This study investigates whether or not student's performance, self-efficacy, and satisfaction are enhanced by the use of an enterprise system as a support tool for learning business process and enterprise systems concepts. The study compares three instructional delivery methods. A traditional instruction method (lecture format plus reading/exercises) serves as the control. The second and third instructional methods are computer-based methods. In the second method, students receive traditional lecture format with full access to hands-on an enterprise system transaction exercise. In the third method, students receive traditional lecture format, but also have full access to simulated hands-on an enterprise system via Web transaction exercises (i.e. ScreenCam movies). A statistically significant difference between-instructional methods effect is found. Post hoc analysis showed that the simulated hands-on instruction group's performance score was significantly higher than that of the control group. There were no other statistically significant differences found, but practical considerations at this learning environment are discussed.
Higher educational institutions continuously look for ways to improve the quality of their eLearning services and adapt learning solutions to suit the needs of the institution. During the 2016 Fall Semester, a university located in the Southern part of United States decided to transition from the Blackboard learning management system (LMS) to the Moodle learning management system. Typically such a transition presents a huge challenge for the University staff, faculty, and students. Additionally, on August 2016, what CNN themed "the worst natural disaster, to strike the United States since Hurricane Sandy" [47], occurred in Louisiana during the transition. This led to massive disruptions in activities throughout the state. This paper examines the perceptions of both faculty and student on the transition from one LMS to another and also what impact, if any, the natural disaster had on the process. Faculty and students were surveyed to gain understanding of how they perceived the transitioning process, their perception of both systems, their preferences, and why. Furthermore, we identified issues peculiar to transitioning during a natural disaster. The results of this study can be used to anticipate issues that may be associated with transitioning from one LMS to the other and issues peculiar to transitioning amidst a natural disaster. It can also be used to identify areas for improvement.
To survive a learning management system (LMS) implementation an understanding of the needs of the various stakeholders is necessary. The goal of every LMS implementation is to ensure the use of the system by instructors and students to enhance teaching and communication thereby enhancing learning outcomes of the students. If the teachers and students do not use the system, the system is useless. This research is motivated by the importance of identifying and understanding various stakeholders involved in the LMS implementation process in order to anticipate possible challenges and identify critical success factors essential for the effective implementation and adoption of a new LMS system. To this end, we define the term stakeholder. We conducted a stakeholder analysis to identify the key stakeholders in an LMS implementation process. We then analyze their goals and needs, and how they collaborate in the implementation process. The findings of this work will provide institutions of higher learning an overview of the implementation process and useful insights into the needs of the stakeholders, which will in turn ensure an increase in the level of success achieved when implementing a LMS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.