IJODeL, Vol. 4, No.

2, (December 2018)

Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment

Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan1 and Nancy Q. Echavez2

1
Information Technology Dept., School of Computer Studies, MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology, Philippines, [Link]@[Link]
2
English Dept. College of Arts & Social Sciences, MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology, Philippines, [Link]@[Link]

Abstract

This research investigated the blended learning environment constraints when academics use a learning management
system (LMS). With the prevalent use of educational technologies including the LMS, a mix of traditional face-to-face
and web-based technologies became an alternative mode of instructional delivery in higher education. However, despite
of the reported benefits in many studies about the use of LMS, the uptake of using the system was not maximized by
students and by academics. The problem this research sought to answer was: what were the constraints encountered
by the academics in a blended learning environment? This investigation was conducted in a state university based in
Mindanao, Philippines. Thirty-three academics from different disciplines and professorial levels participated in this study.
The LMS used in this university was Moodle and records of computer logs indicated that only 30% of academics used the
LMS. Two major processes were carried out in this investigation. Firstly, a qualitative approach which employed a one-
hour, one-on-one in-depth interview with each participant was conducted. Data were then transcribed and coded in three
stages: open, axial, and selective coding. Qualitative data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Secondly,
a quantitative approach, using descriptive statistics was used in the analysis of the participants’ computer logs which
were gathered and processed using a simple data mining procedure. The findings in this study suggested that academics
had been experiencing difficulties in delivering courses in a technology-enhanced learning environment particularly with
the use of LMS. Difficulties in time management, curriculum level, students' access, and economic viability were found
to cause the constraints.

Keywords: learning environment, constraints, learning management system, blended learning

Introduction

Web-technology has become a buzz word in the learning-teaching environment. Learning

institutions utilize technological tools, such as audio and video devices to help academics and
students in their lessons. As research trends have shown, “the use of the Web over the last
decade has begun to dominate tertiary education” (Moore, 2007). The mix of delivering courses
in a traditional classroom and the provision of electronic courseware resources has developed
the notion of a blended learning environment. This environment has incorporated not only audio
and video resources, but also web technology such as a learning management system (LMS).
Along with the shift to learner-centered approaches to teaching and learning, this paradigm shift
is challenging to both academics and students, opening opportunities for research in this field.
Research and development agenda for educational technologies outcomes are geared towards
all sectors in the educational context; however, several studies on blended learning environments
have focused only on the learning outcomes of students. Studies on academics’ readiness to use,
or even actual use of technologies are scarce. Teaching in a blended learning environment needs
specific skills that are aligned with technological, sociological, and pedagogical contexts.

Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment 71

IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Many studies have attested to the importance of teaching presence for a successful online
learning (e.g., Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Shea, Pickett & Pelz 2003; Swan 2004). In a
different study, Shea et al. (2006) conducted an extensive investigation of teaching presence
and online learning wherein 1,067 online students across 32 institutions were involved. Shea
colleagues (2006) developed a survey instrument to measure students’ perception of teaching
presence. Using factor and regression analysis, it was found that students’ recognition of effective
“directed facilitation” (p. 182) and effective instructional design and organization on the part of
their teacher contributed to their sense of shared purpose, trust, connectedness, and learning.
Although the biggest challenge among students’ adjustment relates to issues of interaction –
both socially and cognitively (Angeli, Valanides & Bonk, 2003), the consensus from these studies
is that teaching presence is an important factor for student satisfaction, perceived learning, and
sense of community (Garrison, 2007). While social presence among students were developed
through interaction, teacher presence – through its facilitation function - is vital to the success of
higher-order learning in an online learning environment (Garrison, 2007).

However, the question, why do some teachers have issues when using the LMS for their classes is
posed. This concern will be answered in the succeeding discussions.

Objectives

The main objective of the study was to investigate the constraints encountered by the academics
in a blended learning environment. More specifically, this study sought to discover the issues
and challenges encountered by academics when delivering classes in blended mode and verified
claims based on computer log analysis.

Review of Related Studies

Two issues were found prevalent in a blended environment setting: personal and environmental.
Acceptance of the system, motivation, skill level, and time management, among others pertained
to intrinsic constraints (Giardina, 2010; Lameras et al., 2012). Personal issues were intrinsic
constraints within the control of the user, such as his/her attitude towards the system, or the
effect on him/her when using the system. However, intention to use can only be justified if the user
had actually used the system, not only intending to use it. A major barrier to academics’ adoption
of information technologies was the academics’ lack of knowledge and ability to integrate the
technologies into their teaching practices (Thomas & Stratton, 2006). Both studies had found
that a major barrier to academics’ adoption of information technologies was academics’ lack
of knowledge and ability to integrate the technologies into their teaching practices. These had
a strong impact on academics’ non-confidence on the usefulness of the technologies and their
reluctance to use the technologies (Anderson, 2008). In Bolliger and Wasilik's (2009) study, they
examined the factors influencing faculty satisfaction. Results of their study confirmed that there
were three factors affecting satisfaction of faculty in an online environment: student-related,
instructor-related, and institution-related factors. The results in Bolliger and Wasilik (2009)
implied that there were constraints that affect the level of satisfaction. Likewise, these constraints
were found to exist in the findings of this research affecting academics’ system usage: learning
environment, training, and institutional level. Instructor and institution-related studies of Bolliger
and Wasilik (2009) had similar effects on personal satisfaction.

72 Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan and Nancy Q. Echavez

 IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Collectively, extrinsic constraints were called environmental constraints. Some studies had
justified the relationship between system usages of academics to environmental issues (e.g.
Lin, Singer & Ha, 2010; Macharia & Nyakwende, 2010; Peszynski, and Ocak 2011). For example,
Lin et al. (2010) investigated university members’ use of and resistance to an information and
communication technology system (Blackboard) in a higher education organization. Lin et al.
(2010) employed the technology enactment framework in their case study to examine structure
enactment in university members’ technology use and resistance. The case study found that
maximum use, enhancing teaching, augmenting service, limited use, and resistance were enacted
in organizational members’ interactions with the system.

Macharia and Nyakwende (2010) investigated the factors that inhibited or accelerated the adoption
and diffusion of LMSs by academic staff for teaching and learning activities. Their study used a paper-
based questionnaire survey completed by 82 lecturers from a selected sample of public and private
universities in Kenya. The results of analysis from that study indicated that the characteristics of
the Vice Chancellors/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) were important determinants of LMS adoption
and diffusion by instructors in higher education. These characteristics included: keenness on
modern information and communication technologies (ICTs), influence on ICTs development, and
visionary ICT leadership. Results also showed that organizational variables of subjective norm,
availability of ICTs, organizational support, organizational readiness, and top management support
were related to behavioural intentions of academic staff to use LMS for teaching and learning.
Furthermore, results suggested that top management support was found as the dominant factor
in predicting the acceptance of LMS. In Peszynski (2005), the study about power and politics in
a system implementation was carried out putting executive administrators in a similar context
as having a crucial role in adoption and diffusion of systems. In an exploratory qualitative case
study, Ocak (2011) examined the problems and impediments that faculty members encountered
in blended learning environments in a Turkish Higher Education system. Results showed that
faculty members’ problems with blended teaching resulted in the identification of three inductive
categories: instructional processes, community concerns, and technical issues. There were eight
themes that emerged from these three categories: (1) complexity of the instruction, (2) lack of
planning and organization, (3) lack of effective communication, (4) need for more time, (5) lack
of institutional support, (6) changing roles, (7) difficulty of adoption to new technologies, and
(8) lack of electronic means. The Ocak (2011) study indicated that teaching blended courses can
be highly complex and have different teaching patterns. Notably, the complexity of the teaching
patterns impacted the successful implementation of the blended college courses. In Garrote and
Pettersson (2007), lecturers' attitudes towards LMS were examined with particular reference to
identifying obstacles to increased use. It was found that when lecturers decide individually to use
tools in the LMS, the major concern is the initial amount of work compared with the expected
benefits.

Relating environmental constraints to the theory of constraints (TOC) was summarized in Rahman
(1998) as: (1) Every system must have at least one constraint; and (2) The existence of constraints
represents opportunities for improvement. Rahman explained that contrary to conventional
thinking, TOC “views constraints as positive, not negative. Because constraints determine
the performance of a system, a gradual elevation of the system’s constraints will improve its
performance (Rahman 1998, p. 337).

The above studies have identified various external and environmental problems on system usage
that impede or enhance the usage of LMSs by academics. The insights of TOC are relevant when
investigating about environmental constraints with academics.
Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment 73
IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Methodology

This case study utilized a qualitative-quantitative research design. This was conducted in a state
university in Mindanao, Philippines offering undergraduate and graduate degree programs in the
Arts & Social Sciences; Business & Accountancy; Education; Engineering & Engineering Technology;
Science & Mathematics; Nursing; and Computer Science & Information Technology.

A total of 33 participants of the study were full-time academics who either had administrative load
or no administrative load. They gave consent to the researchers to access their log files. They also
actively participated in the open-ended interviews.

To gather qualitative data, questions related to their three most problematic issues and challenges
in using LMS were asked. They were also asked what workarounds were initiated to address
the issues or challenges. Moreover, they were also asked what teaching and learning strategies
were practised. Analysis was done in three steps: open, axial, and selective coding based on the
grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

Quantitative data were mainly gathered from the LMS database server. The university uses the
Moodle (Moodle, 2012) platform for the learning environment that was customized and called as
MSU-IIT Online Learning Environment (MOLE). Each of the participants’ computer log files were
saved in electronic spreadsheets. Log data were analysed using descriptive statistics by getting
the average and median values. Moreover, in the analysis, particularly the average and median
values, the level of interactions (whether high, medium, or low) were assessed.

Validation of findings

The validation process was done in two schemes: interview transcripts confirmation by
participants and presentation of findings in workshops. To increase validity of the findings the
interview transcripts and a copy of the findings draft were emailed to the participants. Participants
were encouraged to express their views or comments by replying to the email that was sent to
them. There were ten participants whose comments were received in relation to the interview
transcripts. Also, findings were presented to the participants in two instances. Firstly, the results
were presented to the participants of this study who had no administrative functions. Thirteen
participants attended this first workshop. Secondly, another workshop was conducted with
some of the research participants from the executive management level. Some attendees who
were also invited composed of the deans from all colleges, as well as graduate coordinators from
each college. Twenty academics attended this second workshop.

In both workshops the theme focused on the use of LMS in a blended learning environment. The
participants were asked to fill-in a form created in Google Form after the question and answer (Q
& A) forum – requesting them to write their comments and/or suggestions. Consequently, most
of those who participated had a more positive view of blended learning environment aided with
MOLE. A question was addressed by an executive administrator to the attendees present during
the Q & A forum. He asked them whether they think the blended learning mode of delivery will
really work at MSU-IIT. The attendees responded affirmatively.

74 Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan and Nancy Q. Echavez

 IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

The validation process that this study had made was a rigorous undertaking. It was an essential
component of this research such that it had served as a justification of the relevance of investigating
the pros and cons of using an LMS in blended or online learning environments. Moreover, by
validating the results from academics, better prospects for a paradigm shift on teaching and
learning process was supported.

Results and Discussions

Based on the interview transcripts that were coded and categorized as themes, four dimensions
on the issues and challenges were identified.

First dimension: Time management constraints

Time management constraints had the following themes of related issues: preparation of learning
materials and tests, course implementation, contact hours, compensation, and time wasted due
to connectivity problems which were referenced by 25 academics in different aspects. Expounding
on these issues were outlined herein.

Material preparation for blended learning was found to be more time consuming as compared to
that of the traditional classroom. Most participants revealed that writing lesson notes, looking for
relevant links and assessment of learning outcomes were time consuming. They said they had to
be creative and had to guide students in the use of resources, making sure that the materials were
useful and not deviating from the principles and flow of their topics.

While there were some participants who recognized the benefits of multimedia enhanced
classroom lectures, they disclosed that it was time consuming for video recording and uploading
these to MOLE. Moreover, the necessary equipment (e.g., good quality video recorder and tripod)
were not available in the classrooms.

Another issue raised by the participants was the time spent in the assessment of the learning
outcomes of the students. Discussing lessons online using chat and discussion forums entailed so
much time for reasons like teacher-participants could not just ignore discussions of some students
whose topics were not within the particular lesson discussion thread that they had to spend some
time answering them. Another and more prevalent reason that surfaced was the time between
comments and responses were found to lag which was attributed to slow connectivity issues.

Likewise, participants who used a teaching strategy like journals found it time consuming to read
each entry from the students in big classes. Thus, they sought time-saving techniques that would
allow them to communicate efficiently using these tools. They believed that they needed training
to enhance pedagogical skills for online classes.

Contact time and compensation was another issue. An academic’s weekly presence requires three
hours of actual contact hours, (i.e., class time). At MSU-IIT, full- time academics were required
to render an equivalent of 40 hours per week that includes actual contact hours, consultation
with students, lesson preparation, and related tasks. An issue arose when academics conducted a
blended class using MOLE for more than double the actual contact hours online.

Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment 75

IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Second dimension: Curriculum level constraints

Curriculum level constraints were related to the subject or the course handled by a participant
particularly in relation to technology and non-technology driven courses. Non-technology driven
courses did not require computer laboratories often such as in the Arts & Social Sciences, Nursing,
and Education. Technology-driven courses were the Engineering & Engineering Technology;
Science & Mathematics; Computer Science & Information Technology; and Business &
Accountancy. The need for computer facilities were explicitly stated in the course descriptions of
each courses. Seventeen participants said that without a laboratory component of their subject, it
was difficult for them to decide to use MOLE because of the limitations on access to computers–
for themselves or for their students. Most of the comments in this area were related to availability
of computer facilities.

Another issue was in relation to the department or program offering. Participants raised these
issues in relation to their affiliation with a specific department, school, or college. The teaching
load given to each academic related to the course description and the requirements for such
courses. In MSU-IIT, a course was a single subject that an academic handles. A single course
had a total equivalent of three academic units. For example, one of the courses in the School of
Computer Studies was Human Computer Interaction (HCI) which was described as a socio-technical
course with a two-unit lecture, and a one-unit laboratory. Highly computational and technical
subjects such as Engineering courses had either computer or practical laboratory components.
These reasons from the participants were issues because without computer laboratories or the
necessary facilities in the classroom, academics cannot use the intended teaching strategy for the
course. Some participants wanted to have their learning materials in MOLE and once uploaded,
they could access it in their face-to-face classes. Also, using MOLE to conduct exams in a common
laboratory was an issue for most participants because they wanted to make sure that they were
present and could watch over their students answering the tests to ensure validity, reliability, and
trust.

Course description as a constraint related to the type of presentation that was best for a particular
course. Twelve participants from problem-related or computational courses said that their subjects
were different from descriptive subjects, and that teaching strategies were much different (e.g.,
it was important that sample solutions to the problem needed to be discussed with the students
face-to-face). Most of them suggested that descriptive subjects benefited more from MOLE. This
was an issue because of the varied interaction levels that academics had to perform.

There were issues related to program level which referred to the undergraduate or graduate degree
courses. Of the 27 participants, 13 implied that the issues were related to program level. Most
of these participants mentioned pedagogy in one or both program levels, work responsibilities,
and travel incurred when taking a graduate degree course at MSU-IIT. The general notion was to
choose what course was ideal for online delivery. There needed to be specific guidelines on what
type of courses will be complemented by the use of MOLE.

Third dimension: Students’ access and economic viability

The students’ access and economic viability were mentioned by most participants. Most of them
were concerned with the equitable access of students to MOLE because a large percentage
of students were economically challenged. Since most students did not have their personal
computers, their non-access to technology was often considered by academics as a factor that

76 Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan and Nancy Q. Echavez

 IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

affected their teaching performance especially when academics suggested to their students to
access materials online. Thus, economic viability hindered most participants from using MOLE.
Economic viability constrained participants when deciding whether to pursue using MOLE or not.
Likewise, participants were concerned about the security of their students who needed to go to
Internet cafés to access their learning resources online. The danger in students going out to get
access at an inappropriate time was constraining to most academics.

