dc.contributor.author	Rucker, Ryan David
dc.coverage.spatial	United States -- Georgia	en_US
dc.coverage.temporal	2013-2015	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2015-05-22T14:50:12Z
dc.date.available	2015-05-22T14:50:12Z
dc.date.issued	2015-05
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/1940
dc.description.abstract	Based on the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) and Levels of Use (LoU) of the Innovation (Hall, Loucks, Rutherford, & Newlove, 1975), the purpose of this study was to determine if faculty members’ patterns in teaching using various tools within a learning management system (LMS) changed as a result of a major LMS migration. In addition, this study also investigated the challenges faculty members faced and the level of support and training used throughout the migration. Faculty members, both full-time and adjunct, at two regional universities within the state of Georgia were invited to participate in the study. These faculty members experienced an LMS migration from Blackboard Vista to Desire2Learn during the Summer of 2013. Overall, three research questions were formed addressing LMS tool use and adoption, the overall system usage experience, and the level of training and support used during the migration with certain factors to include: the years of experience using the old and new LMS, types of courses taught, gender, and the number of years having taught in the online and face-to-face environment. To collect data, faculty members had two months to complete a survey instrument that was developed based on both the TAM and LoU frameworks. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, t tests, ANOVAs, a MANOVA, and inductive analysis coding techniques. Results indicated that, overall, faculty members adopted most of the tools within the Desire2Learn LMS significantly more compared to the Blackboard Vista LMS except Wimba/Blackboard Collaborate Tool and SCORM Tool. The MANOVA results showed that “faculty status” and “type of course typically taught” might be factors that affected faculty’s responses to the level of use for both Blackboard Vista and Desire2Learn. Full-time faculty members had a significantly higher level of use, moving from the orientation level to the preparation level, compared to adjunct faculty members who remained at the orientation level. In addition, those faculty members who teach face-to-face courses had a significantly lower level of use, starting at the orientation level and remaining at this level, compared to those faculty members who teach online or hybrid courses, who started at the preparation level and moved to the mechanical level of use. Further, gender and the years of having taught online or hybrid courses did not affect the overall system usage level (how the faculty member learned to use the LMS) during the migration. Lastly, the years of experience using an LMS and years of experience having taught online or hybrid courses did not affect the overall level of training and support (e.g., calling the IT Help Desk, asking a co-worker, attending university training, etc.) a faculty member used during this migration.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	Chapter I: INTRODUCTION \| Introduction to Study 1 \| Background of the Study 3 \| Problem and Purpose 4 \| Problem 4 \| Purpose 5 \| Research Questions 5 \| Significance, Limitations and Assumptions 6 \| Significance 6 \| Limitations and Delimitations 6 \| Assumptions 9 \| Framework and Design 9 \| Framework 9 \| Design 10 \| Definition of Key Terms 10 \| Summary 13 \| Chapter II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE \| Teaching Patterns Used within Distance Education Courses 15 \| Common Technology Acceptance Models 18 \| Technology Acceptance Model 19 \| Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Attitude 20 \| Modification of TAM 21 \| Level of Use of the Innovation 22 \| TAM Compared to Other Models 24 \| Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 25 \| What is an LMS 26 \| Importance and Benefits of LMS 28 \| Limitations of LMS 31 \| Faculty Adoption of LMS 33 \| Faculty’s Roles and Competencies Using an LMS 36 \| LMS Migrations and Faculty Challenges 38 \| Faculty Adoption of LMS Tools 42 \| Tool Classification 43 \| Adoption of Various LMS Tools 44 \| Summary 46 \| Chapter III: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY \| Problem and Purpose 48 \| Problem 48 \| Purpose 48 \| Research Questions and Null Hypotheses 49 \| Research Questions 49 \| Null Hypotheses 49 \| Design, Population, and Sample 50 \| Design 50 \| Population 52 \| Survey Instrument 53 \| Reliability 57 \| Face Validity 57 \| Construct Validity 58 \| Internal and External Validity 58 \| Procedures and Variables 60 \| Procedures 60 \| Variables 61 \| Data Analysis 62 \| Research Question 1 63 \| Research Question 2 64 \| Research Question 3 64 \| Open-Ended Questions 65 \| Summary 66 \| Chapter IV: ANALYSIS OF DATA \| Sample, Response Rate, and Reliability 67 \| Demographics 68 \| Data Analysis 70 \| Null Hypothesis 11 70 \| Null Hypothesis 12 88 \| Null Hypothesis 21 91 \| Null Hypothesis 31 93 \| Open-Ended Analysis 96 \| Question 1 96 \| Question 2 98 \| Question 3 99 \| Question 4 101 \| Question 5 102 \| Summary 104 \| Chapter V: DISCUSSION \| Summary of the Study 105 \| Conclusions 116 \| Recommendations for Future Research 120 \| Recommendations for Practitioners 121 \| Summary 123 \| REFERENCES 125 \| Appendix A: Letter of Interest to Georgia Universities and Colleges 137 \| Appendix B: Selected Quotes from Open-Ended Questions 139 \| Appendix C: First Email to Faculty 147 \| Appendix D: Second Email to Faculty 150 \| Appendix E: Third Email to Faculty 153 \| Appendix F: Fourth Email to Faculty 156 \| Appendix G: Survey Instrument 159 \| Appendix H: MANOVA Tables 167 \|	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	learning management system	en_US
dc.subject	technology adoption	en_US
dc.subject	faculty adoption	en_US
dc.subject	level of use	en_US
dc.subject	technology migration	en_US
dc.title	Exploring Faculty Use Before and After a Learning Management System Migration: A Survey Approach	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Downey, Steven E.
dc.description.committee	Hsiao, E-Ling
dc.description.committee	Kim, Daesang
dc.description.committee	York, Travis
dc.description.degree	Ed.D.	en_US
dc.description.major	Education	en_US