You are here:

Factors that impact student usage of the learning management system in Qatari schools ARTICLE

, Qatar University ; ,

IRRODL Volume 12, Number 6, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

In an attempt to enhance teacher and student performance in school, a learning management system (LMS) known as Knowledge-Net (K-Net) was introduced in Qatari independent schools. (All public schools in Qatar have transformed to independent schools; the independent schools model is similar to the charter school system in North America.) An LMS is a tool that organizes and regulates classroom administrative tasks, supports teachers and students in the teaching and learning process, and informs parents of their children’s progress and school activities. Despite the benefits of the LMS, research studies indicate that its use by students has been limited because of a number of manipulative and non-manipulative factors that can influence behavior. This study explores the factors that impact student use of the LMS K-Net in Qatari independent schools. Quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire that was administered to students in 37 schools. A total of 1,376 students responded to the questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect qualitative data that helped to confirm the results of the quantitative data and to provide additional insight on students’ perspectives regarding the use of the LMS. The results point to a strong relation between ICT knowledge and LMS usage. They suggest that the more ICT knowledge students have, the less prone they are to using the LMS. Attitudinal barriers were not predictive of usage. Student usage was strongly correlated to teacher and parent usage. This study is informative in evaluating LMS usage in Qatari schools.

Citation

Nasser, R., Cherif, M. & Romanowski, M. (2011). Factors that impact student usage of the learning management system in Qatari schools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 39-62. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved September 26, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., & Poirot, J. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman. Computers& Education, 53, 575–590.
  2. Anderson, P., & Blackwell, A. (2004). Mobile and PDA technologies and their future use in education (TechWatch report). Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/ Services/techwatch/reports/horizonscanning/hs0403.aspx
  3. Atwell, P. (2001). Comment: The first and second digital divide. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259.
  4. Baldwin, J.R., Sabourin, D., & Smith, D. (2004). Firm performance in the Canadian food processing sector: The interaction between ICT, advanced technology use and human resource competencies. In OECD (Ed.), The economic impact of ICT: Measurement, evidence and implications (pp. 153–181). Paris: OECD.
  5. Baek, E., & Freehling, S. (2007). Using internet communication technologies by low-income high school students in completing educational tasks inside and outside the school setting. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 33–55.
  6. Bauer J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
  7. Becker, H.J. (2000). Access to classroom computers. Communications of the ACM, 43(6), 24–25. Bernstein, D. (1997, February/March). Computing, diversity and community: Fostering the computing culture. Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. San Jose, CA.
  8. Bonk, C.J., Lee, M.M., & Reynolds, T.H. (Eds.) (2009). Preface. A special passage through Asia e-learning. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 2009. Brewer, D.J., Augustine, C.H., Zellman, G.L., Ryan, G.W., Goldman, C.A., Stasz, C. &
  9. Constant, L. (2007). Education for a new era: Design and implementation of K-12 education reform in Qatar. Rand Corp: Santa Monica, CA. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG548/ Brown-Yoder, M. (2001). The digital divide. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(5), 10–13, 50–51.
  10. Chang, K. (2005). Technologies in mathematics education in Korea. Advanced Technology Council in Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.atcminc.com/mDevelopment/ShortArticleSeries/Korea/7Korea.html
  11. Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11, 229–243.
  12. Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2004). A review of the research literature relating to ICT and attainment. London: Becta.
  13. Drent, M., & Meelissen M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers& Education, 51, 187–199.
  14. Dutta, S. & Mia,I (2011). The global information technology report 2010–2011. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2011.pdf
  15. Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. (2001). E-readiness rankings. New York: EIU.
  16. Ely, D. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(26), 23–27.
  17. Esther, S. (2008). One-stop shopping with learning management systems. THE Journal, 35(6), 18–20.
  18. Fahey, D.M. (2000). Blackboard course info: Supplementing in-class teaching with the Internet. History Computer Review, 16(1), 29–37.
  19. Gibbs, M., Dosen, A., & Guerrero, R. (2009). Bridging the digital divide: Changing the technological landscape of inner-city Catholic schools. Urban Education, 44, 11–29.
  20. Grunberg, J., & Summers, M. (1992). Computer innovation in schools: A review of selected research literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 1(2), 255–276.
  21. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate dataanalysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  22. Hayashi, A., Chen, C., Ryan, T., & Wu, J. (2004). The role of social presence and moderating role of computer self efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(2), 139–154.
