This document is a proposal submitted by Leslie Pirtle to Dr. Anne Hird on April 19, 2013 as the final requirement for a Master of Education in Instructional Technology. It proposes a study to examine instructor use of learning management systems (LMS) at a medium-sized public university in New England that has used Blackboard since 1999 and Moodle since 2008. The university plans to decommission Blackboard in Fall 2013. The study would use surveys, interviews and server log data to understand instructor use of features and purposes in their teaching to inform training needs during the transition from Blackboard to Moodle.

1. Submitted by: Leslie Pirtle
To: Dr. Anne Hird
As a final requirement for the Master of
Education, Instructional Technology
April 19, 2013

3.  Medium-sized
public university
in New England – 775 faculty
 Blackboard since 1999
 Moodle since 2008
 LMS use is voluntary
 Fall 2013 Blackboard to be
decommissioned
 Moodle training needs

4.  Time,
technical, and budgetary
limitations often prevent the collection
of detailed data on instructor LMS
utilization and perceptions
 Impact
of a mandated transition from
Blackboard to Moodle on instructors’
training needs and pedagogical
objectives is unclear

5. To inform specialists who assist instructors to achieve
targeted administrative and pedagogical outcomes
through the use of an LMS
ID
PD
IT

6. To
what extent do instructors
use Blackboard or Moodle in
their teaching practice?
What
features and for what
purposes do instructors use LMSs
in their teaching practice?

8. Online Survey
Interviews
Server Log Data
Faculty at large
Only run initially
11.5% return (n=89*)
All 40 willing survey
respondents were
invited
10 (forced answer)
questions
12* self-selected
participants
Feb 20 to Mar 1
3 open-ended
questions w/ probes
40 willing to
interview
March 4-18
*All participants indicated consent
Caused Moodle
server to crash

23.  LMS
was not an integrated tool for the F2F classroom
 Primarily
lecture-oriented, sequential content delivery
 Communication
tended to be 1-way (teacher to student)
 Minimal
description of collaboration or inquiry-, and problembased learning with the LMS
 Survey
evoked strong reactions regarding the migration from
Blackboard to Moodle
 Those
Apri 2013
comfortable with Moodle tended to have experience
23

28. Cheung, K, Lam, J. & Yau, J. (2009). “A review on functional features of e-learning platforms in the
continuing education context.” International Journal Of Continuing Education & Lifelong
Learning, 2(1), 103-116. Hsui-Ping, Y., & Shihkuan, H. (2008). Designing a learning management system
to support instruction. Communications Of The ACM, 51(4), 59-63. doi:10.1145/1330311.1330324
Hsui-Ping, Y., & Shihkuan, H. (2008). Designing a learning management system to support instruction.
Communications Of The ACM, 51(4), 59-63. doi:10.1145/1330311.1330324
Lawler, A. (2011). LMS transitioning to Moodle: A surprising case of successful, emergent change
management. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1111-1123.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/lawler.html
Little-Wiles, J.D. Ed.D., J., & Naimi, L. L. (2011). “Faculty perceptions of and experiences in using the
blackboard learning management system.” Conflict Resolution & Negotiation Journal, (4), 1-13.
Lonn, S & Teasley S., (2009) “Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of
Learning Management Systems,” Computers & Education, 53 (3), 686-694. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131509001006.
Meyer, K. A., & McNeal, L. (2011). How Online Faculty Improve Student Learning Productivity. Journal Of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(3), 37-53.
Payette, D. L., & Gupta, R. (2009). “Transitioning From Blackboard To Moodle - course management
software: faculty and student opinions.” American Journal Of Business Education, 2(9), 67-74.
Watson, W. and Watson S. (2007). An Argument for Clarity: What are Learning Management
Systems, What are They Not, and What Should They Become?. Techtrends: Linking Research &
Practice To Improve Learning, 51(2), 28-34