Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 897–917 | Cite as

Using learning management systems in business and economics studies in Hungarian higher education



This paper explores all uses of LMS in teaching Business Mathematics in Hungarian undergraduate training from the point of view of the instructors. Since no similar survey had been carried out in Hungary earlier, the aim was to fill in this gap and to investigate which LMS systems are being used by the instructors, to what specific purposes and how intensively. The importance of this study is that it highlights the local correlations and shortcomings thus making the adoption of LMS systems in Business Mathematics more effective. The survey was carried out by using questionnaires compiled by the author (survey method). All the institutions of Business Mathematics were questioned, one instructor in each (N = 28), so the data survey was comprehensive. The results of the article show that the proportion of instructors using LMS systems in undergraduate Business Mathematics training is lower than might be expected from the literature. Correlations have been demonstrated (elements characteristic of the country) with which the phenomena can be explained. This study shows – consistent with other studies – that LMS was commonly used by instructors for text-based communication and for delivering text-based learning materials. Even special tools and activities supporting mathematics are used for such purposes in a small number of cases; solutions outside the scope of LMS are used in a larger proportion.


Learning management system Higher education Business mathematics Hungary 


  1. Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arroway, P., Davenport, E., Xu, G., & Updegrove, D. (2010). EDUCASE core data service fiscal year 2009 summary report. EDUCASE.Google Scholar
  3. Aydin, E. (2005). The use of computers in mathematics education: A paradigm. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
  4. Babo, R., & Azevedo, A. (2009). Learning Management Systems usage on Higher Education Institutions. 13th IBIMA Conference - Knowledge Management and Innovation in Advancing Economies: Analyses & Solutions, (pp. 883–889).Google Scholar
  5. Babo, R., & Azevedo, A. (2012). Higher education institutions and learning management systems: Adoption and standardization. United States of America: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 98–118.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, M., & Bell, W. (2005). It’s installed… now get on with it! Looking beyond the software to the cultural change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 643–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O'Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online: a survey of online education and services in Australia. Canberra: Australian Capital Territory: DEST.Google Scholar
  9. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley, M., Carter, J., Fitzsimons, D., Graham, J., Hurlbut, N., Marshall, D., et al. (2007). Learning management system evaluation report. Executive summary. Berlin: Humboldt University.Google Scholar
  11. Browne, T., Jenkins, M., & Walker, R. (2006). A longitudinal perspective regarding the use of VLEs by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne, T., Hewitt, R., Jenkins, M., & Walker, R. (2008). 2008 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Cambridge: Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, B., Carmean, C., & Wagner, E. D. (2009). The Evolution of the LMS: From Management to Learning - Deep Analysis of Trends Shaping the Future of e-Learning. Sage Road Solutions, LLC.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, R. A., Ginns, P., & Piggott, L. (2009). E-learning in higher education: Some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(3), 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrotte, R., & Pettersson, T. (2007). Lecturers’ attitudes about the use of learning management systems in engineering education: A Swedish case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 327–349.Google Scholar
  17. Garrotte, J., & Pettersson, T. (2011). The use of learning management systems: A Longitudinal Case Study. E-Learning and Education, 8(1).Google Scholar
  18. Heaton-Shrestha, C., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., & Linsey, T. (2005). Introducing a VLE into campus-based undergraduate. International Journal of Educational Research, 370–386.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins, M., Browne, T., Walker, R., & Hewitt, R. (2011). The development of technology enhanced learning: findings from a 2008 survey of UK higher education institutions. Interactive Learning Environments, 19, 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2000). E-Learning Glossary. Accessed 09 01, 2012, from Learning Circuits:
  21. Kulcsár, Z. (2009). Az integratív e-learning felé. Accessed 08 15, 2012, from Crescendo:
  22. Lane, L. M. (2007, 09 17). Course Management Systems and Pedagogy. Accessed 12 30, 2012., from
  23. Larsen, T. J., Sørebø, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2009). The role of task-technology fit as users’ motivation to continue information system use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. (2008). Understanding information systems continuance: The case of Internet-based learning technologies. Information and Management, 45, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lingard, M. (2007). Why don’t all lecturers make use of VLEs? What can the so-called “Laggards” tell us? London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  26. Llamas-Nistal, M., Caeiro-Rodriguez, M., & Castro, M. (2011). Educational metadata and brokerage for learning resources. IIEE Transactions on Education, 54(4).Google Scholar
  27. Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matusu, R., Vojtesek, J., & Dulik, T. (2012). Technology-Enhanced Learning Tools: A survey of Use in European Higher Education. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Application (10), 316–326.Google Scholar
  29. Neptun home page. (2012, 05 01). Accessed 05 01, 2012, from The SDA Zrt’s web site:
  30. Registered Moodle sites. (2013, 05 28). Accessed 05 28, 2013, from Moodle community site:
  31. Renzi, S. (2008). Differences in university teaching after Learning Management System adoption: an explanatory model based on Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior. Unpublished PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, M., & Ally, M. (2009). Transition to e-Learning in a Gulf Arab Country. The 2nd Annual Forum on e-Learning Excellence in the Middle East. Dubai.Google Scholar
  33. Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., & Francis, R. (2006). Implementing a university e-learning strategy: Levers for change within academic schools. The Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 14(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. The webpage of Educatio Social Service Company Ltd. founded by the Ministry of Human Resources. (2011, 09 02). Accessed 09 20, 2011, from Felvételi 2011:
  36. Unger, M., & Wrobleski, A. (2006). Neue Medien im Studium. Ergebnisse der Studierenden-Sozialerhebung. Accessed 10 15, 2012, from Studierenden Sozialerhebung:
  37. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: For longitudinal feld studies. Journal Management Science, 186–204.Google Scholar
  38. Vig, Z. (2012, 11 14). Hibrid megoldás egy régi problémára. Accessed 11 26, 2012, from Eduline:
  39. Walker, D. (2006). Evaluation of virtual learning environments in higher education sector (Scotland). In G. Ward (Ed.), Flexible delivery: An evaluation of the use of the virtual learning environment in higher education across Scotland (pp. 8–24). Mansfield (UK): The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  40. Wheeler, B. (2004). Open Source 2007: How Did This Happen? EDUCAUSE Review, 12–27.Google Scholar
  41. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: part 2. Journal of Modelling and Management, 281–304.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and MethodologyEdutus CollegeBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations