021. "A new acceptance model for artificial intelligence with extensions to UTAUT2: An empirical study in three segments of application," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    14. Robinson, Leroy Jr. & Marshall, Greg W. & Stamps, Miriam B., 2005. "Sales force use of technology: antecedents to technology acceptance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(12), pages 1623-1631, December.
    15. Xinlu Wen & Marios Sotiriadis & Shiwei Shen, 2023. "Determining the Key Drivers for the Acceptance and Usage of AR and VR in Cultural Heritage Monuments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-24, February.
    16. Attié, Elodie & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    17. Ivonne Angelica Castiblanco Jimenez & Laura Cristina Cepeda García & Maria Grazia Violante & Federica Marcolin & Enrico Vezzetti, 2020. "Commonly Used External TAM Variables in e-Learning, Agriculture and Virtual Reality Applications," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Xin Xu & Viswanath Venkatesh & Kar Yan Tam & Se-Joon Hong, 2010. "Model of Migration and Use of Platforms: Role of Hierarchy, Current Generation, and Complementarities in Consumer Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1304-1323, August.
    19. Sepasgozar, Samad M.E., 2022. "Immersive on-the-job training module development and modeling users’ behavior using parametric multi-group analysis: A modified educational technology acceptance model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    20. Natarajan, Thamaraiselvan & Balasubramanian, Senthil Arasu & Kasilingam, Dharun Lingam, 2017. "Understanding the intention to use mobile shopping applications and its influence on price sensitivity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 8-22.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:8:y:2023:i:3:p:45-:d:1077114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.