Institutional Support and LMS Implementation Among Academicians in Vocational Higher Education

Institutional Support and LMS Implementation Among Academicians in Vocational Higher Education

*Lee Bih Ni, *Li Liang, *Cheng Haibao, *Ji Dongli

Faculty of Education and Sports Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sabah

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.907000443

Received: 15 July 2025; Accepted: 23 July 2025; Published: 22 August 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explores the influence of institutional support on the effectiveness of Learning Management System (LMS) implementation among academicians in vocational higher education institutions. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the research combines primary quantitative and qualitative data collected online—with the aid of AI-assisted tools for data gathering and processing—with a secondary data analysis of institutional records, LMS usage logs, and related documentation. Findings reveal that institutional support, particularly in the form of technical assistance, professional development, and administrative policy, plays a critical role in shaping educators’ engagement with LMS platforms. The study highlights the importance of aligning institutional strategies with technological adoption to enhance teaching and learning outcomes in vocational settings.

Keywords: Institutional Support, Learning Management System (LMS), Vocational Higher Education, Mixed-Methods Research

INTRODUCTION

The integration of Learning Management Systems (LMS) in vocational higher education has become increasingly essential, particularly in enhancing teaching flexibility, monitoring student progress, and supporting digital pedagogy. However, the effectiveness of LMS implementation is often influenced by various institutional factors such as infrastructure, leadership commitment, technical support, and professional development opportunities (Lavidas, Komis, & Achriani, 2022). As digital tools become more deeply embedded in educational settings, the role of institutional support becomes pivotal in determining whether these systems are adopted effectively and sustainably. Vocational institutions, which focus on hands-on and skill-based learning, face additional complexities in LMS adoption due to their dual emphasis on practical and theoretical instruction (Zhang, 2022).

Despite growing LMS adoption across higher education, many vocational institutions struggle with underutilization, inconsistent engagement among faculty, and a lack of alignment between digital infrastructure and pedagogical needs. This reflects a broader problem where institutional support mechanisms are either inadequate or disconnected from educators’ actual experiences (Permana & Kustiawan, 2021). While some institutions offer LMS training or basic IT support, these efforts may be insufficient without strategic alignment involving leadership, culture, and long-term planning. Moreover, the lack of empirical studies focusing specifically on vocational higher education further highlights the need for targeted investigation in this area.

Given these concerns, the core research problem centers on the limited understanding of how different forms of institutional support influence the effectiveness of LMS implementation among vocational academicians. Although prior studies have examined technology acceptance in education (Al-Fraihat, Joy, & Sinclair, 2021), fewer have explored how institutional policies, resource allocation, and cultural readiness intersect to support or hinder LMS integration in skill-oriented environments. Addressing this gap is critical not only for improving LMS usage outcomes but also for supporting teaching innovation in vocational education systems.

This study is guided by three key research questions: (1) What types of institutional support are available to vocational academicians for LMS implementation? (2) How do these supports influence the effectiveness of LMS usage in vocational higher education settings? (3) What are the barriers faced by academicians in utilizing LMS despite the presence of institutional support? These questions are designed to explore the practical dimensions of support systems and how they translate into LMS usage behaviors among educators.

The main objectives of this research are to identify the types and quality of institutional support provided for LMS implementation, to analyze the relationship between these supports and educators’ LMS engagement, and to uncover perceived challenges or gaps in institutional efforts. By employing both primary and secondary data sources, including AI-assisted online tools and LMS system reports, the study aims to offer a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of what enables or constrains effective LMS integration in vocational higher education (Chen, Jalaludin, & Rasul, 2023; Handayani, Maulida, & Sugiyanta, 2022). The findings are expected to contribute to policy refinement, institutional planning, and digital pedagogy strategies tailored for vocational learning environments.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Learning Management Systems (LMS) have transformed educational delivery by enabling digital content management, online interaction, and performance tracking. In the context of higher education, LMS platforms such as Moodle, Blackboard, and Google Classroom are now central to both blended and fully online learning environments. Studies have shown that LMS can enhance learner autonomy, provide immediate feedback, and support diverse instructional strategies (Lavidas, Komis, & Achriani, 2022). However, these benefits are contingent on effective implementation, which is often dependent on the level of institutional support provided to educators. Technical infrastructure, training, leadership, and digital policy frameworks all play a role in shaping LMS outcomes (Al-Fraihat, Joy, & Sinclair, 2021).

