Cited by 144Online and Blended LearningEducational Technology and E-LearningTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

LMS-enabled blended learning utilization in distance tertiary education: Establishing the relationships among facilitating conditions, voluntariness of use and use behaviour

Open access
Bervell, Brandford, Arkorful, Valentina·2020·International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Abstract

Abstract Distance education has evolved partly through technologies that defined them in the various generations of distance education delivery. However, in the twenty-first century, the use of Learning Management System (LMS) has changed the face of distance education delivery. Even the traditional face-to-face based distance education mode is now adopting the LMS as a mediating technology between instructors and students. However, in the usage of LMS-enabled blended learning, several factors have been cited in the literature as enablers towards actual usage of LMS technology. Factors such as facilitating conditions, voluntariness of use and actual use behaviour have been important in contemporary literature. Despite their importance, the chasm in the literature is the nuances existing in terms of relationships between these three factors. This study fills the gap by defining a model based on the three factors to provide an in depth empirical study on their relationships and how they influence LMS-enabled blended learning uptake of distance education by tutors. The study thus employs a cross country survey to collect data from 267 tutors and offer analysis by way of a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. The study revealed important relationships among facilitating conditions, voluntariness of use and use behaviour of LMS-enabled blended learning such that facilitating conditions predicted voluntariness of use and actual use behaviour; voluntariness of use determined actual LMS use behaviour for blended learning in distance education. The study finally provided recommendations based on the findings for policy and practice of LMS-enabled blended learning in distance education.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41239-020-0183-9

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Accessible devices, stable network conditions, appropriate usage environments, and timely technical support may reduce perceived barriers and improve students' confidence in using the system.

    “In the context of AR-assisted CBT, accessible devices, stable network conditions, appropriate usage environments, and timely technical support may reduce perceived barriers and improve students’ confidence in using the system [101,102].”

    From Advancing Undergraduate Student Mental Healthcare of Social Anxiety Disorder: Evaluating the Acceptance of AR-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through TAM-Based Constructs. (2026) · cites this paper as [102]

    The Discussion says accessible resources, gadgets, and technical assistance facilitate LMS use by course tutors; the Implications for practice recommends reliable internet and technical support to boost tutors’ confidence. The paper does not establish these effects for students using AR-assisted CBT, and it does not specifically assess their perceived barriers or usage environments. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Martin, J. (2009). Developing course material for online instruction of adults. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 364.
  2. Oakes, K. (2002). E-learning: LCMS, LMS-They're not just acronyms but powerful systems for learning. Training & Development, 56(3), 73-75.
  3. Sharma, A., & Vatta, S. (2013). Role of learning management systems in education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 3(6), 997-1002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bervell, B., & Arkorful, V.
Affiliations
University of Cape Coast (GH)
Corresponding author
Bervell, Brandford
Venue
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
Published
2020-03-17
Volume
17
Issue
1
ISSN
2365-9440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3015007848
Cited by
144
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 7
FWCI
32.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
University of Cape Coast (TDS/109/V.2/97)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
virtual learning environments, blended learning, distance education, facilitating conditions, tutors, technology adoption, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review