The Influence of E-Learning Utilization and LMS Quality on Student Achievement through Online Interaction (Open University Case Study in Online Learning for Even Semester 2024)

Surono Surono

doi:10.55227/ijhess.v5i2.1949

Authors

Surono Surono Ibnu Caldun University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v5i2.1949

Keywords:

E-Learning, LMS Quality, Student Achievement, Online Interaction

Abstract

The urgency of this research lies in the need to optimize the use of e-learning and the LMS Moodle to improve student academic achievement at Universitas Terbuka. Although the system is already running, gaps are still found in student engagement, the quality of online interactions, and perceptions of the LMS. This research is important to address the challenges of implementing online learning to be more effective, equitable, and efficient. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of e-learning utilization and LMS quality on student achievement by mediating online interactions at Universitas Terbuka. This study uses the PLS-SEM-based Path Analysis method with the help of SmartPLS software to analyze the causal relationship between e-learning utilization, LMS quality, online interactions, and student achievement. The instrument was tested for validity and reliability through outer loading values, AVE, Cronbach's Alpha, and Composite Reliability before conducting structural analysis. The results of the analysis aim to reveal the direct and indirect influences between variables and test their significance through bootstrapping techniques. This study produced six main findings. First, active e-learning utilization had a very strong and significant effect on perceived LMS quality (β = 0.914; p = 0.000), indicating that the more frequently students used the LMS, the higher their assessment of the system's quality. Second, e-learning utilization did not directly affect academic achievement (β = –0.019; p = 0.893), indicating that frequency of use does not necessarily impact academic achievement without meaningful engagement. Third, e-learning utilization had a positive effect on online interaction (β = 0.478; p = 0.001), indicating that active students were more frequently involved in digital forums and communication. Fourth, LMS quality also had a significant effect on online interaction (β = 0.487; p = 0.000), reinforcing the role of system features and convenience in supporting online communication. Fifth, LMS quality had a positive effect on student achievement (β = 0.234; p = 0.049), indicating that an effective LMS supports academic achievement. Sixth, online interaction has the strongest influence on student achievement (β = 0.767; p = 0.000), proving that active involvement in digital learning is very important in determining learning success.

References

Abdullah, M. (2022). Utilizing Moodle to improve student learning effectiveness. Journal of Islamic Educational Technology, 10(2), 112–123.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T](https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978%2891%2990020-T)

Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004)

Borup, J., West, R.E., & Graham, C.R. (2014). The adolescent community of engagement framework: A model for research on adolescent online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 107–130

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. [https://doi.org/10.2307/249008](https://doi.org/10.2307/249008)

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. [https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748](https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748)

Dennen, VP (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624–1633. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003)

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6](https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516%2800%2900016-6)

Ghazal, S., Aldowah, H., & Umar, IN (2018). Investigating students' performance and engagement in active learning environments using learning management systems. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 96(9), 2517–2529.

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009)

Jo, I.-H., Park, Y., & Lee, H. (2017). Academic achievement prediction using clicker data in e-learning systems: Learning analytics approach. Computers & Education, 113, 68–81. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.015](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.015)

Keller, C., & Cernerud, L. (2002). Students' perceptions of e-learning in university education. Journal of Educational Media, 27(1–2), 55–67. [https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165020270105](https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165020270105)

Martin, F., Polly, D., & Ritzhaupt, A.D. (2020). Bichronous online learning: Blending asynchronous and synchronous online learning. TechTrends, 64, 128–135. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00465-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00465-2)

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659](https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659)

Muslimin, M., & Widodo, A. (2021). The influence of Moodle LMS and learning motivation toward learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 219–228. [https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v15i2.38399](https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v15i2.38399

O'Brien, H.L., & Toms, E.G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955. [https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801](https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801)

Park, S.Y. (2009). An analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.

Putra, DP, & Wahyuni, S. (2021). Student perceptions of Moodle as an online learning medium during the pandemic. Journal of Technology and Vocational Education, 17(1), 45–53.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building a sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1). [https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79](https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79)

Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–120.

Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007)

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926](https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C., & Wang, H.Y. (2013). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x)

Zhou, M. (2016). Moderating effects of self-efficacy and flow on the relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 584–591. [https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12243](https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12243)