Designing for Engagement: The Influence of LMS Features on Online Formative Assessment in Tanzania Higher Learning Institutions

Evaline Shafraeli; Lucian  Ngeze; Gilbert Mapunda Gilbert

doi:10.70148/v3i3.3

Authors

Evaline Shafraeli Author
Lucian Ngeze The University of Dodoma Author
Gilbert M. Gilbert The University of Dodoma Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70148/v3i3.3

Abstract

This study examined student engagement in Online Formative Assessment (OFA) across six higher education institutions in Tanzania, and how LMS design features—specifically assignment clarity, feedback quality, usability, and mobile accessibility—relate to student perceptions and engagement levels. A quantitative cross-sectional design was employed, involving 214 students from six (6) higher institutions in Tanzania. Data were collected using structured questionnaires and analyzed through descriptive statistics and multiple regression techniques. Overall engagement with OFA tools was high, with students reporting strong agreement on the importance of clear assignment guidelines (82.7%), timely feedback (81.7%), and intuitive LMS interfaces (79.2%). Regression analysis revealed significant positive associations for feedback quality (β = 0.41, p < .001), LMS usability (β = 0.38, p < .001), and assignment clarity (β = 0.35, p < .001). Mobile accessibility showed a moderate but meaningful effect (β = 0.24, p = .002), highlighting its emerging role in inclusive digital learning. The adjusted R² value of 0.42 indicated that 42% of the variance in student engagement was explained by the combined predictors. Participants cited challenges such as inconsistent mobile optimization, limited digital literacy, and delayed feedback. The study recommends standardizing LMS design templates, investing in mobile-first development, and strengthening instructor training to improve OFA effectiveness. It also calls for further research on mobile learning strategies and longitudinal impacts of LMS design improvements in bandwidth-constrained environments.

References

Abdu, M., Suleiman, R., & Kweka, E. (2022). Effectiveness of learning management systems in East African universities. International Journal of ICT and Education, 9(1), 14–26.

Al-Kumaim, N. H., Alhazmi, A. K., Mohammed, F., & Gazem, N. (2022). Mobile compatibility and LMS adoption in Sub-Saharan higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5723–5739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10791-4

Al-Samarraie, H., & Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment. Computers & Education, 124, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.016

Araka, E., Maina, E., Gitonga, R., & Oboko, R. (2021). Engagement metrics in online formative assessment. Journal of Learning Analytics, 8(2), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2021.7370

BERA. (2021). Ethical guidelines for educational research (5th ed.). British Educational Research Association. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018

Brown, S., & Davies, A. (2022). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in digital environments. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003112761

Chen, L., & Lee, J. (2023). User interface design for learning management systems: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 51(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395221133978

Chen, X., & Wang, Y. (2024). The impact of feedback clarity on student learning outcomes in online assessments. International Journal of Digital Education, 12(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/ijded.2024.120103

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

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

Etikan, I., & Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), 215–217. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149

Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37

Garcia, M., & Rodriguez, P. (2024). Leveraging learning analytics for pedagogical improvement in online courses. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 17(3), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296823123456

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004

Green, L., & White, M. (2024). Mobile-first design in education: Strategies for equitable access. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10345-7

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Ismail, A., Nkansah, D. O., & Boateng, R. (2020). Learning management systems and student performance: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 16(2), 4–20. https://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=2780

Jackson, S., & Roberts, K. (2024). Designing for digital learning: Principles and practice. University Press.

Johnson, A. (2023). Exploring the dimensions of student engagement in online learning environments. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 19(2), 67–81.

Johnson, L., & Smith, T. (2024). The future of higher education: Digital transformation and pedagogical innovation. Academic Press.

Kim, S., & Davis, M. (2023). Qualitative approaches to understanding student online learning experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 48(9), 1601–1615. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2156784

Kizito, R., & Bijamin, M. (2023). Navigating LMS usability in African universities: Challenges and practices. African Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 55–68.

Khalid, U., Muneer, S., & Shahzad, K. (2021). Online vs. paper-based surveys: A comparative study of mode effects in higher education research. Educational Research and Reviews, 16(4), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2021.4165

Kumar, R., & Sharma, V. (2023). Digital literacy for online learning: A critical skill for the 21st century student. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00382-5

Martinez, A., & Lee, C. (2023). The role of cognitive load in online learning platforms and strategies for optimization. Educational Technology & Society, 26(4), 1–15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48635320

Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Roberts, L., & Green, P. (2024). Student perceptions of multimedia integration and mobile accessibility in LMS. Journal of Educational Technology, 53(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395231156789

Schoonenboom, J. (2019). A comparison of three approaches to longitudinal survey research. Quality & Quantity, 53(5), 2321–2340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0734-3

Smith, J., & Jones, P. (2024). Automated vs. human feedback in online learning: A comparative analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12786

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Teo, T. (2019). Students and teachers’ intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117749430

Timmis, S., Maher, D., & Taylor, C. (2022). The impact of digital feedback on student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1828269

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified theory. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428

Wang, L., & Li, Q. (2023). Bridging the digital divide in online education: The role of mobile learning. Computers & Education Open, 4, 100109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100109

Williams, R., & Brown, T. (2023). Student perceptions of online learning tools and their impact on engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(5), 1857–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10288-z

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper and Row.