Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using learning management systems in business and economics studies in Hungarian higher education

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores all uses of LMS in teaching Business Mathematics in Hungarian undergraduate training from the point of view of the instructors. Since no similar survey had been carried out in Hungary earlier, the aim was to fill in this gap and to investigate which LMS systems are being used by the instructors, to what specific purposes and how intensively. The importance of this study is that it highlights the local correlations and shortcomings thus making the adoption of LMS systems in Business Mathematics more effective. The survey was carried out by using questionnaires compiled by the author (survey method). All the institutions of Business Mathematics were questioned, one instructor in each (N = 28), so the data survey was comprehensive. The results of the article show that the proportion of instructors using LMS systems in undergraduate Business Mathematics training is lower than might be expected from the literature. Correlations have been demonstrated (elements characteristic of the country) with which the phenomena can be explained. This study shows – consistent with other studies – that LMS was commonly used by instructors for text-based communication and for delivering text-based learning materials. Even special tools and activities supporting mathematics are used for such purposes in a small number of cases; solutions outside the scope of LMS are used in a larger proportion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The percentages are based on the number of the offering institutions.

  2. These SIS systems are not used only in Hungary but in institutions beyond the border.

References

  • Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5, 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arroway, P., Davenport, E., Xu, G., & Updegrove, D. (2010). EDUCASE core data service fiscal year 2009 summary report. EDUCASE.

  • Aydin, E. (2005). The use of computers in mathematics education: A paradigm. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, pp. 27–34.

  • Babo, R., & Azevedo, A. (2009). Learning Management Systems usage on Higher Education Institutions. 13th IBIMA Conference - Knowledge Management and Innovation in Advancing Economies: Analyses & Solutions, (pp. 883–889).

  • Babo, R., & Azevedo, A. (2012). Higher education institutions and learning management systems: Adoption and standardization. United States of America: Information Science Reference.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 98–118.

  • Bell, M., & Bell, W. (2005). It’s installed… now get on with it! Looking beyond the software to the cultural change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O'Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online: a survey of online education and services in Australia. Canberra: Australian Capital Territory: DEST.

  • Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M., Carter, J., Fitzsimons, D., Graham, J., Hurlbut, N., Marshall, D., et al. (2007). Learning management system evaluation report. Executive summary. Berlin: Humboldt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, T., Jenkins, M., & Walker, R. (2006). A longitudinal perspective regarding the use of VLEs by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, T., Hewitt, R., Jenkins, M., & Walker, R. (2008). 2008 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Cambridge: Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B., Carmean, C., & Wagner, E. D. (2009). The Evolution of the LMS: From Management to Learning - Deep Analysis of Trends Shaping the Future of e-Learning. Sage Road Solutions, LLC.

  • Ellis, R. A., Ginns, P., & Piggott, L. (2009). E-learning in higher education: Some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(3), 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrotte, R., & Pettersson, T. (2007). Lecturers’ attitudes about the use of learning management systems in engineering education: A Swedish case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 327–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrotte, J., & Pettersson, T. (2011). The use of learning management systems: A Longitudinal Case Study. E-Learning and Education, 8(1).

  • Heaton-Shrestha, C., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., & Linsey, T. (2005). Introducing a VLE into campus-based undergraduate. International Journal of Educational Research, 370–386.

  • Jenkins, M., Browne, T., Walker, R., & Hewitt, R. (2011). The development of technology enhanced learning: findings from a 2008 survey of UK higher education institutions. Interactive Learning Environments, 19, 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2000). E-Learning Glossary. Accessed 09 01, 2012, from Learning Circuits: http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.html.

  • Kulcsár, Z. (2009). Az integratív e-learning felé. Accessed 08 15, 2012, from Crescendo: http://www.crescendo.hu/files/konyvek/kulcsar-zsolt-az-integrativ-e-learning-fele.pdf.

  • Lane, L. M. (2007, 09 17). Course Management Systems and Pedagogy. Accessed 12 30, 2012., from http://lisahistory.net/pages/CMSandPedagogy.htm.

  • Larsen, T. J., Sørebø, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2009). The role of task-technology fit as users’ motivation to continue information system use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 778–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. (2008). Understanding information systems continuance: The case of Internet-based learning technologies. Information and Management, 45, 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, M. (2007). Why don’t all lecturers make use of VLEs? What can the so-called “Laggards” tell us? London: Institute of Education, University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llamas-Nistal, M., Caeiro-Rodriguez, M., & Castro, M. (2011). Educational metadata and brokerage for learning resources. IIEE Transactions on Education, 54(4).

  • Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51, 142–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matusu, R., Vojtesek, J., & Dulik, T. (2012). Technology-Enhanced Learning Tools: A survey of Use in European Higher Education. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Application (10), 316–326.

  • Neptun home page. (2012, 05 01). Accessed 05 01, 2012, from The SDA Zrt’s web site: http://www.sdakft.hu/.

  • Registered Moodle sites. (2013, 05 28). Accessed 05 28, 2013, from Moodle community site: http://moodle.org.

  • Renzi, S. (2008). Differences in university teaching after Learning Management System adoption: an explanatory model based on Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior. Unpublished PhD Thesis.

  • Robinson, M., & Ally, M. (2009). Transition to e-Learning in a Gulf Arab Country. The 2nd Annual Forum on e-Learning Excellence in the Middle East. Dubai.

  • Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., & Francis, R. (2006). Implementing a university e-learning strategy: Levers for change within academic schools. The Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 14(2), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The webpage of Educatio Social Service Company Ltd. founded by the Ministry of Human Resources. (2011, 09 02). Accessed 09 20, 2011, from Felvételi 2011: www.felvi.hu.

  • Unger, M., & Wrobleski, A. (2006). Neue Medien im Studium. Ergebnisse der Studierenden-Sozialerhebung. Accessed 10 15, 2012, from Studierenden Sozialerhebung: http://ww2.sozialerhebung.at/Ergebnisse/PDF/sozialerhebung_2006_neue_medien.pdf.

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: For longitudinal feld studies. Journal Management Science, 186–204.

  • Vig, Z. (2012, 11 14). Hibrid megoldás egy régi problémára. Accessed 11 26, 2012, from Eduline: http://eduline.hu/felsooktatas/2012/11/14/Blended_learning_OPZRHX.

  • Walker, D. (2006). Evaluation of virtual learning environments in higher education sector (Scotland). In G. Ward (Ed.), Flexible delivery: An evaluation of the use of the virtual learning environment in higher education across Scotland (pp. 8–24). Mansfield (UK): The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, B. (2004). Open Source 2007: How Did This Happen? EDUCAUSE Review, 12–27.

  • Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: part 2. Journal of Modelling and Management, 281–304.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Methodology, Edutus College, 11-13. Villányi út, 1114, Budapest, Hungary

    Judit T. Nagy

Authors
  1. Judit T. Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judit T. Nagy.

Appendices

Appendix I

Table 2 Variables derived from data of Ministry of Human Resources (The webpage of Educatio Social Service Company Ltd. founded by the Ministry of Human Resources 2011)
Full size table

Appendix II

Table 3 Variables derived from the questionnaire
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

T. Nagy, J. Using learning management systems in business and economics studies in Hungarian higher education. Educ Inf Technol 21, 897–917 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9360-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9360-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation