Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teachingand Learning: Faculty Perceptions
Talal Mohammad Al Meajel1 • Talha Abdullah Sharadgah2
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017
Abstract In this digital age, the success of faculty members in adopting technology
definitely affects the success of their students and ultimately the educational institution.
However, there are many who have not incorporated technology tools such as Blackboard
into their courses. Therefore, this paper investigated faculty perceptions of barriers to using
the Blackboard system in teaching and learning. This study was conducted at King Saud
University in Saudi Arabia during the 2015/2016 academic year. An online questionnaire
was circulated to 117 faculty members in order to determine how they perceive barriers to
using Blackboard. Findings of the study showed that academic rank, experience, gender,
and training had statistically significant effects on faculty perceptions regarding barriers to
using Blackboard in teaching and learning. However, there were no statistically significant
differences on faculty perceptions regarding barriers to the utilization of Blackboard
triggered by the use or non-use of Blackboard. The current study also showed that
‘technological barriers’ and ‘institutional barriers’ were the most highly identified barriers
among the four categories of barriers explored in this study. The student barriers category
came as a third important factor, while the faculty barriers category ranked at the lower
end.
Keywords Blackboard � Barriers � Faculty perceptions � Use or non-use
of Blackboard � Teaching and learning
& Talal Mohammad Al [email protected]; [email protected]
Talha Abdullah [email protected]; [email protected]
1 Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, King Saud University,P.O. Box: 2458, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2 AlKharj Community College, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University,P.O. Box: 1866, AlKharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
123
Tech Know LearnDOI 10.1007/s10758-017-9323-2
1 Introduction
There are a plethora of technological applications that support the educational process in
higher education institutions. Such technological amenities have all the makings of
transforming these educational institutions from a traditional learning environment to a
technological environment based on creativity and interaction. Learning Management
Systems or what is also called Course Management Systems ‘‘[have] been adopted by
many institutions due to [their] ubiquity, easiness, and accessibility’’ (Mohsen 2014,
p. 108). Blackboard is one of the major prevalent Learning Management Systems adopted
by universities (Chang 2008). Blackboard is defined as ‘‘software package designed to help
educators create quality online courses’’ (Choy et al. 2005, p. 130).
The Blackboard system is increasingly popular among colleges and universities across
the globe. The system has many features that support teaching and learning (Al-Naibi et al.
2015). One of these features is its ability to promote ‘‘interaction between students’’ and
their professor ‘‘as well as among students’’ (Al-Naibi et al. 2015). The system also
provides great opportunities to engage students in learning outside the classroom anywhere
and at any time (D’silva and Reeder 2005) using various tools provided for the students to
access the course contents and interact with them.
For faculty, Blackboard consists of helpful tools to manage the content of the courses in
a flexible manner. It allows professors to build electronic interactive courses and manage
tasks like assignments, tests, scores, course outline, sending and receiving emails, and
announcements to students. The Blackboard system also enables the professors the ability
to divide the students into groups, and allows immediate live-chat among the members of
the groups, with the ability for professors to manage these live-chats. In addition, the
system affords the feature of following up students by giving the professors the ability to
track the number of times the students access the system and make use of the materials
placed on Blackboard and producing reports about that.
Notwithstanding the merits of Blackboard, there are many faculty members who do not
use Blackboard in their courses. Based on a study conducted by the Higher Education
Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the United States,
Bennett and Bennett (2003) stated that 80% of universities make Blackboard available to
their faculty, but only 20% of the faculty adopted the system. The gap between Blackboard
adoption and Blackboard poor usage in teaching and learning has been noted by many
researchers (Jones and Moller 2002; Zirkle 2002; Woods et al. 2004; Sneller 2004;
Schoepp 2005; Allen and Seaman 2008; Nichols 2011). There is an agreement among
researchers that Blackboard is still underutilized by faculty members for different kinds of
barriers. One obstacle highlighted by researchers impeding the utilization of Blackboard is
resistance to change. Many faculty members are reluctant to use blackboard because they
are reluctant to change their style of teaching (Al-Shboul 2013). Lack of time that is
needed to deliver courses via Blackboard was also cited as a primary barrier by faculty
members (Allen and Seaman 2008). Other salient reasons underpinning faculty non-use of
Blackboard included the need for professional training for faculty and lack of institutional
support (Butler and Sellbom 2002; Zirkle 2002; Sneller 2004).
Schoepp (2004, p. 3) has listed the most frequently mentioned barriers to using tech-
nology including unavailability of laptops or desktops, unavailability of software quality,
weak computer skills, ‘‘lack of time, technical problems,’’ professors’ attitudes towards
computer use, ‘‘lack of confidence, resistance to change, poor administrative support,’’
rareness of incentives, scarcity of funding, poor ‘‘fit with the curriculum, scheduling
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
difficulties, poor training opportunities, and lack of vision as to how to integrate.’’ Rogers
(2000) attempted to categorize barriers according to internal and external barriers. Internal
barriers are those related to ‘‘attitude’’, ‘‘perceptions’’ about technology, and ‘‘compe-
tency’’ with technology such as lack of confidence, dearth of time, absence of skills, and
absence of vision. Whereas external barriers include those related to hardware, software,
technical support, institutional support, and training programs.
Practically, the Blackboard system is not sufficiently integrated into the teaching and
learning by the faculty at King Saud University, even though the university has made it
available since 2011. The percentage of usage at King Saud University is similar to the
results presented by Bennett and Bennett (2003). The survey which was implemented by
the researchers revealed that the percentage of those who do not adopt the Blackboard
system (82.1%) is clearly very high. Therefore, there is a pressing need to study the barriers
that limit the use of Blackboard because this may provide guidance for ways to overcome
these barriers.
