All the talk about learning management systems (LMS) around the office lately reminded me of a dataset a couple of colleagues and I put together last year. Dr. Florence Martin, Dr. Yuyan Su, and I undertook the task of validating an instrument to measure LMS self-efficacy.
Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as beliefs in one’s abilities to carry out a desired course of action. I’ll spare you the details of orthogonal exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
One of the many variables we decided to examine was whether student LMS self-efficacy was a predictor of course performance. After all, is not learning the primary motivation for using a learning management system?
Reported self-efficacy was generally low. However, students enrolled in hybrid courses reported significantly lower self-efficacy than students in face-to-face or fully online courses. In addition, for students enrolled in hybrid courses, we found a significant positive correlation of LMS self-efficacy with course performance.
It is perplexing that a significant positive correlation occurred only for the hybrid learners. One would think that the use of the LMS as a supplement to face-to-face instruction would require less confidence with the system than in a course in which all content is delivered though the LMS.
Hybrid learners often had the option to enroll in a fully online version of the course but self-selected into the hybrid version. Is this due in part to their lower self-efficacy with the LMS? Or does it mean there is a baseline competence with LMS use required for success, but once that level is perceived to be reached, greater self-efficacy with the system is not required?
Finally, the only instrument category that did not yield a significant difference between modes of delivery was “Accessing Information.” This section included items like logging in to the LMS, navigating a course site, accessing text-based class materials and grades, etc. This was also the highest rated category for self-efficacy. We hypothesize that this finding is an indication of the predominant use of a LMS throughout each student’s experience. As suggested by Bandura (1997), the formation of self-efficacy beliefs is based primarily on reflection on and interpretation of past performance.
In my pervious post, I referenced the Raslton-Berg & Nath (2009) report that says students are uninterested in the bells and whistles in online courses. But consider further the abundance of media-comparison “studies” and no-significant-difference studies that essentially nullify each other.
Is it possible that students actually do like the bells and whistles but lack the confidence to learn from them?
What a pickle.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Ralston-Berg, P. & Nath, L. (2009). What Makes a Quality Online Course? The Student Perspective. Paper presented at Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.
I am an online student and for me the bells and whistles are a nice addition to the learning experience. I don’t lack the confidence to learn from them but most of the time the instructions are sadly lacking. Overall I would rather be going down the hill on a bobsled than a trash can lid.
Mr. Tutty,
I found your posting very interesting. I’m currently a full online student, but if the option for hybrid classes were available, I would most definitely prefer it. I believe that I learn more in a face-to-face class, but enjoy the flexibility of having my assignments online. I consider myself to be a strong self efficacy individual, and with online couses, I believe that I have control over my success more than if I were in a classroom full time.
Thank you for this posting.
T. Williams
I administer our online programs for University. Your posting was very interesting. I theorize that the student population that chooses hybrid courses because might be unsure of what to expect pedagogically and find out too late that it format doesn’t match their learning style. In essence they get caught between the learning formats.
J. Wise