  23. Heath, M., & Ravitz, J. (2001, June). Teaching, learning and computing: What teachers say. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia& Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland.
  24. Hollenstein, H. (2004). Determinants of the adoption of information and communication technologies (ICT): An empirical analysis based on firm-level data for the Swiss business sector. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 15, 315–342.
  25. Kim, S.W., & Lee, M.G. (2007). Validation of an evaluation model for learning management systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 284–294.
  26. Kreuger, R.A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.
  27. Kuhlemeier H., & Hemker, B. (2007). The impact of computer use at home on students’ Internet skills. Computers& Education, 49(2), 460–480.
  28. Looker, E.D., & Thiessen, V. (2003). Beyond the digital divide in Canadian schools: From access to competency in the use of information technology. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 475–490.
  29. Martinez, M. (1994). Access to information technologies among school-age children: Implications for a democratic society. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 395–400.
  30. Morgan, A., & Kennewell, S. (2005). The role of play in the pedagogy of ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 10(3),177–188.
  31. Morocco, C., & Zorfas, J. (1988). Technology and transformation: A naturalistic study of special students and computers in the middle school. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 88–97.
  32. Mulkeen, A. (2003). What can policymakers do to encourage integration of information and communications technology? Evidence from the Irish school system. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2), 277–294.
  33. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 319–341.
  34. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Shemla, A. (2001). Information and communication technologies usage by students in an Israeli high school: Equity, gender, and inside/ outside school learning issues. Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 43–53.
  35. Nasser, R. (2005). Method for social scientists to adapt instruments from one culture to another: The case of the Job Descriptive Index. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(4): 232–237.
  36. Richardson, M.S. (2004). The emergence of new intentions in subjective experience: A social/personal constructionist and relational understanding. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 485-198.
  37. Rochelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N., & Means, B.M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and Computer Technology, 10, 76–101.
  38. Romanowski, M., & Nasser, R. (2010). Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university. Prospects: UNESCO Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 40, 481–497.
  39. Sabherwal, R., & Newman, M. (2003). Persistence and change in system development: A dialectical view. Journal of Information Technology, 18(2), 69–92.
  40. Selim, H.M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. International Journal of Technology Marketing 2(2), 157–182.
  41. Sener, J., & Stover, M.L. (2000). Integrating ALN into an independent study distance education program: NVCC case studies. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 126–144.
  42. Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Madden, N.A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  43. Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. (2001). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30, 85–111.
  44. Song S.H. (2004). The functions and future directions of e-learning platforms. The Journal of Educational Informationand Media 10, 151–182.
  45. Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., Sing, S., Bird, K., Cummings, J., Downing, B., Harber Stuart, T., Jarvis, J., Diane Mavers, D., & Derek Woodrow, D. (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools’ Whiteboard expansion project: Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Coventry: Becta. Retrieved from http://partners.becta.org.uk/uploaddir/downloads/page_documents/research/whiteboards_expansion.pdf
  46. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  47. Tort, F., Blondel, F.-M., & Bruillard, É. (2008). Spreadsheet knowledge and skills of French secondary school students. In Roland T. Mittermeir and Maciej M. Syslo (Eds.), Informatics Education– Supporting Computational Thinking. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools– Evolutions and Perspectives, ISSEP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) Vol. 5090, (pp. 305–316). SpringerLink.
  48. Usun, S. (2004). Undergraduate students attitudes on the use of computers in education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 62-70.
  49. Uzunboylu, H., Ozdamli, F., & Ozcinar, Z. (2006). An evaluation of open source learning management systems according to learners tools. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED494265.
  50. Vekiri, I. (2010). Boys’ and girls’ ICT beliefs: Do teachers matter? Computers& Education, 55, 16–23.
  51. Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers& Education, 51, 1392–1404.
  52. Walsham, G., & Sahay, S. (2006). Research on information systems in developing countries: Current landscape and future prospects. Information Technology for Development, 12(1), 7–24.
  53. Watson, W.R., & Watson, S.L. (2007). An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems, what are they not, and what should they become? TechTrends, 51(2), 28–34.
  54. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.