The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Exploring Learner’s Patterns of Using the Online Course Tool in
University Classes

Yoshihiko Yamamoto and Akinori Usami

54

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Abstract
Online course tools such as WebCT or Manaba+R are popularly used in university classes andenhance learners’ understanding of their course contents. In addition, teachers try to utilize these
online course tools for their students such as giving their students online discussions, providing
students with additional materials and so forth. However, based on the authors’ observation of
students, students often do not see these additional materials and messages on Manaba+R. The
authors encourage their students to use it and, in fact, they put a lot of additional materials of thecourse or useful messages for their students on Manaba+R. The aims of this study are here.
Firstly, this study investigates what extent students actually use Manaba+R through the semester.
Secondly, it tries to find suggestions of how teachers can promote their students to maximize
making use of Manaba+R. To collect the data, coding actual access to Manaba+R by students andquestionnaires were used. The total of 335 responses of questionnaires were collected and total of
380 were coded for actual access to Manaba+R. The questionnaire results show that many
students showed positive attitudes towards using Manaba+R. The results of coding numbers ofaccess reveal that using Manaba+R was part of their assessment of their course, students tended
to use it.
Keywords: Online course tools; Manaba+R; university education.

55

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Introduction
Thanks to rapid growth of technological devices such as smart phones and tablet devices, thesetechnological devices are widely used in university classes. Online course tools such as WebCT,
Moodle or Manaba+R are often used for many courses at university. These online course tools
provide both teachers and students with a better learning opportunity when they are usedeffectively (For example, Harris, 1999; Mende, 1999; Morss, 1999; Burgess, 2003). Although
online course tools are useful for both teachers and students, several studies report problems withthese tools such as lack of student’s motivation (Ngai, Poon, and Chan, 2007) and technicalproblems which make student’s access unavailable for using online course tools (Petrides, 2002).
The authors of this study encourage their students to use Manaba+R in their classes. They also
post some messages and homework on Manaba+R. However, the authors of this study realize thatsome students often access (delete word) Manaba+R but other students hardly access to it
throughout the semester. Thus, there are two aims of this study. Firstly, this study investigates towhat extent students actually use Manaba+R throughout the semester. Secondly, it tries to findways teachers can promote the use of Manaba+R to their students so they maximize its use.
Literature review
Past studies of use of online course tools for university students explains several advantages ofthese online course tools. For example, Ngai, Poon and Chan (2007) explains that online course
tools such as WebCT allow students to access learning tools such as discussions boards, chatrooms and course content management. Hagler (2004) suggested the benefit of WebCT is likebuilding rapport with other students through discussions and chart features. Picciano (2002) also
claims the advantage of using online course tools for students. They provide students with a senseof being in and belonging in their course, and the ability to interact with their classmates and theirlecturers outside a face-to-face class.
Willette (2002) points out the flexibility of using online course tools. For example, if students
cannot come to the class or if they miss things in class, then they can access online course tools tocheck lecture notes anywhere online access is available. Also instead of using Emails or phone
calls, if a lecturer thinks a question by one of students is useful for other students, then thequestion and answer can be posted on bulletin board at anytime. Petrides (2002) found that online
discussion rooms provide students with an opportunity to discuss more details with other students
than face-to-face interactions. However, online course tools sometimes do not work effectively
for students. Ngai, Poon and Chan (2007) found that their student’s attitude towards online course
tools was important for them to use online course tools. They conclude that their students used
WebCT because their lecturers told them to use it as a specific subject requirement. Therefore, if
lectures do not ask students to use online course tools, then students may not show their interestin using online course tools. In addition, Ngai, Poon and Chan (2007) point out that using online
course tools should be easy for students to use. If those online course tools are too difficult for
students to use, then students lose their interest in using them.
Further et al. (2002) argued that unless a Web-based learning tool was professionally developed,
implemented, maintained and administrated, the positive support to learning could go in adifferent direction. Petrides (2002) found that some students were disadvantaged due to technicalproblems. Some students had slow modems at home which made it difficult for them toparticipate in online discussions. Other students were only able to access to the Internet outside of
the class at their workplace and thus it was difficult for them to use online course tools outside of
the class.

56

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Methodology
In order to collect the data for this study, the authors used questionnaires for their students andcounted numbers of views of Manaba+R by participants. All questions on questionnaires arelisted below.
Q1: How often did you bring your PC in class?
1: every time, 2: almost every time, 3: sometimes, 4: hardly, 5: neverQ2: How often did you use your PC in class?
1: every time, 2: almost every time, 3: sometimes, 4: hardly, 5: neverQ3: How often did you use Manaba+R?
1: every time, 2: almost every time, 3: sometimes, 4: hardly, 5: neverQ4: Did you have homework through Manaba+R?
1: every time, 2: almost every time, 3: sometimes, 4: hardly, 5: neverQ5: Did you read messages on Manaba+R?
1: every time, 2: almost every time, 3: sometimes, 4: hardly, 5: neverQ6: Reasons for Q5
Q7: Do you think that Manaba+R is useful for your classes?
1: Strongly agree, 2: agree, 3: not really, 4: neverQ8: Where do you normally look at Manaba+R?
1: in class, 2: at home, 3: outside the class but on campus, 4: on a bus or train, 5: others
Q9: Do you think that Manaba+R is useful to communicate with your teacher?
1: strongly agree, 2: agree, 3: not really, 4: neverParticipants in this study are mainly both 1st and 2nd year students at a private university in Japan
who are majoring sport and health science and economics. Due to repeating the same course, 3rdyear students are included in Economics department classes. Each department has different
programs. In the sport and health science department, two English subjects: project-based English
and skills workshop are offered for students. The data is collected from all project-based English
subject. In economics department, there are English classes covering the four skills, such as
Listening, Reading, CALL and Communication & Writing. The data is taken from Listening and
CALL classes. In addition, the data is also collected from the Introduction of Economics inEnglish 1 (for 2nd year students).
A total of 380 responses to questionnaires were collected. Questionnaires were distributed to
students who belong to both the Sport and health science department, and the Economics
department. The authors of this study coded numbers of the total access to Manaba+R. The totalof 159 (80 first year students and 79 second year students) students of Sport and health science
department and 220 (121 first year students, 61 second year students and 38 third year students)
Economics department were coded. The total of 379 students from both departments was coded
to show the numbers of actual access to Manaba+R.

57

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Results
Results of questionnaires
Results of all questions are put into graphs below. Here after, SPORT for Sport and healthscience department and ECON for the department of Economics are used.
Graph 1. Results of Q1

Graph 1 shows the results of Q1 (how often did you bring your PC in class?). It shows asignificant difference between the two departments. Most of those who belong to SPORT brought
their PC into their class. 81 % of students answered every time and 13% of students answered
almost every time. On the other hand, most of those who belong to ECON did not bring their PC
into their class. 94% of them answered that they never brought their PC in their class and 4 % ofthem answered that they hardly brought their PC.
Graph 2. Results of Q2

Graph 2 shows the results of Q2 (how often did you use your PC in class?). The results of thisquestion links with the results of Q2. SPORT students used their PC a lot in their class. 80% ofthem answered every time and 16 % answered almost every time. Since SPORT students
answered 94% brought their PC into their class in Q2, the ratio of using PC in class was very high.
As opposed to ECON students, 71% of them answered they never used their PC in class which is
linked with their answers in Q2. In Q2, 94% of them never brought their PC into their class which
made them unable to use their PC in class. However, there is an exception for ECON students in
Q2. 17% of them answered that they used PC every time. This is because these students were in
CALL classes where each student accessed a PC provided by their university.

58

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Graph 3. Results of Q3

Graph 3 shows the results of Q3 (how often did you use Manaba+R?). Similarly to the results ofboth Q1 and Q2, SPORT students lead ECON students in Q3. 93% of SPORT students answered
every week. However, positive results for ECON students are seen here. 49% of ECON students
answered every week and 17% of ECON students answered almost every week. Over 66% of
ECON students checked Manaba+R frequently through the semester.
Graph 4. Results of Q4

Graph 4 shows the results of Q4 (did you have homework through Manaba+R?). Once again,
94% of SPORT students answered every time and only 4 % of SPORT students answered almost
every time. There is an interesting trend for ECON students. While 43% of ECON students
answered every time, 31% of ECON students answered never. This depends on English classes.
Some English classes for ECON did not require students to do homework and thus students did
not have to do their homework on Manaba+R. As for SPORT students, homework was assigned
every week on Manaba+R and thus a quite high ratio of positive answers were seen in thisquestion.