The current paper, however, focuses on investigating faculty perceived barriers to using
the Blackboard system in teaching and learning. To achieve this, the researchers posed
three questions:
• RQ1: Are there any statistically significant differences on faculty perceptions to using
Blackboard due to demographic variables, including academic rank, teaching
experience, gender, use or non-use, and training?
• RQ2: What are the perceived barriers to using the Blackboard system commonly
reported by faculty who use the system?
• RQ3: What are the perceived barriers to using the Blackboard system commonly
reported by faculty who do not use the system?
The importance of this research lies in its attempt to delineate an existing problem at
King Saud University regarding barriers to using Blackboard according to both users and
non-users, inside and outside the classroom. Therefore, the survey of barriers to using
Blackboard is extremely valuable because the results that can be elicited could provide
guidance for ways to overcome these barriers. Also, continual progress in technology used
to deliver courses to students online, necessitates ongoing evaluation to ensure its effec-
tiveness, utilization, faculty/student satisfaction (Tella 2011), and so to learn about barriers
hindering the use of this technology. Additionally, students will benefit from this study,
where the goal is to improve the teaching and learning process using Learning Manage-
ment Systems, such as Blackboard. Similarly, administrators and specialists in the Saudi
universities in general and King Saud University in particular may draw benefits from
findings of this study in taking practical actions to reduce the barriers that may prevent a
large number of faculty members from using the Blackboard.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
A random sample of faculty was selected from King Saud University. A total of 160 were
invited to respond to the questionnaire, out of which 117 (73.1%) responded. Participants
included faculty members from different departments and colleges, who were teaching
undergraduate courses in the fall of 2015/2016. The Majority of participants were from the
College of Humanities and the College of Education. The sample body was relatively
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teaching and…
123
balanced with respect to gender distribution: 54.7% were male faculty, and 45.3% were
female. The participants’ years of age ranged from 30 to 60. The decision regarding the
purposeful choice of the university was based on the availability of the Blackboard system
since 2011, and also because faculty members showed willingness to participate in this
study.
2.2 Instrument
Based upon a careful review of the literature, an online questionnaire containing 38 items
was prepared to gather the information needed for the current paper from faculty in the
colleges of King Saud University. The questionnaire was split into three parts. The first
part was intended to collect demographic data from faculty in terms of academic rank,
teaching experience, gender, use or non-use, and training. The second part contained
detailed items focused on barriers to using Blackboard. Items have been assessed in four
categories, incorporating (1) institutional barriers, (2) faculty barriers, (3) technological
barriers, and (4) student barriers. The third part included an open-ended question aimed to
elicit from faculty possible unexpected barriers that may hinder their use of Blackboard.
The questionnaire was intended to collect information on faculty perceptions about
barriers to using the Blackboard system. The questionnaire was distributed in Arabic and
English because most of the staff members at King Saud University were native speakers
of Arabic. The online questionnaire allowed faculty to switch to the language they felt
more comfortable with. The questionnaire employed a five-point Likert-scale (the item is
not a barrier: strongly disagree = 1 and disagree = 2; unable to decide: neutral = 3; the
item is a barrier: agree = 4 and strongly agree = 5) to indicate the degree to which each
of the barriers affects Blackboard usage.
2.3 Procedures
To assert the content validity of the questionnaire, it was shown to a group of specialists,
university professors and experienced instructors. The panel of referees was asked to
evaluate the items of the questionnaire in terms of appropriateness and clarity for assessing
barriers to using Blackboard. The questionnaire was produced in English and later trans-
lated into Arabic. The Arabic version was also sent to experts in Arabic language to revise
it. To achieve the reliability of the instrument the questionnaire was then piloted by 10
faculty members, who shared similar characteristics with the real sample. Based on the
faculty members’ feedback, some items were modified and a final questionnaire was
created. To determine the internal reliability of the questionnaire items, Cronbach’s alpha
was calculated .8437, indicating a relatively high degree of internal consistency.
For implementing the questionnaire, an email via university email containing the URL
of the online questionnaire was sent by the researchers to a random sample of faculty
engaged in teaching courses during the 2015/2016 academic year at King Saud University.
Faculty members were informed that their completion of the survey was voluntary, and that
they had the right to choose to complete the questionnaire or to refrain from it. Faculty
members were given a week’s time to complete the questionnaire and return it to one of the
researchers.
The selection of participants included both faculty members who use the Blackboard
system as well as those who do not in order to determine comprehensive perspectives of
how faculty members perceive barriers to using the Blackboard system. Faculty members
were selected using simple random sampling. The process was done by placing the names
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
of faculty members on slips of paper in a box, mixing them and then picking the required
number of faculty.
2.4 Data Analysis
The results were statistically analyzed using the ‘Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS, IBM version 16).’ Statistical methods involved descriptive analyses of means,
standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages to interpret the data collected about
barriers to using Blackboard. Further, one-way ANOVA and t test were employed to
examine the significance of the difference in mean scores and the relationships among the
demographic variables.
The questionnaire items were analyzed as continuous (interval) variables as long as
there were five options measured in a scale: (strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; unable
to decide/neutral = 3; agree = 4 and strongly agree = 5), and the intervals between points
were approximately equal. In such cases, means and standard deviation are reported for
each of the Likert-scale items. Blunch 2008, p. 83 (as cited in Taylor 2011, p. 137)
confirms that treating self-administered questionnaires (e.g. online questionnaires) that are
designed to measure interval responses (e.g. the Likert scale) as continuous variables ‘‘is
most realistic’’ if the scale contains at least five values and the intervals between values are
equally spaced.
For this study, No missing data occurred in the 117 participants, who are included in the
analysis. The online questionnaire prevented data from missingness. It was not possible for
faculty members to skip a question. All questions has to be answered, otherwise partici-
pants cannot send the questionnaire to the researchers, so missing values due to the par-
ticipants were eliminated by this type of questionnaires.
3 Findings
3.1 Demographic Information
Faculty members were asked to answer a series of demographic questions. The demo-
graphic section contained questions related to the following: (1) academic rank; (2)
teaching experience; (3) gender; (4) use or non-use of Blackboard; (5) Blackboard training.
3.1.1 Academic Rank
Faculty members were asked to provide their academic rank, out of the 117 respondents,
there were 20 (17.1%) full professors, 48 (41.0%) associate professors, and 49 (41.9%)
assistant professors.
Results show a slight variance found in the means of faculty according to academic rank.
There were differences in the mean scores attained by full professor (M = 3.15, SD = .202),
associate professor (M = 3.10, SD = .008), and assistant professor (M = 3.20, SD = .217).
One-way ANOVA was conducted to find out whether the differences that existed between
mean scores were statistically significant.
There were statistically significant differences according to academic rank in favor of
assistant professor, F (2,114) = 3.939, p = .022, g2p = .065. The Levene’s test for equality
of variances was used to determine if means have equal variances and which post hoc test
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teaching and…
123
would be used. The results of Levene’s test showed that the variances among academic
rank groups were equal. On the basis of that result, the Scheffe post hoc test is used to
determine significant differences between the means. The Scheffe post hoc test confirms
that there is a significant difference between the faculty members according to the aca-
demic rank in favor of the assistant professor (p = .022). This indicates that assistant
professors identify more barriers to using Blackboard more than both the full professor and
the associate professor.
3.1.2 Teaching Experience
The participants were also required to provide the number of years of experience they had
in teaching. Among the participants, 36 (30.8%) had 15 years or less of experience, and 81
(69.2%) had more than 15 years of experience.
Results show a variation in mean scores of faculty according to teaching experience.
The variation in mean scores of faculty with 15 years or less of teaching experience
(M = 3.21, SD = .209) and faculty with more than 15 years of teaching (M = 3.13,
SD = .140) was statistically significant in favor of faculty with 15 years or less of work
experience, t (115) = 2.401, p = .018, Cohen’s d = 0.44, indicating a small effect size.
3.1.3 Gender
In terms of the gender of faculty, out of the 117 participants, there were 64 (54.7%) males
and 53 (45.3%) females.
The statistical results show a little variation in mean scores of male (M = 3.19,
SD = .217) and female (M = 3.10, SD = .016) faculty. The results of the t test was found
to be statistically significant based on gender in favor of male faculty, t (115) = 3.133,
p = .002. Cohen’s d = 0.58, representing a medium effect size.
3.1.4 Use or Non-use of Blackboard
Faculty members were also asked to provide a yes or no answer for whether or not they use
the Blackboard system. Of the 117 faculty, 21 (17.9%) of the respondents answered
‘‘YES’’, and 96 (82.1%) answered ‘‘NO’’.
Results show very little difference in mean scores of users (M = 3.19, SD = .080) and
non-users (M = 3.14, SD = .180). The results of the t-test indicate that there was no statis-
tically significant difference between Blackboard users and non-users, t (115) = 1.256,
p = .212. Cohen’s d = 0.23, indicating a small effect size.
3.1.5 Blackboard Training
In the last demographic question, faculty members were asked to provide a yes/no answer
for whether or not they had attended a Blackboard training course. Results for this question
showed that 107 (91.5%) of the respondents did attend a Blackboard training, while 10
(8.5%) said they did not.
Results reveal a variation in mean scores of faculty according to Blackboard training.
The t-test results show that the variation in mean scores of faculty who did not attend
training (M = 3.46, SD = .049) is higher than those who attended (M = 3.12,
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
SD = .462). The variation is statistically significant in favor of faculty who did not attend
training, t (115) = 7.482, p = .000. Cohen’s d = - 1, showing a large effect size.
3.2 Users of Blackboard
To address the second question, ‘‘What are the perceived barriers to using the Blackboard
system that are commonly reported by faculty who use the system?’’ A 38-item ques-
tionnaire was given to faculty to gain a better understanding of which barriers were
identified as barriers according to Blackboard users. The barriers have been grouped into
four categories: (1) institutional barriers, (2) faculty barriers, (3) technological barriers, and
(4) student barriers. Mean scores and standard deviations of respondents were calculated.
Table 1 reports the results of Blackboard barriers based on the four categories in
descending order in accordance with the value of mean scores.
Table 1 above shows that the total mean score of faculty perceptions for the four
categories was (M = 3.19, SD = .080). Technological barriers had the highest score
(M = 3.95, SD = .087). This is followed by the institutional barriers (M = 3.78,
SD = .044). The student barriers category ranked third (M = 2.78, SD = 0.044). The
faculty barriers category ranked fourth (M = 2.77, SD = .134).
3.3 Non-users of Blackboard
Regarding the last question, ‘‘What are the perceived barriers to using the Blackboard
system commonly reported by faculty who do not use the system?’’ Mean scores and
standard deviations of non-users were calculated. Table 2 displays results of Blackboard
barriers based on the four categories in descending order in accordance with the value of
mean scores.
Based on the data shown in Table 2 above, the overall mean score of faculty perceptions
of Blackboard barriers for the four categories was (M = 3.14, SD = .18). Institutional
barriers had the highest score (M = 3.85, SD = .221). This is followed by technological
barriers (M = 3.61, SD = .040). The student barriers category ranked third (M = 2.95,
SD = .261). At the bottom end of the scale was faculty barriers category (M = 2.57,
SD = .139).
4 Discussion
There were some commonalities between faculty members with respect to barriers to using
the Blackboard system. However, there were also many points of difference among them.
This section presents the perceived barriers to using Blackboard by the faculty members at
King Saud University. The discussion further presents the differences in perceived barriers
in terms of demographic information including academic rank, teaching experience,
gender, use or non-use of Blackboard, and attendance of training courses.
Results of the study indicated that faculty perceptions of barriers to using Blackboard
significantly differed by academic rank, in favor of assistant professors having shown less
proclivity towards using Blackboard. In fact, this difference might be imputable to the fact
that the lower the academic rank of faculty members the more barriers they encounter in
using Blackboard. This result was also seen to be in unison with teaching experience,
which was also statistically significant in favor of faculty who had fifteen years or less of
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teaching and…
123
experience. This suggested that faculty with greater years of teaching experience appeared
to have fewer barriers than faculty who had less than fifteen years of experience, and thus it
can be concluded that teaching experience has an effect on faculty perceptions to using
Blackboard. Obviously, experienced faculty had developed their own techniques to
overcome some barriers to adopting this technology. In addition, assistant professors are
likely to have a higher workload than associate professors and full professors. This may
explain why they may lack time to develop instruction using the Blackboard system. To
some extent this is compatible with the findings of Eldridge’s study (2014) and Al-Naibi
et al. (2015), who suggested that less experienced faculty members had the greatest rate of
non-users to users of Blackboard (Rogers 2000). Nevertheless, the results from this study
seems to be inconsistent with previous studies (Al-Senaidi et al. 2009; Alharbi and Drew
2014).
This study also found out that faculty perceptions of Blackboard barriers differed sig-
nificantly by gender. Male respondents were likely to experience more barriers than
females. Surprisingly, despite the similarity of the circumstances for both genders, sig-
nificant differences were detected between male and female faculty. A possible explana-
tion may be that females are more cautious and pay more attention to using Blackboard
(DeNeui and Dodge 2006). Also, it may be the case that male faculty members hold more
negative attitudes towards the usage of the blackboard than females do (Woods et al.
2004). Furthermore, the cultural factor in Arab countries and restrictions on females may
get the females to find in technology a way to open up to the world, and this may enhance
their use of Blackboard. In the Middle East, society rules of interaction and communication
for females are very strict. ‘‘With all these restrictions, technology could help overcome
these cultural limitations, barriers and challenges by providing alternate means of
Table 1 Means and standard deviation of Blackboard barriers based on the four categories according tousers of Blackboard
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation
Technological barriers 21 4 4 3.95 .087
Institutional barriers 21 4 4 3.78 .044
Students barriers 21 3 3 2.78 .044
Faculty barriers 21 3 3 2.77 .134
Total 21 3 3 3.19 .080
Table 2 Means and standard deviation of Blackboard barriers based on the four categories according tonon-users of Blackboard
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation
Institutional barriers 96 4 5 3.85 .221
Technological barriers 96 4 4 3.61 .040
Students barriers 96 3 4 2.95 .261
Faculty barriers 96 3 3 2.57 .139
Total 96 3 4 3.14 .180
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
interaction, communication and collaboration without dramatically altering the respected
and traditional social and cultural norms.’’ (Al-Fadhli 2008). These findings are consistent
with the findings of a great deal of earlier studies (Houtz and Gupta 2001; Al-Senaidi et al.
2009; Vrazalic et al. 2010). However, this study clashes with studies that found no sig-
nificant differences in Blackboard utilization based on gender (Al-Mashaqbeh 2009;
Nichols 2011; Chawdhry et al. 2012; Al-Naibi et al. 2015).
The results from the descriptive statistics revealed no significant differences between
the users and non-users of Blackboard. This indicated that whether the faculty member is a
user or a non-user, there were obstacles to using the Blackboard that limited the use of the
users and precluded non-users from using the system. Both user and no-users of Black-
board admitted that institutional barriers and technological barriers were the biggest bar-
riers to using the system. These are external barriers which are considered as outside of the
control of the faculty members. Therefore, these obstacles require the institution to take
serious action to control them and thus reducing the obstacles to users and non-users alike.
This is supported by a great deal of literature (Laverty et al. 2012; Leeder et al. 2012; Al-
Shboul 2013).
In terms of faculty training, there was a statistically significant difference in faculty
perceptions concerning Blackboard barriers in favor of faculty who did not attend training.
This means that non-users faculty members had more barriers than the users resulted from
lack of training. Rationally, attending a training workshop effectively encourages faculty
and helps reduce barriers to using blackboard. This is similar to the findings that reported
that availability of training workshops in the utilization of Learning Management Systems
including the Blackboard system can positively enhance the application of the systems
(Woods et al. 2004; West et al. 2007; Heirdsfield et al. 2011; Ryan et al. 2012; Pereira
2015).
Technological barriers appeared to be the first barrier category according to the users of
Blackboard, while it was rated second by the non-users. The results from the data collected
showed that faculty members who do not use Blackboard provided perceptions similar to
the users with regards to the statements about technological barriers. A hundred percent of
faculty agreed or strongly agreed that Blackboard has a lot of technical difficulties.
This is similar to results obtained by West et al. (2007) who found that ‘‘In Fall 2005, 76%
of instructors said they had experienced technical problems with Blackboard, but this
jumped to a full 100% of winter respondents.’’ (p. 14). There is no doubt that technical
difficulties reduce usage and, therefore, hinder faculty from using the system.
Similarly, the statement, Internet disconnects frequently and slows down as the number
of users increases, was perceived as a top barrier by both users and non-users. According to
Schwartz et al. (2003), that Internet keeps disconnecting and slowing down was the most
experienced detriment to the use of online resources. The third highest rated barrier was
Blackboard has many tools that are difficult to follow. This finding is not in har-
mony with previously published studies demonstrating that Blackboard has a myriad of
excellent tools that enhance the learning experience (Wang et al. 2010; Heirdsfield et al.
2011). Many students and faculty members have difficulties navigating on the blackboard
interface because there are links and buttons in the wrong place, lack of graphics, it is
written text dominated and it does not support visual learners, and there are confusing
words symbols on the blackboard interface that make no sense (Panthee 2014). However,
all users and non-users disagreed or strongly disagreed with the item, the limited number of
available computers as a possible barrier to using Blackboard. This suggested that faculty
members believed that there was an adequate number of computers available to accom-
modate an entire class at one time.
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teaching and…
123
Institutional barriers seemed to be the second barrier category based on Blackboard
users. One of the most critical barriers reported by the users was ongoing technical support
is not available on a permanent basis. Ongoing technical support is a key element in
successfully implementing Blackboard in any institution. However, when technical prob-
lems are not maintained, the result will affect the willingness to use Blackboard. Wanjala
(2015) reported that lack of technical assistance resulted in teachers not using computers.
Hayes (2007) posited that when teachers have problems, technical support must be pro-
vided readily. Faculty also considered lack of adequate training for students on the use of
Blackboard another major barrier that hindered the use of Blackboard. The researchers
believed that with regards to the use of the Blackboard system, one should keep in mind
that students need much training and orientation on how to use this educational technology.
It is the responsibility of the educational institution that should provide training for stu-
dents as it makes it available for faculty members. Whilst, statements such as the university
does not provide all faculty members with quality laptops and teaching load does not allow
additional time for the use of Blackboard were not seen as barriers by the majority of
respondents.
Based on the results related to faculty who do not use Blackboard, different items held
the top barriers dependent on the institutional barriers category. Training sessions held at
inappropriate times received very important or top rank. This barrier requires the uni-
versity to take into account the times when sessions are held through holding several
sessions at different times to enable all faculty members to get the opportunity to have
training. This is followed by Training does not often take into account the specialties of
faculty members. Perhaps holding training sessions according to faculty specialties may
motivate faculty members towards the training sessions. Non-users also expressed strong
agreement on teaching load does not allow additional time for the use of Blackboard.
Apparently, faculty members assert that the more likely that a faculty member has a high
workload, the more likely he will ignore using the Blackboard system in his teaching.
Faculty members spend additional time and effort added to their workload when teaching
courses using the Blackboard system compared to traditional teaching. If there is no
incentive for the effort and time by the institution, this will negatively impact the use of the
system. Based on the technology acceptance model (TAM), ‘‘ease of use and usefulness’’
are significant factors influencing user acceptance and utilization of technology (Davis
et al. 1989). The impact of teaching load and insufficient time needed to prepare for
lessons and assessments related to the implementation of Blackboard were often seen as
factors that increased workload (Shamoail 2005).
Faculty members, users and non-users, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the state-
ment Lack of sufficient training for faculty on the usage of Blackboard. This result man-
ifested the fact that training was being offered by the university, but the main problem lies,
as previously stated, in holding sessions at inappropriate times and not taking into account
the specialties of faculty. Perhaps one surprising finding of the current study was the
disagreement among faculty on lack of incentives. Consequently, this gives the impression
that lack of incentives was not an obstacle for not using Blackboard. This finding con-
tradicted with the findings of other studies, however, suggesting that availability of
incentives is a major element that stimulates faculty to use Blackboard (Li 2004;
Petherbridge 2007; Joseph 2012; Pereira 2015).
Student barriers category ranked third among Blackboard users and non-users. Both
users and non-users classified students’ dearth of skills on the use of Blackboard as a top
barrier. Studies have shown that lack of skills was one of the major barriers to using
Blackboard faced by students (Margaryan et al. 2011; Shamoail 2005). As a matter of fact
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
lack of skills can increase students anxiety, affect their satisfaction, reduce their
achievement, ‘‘result in the phenomenon of being lost in the hyperspace’’ and negatively
affect participation in the system (Sowan and Jenkins 2013, p 554). Lack of students’
motivation to use Blackboard was also rated a big barrier. Motivation is a significant
psychological factor affecting learners’ acceptance to utilize the Blackboard system. Chen
and Jang (2010) found that past studies suggest that ‘‘motivation should be taken seri-
ously’’ when using the Internet to deliver ‘‘instruction to learners separated by time,
distance, or both.’’ Lack of motivation affects the use of Blackboard and, in turn, affects
faculty member’s willingness to utilize Blackboard (Al-Naibi et al. 2015).
However, Unavailability of the Internet at home was not perceived to be a potential
barrier according to both users and non-users. In fact, in the age of technology and total
dependence on the Internet in many facets of our daily lives it has become impossible for
faculty to imagine the students without having Internet at home. Additionally, Blackboard
reduces the opportunity of interaction between students was not identified to be a barrier to
using Blackboard. On the contrary, many studies had proven the effectiveness of Black-
board in ‘‘promoting communication and social interaction among students and between
students and teachers’’ (Shamoail 2005, p. 140). However, Li (2004) claimed that web-
based education reduces the opportunity for interaction with other class members; students
feel they are not connected to classes and they feel they are not getting enough attention
from their instructor.
Faculty Barriers received the lowest rank by faculty users and non-users. With regards
to the users of Blackboard, one hundred percent of faculty members indicated that there
are other ways to communicate with students that excel the Blackboard system. For
example, Desire2Learn� was consistently favored over Blackboard in every level of
education (Chawdhry et al. 2011). Similarly, Chawdhry et al. (2012, p. 48) posited that
‘‘Desire2Learn turned out to be the overwhelming choice. According to them, Desir-
e2Learn provided a greater number of tools and capabilities than Blackboard and featured a
friendlier user interface for both faculty and students.’’ Other researchers compared
Moodle and Blackboard, and found that instructors and students find the Moodle interface
much more intuitive and easy to use than the Blackboard interface (Beatty and Ulasewicz
2006). In addition, both users and non-users rated the statement there are a sufficient
number of courses for faculty members the second most important barrier. Increased
teaching load was cited frequently in the literature as a major barrier (Shamoail 2005; Al-
Shammari and Higgins 2015). Surprisingly, some studies claimed that when teaching load
increases, the use of technology also increases as faculty seek new ways to reduce the
growing load (Meyer and Xu 2009; Ritter 2012).
However, users of Blackboard disagreed with that it is difficult to control the classroom
instruction when using Blackboard. Many studies have highlighted the Blackboard system
as having many tools and numerous ways to engage students in active learning (Griffiths
2007; Smith 2011; Ngeze 2016). Studies have also found that ‘‘thoughtfully created dis-
tance courses should be based on maximizing student engagement in the course by
increasing opportunities for active and collaborative learning.’’ (Sowan and Jenkins 2013,
p. 555). Users of Blackboard also disagreed with that copyright resources make it difficult
for faculty to post work on Blackboard. This result, however, was inconsistent with
copyright laws. Additionally, it was inconsistent with the results of previous research
which perceived copyright to be a formidable barrier to making materials available on
Blackboard (Li 2004; Dryden 2008).
Non-users identified other items to be primary barriers to using Blackboard. Resistance
to change plays an essential role in not using the Blackboard system was perceived as a
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teaching and…
123
consequential barrier. Resistance to change was a critical barrier reported in this study by
non-users. This finding was correspondent with the findings of other studies (Keengwe
et al. 2008; Graham and Jones 2011; Kenan et al. 2012). Additionally, the item Blackboard
is too time-consuming during class was also perceived as a main barrier. Blackboard can be
time-consuming if we take into consideration the barriers that have been addressed in this
study. For example, the existence of technical or student problems of any kind will defi-
nitely increase the time required to solve these problems exponentially. This finding also
reflected previous research (Voytecki et al. 2010; Gibbs and Gosper 2012). Whereas
faculty disagreed that Blackboard is ineffective in improving overall student performance
and Using Blackboard reduces students’ engagement. The Blackboard system was proved
as having an influence on effectiveness by previous research studies applying the Tech-
nology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Abdalla 2005; Nanayakkara 2007; Liaw 2008; Alharbi
and Drew 2014) and enhancing student engagement (Souza and Bingham 2005; Liaw
2008; Ituma 2011).
Part three of the questionnaire consisted of an open-ended question to elicit from faculty
other possible barriers that might hinder the use of Blackboard. However, no new barriers
were added by the participants. Since the questionnaire listed 38 items covering four
categories, this suggested that all barriers were included in the questionnaire, which might
be seen to have made this open-ended question redundant.
5 Limitations and Future Research
This study was susceptible to certain limitations that may limit generalizability. First of all,
this study only focused on barriers to using Blackboard based on a questionnaire of 38
items under four major categories prepared by the researchers. Further research is required
to explore other barriers so as to attain a better understanding of the issue. Furthermore, the
current study only concentrated on the perceptions of faculty. It would be better if students’
perceptions were taken in consideration in future research. Additionally, Future investi-
gations in this area might include possible strategies to avoid these barriers. Finally, this
study only focused on faculty at King Saud University during the 2015/2016 academic
year. Similar work could be repeated with faculty from different universities.
6 Conclusions
The Blackboard system has definitely added a new dimension to university education by
providing considerable teaching benefits to faculty and students alike. Blackboard allows
faculty members and students to log in and view learning materials conveniently inside and
outside of class time. Additionally, it can help improve the faculty-student communication
and aid in providing them with additional opportunities to interact with each other.
However, the participants’ perceptions indicated that, after years of working with Black-
board, there are still abundant barriers that either limit or completely impede the use of the
system.
This study was embarked upon to explore faculty perceptions of barriers to using the
Blackboard system at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia. Results from faculty clearly
demonstrated that the demographic information of academic rank, experience, gender, and
training had statistically significant effects on faculty perceptions about barriers to using
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
Blackboard. However, there were no statistically significant differences based on use or
non-use of Blackboard. This suggested that both and non-users indicated that the system
has potential barriers preventing faculty from effectively using the Blackboard system.
