Learning Management Systems (LMS) have become integral to higher education worldwide, yet their effective

use is often hindered by various barriers. This mixed-methods study examines the key barriers to LMS usage in

a Malaysian higher education context, integrating quantitative survey data with qualitative insights from

interviews. The research identifies multiple impediments including limited digital literacy and confidence among

users, inadequate training and technical support, infrastructure weaknesses (such as unreliable internet

innovation – in order to overcome barriers and fully realize the potential of LMS in higher education.

Malaysia; digital pedagogy

The rapid expansion of digital learning has made Learning Management Systems (LMS) a cornerstone of modern

higher education. LMS platforms (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard, Canvas) enable content delivery, assessment, and

collaboration, and their importance was magnified during the COVID-19 pandemic when institutions worldwide

shifted to remote instruction (Sobhani et al., 2025). In Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries, universities

have invested substantially in LMS technology to enhance teaching and learning flexibility. Despite widespread

adoption, many institutions report that LMS usage remains suboptimal and inconsistent. Technical

in contexts where users face skill deficits, insufficient support, or infrastructural limitations. In Malaysia,

anecdotal evidence and initial studies have indicated that lecturers and students encounter numerous challenges

in fully utilizing LMS for pedagogy (e.g., connectivity issues in rural areas, lack of training in e-learning design).

These barriers not only limit the return on educational technology investments but also impede progress toward

interactive and student-centered digital learning environments.

To address this problem, the study is guided by the following questions: (1) What are the main barriers that

inhibit effective LMS usage in higher education, as perceived by academic staff and students? (2) How do these

barriers affect users’ engagement with the LMS and the integration of the LMS into teaching and learning

practices? (3) What underlying factors contribute to these barriers, and what improvements do users suggest to

enhance LMS utilization?

LMS adoption is widespread, yet an implementation gap persists: platforms are present but use is often shallow

due to training and support deficits, time pressures, infrastructural limits, and pedagogical resistance (e.g., Radif,

2016; Ahmad et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2022). Findings diverge by context: in resource-constrained settings,

connectivity, devices, and data cost dominate (e.g., Amporful, 2023; Riyath & Rijah, 2022), whereas in better-

resourced environments, human and organizational factors—self-efficacy, incentives, and norms—explain

under-utilization (e.g., Alenezi, 2018). In Malaysia, most studies remain single-method or single-stakeholder

and are largely descriptive; few triangulate lecturers’ and students’ experiences while explicitly mapping first-

order (infrastructure/support) and second-order (skills/attitudes/incentives) barriers to explanatory models such

as TAM and UTAUT. This study addresses that gap through a mixed-methods, concurrent design that quantifies

barrier prevalence, explains underlying mechanisms, and interprets results through TAM/UTAUT to identify

integration. Reviews consistently group the barriers into several thematic categories – technological, individual

(user-related), institutional, and pedagogical – which often interact and vary by context (Mbewe, 2025). In other

words, effective LMS use is influenced by a combination of technical factors, user capabilities and attitudes,

organizational support, and alignment with teaching practices. This multifaceted view is echoed across diverse

higher education settings, indicating that no single factor is solely responsible for suboptimal LMS utilization.

efficacy of some instructors and students. Especially among less tech-savvy faculty, a lack of ICT skills

undermines the willingness to use advanced LMS features (Radif, 2016; Ahmad et al., 2023). Anxiety or fear of

change can accompany these skill gaps, further discouraging adoption of new e-learning tools (Ahmad et al.,

2023). Closely related is the inadequacy of training and professional development. Many educators report

Training budgets are often modest (e.g., only ~5–15% of IT expenditures), perpetuating skill gaps and leaving

faculty to rely on self-teaching. Without pedagogically oriented training, instructors tend to remain at a “basic

use” level—using the LMS only for rudimentary tasks. Malaysian contexts are no exception; for example,

2023). In sum, inadequate training and support, coupled with limited user know-how, form a major barrier cluster

that keeps many faculty and students from fully exploiting LMS capabilities.

Malaysia, disparities in network coverage (e.g. rural vs. urban) and device access (many students relying only

on smartphones) constrain participation (Yacob et al., 2020). High data costs can further depress LMS usage, as

reported in cases where students must spend their own money on internet access (Amporful, 2023). Even in

better-resourced institutions, technical hiccups like system slowdowns or downtime during peak usage periods

create frustration and hinder trust in the platform. Essentially, when the underlying technology is unreliable or

inconvenient, users are less likely to invest effort in using the LMS regularly. This underscores the importance

of strong facilitating conditions (in Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology terms) – without a

stable technological environment, other efforts to increase LMS adoption may falter (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis,

& Davis, 2003) .

leadership signals or unclear institutional strategies can hinder adoption by creating an atmosphere where quality

