4.7 Article

Issues in learning management systems implementation: A comparison of research perspectives between Australia and China

Journal

EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 3789-3810

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10639-021-10431-4

Keywords

Learning management systems; LMS; Online learning; E-learning; Blended learning; Literature review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The review compared the use of LMS in China and Australia in higher education institutions, identifying key factors that impact their integration. The main factors influencing LMS implementation include selection, deployment diversity, cultural impact, expectations, and obstacles to online learning.
Australian post-secondary institutions have embraced the incorporation of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) into traditional classroom-based instruction and distance learning models. Given that an increasing number of Chinese students are studying in Australia and that their experience of using LMSs in China may be very different from that in Australia, it is important to explore the issues in LMS implementation in the two countries. This literature review compares the use of LMSs in China and Australia with the aim of identifying some of the issues impacting their integration into the course offerings of post-secondary institutions in both countries. The review identifies seven main themes that influence the implementation of LMSs: LMS selection and non-financial factors; diversity of LMS deployment in Australia; the rise of MOOCs in China; the impact of culture on LMS usage; online learning and socialisation; learner and faculty expectations of online learning; and roadblocks to online learning. This review helps to identify and synthesise the issues that impact upon the ability of higher education institutions in Australia and China to integrate LMS technologies into their course offerings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available