Description
The purpose of this study is to investigate student perceptions of the design features
included in an “off the shelf” Learning Management System (LMS) in teaching undergraduate
accounting students.
Accounting Research Journal
Accounting students' perceptions of a Learning Management System: An international
comparison
Ilias G. Basioudis Paul de Lange Themin Suwardy Paul Wells
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ilias G. Basioudis Paul de Lange Themin Suwardy Paul Wells, (2012),"Accounting students' perceptions of
a Learning Management System", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 72 - 86
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611211287279
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 21:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 975 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Beverley J ackling, Paul de Lange, J on Phillips, J ames Sewell, (2012),"Attitudes towards accounting:
differences between Australian and international students", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp.
113-130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611211287305
David Bond, Robert Czernkowski, Peter Wells, (2012),"A team-teaching based approach
to engage students", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 87-99 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611211287288
Vijaya Murthy, J ames Guthrie, (2013),"Accounting for workplace flexibility: Internal communication
in an Australian financial institution", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 2 pp. 109-129 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ -12-2012-0096
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Accounting students’ perceptions
of a Learning Management
System
An international comparison
Ilias G. Basioudis
Finance & Accounting Group, Aston Business School,
University of Aston, Birmingham, UK
Paul de Lange
Department of Accounting and Law, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia
Themin Suwardy
Department of Accountancy, Singapore Management University,
Singapore, and
Paul Wells
School of Business, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,
New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate student perceptions of the design features
included in an “off the shelf” Learning Management System (LMS) in teaching undergraduate
accounting students.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaire responses from 846 accounting students studying
in the UK, Australia and New Zealand provide international data to develop a model to explain student
perception of the LMS.
Findings – The ?nal model shows student satisfaction with the use of a LMS is positively associated
withthree variables: usefulness of lecture notes, bulletinboards anddiscussionforums, andother LMStools.
Further, the comparison of cultural differences of the three countries shows all students treat the provision
of notes as a desirable attribute on a LMS. Findings also suggest that although students ?nd the provision
of materials over the LMS does not enhance student engagement in class, overall a comparison of the three
countries shows all students treat the provision of notes as a desirable attribute of a LMS.
Research limitations/implications – Future research should collect ethnicity data to enable an
analysis of cultural in?uence on student perceptions of the LMS.
Practical implications – As increased motivation to learn is found to contribute to improved
achievement of learning outcomes, the study’s ?ndings have implications for faculty contemplating
the adoption of a LMS in their courses. The ?ndings speci?cally con?rm that usefulness of lecture notes,
use of bulletin/discussion boards, and other LMS tools are positively endorsed by students and hence
increase their motivation to learn.
Originality/value – The current paper adds to the literature as the motivation to use and engage
with LMSs by accounting students is not well understood.
Keywords United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Students, Online learning, Internet,
Accounting education, Learning management system, Student perceptions, Blended learning
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1030-9616.htm
ARJ
25,2
72
Accounting Research Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 72-86
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1030-9616
DOI 10.1108/10309611211287279
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1. Introduction
The information explosion combined with quantum advances in technology are
revolutionizing the way educators teach and students learn (Bryant and Hunton, 2000;
Reeves, 1997). Universities around the world are making a signi?cant resource
commitment to the development of campus- or institution-wide learning platforms, using
either one of the many off-the-shelf learning management systems (LMSs) or functionally
similar in-house systems. LMSs leverage off the internet and information computer
technology for disseminating and communicating information to facilitating learning
and delivery of courses (Seale and Mence, 2001).
A LMS is de?ned by ASTD (2006, p. 2) as:
[. . .] software that automates the administration of training. The LMS registers users, tracks
courses in a catalogue, records data from learners and provides reports to management.
A LMS is typically designed to handle courses by multiple publishers and providers.
It usually does not include its own authoring capabilities; instead, it focuses on managing
courses created by a variety of other sources.
Adding some clarity to this de?nition, Antonis et al. (2008, p. 509) note:
LMSs have become popular since they incorporate a suite of functionalities addressed to learners,
tutors and system administrators. These functionalities are designed, among other services, to
create, deliver and manage learning content, track and report on learner activity and progress,
enable synchronous and asynchronous collaboration/communication and provide centralised
control and administration to tutors and system administrators. All such services are integrated
within a robust, web-based environment effectively supporting many simultaneous users.
Information computer technology goes some way to bridge the gap between web-based
education (LMS) and traditional education (Yacef, 2003). In this sense a LMS is a
repository that typically offers learning tools such as lesson plans, course materials,
discussion forum (or bulletin board), course assessments, chat rooms, and other tools.
The 2011 LMS report (Bersin, 2011) found that over US$1 billion was spent in the LMS
market. This expenditure represented an increase of more than 50 per cent from its
previous study in 2006 (Bersin, 2006). The report also noted that this growth in LMSs
has been driven by the availability of proven technology, continued growth in e-learning,
and recognition that LMSs provide both effective and ef?cient learning solutions. This
demand is further stimulated by the increasing computer literacy of students.
Educators involved in distance learning were seen as the early adopters of LMS
because the internet provided synergies for geographically separated student groups
(Atkinson et al., 1996; Liaw and Huang, 2000; Wade, 1999). Soon after, those involved in
traditional face-to-face teaching in higher education identi?ed the bene?ts of using a
LMS to provide more ?exible educational delivery systems which made the learning
environment independent of both time and place (Arbaugh and Duray, 2002; O’Malley
and McCraw, 1999). It was found that heightened motivation and extended mental effort
lead to the achievement of improved learning outcomes (Bryant and Hunton, 2000;
Kember, 1995; Koh and Koh, 1999; Kozma, 1991). It was further found that where ?exible
learning systems are able to involve students actively in the learning process, the
students are more likely to adopt a deep approach to learning, thus leading to improved
learning outcomes (Adler et al., 2000; Booth et al., 1999; Potter and Johnston, 2006).
Moving from the theoretical to the practical perspective and given that accounting
educators around the globe have complemented their teaching with the use of LMSs,
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
73
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
it is important to understand how student perceptions of LMSs might in?uence their
level of engagement. Further, Bryant and Hunton (2000) have claimed that this issue
has not been well examined in the accounting literature, thus providing the motivation
for studies into student perceptions of LMSs in Australia (de Lange et al., 2003),
New Zealand (Wells et al., 2008), and the UK (Basioudis and de Lange, 2009).
These previous studies present ?ndings on student perceptions of LMSs from three
different countries all with Anglo-Saxon origins. However, recent immigration trends
and the globalisation of tertiary education have resulted in much more culturally and
ethnically diverse educational settings in these countries. In the NewZealand institution,
for example, more than 70 per cent of students enrolled in the participating classes were
of non-European ethnicity. In Australia, statistics indicate that education was the fourth
largest export earner in 2008-2009 (Australian Education International, 2009b). Of
signi?cance for this study is that accounting/commerce was ranked in the top three
?elds of education and as such there are signi?cant numbers of non-resident students
adding to the cultural diversity of the student cohort (Australian Education
International, 2009a). Comparative studies are therefore important in aiding our
understanding of cross-cultural perceptions.
Given this reported association between perceptions of an LMS, increased student
motivation and engagement and the achievement of improved learning outcomes and
Bryant and Hunton’s (2000) claims that it is not possible to generalise on prior ?ndings
to date, this paper compares the ?ndings of the Australian, New Zealand, and UK
studies to ascertain whether these ?ndings may be generalised.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section provides an examination of the
literature on the use of LMSs in accounting education. An outline of the research design
follows. Next the results are presented and followed by a discussion of the major
?ndings and concluding remarks.
2. The use of LMSs in accounting education
The increased accessibility, availability and affordability of information computer
technology have contributed to the adoption of LMSs in education. Most educational
institutions have adopted an on-line learning platform, typically using one of the
commercially available LMSs. Arbaugh and Duray (2002), O’Malley and McCraw(1999)
and Siragusa (2002) suggest that increased competition between education providers
and increased expectations from various stakeholders have placed greater pressure on
education providers to explore cost effective alternative methods for programme and
course delivery. While some institutions are using their LMS primarily as a cost-saving
delivery mechanism, others have redesigned an entire course and pedagogy utilising
the tools available within an LMS. For example, a LMS provides the opportunity for
students to develop their range of “soft skills” such as writing, communication, and
collaborative skills (Boyce, 1999).
While Butler and Mautz (1996) and Kozma (1991) endorse Clark’s (1983) mere vehicles
argument, where the use of the LMS is viewed as just another mediumof delivery and is as
such unable to enhance learning under any conditions (Bryant and Hunton, 2000), other
researchers dispute this claim. Many institutions and instructors claim the potential
bene?ts of LMSs include greater convenience, increased cost-savings, an enhanced
learning experience (O’Leary, 2002), and increased motivation (de Lange et al., 2003;
Follows, 1999; Potter and Johnston, 2006). Studies of motivation in the educational
ARJ
25,2
74
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
literature have resulted in models that suggest increased motivation and goal
commitment contribute to improved student engagement which results in the
achievement of enhanced learning outcomes (Kember, 1995; Tinto, 1993). Researchers
who examined these relationships have noted student progress is to some degree explained
by individual motivation for the task (Boulton-Lewis, 1995; Fransson, 1977; Keller, 1987).
Motivation may be stimulated by the use of LMSs as a result of improved access to
learning materials, the provision of more timely feedback to students through on-line
assessment (Breen et al., 2003), and improved communication among students and
between students and faculty through the availability of online bulletin boards,
discussion forums and email facilities (Beard and Harper, 2002; Kang, 2001). Adler et al.
(2000) and Booth et al. (1999) further argue that such adoption of this technology will
facilitate deeper learning. Bryant and Hunton (2000), Kember (1995), Koh and Koh
(1999), Potter and Johnston (2006) and Kozma (1991) also reported that improved
learning resulted from heightened motivation and extended mental effort.
