KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1

Evaluating lecturer satisfaction towards learning management systems in private universities

Htin Kyaw Lin(Myanmar Imperial University)0009-0004-4033-7879
Sayfa
15–28
Yayın Tarihi
2025-03-22
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The findings provide valuable insights for universities and IT developers seeking to optimize LMS implementation and support, ultimately enhancing teaching effectiveness and lecturer satisfaction in Myanmar’s evolving digital landscape of higher education.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study investigates lecturer satisfaction with Learning Management Systems (LMS) in private universities in Myanmar, a context where digital learning adoption is relatively recent.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:A quantitative approach using a survey questionnaire was administered to 135 lecturers from private universities in Yangon.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The findings provide valuable insights for universities and IT developers seeking to optimize LMS implementation and support, ultimately enhancing teaching effectiveness and lecturer satisfaction in Myanmar’s evolving digital landscape of higher education.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Learning Management System · Lecturer satisfaction · Private universities

Özet

This study investigates lecturer satisfaction with Learning Management Systems (LMS) in private universities in Myanmar, a context where digital learning adoption is relatively recent. This study employs the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model as a theoretical framework, examining how external stimuli (system quality, information quality, self-efficacy, and technical support) influence internal cognitive processes (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use), ultimately affecting lecturer satisfaction. A quantitative approach using a survey questionnaire was administered to 135 lecturers from private universities in Yangon. According to the results, self-efficacy and technical support significantly positively influence perceived usefulness and ease of use. System quality also positively influences perceived usefulness. Furthermore, perceived usefulness and ease of use significantly influence lecturer satisfaction. The findings provide valuable insights for universities and IT developers seeking to optimize LMS implementation and support, ultimately enhancing teaching effectiveness and lecturer satisfaction in Myanmar’s evolving digital landscape of higher education.

Abstract

This study investigates lecturer satisfaction with Learning Management Systems (LMS) in private universities in Myanmar, a context where digital learning adoption is relatively recent. This study employs the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model as a theoretical framework, examining how external stimuli (system quality, information quality, self-efficacy, and technical support) influence internal cognitive processes (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use), ultimately affecting lecturer satisfaction. A quantitative approach using a survey questionnaire was administered to 135 lecturers from private universities in Yangon. According to the results, self-efficacy and technical support significantly positively influence perceived usefulness and ease of use. System quality also positively influences perceived usefulness. Furthermore, perceived usefulness and ease of use significantly influence lecturer satisfaction. The findings provide valuable insights for universities and IT developers seeking to optimize LMS implementation and support, ultimately enhancing teaching effectiveness and lecturer satisfaction in Myanmar’s evolving digital landscape of higher education.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Lin, H. K. (2025). Evaluating lecturer satisfaction towards learning management systems in private universities. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.1643194

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (57)

  1. Adayemi, A., Joe, M., & Muhaise, H. (2024). Evaluation of learning management systems for success factors. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(3), 808-817. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.803058
  2. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863-875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
  3. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102 (2020), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.023
  4. Alkhateeb, M. A., & Abdalla, R. A. (2021). Factors influencing student satisfaction towards using learning management system moodle. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 17(1), 138-153. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2021010109
  5. Alshammarı, S. H. (2020). The Influence Of Technical Support, Perceived Self-Efficacy, And Instructional Design On Students’use Of Learning Management Systems. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 112-141. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.762034
  6. Alshibly, H. (2014). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the intention to use E-learning System: An extended Technology Acceptance Model. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 4(17), 2440-2457. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2014/10033
  7. Alshurideh, M. T., Kurdi, B. A., AlHamad, A. Q., Salloum, S. A., Alkurdi, S., Dehghan, A., Abuhashesh, M., & Masa’deh, R. E. (2021). Factors affecting the use of smart mobile examination platforms by universities’ postgraudate students during the COVID-19 pandemin: An empirical study. Informatics, 8(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8020032
  8. Alzahrani, L., & Seth, K. P. (2021). Factors influencing students’ satisfaction with continuous use of learning management systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study. Education and information technologies, 26(6), 6787-6805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10492-5
  9. Anshari, M., bin Alas, Y., & Guan, L. S. (2017). Pervasive knowledge, social networks, and cloud computing: e-learning 2.0. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1360a
  10. Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2017). Grit in the path to e-learning success. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.009
  11. Ashraf, I., Jumani, N., & Ali, A. (2020). T Technology Acceptance by University Teachers: A Demographic Analysis. European Journal of Volunteering and Community-Based Projects, 1(3), 41-57. https://pkp.odvcasarcobaleno.it/index.php/ejvcbp/article/view/20
  12. Ashrafi, A., Zareravasan, A., Rabiee Savoji, S., & Amani, M. (2022). Exploring factors influencing students’ continuance intention to use the learning management system (LMS): a multi-perspective framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1475-1497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1734028
  13. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221129.n6
  14. Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2017). A decade of LMS acceptance and adoption research in Sub-Sahara African higher education: A systematic review of models, methodologies, milestones and main challenges. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7269-7286. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79444
  15. Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of marketing, 56(2), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429920560020
  16. Borabo, J. G., Diño, I. E., Gueta, J. A., Espela, D. F., Garcia, L. H., Espinosa, M. L., & Digo, G. S. (2024). Impact of the Utilization of Learning Management System in the Implementation of Distance Learning in Secondary Schools in the Philippines from 2019 to 2023. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 17(2), 1-13.https://doi.org/10.14456/jcdr-hs.2024.9
  17. Bradley, V. M. (2021). Learning Management System (LMS) use with online instruction. International Journal of Technology in Education, 4(1), 68-92.https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.36
  18. Cantabella, M., López, B., Caballero, A., & Muñoz, A. (2018). Analysis and evaluation of lecturers’ activity in Learning Management Systems: Subjective and objective perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(7), 911-923. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1421561
  19. Cheng, Y. M. (2012). Effects of quality antecedents on e‐learning acceptance. Internet Research, 22(3), 361-390. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211235699
  20. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
  21. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2016). Information systems success measurement. Foundations and Trends in Information Systems, 2(1), 1-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2900000005
  22. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
  23. Dutta, A., Roy, R. and Seetharaman, P. (2013). Course management system adoption and usage: A process theoretic perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2535-2545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.010
  24. Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 210-232.https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Fathema_0615.pdf
  25. Fiore, A. M., & Kim, J. (2007). An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian shopping experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(6), 421-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550710750313
  26. Fındık Coşkunçay, D., & Özkan Yıldırım, S. (2013). A Model for Instructors’ Adoption of Learning Management Systems: Empirical Validation in Higher Education Context. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 13-25. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84880055141&origin=inward
  27. Goh, W. W., Hong, J. L., & Gunawan, W. (2014). Exploring Lecturers’ Perceptions of Learning Management System: An Empirical Study Based on TAM. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 4(3), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v4i3.3497
  28. Jacoby, J. (2002). Stimulus‐organism‐response reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modeling (consumer) behavior. Journal of consumer psychology, 12(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1201_05
  29. Katsaris, I., & Vidakis, N. (2021). Adaptive e-learning systems through learning styles: A review of the literature. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 124-145.https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.007
  30. Kim, J. and Lennon, S. J. (2013) Effects of Reputation and Website Quality on Online Consumers’ Emotion, Perceived Risk and Purchase Intention. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(1), 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/17505931311316734
  31. Kim, M. J., Lee, C. K., & Jung, T. (2020). Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. Journal of travel research, 59(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518818915
  32. Kite, J., Schlub, T. E., Zhang, Y., Choi, S., Craske, S., & Dickson, M. (2020). Exploring lecturer and student perceptions and use of a learning management system in a postgraduate public health environment. E-learning and Digital Media, 17(3), 183-198.https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020909217
  33. Lassoued, Z., Alhendawi, M., & Bashitialshaaer, R. (2020). E-learning critical success factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Education Sciences, 10(9), 232-244. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090232
  34. Lee, C. H., & Chen, C. W. (2021). Impulse buying behaviors in live streaming commerce based on the stimulus-organism-response framework. Information, 12(6), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12060241
  35. Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159(2020), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009
  36. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137608931536
  37. Motaghian, H., Hassanzadeh, A., & Moghadam, D. K. (2013). Factors affecting university instructors’ adoption of web-based learning systems: Case study of Iran. Computers & Education, 61(2013), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.016
  38. Ngai, E. W., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.007
  39. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
  40. Pan, J., Ishak, N. A., & Qin, Y. (2024). The application of Moore’s online learning interactions model in learning outcomes: The SOR (stimulus-organism-response) paradigm perspective. Heliyon, 10(7), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28505
  41. Park, S. Y., Nam, M., & Cha, S. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x
  42. Paulsen, M. F. (2003). Experiences with Learning Management Systems in 113 European institutions. Educational Technology & Society, 6(4), 134-148. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.6.4.134
  43. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students. (8th ed.) Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/nl/en_NL/higher-education/subject-catalogue/business-and-management/Research-methods-for-business-students-8e-saunders.html
  44. Simelane-Mnisi, S. (2023). Effectiveness of LMS digital tools used by the academics to foster students engagement. Education Science, 13(10), 980-995. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100980
  45. Sulaiman, T. T., Mahomed, A. S. B., Rahman, A. A., & Hassan, M. (2023). Understanding antecedents of learning management system usage among university lecturers using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Sustainability, 15(3), 1-24.
  46. Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
  47. Taylor, S. and Todd, P. (1995) Decomposition and Crossover Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Study of Consumer Adoption Intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137-155.
  48. Trinidad, J. E. (2020). Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(8), 1013-1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214
  49. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
  50. Walker, D. S., Lindner, J. R., Murphrey, T. P., & Dooley, K. (2016). Learning management system usage. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(2), 41-50. https://bit.ly/3G3p6Hc
  51. Wang, W. T., & Wang, C. C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.021
  52. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental Aesthetics: The Environment as a Source of Affect. In Human Behavior and Environment (pp. 37–86). Greater Manchester, England: Springer, Boston, MA.
  53. Xin, N. S., Shibghatullah, A. S., & Abd Wahab, M. H. (2021). A systematic review for online learning management system. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1874(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1874/1/012030
  54. Zanjani, N., Edwards, S. L., Nykvist, S., & Geva, S. (2016). LMS acceptance: The instructor role. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(2016), 519-526.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0277-2
  55. Zanjani, N., Nykvist, S., & Geva, S. (2013). What Makes an LMS Effective: A Synthesis of Current Literature. 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 574-579). Portugal: Science and Technology Publications. https://doi.org/10.5220/0004384905740579
  56. Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1145/986213.986216
  57. Zheng, Y., Wang, J., Doll, W., Deng, X., & Williams, M. (2018). The impact of organisational support, technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management system. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(4), 311-319.https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1436590