Institutional support encompasses administrative leadership, ICT resources, technical assistance, and ongoing professional development. When aligned with pedagogical goals, these supports not only improve LMS usage but also increase academic staff’s confidence and motivation to engage with digital platforms (Permana & Kustiawan, 2021). For instance, institutions that invest in structured LMS training and provide dedicated e-learning teams report higher levels of LMS engagement among faculty. On the other hand, where support is minimal or poorly coordinated, LMS adoption tends to be superficial or inconsistent. Such findings underscore the critical importance of institutional ecosystems in facilitating digital transformation.

In vocational higher education, the implementation of LMS presents unique challenges. Vocational programs emphasize practical, hands-on learning that does not always align easily with online systems. Research by Zhang (2022) and Chen, Jalaludin, and Rasul (2023) highlights that many vocational institutions face difficulties in designing LMS-based instruction that supports skills-based competencies. Moreover, instructors in vocational settings often lack digital teaching experience, making the role of institutional support even more vital. Without strategic investment in contextualized training and platform adaptation, LMS tools risk becoming underutilized or misaligned with vocational learning outcomes.

Although prior studies have explored LMS adoption in higher education broadly, there is limited research specifically focusing on vocational institutions. The majority of LMS studies prioritize general universities, leaving a gap in understanding how institutional support affects LMS use among vocational academicians. Handayani, Maulida, and Sugiyanta (2022) point out that even meta-analyses often neglect vocational-specific needs, such as simulation tools, assessment alignment with industry standards, and integration with hands-on activities. This lack of focused research on vocational contexts represents a critical gap, particularly as vocational education becomes more central to national economic and workforce strategies.

Furthermore, studies that combine both primary and secondary data analysis in this area remain limited. While some researchers have investigated LMS usage patterns or gathered faculty perceptions through surveys (Akwene, 2024), fewer have triangulated these findings with institutional records, LMS analytics, or policy documents to offer a holistic view. In addition, the potential of AI-assisted tools in data collection, processing, and analysis is underexplored in the vocational education context. The current literature lacks insight into how emerging digital tools can be used not just for instruction, but also for research and institutional improvement in LMS implementation.

This study seeks to address these gaps by conducting a comprehensive investigation that integrates primary data collection—enhanced through AI-assisted technologies—and mixed-methods secondary data analysis. By focusing on vocational higher education institutions and exploring how various forms of institutional support influence LMS effectiveness, the research contributes to a more nuanced and actionable understanding of digital teaching transformation in practice-based learning environments (Wilke & Magenheim, 2019; Wheelahan & Moodie, 2020). The findings aim to inform both institutional policy and future research directions.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a multi-phase mixed-methods research design, incorporating both primary and secondary data to investigate the influence of institutional support on LMS implementation effectiveness among academicians in vocational higher education institutions. The researchers collected primary data using quantitative and qualitative online methods. The quantitative component was gathered through an online questionnaire distributed to vocational academicians across selected institutions. The qualitative data was obtained via asynchronous online interviews and open-ended survey responses. To enhance data reliability and broaden access, AI-assisted tools (e.g., intelligent chatbots and auto-coding systems) were integrated into the online data collection process, facilitating participant engagement, data sorting, and preliminary analysis. The study employed a Mixed-Methods Secondary Data Analysis (MMSDA) approach. This involved analyzing pre-existing institutional reports, LMS usage logs, faculty development documents, and prior research data relevant to LMS adoption. The integration of both qualitative (e.g., narrative reports) and quantitative (e.g., system usage statistics) secondary data provided a richer contextual understanding and allowed triangulation with the primary findings. By combining both data sources and methods, this study ensures a more comprehensive analysis of institutional support structures and their practical implications for LMS implementation in vocational higher education.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of quantitative data gathered from 184 vocational academicians across six institutions revealed that 78% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that institutional support positively influenced their use of LMS. Descriptive statistics showed that technical support (M = 4.21, SD = 0.65) and professional training (M = 4.09, SD = 0.72) were perceived as the most impactful institutional support factors. A regression analysis indicated a significant relationship between institutional support and LMS usage effectiveness (β = 0.62, p < 0.01), explaining 38% of the variance in LMS adoption behavior. These findings affirm earlier studies by Lavidas et al. (2022) and Al-Fraihat et al. (2021), suggesting that LMS implementation success is tightly linked to the institutional ecosystem.

Qualitative responses from 22 participants (via open-ended questions and online interviews) revealed three main themes: (1) dependence on structured training, (2) frustration with inconsistent ICT infrastructure, and (3) the need for pedagogical alignment. Participants repeatedly emphasized that while LMS platforms were available, usage remained limited when training was only technical in nature and not aligned with subject-specific teaching strategies. This supports Permana and Kustiawan (2021), who stressed the importance of contextualized capacity-building programs over generic software tutorials.

Theme 1, structured training dependency, showed that instructors who had undergone regular, institutionally organized LMS training sessions were more confident in designing digital learning modules. One respondent noted, “I only started using the LMS after our department created subject-specific tutorials and shared samples tailored to TVET needs.” This reflects the findings of Chen et al. (2023), who emphasized that vocational instructors require more than technical literacy—they need support for content adaptation that suits skills-based education.

Theme 2, ICT infrastructure inconsistency, was prevalent across institutions. Respondents from rural-based campuses reported frequent LMS downtimes, poor Wi-Fi coverage, and lack of IT personnel. One participant shared, “It’s hard to rely on the system when it crashes during student presentations—there’s no immediate technical backup.” Such barriers align with findings by Zhang (2022), highlighting that technological reliability significantly influences faculty trust and commitment to LMS.

Theme 3, pedagogical misalignment, concerned the limitations of existing LMS tools in supporting practical assessments. Many vocational educators expressed that LMS platforms did not adequately accommodate simulations, industry-relevant tasks, or competency-based evaluation. As Wheelahan and Moodie (2020) also observed, digital systems in vocational education need to go beyond content delivery—they must support performance-based learning. Participants urged institutional leaders to invest in LMS plugins or integrations tailored to vocational learning needs.

The findings illustrate that while institutional support enhances LMS implementation, its effectiveness depends on how well support mechanisms are designed, resourced, and contextualized. Quantitative data showed a strong correlation between support and LMS effectiveness, while qualitative data provided nuanced insights into the types of support needed. These results support the view that institutional efforts must extend beyond infrastructure provision toward strategic and pedagogical support, especially in vocational settings where practical teaching demands are unique (Handayani et al., 2022; Wilke & Magenheim, 2019).

Further analysis of the quantitative data revealed that only 52% of respondents reported consistent use of LMS for formative assessments, while a mere 39% utilized it for collaborative student projects. This indicates a gap between LMS availability and its deeper pedagogical integration. While over 70% of academicians agreed that LMS platforms improved administrative efficiency (e.g., attendance, grading), fewer reported using LMS tools for learner-centered approaches. These findings echo those of Akwene (2024), who emphasized that without targeted pedagogical support, LMS use often remains administrative rather than transformative in vocational education contexts.

In addition, correlation tests demonstrated a significant positive relationship between leadership support and the frequency of LMS content updates (r = 0.58, p < 0.01). This suggests that when institutional leadership actively promotes LMS integration—through incentives, monitoring, and communication—academicians are more likely to maintain dynamic course content. Respondents from institutions with formal LMS policies and regular LMS audits reported greater consistency in platform use, reinforcing the importance of administrative leadership highlighted in Al-Fraihat et al. (2021).

Qualitative data also revealed an emerging theme of psychological readiness and motivation among academicians. Several participants expressed hesitation or resistance towards LMS use due to low confidence or fear of technology failure. One interviewee remarked, “I feel lost when things go wrong in the LMS—I end up returning to face-to-face methods.” This lack of digital self-efficacy reflects Lavidas et al.’s (2022) findings on the emotional dimension of LMS adoption. Institutions that provided mentorship or peer support groups helped reduce this anxiety and fostered gradual confidence-building.