However, Love and Fry (2006) argue that how students connect with the LMS
in?uences the derived bene?ts. They suggest that if students do not connect with the
LMS it becomes merely a “safety net” for surface and dependent learning rather than a
“springboard” for enhanced learning opportunities. Intuitive as it may appear,
evidence of the pedagogical bene?t of incorporating this new technology into the
educational process appears inconclusive (Bonner, 1999; Brace-Govan and Clulow,
2000; Reeves, 1997; Smeaton and Keogh, 1999).
The study into student perceptions of LMS usefulness undertaken in Australia
(de Lange et al., 2003) found student satisfaction with the LMS was positively associated
with the provision of lecture notes, bulletin boards, on-line assessment, chat rooms and
video summaries. Similar studies were undertaken in both NewZealand and the UK. The
New Zealand study (Wells et al., 2008) found that while there was a high level of student
satisfaction with the provision of a LMS to support their learning, this endorsement was
directed less to interactive activities. Meanwhile, the UKstudy (Basioudis and de Lange,
2009) also found a high level of satisfaction with the LMS and this satisfaction was
positively associated with both one-way communication and interactive activities.
This study contributes to the literature by providing a multi-institution,
multi-geographical region perspective on student perceptions of LMSs in accounting
education. It also enables us to identify the elements of a LMS which are strongly
associated with student perceptions of the use and usefulness of the LMS from
Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, and to identify how LMSs may contribute to
increased motivation and hence improved student learning outcomes.
The above discussion leads to the following two research questions:
RQ1. Do perceptions of various design features in the LMS differ among students
from different countries (i.e. Australia, New Zealand and the UK)?
RQ2. Are the various elements of a LMS associated with accounting students’
perceptions of the usefulness of the LMS?
3. Method
Research setting
This study is differentiated fromits predecessors in that it concentrates on three distinct
accounting student cohorts located in Australia, UK, and NewZealand. Each university
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
75
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
offers a generic business programme with a major in accounting. The duration of
each programme in Australia and NewZealand is three years full-time equivalent whilst
the academic programme in the UKis four years incorporating a compulsory 12 months’
industrial placement/experience. At the conclusion of each programme all those who
successfully complete the accounting major (except in NewZealand where a further year
of study is required) satisfy the academic requirements for membership of a professional
accounting body in their country[1].
Students located in Australia and the UK are taking the introductory ?nancial
accounting module in their respective countries. The objectives of the module are to
demonstrate to students how they can use accounting data to prepare ?nancial
statements and provide a useful source of information to aid ?nancial decision making.
The teaching delivery pattern of these introductory modules is based around large group
lectures (n $ 100) with small group tutorials (n # 25), in the ratio of one tutorial to a
2-hour lecture per week. These students have one assessment (test) contributing to their
overall module mark, and one end of semester examination. In NewZealand students are
enrolled in Accounting Information Systems and Auditing. This is a second year module
which is mandatory for students seeking professional af?liation. The method of
instruction and class organisation are similar to those in the USA. Most notably the
NewZealand University follows a model where teaching is to small group classes of up to
30 students for three hours per week in face-to-face mode.
At all three universities, administrators actively encourage and support the use of
LMSs[2] to enhance learning by enabling students to obtain resources, to facilitate
increased interaction between students and with staff, and to assist students in
developing independent learning capabilities and valuable information technology
skills. Blackboard and WebCT are off-the-shelf complete LMSs and include built-in
tools such as: course documents, announcements, bulletin boards, chat facilities, and
quizzes. In all locations since 2001, all learning materials relating to these modules
have been delivered on-line via the internet, the only print materials being the ?nal
examination and textbook.
In order to gauge student perceptions and hence the learning bene?ts of using a
LMS when teaching accounting, a survey was conducted among undergraduate
students who were studying accounting and who were exposed to a LMS. To facilitate
an international comparison, the survey was conducted in three different countries at
the same time approximately, namely New Zealand, Australia, and the UK. While these
three countries are geographically separated they were all founded on West European
culture and in the case of Australia and New Zealand both were former British colonies,
suggesting cultural similarities. Nonetheless, the perception of homogeneity is
somewhat blurred by the impact of international student enrolment patterns in an
increasingly globalised market for students (Australian Education International, 2009b)
and the implementation of more diverse immigration strategies in each of these
countries. These initiatives have resulted in much more culturally and ethnically diverse
educational settings in all three countries.
Survey instrument
The questionnaire for the study went through a decade of development and testing.
It was originally developed by Suwardy and de Lange (1998). It was then subsequently
modi?ed and used in each of the studies undertaken by de Lange et al. (2003), Wells et al.
(2008) and Basioudis and de Lange (2009).
ARJ
25,2
76
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The instrument seeks to measure student perceptions of the usefulness of the LMS
in their accounting module. The instrument sought student responses in six areas:
(1) provision of lecture notes;
(2) bulletin boards;
(3) formative self-tests, i.e. self-grading quizzes that do not count towards ?nal
assessment;
(4) use of other LMS tools such as chat rooms;
(5) overall evaluation of the LMS; and
(6) demographic information.
These areas of investigation were examined on the basis that these were the functional
attributes of Blackboard/WebCT used as a LMS.
In Sections (1)-(5) above, sample questions included: “the availability of lecture notes
online assistedmyunderstandingof the module materials being presented”, “I prefer to do
a formal test in a normal tutorial setting than doing an online quiz”, “I prefer the lecture
notes to be available on-line rather thanbeing available inthe library”, and “the discussion
forumassisted me in understanding the subject material”. In these Sections (1-5) students
indicated their preference on a ?ve-point Likert scale anchored at 1 “strongly agree”
to 5 “strongly disagree”. In Section 6, respondents revealed their demographics and were
able to make additional comments.
Procedure
The survey instrument was administered to all participants in their accounting module
during formally scheduled class times towards the end of the semester, this typically
occurred in weeks ten to 12 of the semester. In Australia and NewZealand data collection
was in the month of June, while in the UKit was December. Data collection and analyses
were completed between 2001 and 2005. To minimise response bias the surveys were
administered by other faculty who were not formally engaged in teaching the survey
groups and resulted in a response rate of over 90 per cent. The survey was administered
at the end of the module to ensure respondents were familiar with the course content and
mode of delivery incorporating a LMS.
Sample
The sample group for the study consisted of accounting students from New Zealand,
Australia, and the UK. Demographic data shows that of the 825 responses, 56 per cent
were female, 92 per cent were studying full-time and 80 per cent were under 20 years of
age. Summary demographic data are presented in Table I.
The factor analysis employed in this study resulted in a ?ve-factor solution.
A composite score was calculated for each of the elements identi?ed in the factor
analysis, by summing the scores of questions associated with each factor. These
factors were used in the regression analysis as the independent variables and were
labelled as usefulness of lecture notes, student engagement with the module, the use of
bulletin boards and discussion forums, and other LMS tools. The reliability of the
measures for these variables was evaluated and found to be within generally agreed
limits (Hair et al., 1988), with Cronbach’s a between 0.71 and 0.82. One factor, the
self-test, was found to have a non-acceptable alpha coef?cient, suggesting that the
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
77
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
items which make up the factor do not measure the same thing. As a result, this factor
was eliminated from further analysis.
4. Results
The results for the overall mean scores for each of the LMS component questions
(variables), and the mean overall evaluation rating for the sample are shown in Table II.
Students responding to this survey report a relatively high level of satisfaction in their
evaluation of the LMS used in their university. On the scale of 1-5, where 1 is de?ned as
“strongly agree”, the mean score was 1.89. The four individual LMS components also
attracted positive responses. All except one component are closer to neutral (around 3),
the usefulness of lecture notes rated the highest (mean ¼ 1.78), and overall evaluation
rating the next highest (mean ¼ 1.89). Student engagement with the module rated the
lowest with a mean of 3.11. These descriptive results from Table II seem to imply that:
.
the interactive LMS features are not highly valued by the students surveyed in
the UK, Australia, and New Zealand; and
.
the students mainly value LMS in its passive role as a “delivery vehicle”.
Table III presents the correlation matrix for all variables entering the regression model.
The results show that while all variables are positive and signi?cantly associated with
the level of students’ overall evaluation, the highest correlation coef?cients, which are
for usefulness of lecture notes (0.279) and the use of bulletin boards and discussion
forums (0.183), are relatively low. The even lower coef?cient values for student
engagement (0.089) and other LMS tools (0.084) suggest weak associations between the
reported level of students’ overall evaluation and student engagement with the module,
and with other LMS tools, such as online chat and model answers. Although all other of
the correlations, except one, are signi?cant, magnitudes of these correlations are
relatively small. In addition, conclusions drawn from our analysis should not be
affected by multi-collinearity problems.
In addressing RQ1, the results reported in Table IV indicate differences among the
UK, Australian, and New Zealand cohorts of students in their perceptions of LMS.
Panel A of Table IV shows the differences in the composite scores for all the LMS
NZ % Australia % UK % Total
Gender of respondents
Female 118 73 174 60 167 45 459
Male 44 27 118 40 204 55 366
Total 162 292 371 825
Mode of study
Full-time 124 77 272 93 365 99 761
Part-time 37 23 21 7 5 1 63
Total 161 293 370 824
Age group
Less than 20 70 43 240 82 352 95 662
21-30 72 44 44 15 15 4 131
31-39 16 10 10 3 4 1 30
Over 40 4 2 0 0 0 0 4
Total 162 294 371 827
Table I.
Summary of survey
results
ARJ
25,2
78
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
variables are statistically signi?cant. In relation to the evaluation variable, the
differences between the composite scores are relatively small which could be a
re?ection of cultural similarities among the three countries. To further investigate
differences among countries, the mean ranks on each variable are compared between
student cohorts of the three countries. The results in Panel B of Table IV suggest that
there are signi?cant differences in student responses in all questions comprising the
factors between the UK and New Zealand, and between the UK and Australia (except
for evaluation). In contrast, apart from the engagement and evaluation variables,
Factor/questions making up the factors
Mean
composite
measure Mean SD Median
Overall mean
per factor
Factor Lecture notes usefulness 4.49 1.78
Qn1 The availability of lecture notes resulted
in my being less attentive in class 1.50 0.88 1.00
Qn2 I prefer the lecture notes to be available
online rather than being available in the
library 2.12 1.26 2.00
Factor Student engagement with module 6.21 3.11
Qn1 The availability of lecture notes online
assisted my understanding of the subject
materials being presented 3.09 1.21 3.00
Qn2 The availability of lecture notes resulted
in my being less interested in attending
lectures 3.14 1.22 3.00
Factor Bulletin board 7.73 2.59
Qn1 The bulletin board allows me to discuss
subject materials with teaching staff and
fellow students 2.54 0.99 3.00
Qn2 The bulletin board assisted me in
understanding the subjects materials 2.86 1.00 3.00
Qn3 I wish other subjects would also provide
an electronic bulletin board 2.38 0.92 2.00
Factor Other VLE tools 7.07 2.53
Qn1 The availability of model answers to
tutorial/workshop questions assisted me
in reviewing in the subject materials 2.51 1.32 2.00
Qn2 I wish other subjects would also provide
model answers to workshop questions 2.37 1.17 2.00
Qn3 Did you make use of the model answers
to workshop questions during the term 2.68 1.34 3.00
Factor Evaluation 5.64 1.89
Qn1 I believe greater integration of computers
and technology in education will be
bene?cial 1.89 1.05 2.00
Qn2 The LMS has made this subject
(including its teaching staff and fellow
students) more accessible 1.92 1.06 2.00
Qn3 I wish other subjects would also use the
LMS 1.86 1.06 2.00
Note: n ¼ 846
Table II.
Descriptive statistics for
survey items
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
79
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
students’ responses between New Zealand and Australia for the other three variables
are similar. This result suggests that while the three countries share a similar culture
heritage some differences have evolved through the composition of student cohorts
in the three countries. One notable example includes the presence of the admission of
fee paying international students in each location which may drive diversity in the
perception of the LMS.
To address RQ2, a multiple regression model was tested to identify whether the four
LMS variables are associated with the reported level of students’ overall evaluation in
a multivariate setting. The results, presented in Table V, indicate that except for student
engagement with the module, the other three LMS variables are signi?cantly and
positively associated with the reported level of students’ overall evaluation. The three
LMS variables retain their signi?cance after the additional demographic variables are
Panel A: overall differences
Mean composite measure Kruskal-Wallis test
Variables NZ Australia UK x
2
p-value
Lecture notes usefulness 2.970 2.904 6.432 445.006 ,0.001
Student engagement with module 6.283 4.535 7.525 310.609 ,0.001
Bulletin board 7.000 7.356 8.356 76.178 ,0.001
Other LMS tools 5.160 7.937 7.195 209.794 ,0.001
Evaluation 5.994 5.455 5.632 44.979 ,0.001
Panel B: differences for paired countries
NZ Australia t-test Mean difference p-value
Usefulness 1.497 1.452 0.638 0.524
Engagement 3.163 2.267 9.58 ,0.001
Bulletin board 2.356 2.452 21.055 0.292
Other LMS tools 2.580 2.646 20.655 0.513
Evaluation 2.012 1.818 2.107 0.036
UK NZ
Usefulness 2.165 1.497 9.907 ,0.001
Engagement 3.772 3.163 6.934 ,0.001
Bulletin board 2.806 2.356 6.451 ,0.001
Other LMS tools 2.403 2.580 22.781 0.006
Evaluation 1.893 2.012 22.118 0.035
UK Australia
Usefulness 2.165 1.452 11.986 ,0.001
Engagement 3.772 2.267 22.194 ,0.001
Bulletin board 2.806 2.452 5.454 ,0.001
Other LMS tools 2.403 2.646 23.475 ,0.001
Evaluation 1.893 1.818 0.899 0.369
Table IV.
Differences in LMS
variables and evaluation
between students from
New Zealand,
Australia, and the UK
1 2 3 4 5
1. Lecture notes usefulness 1.000 0.320
*
0.271
*
0.156
*
0.279
*
2. Student engagement with module 1.000 0.159
*
20.012 0.089
*
3. Bulletin board 1.000 0.226
*
0.183
*
4. Other VLE tools 1.000 0.084
*
5. Evaluation 1.000
Note: Signi?cant at: p-value of less than the
*
1 per cent level (two-tailed); n ¼ 846
Table III.
Pearson correlations for
LMS variables
ARJ
25,2
80
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
introduced into the model[3]. The models were inspected for multicollinearity problems
by examining the variance in?ation factors (VIF). VIFs greater than ten are indicative
of a severe multicollinearity problem, potentially in?ating the estimated coef?cients
(Hair et al., 1988). The highest VIF value is 2.613, indicating that problems with
multicollinearity are unlikely.
The regressionresults suggest that bothinteractive variables (i.e. “bulletin/discussion
boards”) and one-way communication variables (i.e. “usefulness of lecture notes” and
“provision of model answers” to tutorial questions) are important determinants of the
reported level of students’ overall evaluation. Surprisingly, the variable capturing the
student engagement with the module is not signi?cant, suggesting that although
students ?nd the availability of online lecture notes useful, the provision of such lecture
notes online appeared to encourage students to be less attentive in class or not attend
class at all thus discouraging their engagement with the class and the module overall. In
contrast to the Australia country variable, the New Zealand country variable in the
regression is positive and signi?cant indicating that overall evaluation of LMS differs
somewhat among the countries studied (the default comparison group is the UK).
5. Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine the relation between various design features of a
LMS and students’ overall evaluation, and whether differences exist across
international and cultural boundaries. The study tested the LMS design aspects in
an accounting setting across three distinct student groups in three different countries.
Individual country scores do vary on certain variables (such as lecture usefulness),
nonetheless, these results are skewed in the same direction thereby guiding the
researchers to homogenous conclusions.
The ?ndings presented here suggest that the students in Australia, NewZealand, and
the UK provide a positive overall evaluation of the LMS in their respective modules.
Of the three factors identi?ed as contributing to the positive, overall student’s
evaluation, one which could be described as interactive and hence facilitated deeper
learning, is “bulletin/discussion boards”. The provision of lecture notes as captured by
the “student engagement with module” variable in our analysis, and the “provision of
model answers” to tutorial questions, on the other hand, represent one-way
B t-stat. p-value VIF
(Constant) 21.675 23.60 ,0.001
Lecture notes usefulness 0.285 7.29 ,0.001 1.919
Student engagement
with module 20.036 20.88 0.379 1.568
Bulletin board 0.081 2.54 0.011 1.201
Other LMS tools 0.706 21.64 ,0.001 1.297
New Zealand 2.863 11.63 ,0.001 1.788
Australia 0.266 1.08 0.279 2.613
Adjusted R
2
0.446
F 112.4 (,0.0001)
n 846
Note: p-values are two-tailed
Table V.
Regression analysis of
associations between
students’ overall
evaluation of LMS and
other LMS variables
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
81
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
communication where students treat the LMS merely as an information repository.
Another interesting ?nding is that while students believe the online provision of lectures
notes useful, this online provision appears to be disengaging for some.
The statistical inferences of the responses identi?ed in the previous sections, when
aggregated, suggest that students support the shift in pedagogy to include the use of
a LMS in accounting education. This overall observation is largely consistent with
individual studies of student evaluations of a LMS (Basioudis and de Lange, 2009;
Wells et al., 2008; de Lange et al., 2003; Suwardy and de Lange, 1998). This aggregated
analysis has reported a relatively high level of support for the use of LMSs and in doing
so has created further challenges to educators and institutions who want to remain at
the cutting edge of technology, such as exploiting the use of new LMS features,
e.g. “m-learning” (mobile learning facilitated by the use of smart phones).
Despite these positive responses in support of the LMS, sceptical observers could
argue that changes in the expectation of students and broader society rather than
pedagogical bene?ts have in?uenced student satisfaction with the LMS platform. For
example, some students may be using the LMS as a “safety net” to make up for absence
from class rather than as a “springboard” to enhance learning experiences. If this is so,
then those institutions who choose not to implement LMSs and technology more
generally, risk becoming penalised in their student evaluations. In addition,
consistency of responses from students in the three countries from a diverse range
of ethnic categories supports the conclusion that these ?ndings may be generalised.
This study adds to the body of knowledge with regard to the generalisability of
student perceptions about LMS platforms. Speci?cally, students from a large sample in
three countries reported similar perceptions with regard to the use of a LMS in
accounting education. This ?nding alone should be of interest to educators generally
and accounting educators speci?cally as institutions try to come to terms with an
increasingly diverse student mix. Changes in the student mix leads to diversity of
cohorts and this may be a product of many factors. As an example, many university
departments create complex course offerings in response to an institutional
environment in which there is continued pressure to geographically replicate course
provision in distant locations around the globe in order to increase revenue streams.
For those interested in the export of education, the ?ndings from this study suggest
that the design features most satisfying for these international cohorts relate to
usefulness of lecture notes, the use of bulletin boards and discussion forums, and other
LMS tools as they are all positively related to the students’ overall evaluation of the
LMS.