From this study, the general categories of barriers to using Blackboard included tech-
nological barriers, institutional barriers, student barriers, and faculty barriers. Technolog-
ical barriers and institutional barriers have been identified as being the top barrier
categories influencing the use of Blackboard. The highly rated barriers under the category
of technological barriers were the large number of technical difficulties, the many tools that
are difficult to follow, the Internet disconnects frequently, and the slowdown of the Internet
at the increasing number of users. Institutional barriers included little or no technical
support, inadequate training for students, lack of appropriate training times, and lack of
time due to the bulky teaching load. This is followed by the category of student barriers,
including lack of skills and lack of motivation. The least rated category of barriers standing
against the utilization of the system was apropos of faculty members: the highest ranked
barriers under this category were germane to the availability of other ways to communicate
with students that supersede Blackboard; resistance to change; increased teaching load; and
Blackboard is too time-consuming during class.
In the current situation faculty would not be expected to be able to use Blackboard
effectively. Overcoming these barriers requires the university to thoughtfully address these
issues in order for faculty members to successfully utilize Blackboard in their teaching,
taking into consideration the result form the study indicating that the majority of the
participants were not using Blackboard (82.1%).
Acknowledgements This work was funded by the Educational Research Center, Deanship of Research,King Saud University. The authors also highly appreciate the faculty of King Saud University who par-ticipated in this study.
References
Abdalla, I. (2005). Evaluating effectiveness of Blackboard system using TAM framework: A structuralanalysis approach. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 477–481). Chesapeake, VA:Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Al-Fadhli, S. (2008). Students’ perceptions of e-learning in Arab Society: Kuwait University as a case study.E-Learning and Digital Media, 5(4), 418–428.
Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Com-puter Science and Applications, 5(1), 143–155.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. The SloanConsortium, Newburyport, MA 01950. USA.
Al-Mashaqbeh, I. F. (2009). The use of Blackboard software as a course delivery method. Journal ofEducational & Psychological Sciences, 10(3), 12–28.
Al-Naibi, S. A., Madarsha, K. B., & Ismail, N. A. (2015). Blackboard use by faculty members in the collegesof applied sciences in the Sultanate of Oman. International Journal for Innovation Education andResearch, 3(4), 26–40.
Al-Senaidi, S., Lin, L., & Poirot, J. (2009). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning inOman. Computers & Education, 53(3), 575–590.
Al-Shammari, M. O., & Higgins, S. (2015). Obstacles facing faculty members in the effective implemen-tation of e-learning at some universities in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Information Tech-nology & Computer Science (IJITCS), 36(1), 1–139.
Al-Shboul, M. (2013). The level of e-learning integration at the University of Jordan: Challenges andopportunities. International Education Studies, 6(4), 93.
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teaching and…
123
Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodlelearning management system. TechTrends, 50(4), 36–45.
Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation whenstructuring a faculty training program. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 53–63.
Butler, D. L., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. EducauseQuarterly, 8(2), 22–28.
Chang, C. (2008). Faculty perceptions and utilization of a learning management system in higher education.Doctoral dissertation. Ohio University, USA.
Chawdhry, A., Paullet, K., & Benjamin, D. (2011). Assessing Blackboard: Improving online instructionaldelivery. Information Systems Education Journal, 9(4), 20.
Chawdhry, A., Paullet, K., & Benjamin, D. (2012). Comparatively assessing the use of Blackboard versusDesire2learn: Faculty perceptions of the online tools. Information Systems Education Journal, 10(3),47.
Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determinationtheory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752.
Choy, D., Xiao, J., & Iliff, J. (2005). How can technology help improve the quality of Blackboard facultytraining and encourage faculty to use Blackboard? In 2005 Annual proceedings-Orlando, Vol. 1,pp. 130.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: Acomparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utilityof online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 256.
Dryden, J. E. (2008). Copyright in the real world: Making archival material available on the Internet.Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, USA.
D’Silva, R., & Reeder, K. (2005). Factors that influence faculty members’ uptake and continued use ofcourse management systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1071–1073.
Eldridge, B. (2014). Exploring faculty adoption and utilization of Blackboard at a community college in theKentucky Community and Technical College System. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky,USA.
Gibbs, D., & Gosper, M. (2012). The upside-down-world of e-learning. Journal of learning design, 1(2),46–54.
Graham, C. M., & Jones, N. (2011). Cognitive dissonance theory and distance education: Faculty percep-tions on the efficacy of and resistance to distance education. International Journal of Business,Humanities, and Technology, 1(2), 212–227.
Griffiths, M. E. (2007). Patterns of user activity in the Blackboard course management system across allcourses in the 2004–2005 Academic Year at Brigham Young University (2007). All theses and dis-sertations. Paper 905. Retrieved December 15, 2016 from: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1904&context=etd.
Hayes, W. S. (2007). Leadership and no child left behind. Technological Horizons in Education (THE)Journal, 31 (10). Retrieved 15th April 2016 from http://www.ctrserc.org/library.
Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an online learning envi-ronment: What do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher Educa-tion, 36(7), 1–16.
Houtz, S., & Gupta, P. (2001). Gender roles, computer attitudes and dyadic computer interaction perfor-mance among university lecturers in Egypt. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 20(3), 1–9.
Ituma, A. (2011). An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in acampus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 57–68.
Jones, A. E., & Moller, L. (2002). A comparison of continuing education and resident faculty attitudestowards using distance education in a higher education institution in Pennsylvania. College andUniversity Media Review, 9(1), 11–37.
Joseph, J. (2012). The barriers of using education technology for optimizing the educational experience oflearners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 427–436.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning:Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565.