Another theme, AI and automation awareness, emerged as an unexpected insight. A few academicians shared positive experiences using AI tools integrated into their LMS (such as automated quizzes, chatbots, or predictive analytics), which simplified marking and enhanced learner tracking. However, most respondents indicated limited awareness or access to such features. This finding suggests that while AI-assisted tools can improve LMS functionality and efficiency, institutional guidance and exposure are essential to ensure adoption. The study by Wheelahan and Moodie (2020) supports this, noting that digital innovation must be accompanied by staff upskilling and guided experimentation.

The issue of equity in access also featured prominently. Respondents noted that institutional support often varies between urban and rural campuses. One participant from a remote area stated, “We are left behind—support comes too slow, and our LMS lags all the time.” Such disparities in digital infrastructure and support mechanisms are consistent with the findings of Zhang (2022), who emphasized the digital divide in vocational education. Institutions must address these imbalances to ensure that all academicians benefit equally from LMS initiatives.

Respondents advocated for institutional collaboration with industry to enhance LMS content relevance. Some academicians proposed that institutions develop LMS modules jointly with industry partners to ensure alignment with real-world practices. This suggestion reflects Permana and Kustiawan’s (2021) recommendation for industry-education partnerships in vocational learning. By embedding practical scenarios, simulations, and case studies into LMS content, institutions can make LMS platforms more attractive and functional for vocational educators, ultimately improving engagement and implementation outcomes.

To address the limited scope of the topic Institutional Support and LMS Implementation among Academicians in Vocational Higher Education, future research should adopt a more holistic approach by incorporating external factors such as government policies, industry demands, and student digital readiness (Zawacki-Richter, 2009). These elements significantly influence LMS adoption and effectiveness, particularly in vocational contexts where alignment with industry standards is essential. For example, the inclusion of national digital education strategies or funding initiatives can shape institutional capacity to implement LMS tools effectively (Selwyn, 2016). Additionally, integrating perspectives from industry stakeholders and students can provide a more comprehensive understanding of how LMS platforms support, or fail to support, vocational skill development.

Furthermore, overcoming the challenge of limited hands-on learning through LMS platforms requires innovation in digital pedagogy. The integration of simulation-based learning, virtual labs, and augmented reality tools within LMS platforms can replicate practical experiences and enhance skill-based training (Liu et al., 2020). Research should also account for technological disparities and varying institutional capacities by comparing different types of vocational institutions—rural vs. urban, resource-rich vs. resource-constrained—to better understand contextual influences (Jameson, 2013). To address subjectivity in evaluating institutional support, mixed-methods approaches combining qualitative insights with quantitative performance metrics can offer more reliable, generalizable findings (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013). This broadened and methodologically robust approach will strengthen the relevance and applicability of LMS implementation strategies across diverse vocational education environments.

Institutional support is a critical factor in the effective implementation of Learning Management Systems (LMS) among academicians in vocational higher education. To enhance this topic, future research should include a more diverse range of vocational institutions to capture varying experiences, institutional capacities, and challenges (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020). Continuous professional development through structured training and technical support is essential to equip educators with the skills needed for LMS integration (Machado, 2022). Additionally, establishing clear policies and frameworks can create a supportive environment that promotes consistent and effective LMS use (Ifinedo, 2017). Institutions must also cultivate collaboration between academic staff and IT departments to align LMS functionalities with pedagogical goals and instructional needs (Alias & Zainuddin, 2005).

Furthermore, the integration of industry-specific tools within the LMS can help bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical skills, which is crucial in vocational education (Huang et al., 2021). Encouraging this alignment ensures that students are better prepared for the demands of the workforce. Future studies should also explore the influence of student feedback and digital literacy on the success of LMS implementation, as these elements significantly affect learner engagement and instructional strategies (Parkes, Stein & Reading, 2015). Understanding these dynamics will support the development of more effective, inclusive, and industry-relevant LMS strategies in vocational higher education.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study confirm that institutional support plays a critical role in shaping the effectiveness of Learning Management System (LMS) implementation among academicians in vocational higher education. Quantitative results revealed strong correlations between technical support, leadership involvement, and LMS usage effectiveness, while qualitative themes highlighted the importance of structured training, pedagogical relevance, and infrastructure consistency. The study also uncovered emerging challenges, such as disparities in digital access and limited awareness of AI-assisted tools, suggesting that support must be not only available but also equitable, strategic, and contextually relevant to vocational education settings.

To enhance LMS integration, institutions must adopt a holistic approach that combines policy development, continuous professional development, and the alignment of digital tools with vocational pedagogies. Strengthening industry-academic partnerships and increasing the availability of AI-supported learning features can further improve the LMS experience for both educators and learners. Expanding the scope of research on institutional support and LMS implementation in vocational higher education to include external influences, hands-on learning technologies, and diverse institutional contexts can significantly enhance its relevance and effectiveness. A more holistic, context-sensitive, and methodologically rigorous approach will better inform policy and practice, ultimately supporting improved digital integration in vocational education. Ultimately, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how tailored institutional support can bridge the gap between LMS adoption and meaningful educational transformation in vocational higher education.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was developed using a combination of online sources and AI-assisted tools to support data organization, language refinement, and literature access. However, the originality of the ideas, research direction, and critical interpretations remains solely driven by the researchers’ own academic judgment and intent.

REFERENCES

1. Akwene, G. C. (2024). Adoption of learning management systems in higher education: A qualitative analysis of enabling factors. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 12(2).
2. Alas, Y., & Anshari, M. (2014). Constructing strategy of online learning in higher education: A transaction cost economy approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4345.
3. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2021). The impact of organisational support, technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management systems. Behaviour & Information Technology.
4. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86.
5. Alias, N., & Zainuddin, A. M. (2005). Innovation for better teaching and learning: Adopting the learning management system. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 2(2), 27-40.
6. Alshammary, F. M., & Alhalafawy, W. S. (2023). Use of digital learning management systems for enhancing cognitive achievement in vocational productive courses. Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi, 8(2), 163–180.
7. Chen, Z., Jalaludin, N. A., & Rasul, M. S. (2023). A systematic review on the improving strategies and influencing factors of vocational students’ learning engagement in blended teaching environments. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(11), 28.
8. Chenyuei Akwene, G. (2024). Factors affecting vocational college instructors’ usage of LMS in the post-pandemic normal. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews.
9. Cherrstrom, C., & Holmes, K. (2020). An exploration of teacher and student perceptions of blended learning in four secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 34, 719–740.
10. Evans, T., et al. (2024). An assessment of learning management system use in higher education: Perspectives from a comprehensive sample of teachers and students. Technology, Knowledge and Learning.
11. Handayani, T., Maulida, E., & Sugiyanta, L. (2022). Blended learning implementation and impact in vocational schools: A meta-analysis review. Teknodika: Jurnal Teknik Pendidikan.
12. Huang, R. H., Tlili, A., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2021). Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19 outbreak in China: Application of open educational practices and resources. UNESCO.
13. Ifinedo, P. (2017). Examining students’ intention to continue using blogs for learning: An empirical study. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 48-57.
14. Jameson, J. (2013). e‐Leadership in higher education: The fifth “age” of educational technology research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 889–915. Retrieved from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjet.12103
15. Lavidas, K., Komis, V., & Achriani, A. (2022). Explaining faculty members’ behavioral intention to use learning management systems. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(4), 707–725.
16. Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., & Yan, W. (2020). The effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: A meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 94, 104457. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026069171930609X
17. Machado, C. (2022). Training educators for digital transformation in vocational education: Challenges and strategies. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 14(1), 1-10.
18. Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 1-10.
19. Permana, M. I. R., & Kustiawan, I. (2021). Implementation of learning management systems in the self-development of productive teachers of vocational schools. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Innovation in Engineering and Vocational Education (ICIEVE).
20. Quiban, J. B. (2024). Assessment of institutional factors of faculty learning management system adoption using extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Innovative Technology Convergence, 6(4).
21. Santiago, A., & Ray, L. (2020). Navigating support models for OER publishing: Case studies from the University of Houston and the University of Washington. Reference Services Review.
22. Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/education-and-technology-9781474235922/
23. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825991
24. Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2020). Understanding fully online teaching in vocational education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(4).
25. Wilke, A., & Magenheim, J. (2019). Critical incidents for technology-enhanced learning in vocational education and training: Observations from mechanical engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04072.
26. Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research areas in distance education: A Delphi study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–17. Retrieved from https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/674
27. Zhang, X. (2022). Integration and sharing mechanism of vocational education resources from the perspective of industry-education integration. Mobile Information Systems.