6. Limitations and future research
The sample used in this study came from students studying a single module in
accounting at three different business schools from three different countries
(Australia, New Zealand, and the UK). While these three countries do not re?ect the
entire ethnic and cultural diversity of the world, the internationalisation of tertiary
education and the multicultural nature of communities have contributed to the
diversity of participants in this project. Regrettably, ethnicity data was not collected
from participants and hence we cannot provide full details of the participant ethnic
mix. Further, as two different LMS were used in the education of students in the three
countries, this may in itself produce differences in student perceptions of the LMS.
ARJ
25,2
82
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Acting against this concern is the reality that the functionalities of LMSs as competing
products are similar and have not experienced wholesale changes throughout the
various “upgrades” of the software (Bersin, 2006). These limitations may to some
degree reduce the generalisability of the ?ndings to other universities and institutions,
although similar patterns are reported in this sample. Moreover, there may be scope for
improving the power of the empirical model by adding other potential factors to those
identi?ed in this study with the aim of providing a holistic representation of the factors
that motivate students’ learning.
Opportunities for further research stem from the fact that this is a cross-sectional
study and, as such, researchers could attempt to undertake a longitudinal study which
would contribute to greater understanding of the student learning. Finally, there have
been few systematic studies in this area of educational research, and there is scope for
researchers to investigate similar issues and capture the views of their students in
other accounting modules. Such investigations may add to our stock of knowledge
with regards to the implementing a LMS within the accounting discipline.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions from the
paper reviewers, and participants at the Annual Congress of the European Accounting
Association (EAA), the American Accounting Association (AAA) meeting, and the
Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ)
conference. Our thanks are also extended to co-editor Natalie Gallery for her
thoroughness and guidance in re?ning this paper.
Notes
1. Professional af?liation is generally accepted as a necessary pre-requisite for a career in
accounting. Graduates from New Zealand are eligible to join the Institute of Chartered
Accountants New Zealand while graduates from the UK and Australia have similar
professional organisations. It should be noted that some domestic professional bodies share
reciprocal rights in other countries.
2. In the UK and New Zealand, Blackboard was used as the LMS, while in Australia students
used WebCT.
3. As an additional analysis we have included a dummy variable to capture students’ two
different year levels in our data; the results remain qualitatively the same.
References
Adler, R.W., Milne, M.J. and Stringer, C.P. (2000), “Identifying and overcoming obstacles to
learner-centred approaches in tertiary accounting education: a ?eld study and survey of
accounting educators’ perceptions”, Accounting Education: An International Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 113-34.
Antonis, K., Lampsas, P. and Prentza, S.J. (2008), “Adult distance learning using a web-based
learning management system: methodology and results”, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, Vol. 4823, pp. 508-19.
Arbaugh, J.B. and Duray, R. (2002), “Technological and structural characteristics, student
learning and satisfaction with web-based courses”, Management Learning, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 331-47.
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
83
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
ASTD (2006), Learning Circuits Glossary, American Society for Training & Development,
available at: www.astd.org/LC/glossary.htm (accessed May 2009).
Atkinson, E., Conboy, I., Atkinson, J., Doods, A. and McInnis, C. (1996), Evaluation of the Open
Learning Initiative: Tertiary, Access to a National Brokerage Agency, Center for the Studies
of Higher Education, Melbourne.
Australian Education International (2009a), Research Snapshot, available at: http://aei.gov.au/
AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/Snapshots/2009073120_pdf.pdf (accessed25February2011).
Australian Education International (2009b), Research Snapshot, available at: http://aei.gov.au/
AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/Snapshots/20091110_pdf.pdf (accessed 25 February 2011).
Basioudis, I.G. and de Lange, P. (2009), “An assessment of the learning bene?ts of using a
web-based learning environment”, Advances in Accounting, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Beard, L.A. and Harper, C. (2002), “Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction”,
Education, Vol. 122 No. 4, pp. 658-63.
Bersin, J. (2006), Learning Management Systems 2006: Facts, Practical Analysis, Trends and
Vendor Pro?les, available at: www.bersin.com
Bersin, J. (2011), The Future of LMS, available at: www.bersin.com (accessed 20 February).
Bonner, S.E. (1999), “Choosing teaching methods based on learning objectives: an integrative
framework”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-39.
Booth, P., Luckett, P. and Mladenovic, R. (1999), “The quality of learning in accounting
education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance”, Accounting
Education: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 277-300.
Boulton-Lewis, G.M. (1995), “The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing
learning in higher education”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 143-54.
Boyce, G. (1999), “Computer-assisted teaching and learning in accounting: pedagogy or
product?”, Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, pp. 191-220.
Brace-Govan, J. and Clulow, V. (2000), “Varying expectations of online students and the
implications for teachers: ?ndings from a journal study”, Distance Education, Vol. 21 No. 1,
p. 118.
Breen, L., Cohen, L. and Chang, P. (2003), “Teaching and learning online for the ?rst time:
student and coordinator perspectives”, paper presented at the Partners in Learning:
12th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Edith Cowan University, Perth, available at:
www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/tlf/2003/pub/pdf/17_Breen_LaurenCohen_LynneChang_
Paul.pdf
Bryant, S.M. and Hunton, J.E. (2000), “The use of technology in the delivery of instruction:
implications for accounting educators and education researchers”, Issues in Accounting
Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 129.
Butler, J.B. and Mautz, R.D. Jr (1996), “Multimedia presentations and learning: a laboratory
experiment”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 259-80.
Clark, R.E. (1983), “Reconsidering research on learning from media”, Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 445-59.
de Lange, P.A., Suwardy, T. and Mavondo, F. (2003), “Integrating a virtual learning environment
into an introductory accounting course: determinants of student motivation”, Accounting
Education: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Follows, S.B. (1999), “Virtual learning environments”, Technological Horizons in Education
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 100-6.
ARJ
25,2
84
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Fransson, A. (1977), “On qualitative differences in learning: effects if intrinsic motivation and
intrinsic test anxiety on process outcome”, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 47, pp. 244-57.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.L., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1988), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kang, S. (2001), “Towards a collaborative model for the design of web-based courses”,
Educational Technology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 22-30.
Keller, J.M. (1987), “Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn”, Performance and
Instruction, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1-7.
Kember, D. (1995), Open Learning Courses for Adults: A Model of Student Progress, Educational
Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Koh, Y.K. and Koh, C.H. (1999), “The determinants of performance in an accountancy
degree programme”, Accounting Education: AnInternational Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 13-29.
Kozma, R.B. (1991), “Learning with media”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 61 No. 2,
pp. 179-211.
Liaw, S. and Huang, H. (2000), “Enhancing interactivity in web-based instruction: a review of
the literature”, Educational Technology, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 41-5.
Love, N. and Fry, N. (2006), “Accounting students’ perceptions of a virtual learning environment:
springboard or safety net”, Accounting Education: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 151-66.
O’Leary, R. (2002), Virtual Learning Environments, available at: www.alt.ac.uk/docs/eln002.pdf
(accessed 20 August 2010).
O’Malley, J. and McCraw, H. (1999), “Students perceptions of distance learning, online learning
and the traditional classroom”, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Vol. 2
No. 4.
Potter, B.N. andJohnston, C.G. (2006), “The effect of interactive on-line learningsystems on student
learning outcomes in accounting”, Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 24, pp. 16-34.
Reeves, T.C. (1997), Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-based Education, available at:
http:educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/reeves.htm
Seale, J. and Mence, R.R. (2001), An Introduction to Learning Technology within Tertiary
Education in the UK, Oxford Brookes University, Headington.
Siragusa, L. (2002), “Research into the effectiveness of online learning in higher education: survey
?ndings”, paper presented at the 2002 West Australian Institute for Educational Research
Forum, Edith Cowan University, Perth.
Smeaton, A. and Keogh, G. (1999), “An analysis of the use of virtual delivery in undergraduate
lectures”, Computers in Education, Vol. 32, pp. 83-94.
Suwardy, T. and de Lange, P.A. (1998), “Delivery of accounting subjects via the internet: student
perceptions”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 327-40.
Tinto, V. (1993), Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd ed.,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Wade, W. (1999), “What do students know and how do we know that they know it?”, Technical
Horizons in Education, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 94-7.
Wells, P., Fieger, P. and de Lange, P. (2008), “Integrating a virtual learning environment into a
second year accounting course: determinants of overall student perception”, Accounting
and Finance, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 503-18.
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
85
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Yacef, K. (2003), “Some thoughts about the synergetic effects of integrating ITS and LMS
technologies together to the service of education”, paper presented at the
Towards Intelligent Learning Management Systems Conference, University of Sydney,
Australia.
About the authors
Ilias G. Basioudis (BSc, MSc, PhD, FAIA, FHEA,) is Associate Professor in Financial
Accounting & Auditing at Aston Business School, Aston University, UK. He is Associate
Professor of Financial Accounting & Auditing in the Finance & Accounting Group at Aston
Business School and Chairman of the Auditing Special Interest Group of the British Accounting
& Finance Association. Ilias G. Basioudis is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Professor Paul de Lange (B.Ed., Grad Dip Acc., M.Bus Acc., PhD, CPA, IPA) is currently
a Professor and Deputy Head, Research, in the Department of Accounting at RMIT University.
Themin Suwardy (B.Bus (Acc) (Hons), BComp, PhD, FCPA Australia, FCPA Singapore) is
Associate Professor of Accounting(Practice) andis the Associate Dean(CurriculumandTeaching)
and Master of Professional Accounting (MPA) Programme Director at School of Accountancy,
Singapore Management University.
Paul Wells (PhD, NZICA) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Business at Auckland
University of Technology.
ARJ
25,2
86
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Rosario López Gavira, Kamil Omoteso. 2013. Perceptions of the Usefulness of Virtual Learning
Environments in Accounting Education: A Comparative Evaluation of Undergraduate Accounting
Students in Spain and England. Accounting Education 22, 445-466. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_470178990.pdf
The purpose of this study is to investigate student perceptions of the design features
included in an “off the shelf” Learning Management System (LMS) in teaching undergraduate
accounting students.
Accounting Research Journal
Accounting students' perceptions of a Learning Management System: An international
comparison
Ilias G. Basioudis Paul de Lange Themin Suwardy Paul Wells
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ilias G. Basioudis Paul de Lange Themin Suwardy Paul Wells, (2012),"Accounting students' perceptions of
a Learning Management System", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 72 - 86
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611211287279
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 21:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 975 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Beverley J ackling, Paul de Lange, J on Phillips, J ames Sewell, (2012),"Attitudes towards accounting:
differences between Australian and international students", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp.
113-130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611211287305
David Bond, Robert Czernkowski, Peter Wells, (2012),"A team-teaching based approach
to engage students", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 87-99 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/10309611211287288
Vijaya Murthy, J ames Guthrie, (2013),"Accounting for workplace flexibility: Internal communication
in an Australian financial institution", Accounting Research J ournal, Vol. 26 Iss 2 pp. 109-129 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARJ -12-2012-0096
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Accounting students’ perceptions
of a Learning Management
System
An international comparison
Ilias G. Basioudis
Finance & Accounting Group, Aston Business School,
University of Aston, Birmingham, UK
Paul de Lange
Department of Accounting and Law, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia
Themin Suwardy
Department of Accountancy, Singapore Management University,
Singapore, and
Paul Wells
School of Business, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,
New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate student perceptions of the design features
included in an “off the shelf” Learning Management System (LMS) in teaching undergraduate
accounting students.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaire responses from 846 accounting students studying
in the UK, Australia and New Zealand provide international data to develop a model to explain student
perception of the LMS.
Findings – The ?nal model shows student satisfaction with the use of a LMS is positively associated
withthree variables: usefulness of lecture notes, bulletinboards anddiscussionforums, andother LMStools.
Further, the comparison of cultural differences of the three countries shows all students treat the provision
of notes as a desirable attribute on a LMS. Findings also suggest that although students ?nd the provision
of materials over the LMS does not enhance student engagement in class, overall a comparison of the three
countries shows all students treat the provision of notes as a desirable attribute of a LMS.
Research limitations/implications – Future research should collect ethnicity data to enable an
analysis of cultural in?uence on student perceptions of the LMS.
Practical implications – As increased motivation to learn is found to contribute to improved
achievement of learning outcomes, the study’s ?ndings have implications for faculty contemplating
the adoption of a LMS in their courses. The ?ndings speci?cally con?rm that usefulness of lecture notes,
use of bulletin/discussion boards, and other LMS tools are positively endorsed by students and hence
increase their motivation to learn.
Originality/value – The current paper adds to the literature as the motivation to use and engage
with LMSs by accounting students is not well understood.
Keywords United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Students, Online learning, Internet,
Accounting education, Learning management system, Student perceptions, Blended learning
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1030-9616.htm
ARJ
25,2
72
Accounting Research Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2012
pp. 72-86
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1030-9616
DOI 10.1108/10309611211287279
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1. Introduction
The information explosion combined with quantum advances in technology are
revolutionizing the way educators teach and students learn (Bryant and Hunton, 2000;
Reeves, 1997). Universities around the world are making a signi?cant resource
commitment to the development of campus- or institution-wide learning platforms, using
either one of the many off-the-shelf learning management systems (LMSs) or functionally
similar in-house systems. LMSs leverage off the internet and information computer
technology for disseminating and communicating information to facilitating learning
and delivery of courses (Seale and Mence, 2001).
A LMS is de?ned by ASTD (2006, p. 2) as:
[. . .] software that automates the administration of training. The LMS registers users, tracks
courses in a catalogue, records data from learners and provides reports to management.
A LMS is typically designed to handle courses by multiple publishers and providers.
It usually does not include its own authoring capabilities; instead, it focuses on managing
courses created by a variety of other sources.
Adding some clarity to this de?nition, Antonis et al. (2008, p. 509) note:
LMSs have become popular since they incorporate a suite of functionalities addressed to learners,
tutors and system administrators. These functionalities are designed, among other services, to
create, deliver and manage learning content, track and report on learner activity and progress,
enable synchronous and asynchronous collaboration/communication and provide centralised
control and administration to tutors and system administrators. All such services are integrated
within a robust, web-based environment effectively supporting many simultaneous users.
Information computer technology goes some way to bridge the gap between web-based
education (LMS) and traditional education (Yacef, 2003). In this sense a LMS is a
repository that typically offers learning tools such as lesson plans, course materials,
discussion forum (or bulletin board), course assessments, chat rooms, and other tools.
The 2011 LMS report (Bersin, 2011) found that over US$1 billion was spent in the LMS
market. This expenditure represented an increase of more than 50 per cent from its
previous study in 2006 (Bersin, 2006). The report also noted that this growth in LMSs
has been driven by the availability of proven technology, continued growth in e-learning,
and recognition that LMSs provide both effective and ef?cient learning solutions. This
demand is further stimulated by the increasing computer literacy of students.
Educators involved in distance learning were seen as the early adopters of LMS
because the internet provided synergies for geographically separated student groups
(Atkinson et al., 1996; Liaw and Huang, 2000; Wade, 1999). Soon after, those involved in
traditional face-to-face teaching in higher education identi?ed the bene?ts of using a
LMS to provide more ?exible educational delivery systems which made the learning
environment independent of both time and place (Arbaugh and Duray, 2002; O’Malley
and McCraw, 1999). It was found that heightened motivation and extended mental effort
lead to the achievement of improved learning outcomes (Bryant and Hunton, 2000;
Kember, 1995; Koh and Koh, 1999; Kozma, 1991). It was further found that where ?exible
learning systems are able to involve students actively in the learning process, the
students are more likely to adopt a deep approach to learning, thus leading to improved
learning outcomes (Adler et al., 2000; Booth et al., 1999; Potter and Johnston, 2006).
Moving from the theoretical to the practical perspective and given that accounting
educators around the globe have complemented their teaching with the use of LMSs,
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
73
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
it is important to understand how student perceptions of LMSs might in?uence their
level of engagement. Further, Bryant and Hunton (2000) have claimed that this issue
has not been well examined in the accounting literature, thus providing the motivation
for studies into student perceptions of LMSs in Australia (de Lange et al., 2003),
New Zealand (Wells et al., 2008), and the UK (Basioudis and de Lange, 2009).
These previous studies present ?ndings on student perceptions of LMSs from three
different countries all with Anglo-Saxon origins. However, recent immigration trends
and the globalisation of tertiary education have resulted in much more culturally and
ethnically diverse educational settings in these countries. In the NewZealand institution,
for example, more than 70 per cent of students enrolled in the participating classes were
of non-European ethnicity. In Australia, statistics indicate that education was the fourth
largest export earner in 2008-2009 (Australian Education International, 2009b). Of
signi?cance for this study is that accounting/commerce was ranked in the top three
?elds of education and as such there are signi?cant numbers of non-resident students
adding to the cultural diversity of the student cohort (Australian Education
International, 2009a). Comparative studies are therefore important in aiding our
understanding of cross-cultural perceptions.
Given this reported association between perceptions of an LMS, increased student
motivation and engagement and the achievement of improved learning outcomes and
Bryant and Hunton’s (2000) claims that it is not possible to generalise on prior ?ndings
to date, this paper compares the ?ndings of the Australian, New Zealand, and UK
studies to ascertain whether these ?ndings may be generalised.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section provides an examination of the
literature on the use of LMSs in accounting education. An outline of the research design
follows. Next the results are presented and followed by a discussion of the major
?ndings and concluding remarks.
2. The use of LMSs in accounting education
The increased accessibility, availability and affordability of information computer
technology have contributed to the adoption of LMSs in education. Most educational
institutions have adopted an on-line learning platform, typically using one of the
commercially available LMSs. Arbaugh and Duray (2002), O’Malley and McCraw(1999)
and Siragusa (2002) suggest that increased competition between education providers
and increased expectations from various stakeholders have placed greater pressure on
education providers to explore cost effective alternative methods for programme and
course delivery. While some institutions are using their LMS primarily as a cost-saving
delivery mechanism, others have redesigned an entire course and pedagogy utilising
the tools available within an LMS. For example, a LMS provides the opportunity for
students to develop their range of “soft skills” such as writing, communication, and
collaborative skills (Boyce, 1999).
While Butler and Mautz (1996) and Kozma (1991) endorse Clark’s (1983) mere vehicles
argument, where the use of the LMS is viewed as just another mediumof delivery and is as
such unable to enhance learning under any conditions (Bryant and Hunton, 2000), other
researchers dispute this claim. Many institutions and instructors claim the potential
bene?ts of LMSs include greater convenience, increased cost-savings, an enhanced
learning experience (O’Leary, 2002), and increased motivation (de Lange et al., 2003;
Follows, 1999; Potter and Johnston, 2006). Studies of motivation in the educational
ARJ
25,2
74
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
literature have resulted in models that suggest increased motivation and goal
commitment contribute to improved student engagement which results in the
achievement of enhanced learning outcomes (Kember, 1995; Tinto, 1993). Researchers
who examined these relationships have noted student progress is to some degree explained
by individual motivation for the task (Boulton-Lewis, 1995; Fransson, 1977; Keller, 1987).
Motivation may be stimulated by the use of LMSs as a result of improved access to
learning materials, the provision of more timely feedback to students through on-line
assessment (Breen et al., 2003), and improved communication among students and
between students and faculty through the availability of online bulletin boards,
discussion forums and email facilities (Beard and Harper, 2002; Kang, 2001). Adler et al.
(2000) and Booth et al. (1999) further argue that such adoption of this technology will
facilitate deeper learning. Bryant and Hunton (2000), Kember (1995), Koh and Koh
(1999), Potter and Johnston (2006) and Kozma (1991) also reported that improved
learning resulted from heightened motivation and extended mental effort.
However, Love and Fry (2006) argue that how students connect with the LMS
in?uences the derived bene?ts. They suggest that if students do not connect with the
LMS it becomes merely a “safety net” for surface and dependent learning rather than a
“springboard” for enhanced learning opportunities. Intuitive as it may appear,
evidence of the pedagogical bene?t of incorporating this new technology into the
educational process appears inconclusive (Bonner, 1999; Brace-Govan and Clulow,
2000; Reeves, 1997; Smeaton and Keogh, 1999).
The study into student perceptions of LMS usefulness undertaken in Australia
(de Lange et al., 2003) found student satisfaction with the LMS was positively associated
with the provision of lecture notes, bulletin boards, on-line assessment, chat rooms and
video summaries. Similar studies were undertaken in both NewZealand and the UK. The
New Zealand study (Wells et al., 2008) found that while there was a high level of student
satisfaction with the provision of a LMS to support their learning, this endorsement was
directed less to interactive activities. Meanwhile, the UKstudy (Basioudis and de Lange,
2009) also found a high level of satisfaction with the LMS and this satisfaction was
positively associated with both one-way communication and interactive activities.
This study contributes to the literature by providing a multi-institution,
multi-geographical region perspective on student perceptions of LMSs in accounting
education. It also enables us to identify the elements of a LMS which are strongly
associated with student perceptions of the use and usefulness of the LMS from
Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, and to identify how LMSs may contribute to
increased motivation and hence improved student learning outcomes.
The above discussion leads to the following two research questions:
RQ1. Do perceptions of various design features in the LMS differ among students
from different countries (i.e. Australia, New Zealand and the UK)?
RQ2. Are the various elements of a LMS associated with accounting students’
perceptions of the usefulness of the LMS?
3. Method
Research setting
This study is differentiated fromits predecessors in that it concentrates on three distinct
accounting student cohorts located in Australia, UK, and NewZealand. Each university
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
75
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
offers a generic business programme with a major in accounting. The duration of
each programme in Australia and NewZealand is three years full-time equivalent whilst
the academic programme in the UKis four years incorporating a compulsory 12 months’
industrial placement/experience. At the conclusion of each programme all those who
successfully complete the accounting major (except in NewZealand where a further year
of study is required) satisfy the academic requirements for membership of a professional
accounting body in their country[1].
Students located in Australia and the UK are taking the introductory ?nancial
accounting module in their respective countries. The objectives of the module are to
demonstrate to students how they can use accounting data to prepare ?nancial
statements and provide a useful source of information to aid ?nancial decision making.
The teaching delivery pattern of these introductory modules is based around large group
lectures (n $ 100) with small group tutorials (n # 25), in the ratio of one tutorial to a
2-hour lecture per week. These students have one assessment (test) contributing to their
overall module mark, and one end of semester examination. In NewZealand students are
enrolled in Accounting Information Systems and Auditing. This is a second year module
which is mandatory for students seeking professional af?liation. The method of
instruction and class organisation are similar to those in the USA. Most notably the
NewZealand University follows a model where teaching is to small group classes of up to
30 students for three hours per week in face-to-face mode.
At all three universities, administrators actively encourage and support the use of
LMSs[2] to enhance learning by enabling students to obtain resources, to facilitate
increased interaction between students and with staff, and to assist students in
developing independent learning capabilities and valuable information technology
skills. Blackboard and WebCT are off-the-shelf complete LMSs and include built-in
tools such as: course documents, announcements, bulletin boards, chat facilities, and
quizzes. In all locations since 2001, all learning materials relating to these modules
have been delivered on-line via the internet, the only print materials being the ?nal
examination and textbook.
In order to gauge student perceptions and hence the learning bene?ts of using a
LMS when teaching accounting, a survey was conducted among undergraduate
students who were studying accounting and who were exposed to a LMS. To facilitate
an international comparison, the survey was conducted in three different countries at
the same time approximately, namely New Zealand, Australia, and the UK. While these
three countries are geographically separated they were all founded on West European
culture and in the case of Australia and New Zealand both were former British colonies,
suggesting cultural similarities. Nonetheless, the perception of homogeneity is
somewhat blurred by the impact of international student enrolment patterns in an
increasingly globalised market for students (Australian Education International, 2009b)
and the implementation of more diverse immigration strategies in each of these
countries. These initiatives have resulted in much more culturally and ethnically diverse
educational settings in all three countries.
Survey instrument
The questionnaire for the study went through a decade of development and testing.
It was originally developed by Suwardy and de Lange (1998). It was then subsequently
modi?ed and used in each of the studies undertaken by de Lange et al. (2003), Wells et al.
(2008) and Basioudis and de Lange (2009).
ARJ
25,2
76
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The instrument seeks to measure student perceptions of the usefulness of the LMS
in their accounting module. The instrument sought student responses in six areas:
(1) provision of lecture notes;
(2) bulletin boards;
(3) formative self-tests, i.e. self-grading quizzes that do not count towards ?nal
assessment;
(4) use of other LMS tools such as chat rooms;
(5) overall evaluation of the LMS; and
(6) demographic information.
These areas of investigation were examined on the basis that these were the functional
attributes of Blackboard/WebCT used as a LMS.
In Sections (1)-(5) above, sample questions included: “the availability of lecture notes
online assistedmyunderstandingof the module materials being presented”, “I prefer to do
a formal test in a normal tutorial setting than doing an online quiz”, “I prefer the lecture
notes to be available on-line rather thanbeing available inthe library”, and “the discussion
forumassisted me in understanding the subject material”. In these Sections (1-5) students
indicated their preference on a ?ve-point Likert scale anchored at 1 “strongly agree”
to 5 “strongly disagree”. In Section 6, respondents revealed their demographics and were
able to make additional comments.
Procedure
The survey instrument was administered to all participants in their accounting module
during formally scheduled class times towards the end of the semester, this typically
occurred in weeks ten to 12 of the semester. In Australia and NewZealand data collection
was in the month of June, while in the UKit was December. Data collection and analyses
were completed between 2001 and 2005. To minimise response bias the surveys were
administered by other faculty who were not formally engaged in teaching the survey
groups and resulted in a response rate of over 90 per cent. The survey was administered
at the end of the module to ensure respondents were familiar with the course content and
mode of delivery incorporating a LMS.
Sample
The sample group for the study consisted of accounting students from New Zealand,
Australia, and the UK. Demographic data shows that of the 825 responses, 56 per cent
were female, 92 per cent were studying full-time and 80 per cent were under 20 years of
age. Summary demographic data are presented in Table I.
The factor analysis employed in this study resulted in a ?ve-factor solution.
A composite score was calculated for each of the elements identi?ed in the factor
analysis, by summing the scores of questions associated with each factor. These
factors were used in the regression analysis as the independent variables and were
labelled as usefulness of lecture notes, student engagement with the module, the use of
bulletin boards and discussion forums, and other LMS tools. The reliability of the
measures for these variables was evaluated and found to be within generally agreed
limits (Hair et al., 1988), with Cronbach’s a between 0.71 and 0.82. One factor, the
self-test, was found to have a non-acceptable alpha coef?cient, suggesting that the
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
77
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
items which make up the factor do not measure the same thing. As a result, this factor
was eliminated from further analysis.
4. Results
The results for the overall mean scores for each of the LMS component questions
(variables), and the mean overall evaluation rating for the sample are shown in Table II.
Students responding to this survey report a relatively high level of satisfaction in their
evaluation of the LMS used in their university. On the scale of 1-5, where 1 is de?ned as
“strongly agree”, the mean score was 1.89. The four individual LMS components also
attracted positive responses. All except one component are closer to neutral (around 3),
the usefulness of lecture notes rated the highest (mean ¼ 1.78), and overall evaluation
rating the next highest (mean ¼ 1.89). Student engagement with the module rated the
lowest with a mean of 3.11. These descriptive results from Table II seem to imply that:
.
the interactive LMS features are not highly valued by the students surveyed in
the UK, Australia, and New Zealand; and
.
the students mainly value LMS in its passive role as a “delivery vehicle”.
Table III presents the correlation matrix for all variables entering the regression model.
The results show that while all variables are positive and signi?cantly associated with
the level of students’ overall evaluation, the highest correlation coef?cients, which are
for usefulness of lecture notes (0.279) and the use of bulletin boards and discussion
forums (0.183), are relatively low. The even lower coef?cient values for student
engagement (0.089) and other LMS tools (0.084) suggest weak associations between the
reported level of students’ overall evaluation and student engagement with the module,
and with other LMS tools, such as online chat and model answers. Although all other of
the correlations, except one, are signi?cant, magnitudes of these correlations are
relatively small. In addition, conclusions drawn from our analysis should not be
affected by multi-collinearity problems.
In addressing RQ1, the results reported in Table IV indicate differences among the
UK, Australian, and New Zealand cohorts of students in their perceptions of LMS.
Panel A of Table IV shows the differences in the composite scores for all the LMS
NZ % Australia % UK % Total
Gender of respondents
Female 118 73 174 60 167 45 459
Male 44 27 118 40 204 55 366
Total 162 292 371 825
Mode of study
Full-time 124 77 272 93 365 99 761
Part-time 37 23 21 7 5 1 63
Total 161 293 370 824
Age group
Less than 20 70 43 240 82 352 95 662
21-30 72 44 44 15 15 4 131
31-39 16 10 10 3 4 1 30
Over 40 4 2 0 0 0 0 4
Total 162 294 371 827
Table I.
Summary of survey
results
ARJ
25,2
78
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
variables are statistically signi?cant. In relation to the evaluation variable, the
differences between the composite scores are relatively small which could be a
re?ection of cultural similarities among the three countries. To further investigate
differences among countries, the mean ranks on each variable are compared between
student cohorts of the three countries. The results in Panel B of Table IV suggest that
there are signi?cant differences in student responses in all questions comprising the
factors between the UK and New Zealand, and between the UK and Australia (except
for evaluation). In contrast, apart from the engagement and evaluation variables,
Factor/questions making up the factors
Mean
composite
measure Mean SD Median
Overall mean
per factor
Factor Lecture notes usefulness 4.49 1.78
Qn1 The availability of lecture notes resulted
in my being less attentive in class 1.50 0.88 1.00
Qn2 I prefer the lecture notes to be available
online rather than being available in the
library 2.12 1.26 2.00
Factor Student engagement with module 6.21 3.11
Qn1 The availability of lecture notes online
assisted my understanding of the subject
materials being presented 3.09 1.21 3.00
Qn2 The availability of lecture notes resulted
in my being less interested in attending
lectures 3.14 1.22 3.00
Factor Bulletin board 7.73 2.59
Qn1 The bulletin board allows me to discuss
subject materials with teaching staff and
fellow students 2.54 0.99 3.00
Qn2 The bulletin board assisted me in
understanding the subjects materials 2.86 1.00 3.00
Qn3 I wish other subjects would also provide
an electronic bulletin board 2.38 0.92 2.00
Factor Other VLE tools 7.07 2.53
Qn1 The availability of model answers to
tutorial/workshop questions assisted me
in reviewing in the subject materials 2.51 1.32 2.00
Qn2 I wish other subjects would also provide
model answers to workshop questions 2.37 1.17 2.00
Qn3 Did you make use of the model answers
to workshop questions during the term 2.68 1.34 3.00
Factor Evaluation 5.64 1.89
Qn1 I believe greater integration of computers
and technology in education will be
bene?cial 1.89 1.05 2.00
Qn2 The LMS has made this subject
(including its teaching staff and fellow
students) more accessible 1.92 1.06 2.00
Qn3 I wish other subjects would also use the
LMS 1.86 1.06 2.00
Note: n ¼ 846
Table II.
Descriptive statistics for
survey items
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
79
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
students’ responses between New Zealand and Australia for the other three variables
are similar. This result suggests that while the three countries share a similar culture
heritage some differences have evolved through the composition of student cohorts
in the three countries. One notable example includes the presence of the admission of
fee paying international students in each location which may drive diversity in the
perception of the LMS.
To address RQ2, a multiple regression model was tested to identify whether the four
LMS variables are associated with the reported level of students’ overall evaluation in
a multivariate setting. The results, presented in Table V, indicate that except for student
engagement with the module, the other three LMS variables are signi?cantly and
positively associated with the reported level of students’ overall evaluation. The three
LMS variables retain their signi?cance after the additional demographic variables are
Panel A: overall differences
Mean composite measure Kruskal-Wallis test
Variables NZ Australia UK x
2
p-value
Lecture notes usefulness 2.970 2.904 6.432 445.006 ,0.001
Student engagement with module 6.283 4.535 7.525 310.609 ,0.001
Bulletin board 7.000 7.356 8.356 76.178 ,0.001
Other LMS tools 5.160 7.937 7.195 209.794 ,0.001
Evaluation 5.994 5.455 5.632 44.979 ,0.001
Panel B: differences for paired countries
NZ Australia t-test Mean difference p-value
Usefulness 1.497 1.452 0.638 0.524
Engagement 3.163 2.267 9.58 ,0.001
Bulletin board 2.356 2.452 21.055 0.292
Other LMS tools 2.580 2.646 20.655 0.513
Evaluation 2.012 1.818 2.107 0.036
UK NZ
Usefulness 2.165 1.497 9.907 ,0.001
Engagement 3.772 3.163 6.934 ,0.001
Bulletin board 2.806 2.356 6.451 ,0.001
Other LMS tools 2.403 2.580 22.781 0.006
Evaluation 1.893 2.012 22.118 0.035
UK Australia
Usefulness 2.165 1.452 11.986 ,0.001
Engagement 3.772 2.267 22.194 ,0.001
Bulletin board 2.806 2.452 5.454 ,0.001
Other LMS tools 2.403 2.646 23.475 ,0.001
Evaluation 1.893 1.818 0.899 0.369
Table IV.
Differences in LMS
variables and evaluation
between students from
New Zealand,
Australia, and the UK
1 2 3 4 5
1. Lecture notes usefulness 1.000 0.320
*
0.271
*
0.156
*
0.279
*
2. Student engagement with module 1.000 0.159
*
20.012 0.089
*
3. Bulletin board 1.000 0.226
*
0.183
*
4. Other VLE tools 1.000 0.084
*
5. Evaluation 1.000
Note: Signi?cant at: p-value of less than the
*
1 per cent level (two-tailed); n ¼ 846
Table III.
Pearson correlations for
LMS variables
ARJ
25,2
80
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
introduced into the model[3]. The models were inspected for multicollinearity problems
by examining the variance in?ation factors (VIF). VIFs greater than ten are indicative
of a severe multicollinearity problem, potentially in?ating the estimated coef?cients
(Hair et al., 1988). The highest VIF value is 2.613, indicating that problems with
multicollinearity are unlikely.
The regressionresults suggest that bothinteractive variables (i.e. “bulletin/discussion
boards”) and one-way communication variables (i.e. “usefulness of lecture notes” and
“provision of model answers” to tutorial questions) are important determinants of the
reported level of students’ overall evaluation. Surprisingly, the variable capturing the
student engagement with the module is not signi?cant, suggesting that although
students ?nd the availability of online lecture notes useful, the provision of such lecture
notes online appeared to encourage students to be less attentive in class or not attend
class at all thus discouraging their engagement with the class and the module overall. In
contrast to the Australia country variable, the New Zealand country variable in the
regression is positive and signi?cant indicating that overall evaluation of LMS differs
somewhat among the countries studied (the default comparison group is the UK).
5. Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine the relation between various design features of a
LMS and students’ overall evaluation, and whether differences exist across
international and cultural boundaries. The study tested the LMS design aspects in
an accounting setting across three distinct student groups in three different countries.
Individual country scores do vary on certain variables (such as lecture usefulness),
nonetheless, these results are skewed in the same direction thereby guiding the
researchers to homogenous conclusions.
The ?ndings presented here suggest that the students in Australia, NewZealand, and
the UK provide a positive overall evaluation of the LMS in their respective modules.
Of the three factors identi?ed as contributing to the positive, overall student’s
evaluation, one which could be described as interactive and hence facilitated deeper
learning, is “bulletin/discussion boards”. The provision of lecture notes as captured by
the “student engagement with module” variable in our analysis, and the “provision of
model answers” to tutorial questions, on the other hand, represent one-way
B t-stat. p-value VIF
(Constant) 21.675 23.60 ,0.001
Lecture notes usefulness 0.285 7.29 ,0.001 1.919
Student engagement
with module 20.036 20.88 0.379 1.568
Bulletin board 0.081 2.54 0.011 1.201
Other LMS tools 0.706 21.64 ,0.001 1.297
New Zealand 2.863 11.63 ,0.001 1.788
Australia 0.266 1.08 0.279 2.613
Adjusted R
2
0.446
F 112.4 (,0.0001)
n 846
Note: p-values are two-tailed
Table V.
Regression analysis of
associations between
students’ overall
evaluation of LMS and
other LMS variables
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
81
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
communication where students treat the LMS merely as an information repository.
Another interesting ?nding is that while students believe the online provision of lectures
notes useful, this online provision appears to be disengaging for some.
The statistical inferences of the responses identi?ed in the previous sections, when
aggregated, suggest that students support the shift in pedagogy to include the use of
a LMS in accounting education. This overall observation is largely consistent with
individual studies of student evaluations of a LMS (Basioudis and de Lange, 2009;
Wells et al., 2008; de Lange et al., 2003; Suwardy and de Lange, 1998). This aggregated
analysis has reported a relatively high level of support for the use of LMSs and in doing
so has created further challenges to educators and institutions who want to remain at
the cutting edge of technology, such as exploiting the use of new LMS features,
e.g. “m-learning” (mobile learning facilitated by the use of smart phones).
Despite these positive responses in support of the LMS, sceptical observers could
argue that changes in the expectation of students and broader society rather than
pedagogical bene?ts have in?uenced student satisfaction with the LMS platform. For
example, some students may be using the LMS as a “safety net” to make up for absence
from class rather than as a “springboard” to enhance learning experiences. If this is so,
then those institutions who choose not to implement LMSs and technology more
generally, risk becoming penalised in their student evaluations. In addition,
consistency of responses from students in the three countries from a diverse range
of ethnic categories supports the conclusion that these ?ndings may be generalised.
This study adds to the body of knowledge with regard to the generalisability of
student perceptions about LMS platforms. Speci?cally, students from a large sample in
three countries reported similar perceptions with regard to the use of a LMS in
accounting education. This ?nding alone should be of interest to educators generally
and accounting educators speci?cally as institutions try to come to terms with an
increasingly diverse student mix. Changes in the student mix leads to diversity of
cohorts and this may be a product of many factors. As an example, many university
departments create complex course offerings in response to an institutional
environment in which there is continued pressure to geographically replicate course
provision in distant locations around the globe in order to increase revenue streams.
For those interested in the export of education, the ?ndings from this study suggest
that the design features most satisfying for these international cohorts relate to
usefulness of lecture notes, the use of bulletin boards and discussion forums, and other
LMS tools as they are all positively related to the students’ overall evaluation of the
LMS.
6. Limitations and future research
The sample used in this study came from students studying a single module in
accounting at three different business schools from three different countries
(Australia, New Zealand, and the UK). While these three countries do not re?ect the
entire ethnic and cultural diversity of the world, the internationalisation of tertiary
education and the multicultural nature of communities have contributed to the
diversity of participants in this project. Regrettably, ethnicity data was not collected
from participants and hence we cannot provide full details of the participant ethnic
mix. Further, as two different LMS were used in the education of students in the three
countries, this may in itself produce differences in student perceptions of the LMS.
ARJ
25,2
82
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Acting against this concern is the reality that the functionalities of LMSs as competing
products are similar and have not experienced wholesale changes throughout the
various “upgrades” of the software (Bersin, 2006). These limitations may to some
degree reduce the generalisability of the ?ndings to other universities and institutions,
although similar patterns are reported in this sample. Moreover, there may be scope for
improving the power of the empirical model by adding other potential factors to those
identi?ed in this study with the aim of providing a holistic representation of the factors
that motivate students’ learning.
Opportunities for further research stem from the fact that this is a cross-sectional
study and, as such, researchers could attempt to undertake a longitudinal study which
would contribute to greater understanding of the student learning. Finally, there have
been few systematic studies in this area of educational research, and there is scope for
researchers to investigate similar issues and capture the views of their students in
other accounting modules. Such investigations may add to our stock of knowledge
with regards to the implementing a LMS within the accounting discipline.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions from the
paper reviewers, and participants at the Annual Congress of the European Accounting
Association (EAA), the American Accounting Association (AAA) meeting, and the
Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ)
conference. Our thanks are also extended to co-editor Natalie Gallery for her
thoroughness and guidance in re?ning this paper.
Notes
1. Professional af?liation is generally accepted as a necessary pre-requisite for a career in
accounting. Graduates from New Zealand are eligible to join the Institute of Chartered
Accountants New Zealand while graduates from the UK and Australia have similar
professional organisations. It should be noted that some domestic professional bodies share
reciprocal rights in other countries.
2. In the UK and New Zealand, Blackboard was used as the LMS, while in Australia students
used WebCT.
3. As an additional analysis we have included a dummy variable to capture students’ two
different year levels in our data; the results remain qualitatively the same.
References
Adler, R.W., Milne, M.J. and Stringer, C.P. (2000), “Identifying and overcoming obstacles to
learner-centred approaches in tertiary accounting education: a ?eld study and survey of
accounting educators’ perceptions”, Accounting Education: An International Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 113-34.
Antonis, K., Lampsas, P. and Prentza, S.J. (2008), “Adult distance learning using a web-based
learning management system: methodology and results”, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, Vol. 4823, pp. 508-19.
Arbaugh, J.B. and Duray, R. (2002), “Technological and structural characteristics, student
learning and satisfaction with web-based courses”, Management Learning, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 331-47.
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
83
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
ASTD (2006), Learning Circuits Glossary, American Society for Training & Development,
available at: www.astd.org/LC/glossary.htm (accessed May 2009).
Atkinson, E., Conboy, I., Atkinson, J., Doods, A. and McInnis, C. (1996), Evaluation of the Open
Learning Initiative: Tertiary, Access to a National Brokerage Agency, Center for the Studies
of Higher Education, Melbourne.
Australian Education International (2009a), Research Snapshot, available at: http://aei.gov.au/
AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/Snapshots/2009073120_pdf.pdf (accessed25February2011).
Australian Education International (2009b), Research Snapshot, available at: http://aei.gov.au/
AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/Snapshots/20091110_pdf.pdf (accessed 25 February 2011).
Basioudis, I.G. and de Lange, P. (2009), “An assessment of the learning bene?ts of using a
web-based learning environment”, Advances in Accounting, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Beard, L.A. and Harper, C. (2002), “Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction”,
Education, Vol. 122 No. 4, pp. 658-63.
Bersin, J. (2006), Learning Management Systems 2006: Facts, Practical Analysis, Trends and
Vendor Pro?les, available at: www.bersin.com
Bersin, J. (2011), The Future of LMS, available at: www.bersin.com (accessed 20 February).
Bonner, S.E. (1999), “Choosing teaching methods based on learning objectives: an integrative
framework”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-39.
Booth, P., Luckett, P. and Mladenovic, R. (1999), “The quality of learning in accounting
education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance”, Accounting
Education: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 277-300.
Boulton-Lewis, G.M. (1995), “The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing
learning in higher education”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 143-54.
Boyce, G. (1999), “Computer-assisted teaching and learning in accounting: pedagogy or
product?”, Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, pp. 191-220.
Brace-Govan, J. and Clulow, V. (2000), “Varying expectations of online students and the
implications for teachers: ?ndings from a journal study”, Distance Education, Vol. 21 No. 1,
p. 118.
Breen, L., Cohen, L. and Chang, P. (2003), “Teaching and learning online for the ?rst time:
student and coordinator perspectives”, paper presented at the Partners in Learning:
12th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Edith Cowan University, Perth, available at:
www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/tlf/2003/pub/pdf/17_Breen_LaurenCohen_LynneChang_
Paul.pdf
Bryant, S.M. and Hunton, J.E. (2000), “The use of technology in the delivery of instruction:
implications for accounting educators and education researchers”, Issues in Accounting
Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 129.
Butler, J.B. and Mautz, R.D. Jr (1996), “Multimedia presentations and learning: a laboratory
experiment”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 259-80.
Clark, R.E. (1983), “Reconsidering research on learning from media”, Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 445-59.
de Lange, P.A., Suwardy, T. and Mavondo, F. (2003), “Integrating a virtual learning environment
into an introductory accounting course: determinants of student motivation”, Accounting
Education: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Follows, S.B. (1999), “Virtual learning environments”, Technological Horizons in Education
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 100-6.
ARJ
25,2
84
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Fransson, A. (1977), “On qualitative differences in learning: effects if intrinsic motivation and
intrinsic test anxiety on process outcome”, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 47, pp. 244-57.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.L., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1988), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kang, S. (2001), “Towards a collaborative model for the design of web-based courses”,
Educational Technology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 22-30.
Keller, J.M. (1987), “Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn”, Performance and
Instruction, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1-7.
Kember, D. (1995), Open Learning Courses for Adults: A Model of Student Progress, Educational
Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Koh, Y.K. and Koh, C.H. (1999), “The determinants of performance in an accountancy
degree programme”, Accounting Education: AnInternational Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 13-29.
Kozma, R.B. (1991), “Learning with media”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 61 No. 2,
pp. 179-211.
Liaw, S. and Huang, H. (2000), “Enhancing interactivity in web-based instruction: a review of
the literature”, Educational Technology, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 41-5.
Love, N. and Fry, N. (2006), “Accounting students’ perceptions of a virtual learning environment:
springboard or safety net”, Accounting Education: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 151-66.
O’Leary, R. (2002), Virtual Learning Environments, available at: www.alt.ac.uk/docs/eln002.pdf
(accessed 20 August 2010).
O’Malley, J. and McCraw, H. (1999), “Students perceptions of distance learning, online learning
and the traditional classroom”, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Vol. 2
No. 4.
Potter, B.N. andJohnston, C.G. (2006), “The effect of interactive on-line learningsystems on student
learning outcomes in accounting”, Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 24, pp. 16-34.
Reeves, T.C. (1997), Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-based Education, available at:
http:educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/reeves.htm
Seale, J. and Mence, R.R. (2001), An Introduction to Learning Technology within Tertiary
Education in the UK, Oxford Brookes University, Headington.
Siragusa, L. (2002), “Research into the effectiveness of online learning in higher education: survey
?ndings”, paper presented at the 2002 West Australian Institute for Educational Research
Forum, Edith Cowan University, Perth.
Smeaton, A. and Keogh, G. (1999), “An analysis of the use of virtual delivery in undergraduate
lectures”, Computers in Education, Vol. 32, pp. 83-94.
Suwardy, T. and de Lange, P.A. (1998), “Delivery of accounting subjects via the internet: student
perceptions”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 327-40.
Tinto, V. (1993), Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd ed.,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Wade, W. (1999), “What do students know and how do we know that they know it?”, Technical
Horizons in Education, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 94-7.
Wells, P., Fieger, P. and de Lange, P. (2008), “Integrating a virtual learning environment into a
second year accounting course: determinants of overall student perception”, Accounting
and Finance, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 503-18.
Students’
perceptions
of a LMS
85
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Yacef, K. (2003), “Some thoughts about the synergetic effects of integrating ITS and LMS
technologies together to the service of education”, paper presented at the
Towards Intelligent Learning Management Systems Conference, University of Sydney,
Australia.
About the authors
Ilias G. Basioudis (BSc, MSc, PhD, FAIA, FHEA,) is Associate Professor in Financial
Accounting & Auditing at Aston Business School, Aston University, UK. He is Associate
Professor of Financial Accounting & Auditing in the Finance & Accounting Group at Aston
Business School and Chairman of the Auditing Special Interest Group of the British Accounting
& Finance Association. Ilias G. Basioudis is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Professor Paul de Lange (B.Ed., Grad Dip Acc., M.Bus Acc., PhD, CPA, IPA) is currently
a Professor and Deputy Head, Research, in the Department of Accounting at RMIT University.
Themin Suwardy (B.Bus (Acc) (Hons), BComp, PhD, FCPA Australia, FCPA Singapore) is
Associate Professor of Accounting(Practice) andis the Associate Dean(CurriculumandTeaching)
and Master of Professional Accounting (MPA) Programme Director at School of Accountancy,
Singapore Management University.
Paul Wells (PhD, NZICA) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Business at Auckland
University of Technology.
ARJ
25,2
86
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Rosario López Gavira, Kamil Omoteso. 2013. Perceptions of the Usefulness of Virtual Learning
Environments in Accounting Education: A Comparative Evaluation of Undergraduate Accounting
Students in Spain and England. Accounting Education 22, 445-466. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
1
:
1
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_470178990.pdf