Fourth dimension:Students’ work and validity of control

This constraint referred to the element of trust when students’ assessment tasks (e.g. during
quizzes) were performed outside the classroom. The major issue on students’ work and validity
of control was particularly related to scheduled online tests and to assignments required in the
course. These were the issues mentioned by the 20 participants. Yet, participants whose courses
had no computer laboratory also welcomed the idea of deploying tests online. However, the issue
about no computer laboratory arose because they cannot personally supervise their students
who had to take the test either in Internet cafés, their residences, or open laboratories. The
participants’ main issue was the validity and the veracity of their students’ answers. They could
not simply trust that their students genuinely answered tests by themselves. This issue conformed
to the second dimension above.

In the same manner, participants were anxious about online participation of their students in the
event that online learning was formally mandated as an alternative delivery of instruction. This
was in relation to control mechanisms such as cross-checking who participated in online activities,
which one participant said was another challenge when delivering online lessons.

In summary, four dimensions were generated as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Learning environment constraints

Figure 1. Learning environment constraints

Table 1: MOLE log activities

Findings suggested that participants claimed that the four constraints (time management,
curriculum level, students’ access & economic viability, and students' work & validity of control)
had influenced their satisfaction level, which then affected their decision to use MOLE. Some of
the participants decided to use other alternatives instead of continuing to use MOLE because of
these constraints. A few of the participants were fully aware of the benefits of MOLE, but they
were not enthusiastic to use it because they claimed they lacked training and found other systems
(e.g. social media such as Facebook, Instagram, or Tweeter) easier to use.
Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment 77
IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

To validate the findings suggested by the results of the qualitative data, the log activities of the
participants were analysed and are presented in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, the left-most column represented the academics (as Acad. Num). Eleven of
the academics from the total number of 33 participants were not users of MOLÉ, hence they were
not included in this [Link] 1. Learning
Consequently, environment
only the constraints
usages of 22 academics were included for MOLÉ
log usage analysis.

A more specific group of activities was presented as non-interactive and interactive as shown
in the top-most row of Table 1. Under each column heading was a number in parenthesis which
indicated the number of academics who used each element or activity, while the numbers shown
in each cell indicated the total usage counts.

Non-interactive activities were notions that did not have interchange of ideas among the
participants of the learning environment. Activities in the non-interactive group consisted of
course, assignment, resource, and survey. The course column showed the logs that were recorded
when users logged in and pursued some activities within the learning environment. With the
exception of course logs, assignment activity was shown to have the highest transaction count
(total = 13, 406), although the resource activity was shown to have the most number of academics
(18) utilizing it.
Table 1: MOLE log activities
Table 1: MOLE log activities

78 Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan and Nancy Q. Echavez

 IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

An interactive activity occurred when students had to answer, e.g., the quiz that was deployed
and activated by the teacher in a specific period. Activities in the interactive group consisted of
quiz, forum, blog, chat, and journal activities. Forum was shown as the most often-used activity
with 18 academics who used it. Quiz was shown to have the most interactions (total = 5,180),
while chat was shown to have the least interactions. Per indication, one academic’s record (#28)
shows that quiz was utilized the most. Also, chat was not commonly used as shown in the table –
with only one academic (#15) recorded to have used it.

Table 2 presented the high and low usage for interactive and non-interactive activities. It should
be noted that out of 33 participants only 22 were using MOLE. As shown, only 19 participants with
logs (PwL) had an average usage (1.91) and median (0.82) of interactive activities. Conversely,
only Table
two participants
2. High andhadlowanusage
average and medianand
for Interactive usage (39.42) of high
Non-interactive interactive activities
activities
which included quiz, chat, and forum. As for the non-interactive users, the table showed that
there was a high average (50.79) and low average (4.3) of participants who uploaded modules,
lessons, documents, and lecture notes through the MOLE platform. These results confirmed the
Log Categories Interactive Non-Interactive
constraints of the participants in using the MOLE.
PwL Ave M Ave M
Table 2. High and low
1- Low 19usage1.91
for Interactive
0.82 and Non-interactive
4.3 activities
4.43
2- Medium 1 9.39 9.39 12.37 12.89
3- High 2 39.42 39.42 50.79 48.3

Legend: PwL - participants with logs; Ave - average; M - Median

The interaction that occurred between interactive usage and curriculum level constraints and
student’s access and economic viability were deduced to have influenced. The extent of interactive
usageTable 3. Interaction
influenced matrix
perception for learning
of curriculum environment
level constraints. constraints to usage
These are shown log entries.
in Table 3.
Legend: X - no interaction; Y - with interaction
A big number of participants had been recorded to have had low interactive usage based on log
results because of the effects of curriculum constraints.

Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment 79

 Legend: PwL - participants with logs; Ave - average; M - Median

IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Table 3. Interaction matrix for learning environment constraints to usage log entries.
Table 3. Interaction matrixXfor
Legend: learning
- no environment
interaction; Y - withconstraints
interactionto usage log entries.
Legend: X - no interaction; Y - with interaction

Curriculum constraints had been identified as issues that relate to course description and
requirements. Participants had low usage of interactive features like using interaction and
communication tools and feedback and assessment tools. Participants claimed that one of the
major issues was the students’ accessibility due to economic reasons. What had been said by
participants referring to students’ access problems were in their low interactive usage. The
common tendency of the participants was to decide not to use MOLE because of the large
percentage of students who did not own computers.

The study indicated that the program handled by academics influences the perception of curriculum
level on the context of undergraduate and graduate courses. On the other hand, both academic
position and academic discipline influenced the dimensions of curriculum level, students’ access
and economic viability, and students’ work and validity of control. Among the four dimensions of
learning environment constraints, these three were external influences that a participant did not
have control of. Whereas, time management was internal to the participant and the use of MOLE
was based on his/her own discretion. Coupled with a strong motivation, the participant controlled
or managed his/her time to prepare learning resources or practice the use of MOLE. Based on the
system logs, the study also showed that low usage of interactive features was strongly influenced
by students’ economic viability and access. The system logs justified what had been shown in
the coded references as influenced also by academic discipline and academic position. The low
interactive usage encompassed the use of non-interactive features which indicated that academics
decided on using MOLE depending on the situation, such as for submission of assignments or
for posting lesson notes, as most academics were not compelled to use MOLE for their classes.
Although some of them chose to use MOLE consistently, many of the participants decided to do
so if their students were amenable to its use.

80 Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan and Nancy Q. Echavez

 IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Academics’ usage of the LMS was influenced by the socio-technological landscape of the learning
environment. More importantly, the study verified that academic disciplines had crucial influences
to LMS usage. This research found that there were varied approaches for each course, and more
specifically, on subject content that can best fit a blended delivery of instructions. Extending
further studies in this context will benefit this area of research.

Results of the Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) study suggested that instructors were affected with
difficulties on the reliability of technologies and affirmed that they needed to be more creative to
teach online. The result of the Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) study was similar to this study in terms
of the difficulty or challenges experienced with technology and learning resource preparation.
Institution-related issues were found to be important to online faculty. Their results showed
that workload, compensation, preparation, and course evaluations affect their satisfaction and
motivation which were similar to the findings in this study. Interestingly, the study of Garrote and
Pettersson (2007) was similar to the context of time management in this study (e.g., the amount
of time to attend training, prepare materials, and interact or manage discussions online). The
Garrote and Pettersson (2007) study indicated also that academics equated their time and effort
to their salary received.

This study may guide academics and administrators on minimizing constraints in their own
environments to possibly enhance system usage. On a larger scope, universities that have similar
environmental conditions in terms of institutional policies and economic viability of students may
benefit from the findings in this study. Institutional policies are mechanisms that recognize the
relevance of LMS usage in organizations (e.g., on the executive management level). Moreover,
network and infrastructure, as well as technology support can be facilitated by these mechanisms.
This recognition extends to students getting access to reliable network system which redounds
to academics’ motivation to use the LMS in blended environments.

The qualitative interviews were matter-of-fact accounts of what academics felt about the LMS
and their aspirations for having a useful and beneficial tool for teaching and learning with
technologies. Analysis of computer logs furthered the understanding of the academics’ claims
about their usage of the system.

A deeper analysis of log files of usage by academics can be done using a longitudinal study or
an action research approach. Analyzing log files can help visualize the interaction patterns of
academics with their students. It would be worthy to examine the extent to which students
interact and collaborate with each other and with their teacher through the LMS, and the extent
to which this has accelerated the quality of teaching and learning. Also, a more rigid study can be
made by considering an evaluative research for academics’ usage within department or subject
area; or in a wider scope, a comparison of usage across subject disciplines in various colleges of
the university.

Many of the complaints were in relation to access of their students because of economic reasons.
Most students did not have their own computers. If they did have their own computers, most
did not have Internet connection at home. Even some academics had the same problem. The
problem of student access was a challenge that most academics face. Enforcing the use of MOLE
for their courses made it more difficult for others. This constraint is a university–wide problem
related to policies which academics cannot solve by themselves.
Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment 81
IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Overall, participants implied that a reduced teaching load may be necessary to enable them to
develop better learning resources and be motivated to use MOLE. The study found that some
participants were not motivated to use the system because of time constraints. They claimed that
creating modules for blended learning was doable, but the time to develop the learning resources
was lacking. Some participants proposed a reduced teaching load so that they could allocate more
time to developing the modules.

The prominent issue in the learning environment perspective relates to the subject discipline –
descriptive subjects are better delivered online compared to problem-solving or computational
subjects. Findings of this research suggested that the cliche ‘one-size fits all’ cannot be adhered
to. This notion of what subject discipline can be appropriately delivered in a blended learning
environment has to be solved on the department or college level.

Reference List

Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context The Theory and Practice of Online
Learning, Second Edition. Edmonton, Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system:
the quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology,
34(1), 31-43. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.d01-4.

Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching
and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1).

Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive and teaching presence
issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning:
Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. doi:
10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.

Garrote, R., & Pettersson, T. (2007). Lecturers' attitudes about the use of learning management
systems in engineering education: A Swedish case study. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 23(3), 327-349.

Giardina, N. (2010). Designing for successful diffusion: A faculty-based approach to enhancing staff
use of technologies for effective teaching and learning. ASCILITE 2010 - The Australasian
Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.

Lameras, P., Levy, P., Paraskakis, I., & Webber, S. (2012). Blended university teaching using virtual
learning environments: conceptions and approaches. Instructional Science, 40(1), 141-157.
doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9170-9.

82 Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan and Nancy Q. Echavez

 IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

Lin, C., Singer, R., & Ha, L. (2010). Why university members use and resist technology? A structure
enactment perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(1), 38-59.

Macharia, J., & Nyakwende, E. (2010). Vice-Chancellors Influence on Academic Staff Intentions
to Use Learning Management Systems (LMS) For Teaching and Learning. Journal of
Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 2(1), 220-230.

Moore, M. G. (2007). Web 2.0: Does it really matter? American Journal of Distance Education.
21(4). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty
members. Computers & Education, 56(3), 689-699.

Peszynski, K. (2010). Understanding Human Factors in Systems Selection and Implementation:

Exploring the Role of Power and Politics. International Journal of Strategic Information
Technology and Applications (IJSITA) 1(3), 10-25. doi: 10.4018/jsita.2010070102

Rahman, S.-u. (1998). Theory of constraints: a review of the philosophy and its applications.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(4), 336-355.

Rogers, E. (2004). A Prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model. Journal of Health
Communication, 9(1), 13-19. DOI: 10.1080/10810730490271449.

Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of "teaching presence"
in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 61-80.

Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning
community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher
Education, 9(3), 175-190. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2006.06.005

Swan, K. (2004). Learning online: current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and
learner characteristics. . In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online
Education, Into the Mainstream.(pp. 63-79). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online
Education

Thomas, A. and Stratton, G. (2006). What we are really doing with ICT in physical education: a
national audit of equipment, use, teacher attitudes, support, and training. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 37(4), 617-632. [Link]

Constraints on the Use of a Learning Management System in a Blended Learning Environment 83

IJODeL, Vol. 4, No. 2, (December 2018)

84 Cenie M. Vilela-Malabanan and Nancy Q. Echavez