LMS use is not expected or rewarded (Sobhani et al., 2025). In contrast, universities that set clear policies,

provide incentives for innovative teaching, and invest in necessary infrastructure and content development tend

to see more enthusiastic LMS use (Alenezi, 2018; Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021; Ahmad et al., 2023). Where

institutional e-learning initiatives are under-resourced or only nominal, faculty may reasonably conclude that

integrating LMS into their teaching is not a priority. For example, if there is no allocated time or recognition for

instructors to develop online materials, many will default to traditional methods due to competing demands on

their time. Strategic institutional planning – including phased LMS rollouts, pilot programs, and sustained

maintenance and support – has been noted as a decisive factor in successful LMS implementations. Conversely,

comfortable with lecture-centric routines, they may view many LMS features as non-essential. Reluctance to

change established practices, skepticism about the pedagogical value of online activities, and concerns about

maintaining academic rigor in an online format all limit deeper LMS use (Radif, 2016; Mbewe, 2025). Studies

Blankson et al., 2016; Chung & Noor, 2020). This creates a vicious cycle: low instructor enthusiasm leads to

low student interest, reinforcing beliefs that the LMS “doesn’t add much” to learning. In contrast, when

instructors have aligned their course design with LMS capabilities (for example, incorporating weekly online

quizzes or discussion forums), students report higher engagement and satisfaction. Such cases illustrate that

many pedagogical barriers are surmountable with changes in attitude and practice – if faculty can be shown

effective models and given support to adapt, their perceptions of the LMS’s usefulness can shift positively.

Notably, even within a single context, different studies sometimes emphasize different primary barriers. In high-

bandwidth, well-resourced universities, technical infrastructure might be taken for granted, and the sticking

points tend to be human factors like motivation and pedagogical fit. In resource-constrained settings, the basic

technological issues can dominate. Yet across the literature, a common thread is the interplay of factors: technical

availability alone is insufficient for success. Indeed, even institutions with modern LMS technology have

reported underutilization when users are not adequately trained, supported, or convinced of the LMS’s value

onto these constructs: for example, low digital literacy and poor LMS design reduce the perceived ease of use,

and a lack of training or reliable infrastructure means weak facilitating conditions, thereby lowering adoption

likelihood. Likewise, if instructors do not believe that using the LMS will enhance their teaching effectiveness

(i.e., low perceived usefulness), their behavioral intention to fully utilize it will remain low (Davis, 1989) .

Most prior studies employing TAM or UTAUT to examine LMS have done so via quantitative surveys, which

capture the prevalence of such factors (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021). However, there is a noted gap in

qualitatively exploring how these issues manifest in everyday academic life and in specific cultural contexts.

This study addresses that gap by integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the Malaysian higher

education setting. In doing so, it contributes new insights into how known barrier factors (skills, infrastructure,

attitudes, etc.) play out on the ground and how they might be overcome.

conducted at a large Malaysian public university with input from a partner institution. For the survey, we targeted

academic staff and undergraduates in faculties actively using a Moodle-based LMS (eLearn): lecturers were

sampled stratified by department/seniority, and students via convenience sampling through course groups,

exposure (mostly Years 3–4).

refinements. Reliability was high for the scale items (lecturers’ α = 0.88, students’ α = 0.85). The survey ran

training/support experiences, and ideas for improvement; student prompts focused on feature use, access barriers,

and perceptions of lecturers’ LMS practices. Sessions (conducted in English with occasional Malay) lasted 30–

45 minutes on Google Meet, were recorded with consent, and subsequently transcribed and anonymized.

formal training,” “connectivity drops,” “prefers traditional methods”). They then collaboratively grouped codes

into consolidated themes and subthemes. A third researcher audited the coding decisions; discrepancies were

resolved through discussion, and representative quotations were identified to illustrate each theme. Finally, we

integrated the quantitative and qualitative results: we compared findings for convergence or divergence (e.g.,

used only basics (uploads/announcements), unaware of analytics, quiz banks, or rubric tools. Time pressure

amplified the gap: “Between classes and admin, I barely have time to learn new features.” Helpdesks were

viewed as hardware-oriented rather than instructional: “If I ask about quiz design, the advice is just to reboot.”

Students were especially affected (slow/unstable off-campus access; data costs), while staff reported exam-

period slowdowns and intermittent timeouts. The human toll was evident: “My quiz froze when the internet

dropped—I was panicking.” Some students waited past midnight for stable uploads; a branch-campus lecturer

drove to town to find a stronger signal. Phone-only access and data costs compounded inequities: “Doing a whole

course on a phone eats my data.” Fragile connectivity elevates effort expectancy and erodes facilitating

conditions (UTAUT), undermining trust and continuity of use. Foundational responses—bandwidth upgrades,

peak-load testing, subsidized data, device-loan schemes, and robust caching/offline options—are prerequisites

for meaningful adoption.

point fixes (only bandwidth or only workshops) rarely stick. Aligning first-order enablers (infrastructure, access,

responsive support, protected time) with second-order factors (skills, beliefs, incentives, peer norms) raises

PEOU/PU and strengthens facilitating conditions/social influence, moving institutions from availability to

meaningful use.

Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

in Malaysia amidst COVID-19. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 45-58.

technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

presence to student learning in online environments. World Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 48–

65.