Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Faculty Perceived Functionality of Learning Management System: Development and Validation of a Scale

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Shaping the Future of Education, Communication and Technology

Part of the book series: Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook ((ECTY))

Abstract

The learning management system (LMS) has played a crucial role in digital learning environments and has been impacted by both users’ perceptions of its utility and evolving technologies. Knowing the functionalities that faculty utilize in the LMS can inform the decision-making process when selecting and transitioning to a newer platform or LMS. This study, which was grounded in Diffusion of Innovations theory and examined Malikowski et al. (J Educ Comput Res 36(2):149–173, 2007) model for research into learning management systems, has proposed a 3-construct 14-item instrument based on a review of literature and applied research. After a face validity test, the Faculty LMS Functionality Instrument (FLFI) was initially validated with 243 response sets. Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed for testing the initial validation of the instrument, based on the Cronbach alpha of .88 and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of .87 (Kaiser HF, Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):141–151, 1960). The results initially validated the three-construct instrument. We also provide an instrument reuse and data sharing form to further validate this instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of educational technology, 36(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21(2), 230–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, C., Pasquini, L., & Koh, C. (2013). Web-based learning management system considerations for higher education. Learning and Performance Quarterly, 1(4), 24–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014, September). The current ecosystem of Learning Management Systems in higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives (p. 3). Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar. 2014 EDUCAUSE. CC by-nc-nd.

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautreau, C. (2011). Motivational factors affecting integration of a Learning Management System by faculty. The Journal of Educators Online, 8(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement., 20(1), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koohang, A. (2004). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing users’ views about the usability of digital libraries. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 1, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53, 686–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malikowski, S., Thompson, M., & Theis, J. (2007). A model for research into course management systems: Bridging technology and learning theory. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, T. A. (2003, June). Using a course management system to improve instruction. In annual conference of the Association of Small Computer Users in Education, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J., Brown, M., & Brooks, D. C. (2018). Foundations for a next generation digital learning environment: Faculty, students, and the LMS. Research report. ECAR, Louisville, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhode, J., Richter, S., Gowen, P., Miller, T., & Wills, C. (2017). Understanding faculty use of the Learning Management System. Online Learning, 21(3), 68–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Educational Research, 51(4), 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tella, A. (2011). Reliability and factor analysis of a blackboard course management system success: A scale development and validation in an educational context. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 10, 55–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Doll, W. J., Deng, X., Park, K., & Yang, M. G. M. (2013). The impact of faculty perceived reconfigurability of Learning Management Systems on effective teaching practices. Computers & Education, 61, 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, D., Thall, J., Howley, T., Liu, J. C., & Griffin, O. (2017, October). Faculty and students at cross purposes: Digital literacy in the Millennial Age. JMU Teaching and Learning with Technologies Conference, Harrisonburg, VA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

    Juhong Christie Liu, Noorie Brantmeier, Diane Wilcox, Oris Griffin, Jamie Calcagno-Roach & Rebecca Brannon

Authors
  1. Juhong Christie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noorie Brantmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diane Wilcox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oris Griffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jamie Calcagno-Roach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rebecca Brannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juhong Christie Liu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Will W. K. Ma

  2. Hong Kong Association for Educational Communications and Technology (HKAECT), Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Wendy Wing Lam Chan

  3. Hong Kong Association for Educational Communications and Technology (HKAECT), Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Cat Miaoting Cheng

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 13.1: Total Variance Explained

Total variance explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of squared loadings

Rotation sums of squared loadings

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

1

5.765

41.175

41.175

5.765

41.175

41.175

3.048

21.771

2

1.313

9.382

50.557

1.313

9.382

50.557

2.690

19.214

3

1.078

7.700

58.257

1.078

7.700

58.257

2.418

17.272

4

 .893

6.378

64.635

     

5

 .846

6.043

70.679

     

6

 .734

5.245

75.923

     

7

 .634

4.529

80.452

     

8

 .614

4.385

84.837

     

9

 .549

3.919

88.756

     

10

 .442

3.156

91.912

     

11

 .400

2.859

94.771

     

12

 .322

2.302

97.073

     

13

 .258

1.840

98.913

     

14

 .152

1.087

100.000

     

1.2 Appendix 13.2: Rotated Component Matrix of PCA

 

Component

1

2

3

Sys-Navigation

.789

.202

.225

Sys-MeetNeeds

.764

.238

.249

Sys-browser

.739

.079

.107

Sys-Custom

.668

.086

.052

Mngmnt-GradCalc

.379

.243

.353

Comm-StuInteraction

.175

.816

.163

Comm-StuConnected

.137

.738

.279

Sys-Discussion

.113

.714

-.017

Comm-InstructorConnect

.493

.511

.387

Comm-InstructorInteraction

.441

.502

.464

Mngmnt-Quiz

.187

−.079

.782

Mngmnt-Assignmnt

.264

.348

.615

Mngmnt-PeerRev

.016

.130

.606

Comm-Feedback

.318

.375

.584

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalizationa

  1. aRotation converged in four iterations

1.3 Appendix 13.3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

figure a

1.4 Appendix 13.4

figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Liu, J.C., Brantmeier, N., Wilcox, D., Griffin, O., Calcagno-Roach, J., Brannon, R. (2019). Faculty Perceived Functionality of Learning Management System: Development and Validation of a Scale. In: Ma, W., Chan, W., Cheng, C. (eds) Shaping the Future of Education, Communication and Technology. Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6681-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6681-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6680-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6681-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation