Satisfaction and continuance with a learning management system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare the perceptions of educators and students with a learning management system (LMS). The comparison is based on survey data collected from 185 educators and 249 students in a Finnish university who use a popular LMS, Moodle. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis of the survey data follows a two-phase strategy. In the first phase, perceptions of educators and students regarding ease of use, result demonstrability, usefulness, access, reliability, compatibility, satisfaction, and continuance intention were compared using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In the second phase, partial least squares (PLS) technique is employed to compare the path values and explained variances of satisfaction, and continuance intention by putting relevant variables as predictors. Findings – The ANOVA results suggest that students have higher positive perceptions regarding ease of use, usefulness, access, reliability, and compatibility of the LMS than the educators. The PLS analysis results revealed that the amount of variance of students’ satisfaction explained by its predictors was 9 percentage points lower than that of educators. It also revealed that the variance of students’ continuance intention explained by satisfaction and usefulness was 12 percentage points lower than that of educators. Practical implications – The study concludes with both theoretical and managerial implications. Originality/value – While prior research has investigated either educators’ or students’ perspective, the authors have investigated both and presented a comparison. The authors have reported several differences that help practitioners make customized intervention plan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it