59

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Graph 5. Results of Q5

Graph 5 shows the results of Q5 (did you read messages on Manaba+R?). 45% of SPORT
students answered every time and 34% of SPORT students answered almost every time. In total,
79% of SPORT students frequently read messages by their teachers on Manaba+R. Messages for
SPORT students on Manaba+R were something important for their study, such as some tips fortheir assessments and feedback for their presentations and homework by their teacher. As for
ECON students, 35% of ECON students answered never and 15% answered hardly. Thus 50% of
ECON students negatively answered this question. This is because their teacher did not often post
messages on Manaba+R as Table (shown earlier) in the section of coding actual access shows.
Table 1. Q6: Reasons for Q5- SportSPORT
Positive# ofcomments

%

44

42%

19

18%

9

9%

9

9%

6

6%

6

6%

5

5%

2

2%

The teacher put useful information for this class
It shows some important tips for assignments in this class.
Every week, there is homework to do
To make sure if there is any message or homework
I didn't understand some parts in class but Manaba+R explained them
To download lecture notes
It shows presentations I have to do
If I don't check it, then I'll be in trouble later

Negative55%

It made me annoyed to check it, I was being lazy.
There were too many messages for me and I was being lazy
Explanation in class was enough for me without checking Manaba+R
I don't really know how to use it
I was being lazy

TOTAL 105 comments

Table 1 shows that reasons for Q5. A total of 226 reasons was written (SPORT: 115 and ECON:
121 comments). SPORT students tend to answer positive reasons more than negative reasons.
For instance, 42% of SPORT students said “the teacher put useful information for this class”.
18% of SPORT students said “It shows some important tips for assignments in this class”. These
two reasons suggest that Manaba+R helped student’s study. 9% of SPORT students answered“every week, there is homework to do”. This reason suggests student’s external motivation tocheck Manaba+R. 6% if SPORT students answered “to download lecture notes”. There are also
negative reasons from SPORT students. Mostly they showed their laziness on their answers. For
example, “it made me annoyed to check it, I was being lazy”, “it was too many messages for me
and I was being lazy”.

60The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Table 2. Q6: Reasons for Q5- SportECON
Positive# ofcomments

%

21

17%

14

12%

12

10%

3

2%

To check the class information.
To check test score.
I must submit homework through Manaba+R
Important information was posted on the Web.

Negative
15

12%

14

12%

14

12%

11

9%

I didn't know how to use it, what to do.
No chance to use Manaba+R
No need to check it.
No information was posted.

Comments
17

16%

OthersTOTAL 121comments

As for ECON students, there are both positive and negative reasons. Concerning positive reasons,
17% of ECON students answered “to check the class information”. This is a similar answer to
SPORT student’s “the teacher posted useful information for this class”. 10% ECON students
answered “I must submit homework through Manaba+R”. 12% of ECON students answered “tocheck test score” which was not seen among SPORT students. This is because SPORT students
did not have any test type assessments through their subjects. On the other hand, there were
negative reasons among ECON students. 12% of ECON students said “I didn’t know how to use
it, what to do”. 12% answered “no chance to use Manaba+R” and 12% answered “no need tocheck it”. 9% answered “no information was posted”. There were some reasons such as “I can’t
use computer in class” from ECON students, “I didn’t know how to use Manaba+R” from both
departments.
Graph 6. Results of Q7

Graph 6 shows the answers for Q7 (do you think Manaba+R is useful for your class?) Both
SPORT and ECON students gave positive answers. The total of 97% (61% for strongly agree and
36% for agree) of SPORT students answered this question positively. As for ECON students,
92% (31% for strongly agree and 61% for agree) answered this question positively. Thus basedon the results of this question, students think online course tools are useful for their study.

61

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Graph 7. Results of Q8

Graph 7 shows the answer for Q8 (where do you normally look at Manaba+R?). Interestingly,
both SPORT and ECON students checked Manaba+R at home the most. 61% of SPORT students
and 53% of ECON students answered at home. As for SPORT students, most of them brought
their PC in class as seen in graph 1 they tend to check Manaba+R at home at most. In addition,
19% of them checked Manaba+R outside of their class while only 14% of them checked
Manaba+R in class. This result suggests that although students were able to access to Manaba+R
in class, they did not check it in class. As for ECON students, because most of them did not bring
their PC in class as seen in graph 1, the result of this question makes sense.
Graph 8. Results of Q9Graph 8 shows the results of Q9 (Do you think Manaba+R is useful to communicate with yourteacher?). Both SPORT and ECON students answered this question positively. The total of 83%
of SPORT students (24 % for strongly agree and 59% for agree) see Manaba+R as a usefulcommunication tool with their teacher. Also a total of 81% of ECON students (15% for strongly
agree and 66% for agree) see it as the same way as SPORT students do.
Coding numbers of actual access to Manaba+R by students
Table 3 explains names of subjects which the authors used for this study. For Sport and Health
Science department, although there are only two kinds of subjects, there are seven classes in total(P1: 3 classes and P3: 4 classes). For the Economics department, three kinds of subjects were
examined but the total of six classes are examined (L1:3 classes, CALL1: 1class and Economics
in English: 2 classes)

62

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Table 3. Name of the subjects used for this study
Name of the subjects

Department

P1 (Project English 1 for 1st year students)

Sport & Health Science

P3 (Project English for 2nd year students)

Sport & Health Science

L1 (Listening English 1 for 1st year students)

Economics

CALL1 (for 1st year students)

Economics

Introduction of Economics in English 1 (for 2ndyear students)

Economics

Table 3 summarizes actual access to Manaba+R by students. First of all, there is a trend thatwhen teachers posted messages on Manaba+R, students tend to access to Manaba+R more thanwhen teachers did not post messages (seen as P1: A, B, C, P3: A, B, C, D, E (EEb and EEd)).
Messages on the tables were useful for students to get higher marks on their assignments.
Secondly, when teachers posted homework which was as a part of assessments, students tended
to access to Manaba+R more compared to when teachers did not post homework on Manaba+R(seen as P1: A, B, C, P3:A, B, C, D, E (EEb and EEd)).
Table 4. Rate of access to Manaba+R per student

P1A
P1B
P1C
P3A
P3B
P3C
P3D
D(L1B)
E(English ECON -A）
D(L1A)CALL(LL)
E(English ECON -B）
D(L1B)

Total Access

Access rate of one person/semester

The number of message
posted on the web

The number oftest score posted on Web

The number ofhomework through Web

18373
22010
18343
9367
11213
7771
9566
994
10290
994
17323
5761
819

680
847
679
446
561
409
503
36
165
40
541
156
24

16
14
14
16
16
15
15
0
3
0
0
3
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
25
23
53
23
23

16
15
15
15
15
15
15
0
14
0
69
12
0

Table 4 shows the rate of access to Manaba+R per student through the semester. Students who
access the Internet in class tend to check Manaba+R frequently. For instance, those who are inclasses such as P1: A, B, C, and P3: A, B, C, D and CALL, access Manaba+R over 400 times
through the semester. In these classes, teachers encouraged students to use computers in class.
However, those who are in classes such as D: L1A and B, and EEd did not access Manaba+R
frequently. In these classes, students did not have an opportunity to access their computer in class.
Discussions
First of all, Manaba+R tends to support student’s study, as results of Q6 (reasons for whether
students read messages on Manaba+R?) show. There are positive reasons such as “the teacher put
useful information for this class” and “It shows some important tips for assignments in this class”.
These positive answers suggest that Manaba+R helps students’ learning and it was effectively
used by students.

63

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

On the other hand, there were negative answers such as “I didn’t know how to use it” and “I can’t
use the computer in class”. The authors of this study explained how to use Manaba+R at the
beginning of the semester in class and also students should have had an opportunity to learn how
to use it over orientation week. In order to make sure whether every student understands how to
use online course tools, teachers need to confirm every student knows how to use it at the
beginning of the semester and try to encourage them to use it through the semester. As for thereason “I can’t use computer in class”, it can be a problem for students to use online course tools.
Fortunately, the university where the authors of this study work offers both students and staff free
WIFI connection everywhere on campus. Therefore, those who have a device to go online canuse Manaba+R anywhere on campus. However, some universities do not offer such anenvironment which discourages students to use online course tools. As a result, in order toencourage students to use online course tools, it is important for educational institutions toprovide an environment for students where they can easily access online course tools.
Secondly, based on the results of the numbers of access to Manaba+R by students, there are sometrends of student’s access to Manaba+R. Students tend to access Manaba+R when something,which is related with their final grades, was posted on Manaba+R. For example, when homework,
test results, quizzes and important messages for their assessments are posted on Manaba+R by
their teachers, then students tend to check Manaba+R. This result is a similar result of Rovai’s
study (2003). Rovai (2003) found that when online discussion was adopted as a part of final
grades, students were motivated to post their discussions. He emphasizes the importance ofstudents’ motivation to engage in online discussions. As Rovai explains, students in this study
also showed their motivation to get higher scores or to pass their subjects by checking Manaba+R.
On the other hand, the results of numbers of access Manaba+R showed, when students’ externalmotivation is lost, students tend to miss their opportunity to use these modern technology devices
for their study. In addition, the results of Q7 (Do you think Manaba+R is useful for your classes?)
show that students see the value of usefulness of online course tools for their study. However,once again, the numbers of access to Manaba+R showed, they only tend to use these online
course tools when something which was a part of their final grades was posted by their teachers.
Thirdly, there is another trend that when Manaba+R was not effectively used as a part of course
assessments, students did not tend to check it as much as they were expected. As both figure andtable of actual access to Manaba+R showed, when the teacher posted more important messages,
more access to Manaba+R by students was seen. More homework was posted on Manaba+R,
more access to Manaba+R by students was observed. Thus, based on our results, students’external motivation to use online course tools was important for them to use online course tools.
As Sánchez (2004) claimed, the teacher can be a determining factor for utilization of WebCT. In
other words, it is important for teachers to use online course tools effectively and frequently. In
particular, as the results of coding numbers of actual access showed, when teachers use online
course tools as a part of course assessments, these online course tools tend to be used effectively
by students.
Fourthly, there was a trend that when computers are available for students in class , where either,computers are provided in class or students are encouraged to bring their own computer to classby their teachers, students tend to check Manaba+R more than those who do not accesscomputers in class. The results of Q8 on our questionnaires (Where do you normally look at
Manaba+R?) show that many students in this study are able to access Manaba+R outside of thecampus. This is probably because many students own their mobile phones which allow them touse internet almost anywhere as long as internet is available. However, the results of Q 8 alsosuggest that both SPORT and ECON students tended to miss opportunity to use online course
tools in class. In particular, most of SPORT students had their own PC in class but they did notsee much online course tools.
64

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

In addition, the university where the authors of this study work, offers both staff and students free
Wi-Fi anywhere on campus. Therefore, students can connect to Internet on campus as long as
they have access to computers. As the results showed, in the environment where free Internet
connection is available, when teachers encourage students to use online course tools in class,students tend to use online course tools. Thus, it is important for teachers to utilize theenvironment where online course tools are available in order to encourage students to use them.
Conclusion
This study investigated the use of online course tools by Japanese university students. In order tocollect data, both questionnaires and coding numbers of actual access to the online course tool
were used. There were two aims of this study. Firstly, this study investigated what extent students
actually used Manaba+R through the semester. Secondly, it tried to find suggestions of howteachers could promote their students to maximize making use of Manaba+R. Results of bothquestionnaires and coding numbers of access to Manaba+R give answers for the aims.
The results of questionnaires showed many positive answers by participants in this study. Manyof students answered that Manaba+R was useful for their subjects and was a useful tool tocommunicate with their teachers. In particular, many of SPORT students in this study answeredthat messages on Manaba+R were important for their assessments and therefore they read thosemessages.
Coding numbers of access to Manaba+R showed some interesting results. First of all, whenteachers posted messages considered useful for assessments of the course, students tended to readthese messages. However, when teachers did not post those messages on the online course tool,
students did not tend to check them. Secondly, when homework was part of the assessments
towards the final grade, students tended to access Manaba+R. However, when homework was notposted to Manaba+R, then students did not tend to access to it. As a result, to use online course
tools effectively for the class, it is important for teachers to extract students’ external motivation.
It is also important for educational institutions to create an environment for students where theycan easily get access to online course tools.

65

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

References
Burgess, L. A. (2003). WebCT as an e-learning tool: A study of technology students’ perceptions.
Journal of Technology Education, 15(1). Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v15n1/burgess.html.
Harris, J. (1999). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3),54-75.
Mende, R. (1999). Learner reactions to college English on WebCT, ERIC Document
Reproduction, Service no. ED 437997.
Morss, D. A. (1999). A study of student perspectives on Web-based learning: WebCT in theclassroom. Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 9(5), 393-408.
Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., and Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoptionof WebCT using TAM. Computer & Education, 48(2), 250-267. Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.007.
Petriedes, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating
learning experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instruction
al Media, 29(1), 69-77.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issue of interaction, presence, andperformance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40
Rovai, A. P. (2003). Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions andclassroom community in Internet-based university courses. Journal of Computing in higher
Education. 15(1), 89-107.
Willett, H. G. (2002). Hybrid course delivery using WebCT. The Electric Library, 20(5), 413-419
Storey, M. A., Phillips, B., Maczewski, M., & Wang, M. (2002). Evaluating the usability of Webbased learning tools. Educational Technology & Society, 5(3), 91-100.
Hagler, B. E. (2004). WebCT Can Benefit You and Your Students. Journal of Adult Education,
33(2), 24-29.
Sánchez, R. A., Hueros, A. D., & Ordaz, M. G. (2013). E-learning and the University of Huelva:
a study of WebCT and the technological acceptance model. Campus-Wide Information
Systems, 30(2), 135-160.

66