Kenan, T., Pislaru, C., & Elzawi, A. (2012). Analysing the effectiveness of e-learning based on national andinternational cultures and approaches to pedagogy. In 17th UKAIS conference on information systems,2012, 27–28 March 2012, New College, Oxford University.
Laverty, J. P., Wood, D. F., Tannehill, D., Kohun, F. G., & Turchek, J. (2012). Factors affecting the usage ofonline course delivery tools. Issues in Information Systems, 13(2), 41–50.
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
Leeder, C., Lonn, S., & Hollar, S. (2012). Use of library tools in a learning management system. InProceedings of the 2012, February conference (pp. 595–597). New York, NY: ACM.
Li, Y. (2004). Faculty perceptions about attributes and barriers impacting diffusion of web-based distanceeducation (WBDE) at the China Agricultural University. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&MUniversity.
Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness ofe-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440.
Meyer, K. A., & Xu, Y. J. (2009). A causal model of factors influencing faculty use of technology. Journalof Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 57–70.
Mohsen, M. A. (2014). EFL teachers’ perceptions on Blackboard applications. English Language Teaching,7(11), p108.
Nanayakkara, C. (2007). A model of user acceptance of learning management systems: A study withintertiary institutions in New Zealand. The International Journal of Learning, 13(12), 223–232.
Ngeze, L. V. (2016). Learning management systems in higher learning institutions in Tanzania: Analysis ofStudentsa [euro](TM) attitudes and challenges towards the use of UDOM LMS in teaching andlearning at the University of Dodoma. International Journal of Computer Applications, 136(11),975–8887.
Nichols, D. L. (2011). An exploration of Blackboard utilization by faculty at a Midwestern University.Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio University, USA.
Panthee, R. (2014). Inviting citizens designers to design digital interface for the democratization of webonline environment. Computational Linguistics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications,V3, 1727, Information Resources Management Association, USA.
Pereira, A. S. (2015). Faculty willingness to complete information technology training on course man-agement systems. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies, Scholar Works. Doctoral Dissertation,Walden University, USA.
Petherbridge, D. T. (2007). A concerns-based approach to the adoption of web-based learning managementsystems. Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University, USA.
Ritter, M. (2012). Barriers to teaching introductory physical geography online. Review of InternationalGeography Education Online, 2(1), 61–77.
Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of ComputingResearch, 22(4), 455–472.
Ryan, T. G., Toye, M., Charron, K., & Park, G. (2012). Learning management system migration: Ananalysis of stakeholder perspectives. The International Review of Research in Open and DistributedLearning, 13(1), 220–237.
Schoepp, K. (2004). Technology integration barriers in a technology-rich environment: A CBAM per-spective. Online Submission. Doctoral Dissertation, Calgary, Alberta.
Schoepp, K. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. Learning andTeaching in Higher Education: Gulf perspectives, 2(1), 1–24.
Schwartz, K., Northrup, J., Israel, N., Crowell, K., Lauder, N., & Neale, A. V. (2003). Use of on-lineevidence-based resources at the point of care. Family Medicine-Kansas City, 35(4), 251–256.
Shamoail, E. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions and experiences in adopting Blackboard computer program in aVictorian secondary school: A case study. Doctoral Dissertation, Victoria University, Australia.
Smith, T. (2011). Interactive online technology tools to enhance learning for english composition students.In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference, Vol. 2011, No. 1,pp. 3755–3757.
Sneller, J. E. (2004). A web dream team: The seven principles and WebCT. Academic Exchange Quarterly,8(4), 130–134.
Souza, J., & Bingham, P. M. (2005). Integration of available and new technologies to raise studentunderstanding and engagement. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(2), 189–198.
Sowan, A. K., & Jenkins, L. S. (2013). Designing, delivering and evaluating a distance learning nursingcourse responsive to students needs. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(6), 553–564.
Taylor, F. (2011). A quadripolar model of identity in adolescent foreign language learners. Doctoraldissertation, University of Nottingham, UK.
Tella, A. (2011). Reliability and factor analysis of a Blackboard course management system success: A scaledevelopment and validation in an educational context. Journal of Information Technology Education,10, 53–80.
Voytecki, K., Engleman, M., & Jeffs, T. (2010). A preliminary investigation into pedagogical and practicaldifficulties encountered by University Faculty in Online Teaching. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.),
Barriers to Using the Blackboard System in Teaching and…
123
Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference2010 (pp. 956–961). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education(AACE). Retrieved May 5, 2016 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/33471.
Vrazalic, L., MacGregor, R., & Behl, D. (2010). E-learning barriers in the United Arab Emirates: Pre-liminary results from an empirical investigation. Journal IBIMA Business Review., 2010, 1–9.
Wang, J., Kourik, J. L., & Maher, P. E. (2010). Introducing leading it technologies into curricula via theIBM academic initiative. In Proceedings of ASBBS annual conference, Las Vegas, February 2010, Vol.17(1), pp. 888–899.
Wanjala, A. S. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on the use of information communication technology in theadministration of public secondary schools in Kimilili District, Bungoma Country. Doctoral Disser-tation. The Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya.
West, R. E., Waddoups, G., Kennedy, M. M., & Graham, C. R. (2007). Evaluating the impact on users fromimplementing a course management system. International Journal of Instructional Technology andDistance Learning, 4(2). http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/2134.
Woods, R., Baker, J. D., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of web-basedcourseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(4),281–297.
Zirkle, C. (2002). Identification of distance education barriers for trade and industrial teacher education.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education (JITE), 40(1), 20–44.
T. M. Al Meajel, T. A. Sharadgah
123
