Japanese University Students
andLearning Management Systems
Charlotte.V.T.Murakami
Fukuoka University, Kyushu, Japan
charlotte.v.t.murakami@gmail.com

Traditional Model
Uni Course ---- PAPER BASED ----- Home
•Expensive•Disconnected•Unsustainable

Blended Learning Model
Uni Course ------ IT ------- Home
•Far less expensive•Connected•Arguably more sustainable•Arguably enhances engagement

Learning Management System(LMS)• ‘LMS is a form of technology used by instructors
to build and manage courses’ (OECD, 2005)• History – PLATO (1960s)• Today – 97.5% diffusion in tertiary educational
institutions in the UK/USA Hawkins & Rudy,2008)• Multimedia & Multiple Functions.

What makes LMS usage
successful?
FOUR KEY CATEGORIES (Selim,2007)• IT• University Support• Lecturers• Students *Current OECD focus: studentengagement

The question ofstudent satisfaction =Willingness to use LMS.
• North America/Europe/ Parts of Asia/ Australasia– Higher rates of LMS engagement/ satisfaction• Middle East – Lower rates of LMS engagement/satisfaction, Al-Jarf (2009) and Al-Naddabi(2007)

What about Japanese Students?
INVESTIGATION CONTEXT• Middle ranking ‘regional magnet’ university(23,000 students)• A4 paper and printing costs 126,000,000 JPY perannum (2014-2015)• Moodle usage(hardly anyone uses/trained for)maintenance 1,000,000 JPY per annum

LMS: Coursebase• Online• Simple ‘Tabula Rasa’ interface• Bilingual• Messaging system but no discussion board• Enables use of multimedia• Enables language proficiency/access tracking

Example: R&L Course• 10 asynchronous reading assignments withsupporting images/video (50%)

ASSIGNMENT• 10 closed items designed to support
comprehension (10 points)• Open written response to reading item (5 points)• Self-selected but related listening activity.
Answers pasted into the LMS. (10 points)

INVESTIGATION• N = 458 (64.6% Humanities, 35.4% Science)• Mean age 19.2 (SD = 0.84)• English courses: 53.5% ESP / 32.8% R&L /13.8% IA
• Yes/No and 1-4 scale Likert Survey• Survey Instrument Reliability – Cronbach’s Alpha0.78• Factor analysis

Survey
CLOSED ITEMS• Students’ course/major• IT education/ LMS experience• LMS Access/ support habits• LMS Ease-of-use• Willingness to use

OPEN ITEMS• Student Views

FINDINGS N=458
TERM START• 65% - Difficult to use LMS

TERM END• 30% - Still difficult to use LMSLMS Proficiency Issues• 60% - Did not know how to insert or attach
weblinks/images/audio files/etc and post amessage.

Willingness to Use N=458
I do not wish to use the LMS in my otherlanguage courses.
• Approx. 30% Disagreed / 30% Agreed
I wish other courses in my department usedthe LMS.
• Approx. 40% Disagreed/ 20% Agreed
I’d rather do paper assignments and have
paper info.
• Approx. 50% agreed/ 20% disagreed (*60%LMS content very useful)WHAT WAS SIGNIFICANT?
• JHS and SHS IT education = Increased LMS
proficiency score.
• Students who received IT education at ES andhave keyboarding skills = Less likely to wish toremain paper based.
• Noticeable correlation between scholastically
adept students and LMS satisfaction.
• Lecturer’s LMS induction = Frequency of accessto the LMS.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS• Only minority adapted well.
• 22.3% students had never received any form of IT
education.
• Only 77.1% received IT education from ES• Only 10.5% could use a keyboard with ease.
• IT illiterate students used smart phones to access
LMS = problematic.
• Student IQ problematicKey Considerations
Can students acclimatize to blended
learning over time? Key factors.
• Peer Satisfaction/Influence• Improving IT education in primary/secondary
education• Large numbers of IT illiterate teachers in stateschool system• Students complaining about LMS usage on
university assessments about teachers hinders
usage.

What can we learn fromstudents’ responses?
Take proactive steps
Improve IT induction / education (notablykeyboarding skills)
Modify LMS interface – Simplify?

FUTURE RESEARCH
Effect of Assignment design
Acclimatisation?