IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v11y2018i1p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EFL Instructors’ Perceptions of Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS) at University Level

Author

Listed:
  • Thaer Tawalbeh

Abstract

The present paper aims to investigate EFL instructors’ perceptions of Blackboard learning management system (LMS) at Taif University in Saudi Arabia. To achieve this purposes, the researcher attempted to answer two questions. The first question investigates EFL instructors’ perceptions of Blackboard LMS. The second question aims to identify instructors’ suggestions to overcome difficulties encountered while using the system. A questionnaire of 4- Likert Scale was used to gather data from one hundred and two instructors to answer the first question, and content analysis was used to answer the second question. The collected data were analyzed in the form of descriptive statistics. The results, on one hand, revealed that 75% of the instructors have not used Blackboard technology before coming to university, which would affect their perceptions of the system. It was also evident that most of the instructors believe that the different features of Blackboard LMS are either poor or very poor. In addition, the instructors, in most of their responses to the functionalities of using the Blackboard LMS, rarely or never used the system. On the other hand, the results revealed that the instructors have a positive attitude towards the system in terms of its impact on learning, which can be the starting point to help them be familiarized more with the system’s features and functionalities through professional development. Based on the results, the researcher presented a number of conclusions and recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Thaer Tawalbeh, 2018. "EFL Instructors’ Perceptions of Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS) at University Level," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/72211/39567
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/72211
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:eltjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:1. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.