TechTrends

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0327-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Patterns in Faculty Learning Management System Use

Szymon Machajewski 1 & Alana Steffen 1 & Elizabeth Romero Fuerte 1 & Eleanor Rivera 1

# Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Abstract
Technology in Higher Education affects teaching and learning excellence while being a significant expense for universities. There
is a need for evaluation of current instructional technology use when planning for renewal or adoption of a new learning
management system (LMS). This study was conducted to understand the patterns of course tools used by faculty in a commercial
LMS used at a large public research university. Course data was extracted from 2562 courses with 98,381 student enrollments
during the Fall of 2016. A latent class analysis was conducted to identify the patterns of LMS tool use based on the presence of
grade center columns, announcements, assignments, discussion boards, and assessments within each course. Three latent classes
of courses were identified and characterized as Holistic tool use (28% of the courses), Complementary tool use (51%), and
Content repository (21%). These classes differed in the mean number of students per course and whether courses were exclu-
sively online. These descriptions provided data-based information to share with deans across the university to facilitate discussion
of faculty needs for LMS tools and training.

Keywords Course design . Learning management system . Latent analysis . Blackboard Learn . BbStats . Educational technology

Insight into the use of educational technology is an important
contribution to strategic decision making at academic institu-
tions. Today, virtually all academic institutions offer a set of
technology tools dedicated to instruction. Included in this eco-
system of tools is the learning management system (LMS), a
tool which is particularly pervasive in higher education. Indeed,
the LMS has become integral to student learning experiences
and faculty teaching experiences (Dahlstrom et al. 2014).
Over the past decade, competition in the LMS market space
coupled with demands from faculty and students exposed to
cutting-edge Internet systems, forced universities to re-
evaluate their use of the LMS. In fact, a technical report by
EDUCAUSE predicted that nearly one in five institutions
* Szymon Machajewski
szymonm@uic.edu
Alana Steffen
steffena@uic.edu
Elizabeth Romero Fuerte
elromero@uic.edu
Eleanor Rivera
sriver25@uic.edu
1
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
were preparing to replace their LMS system in the next three
years (Dahlstrom et al. 2014). Many universities have moved
from their original LMS to another as a result of such evalu-
ations while some universities have decided to stay with their
current LMS. After 19 years of using the same LMS, IT
Governance at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
decided to conduct an evaluation in order to advise executive
decision makers on the future direction.
Relevance of the Study
A review of the literature informing LMS evaluations sug-
gested that decisions are being made largely based on feature
sets provided by the vendor matched with a compiled com-
prehensive feature list of requirements provided by the insti-
tution (Berking and Gallagher 2013). The process of gathering
tool requirement strongly relies on survey data of self-reported
faculty needs and usage, expert opinions, or other anecdotal
data points (Abazi-Bexheti et al. 2010; Medina-Flores and
Morales-Gamboa 2015; Orfanou et al. 2015). While LMSs
have evolved over time, they generally have the same capa-
bilities from the late 1990s (Kroner 2014), and relying on self-
reported data to define Badoption^ and Bbasic and deep use^
was considered problematic for UIC.

Strategic decision making for the investment of instruction-
al technology is best informed by data available within the
institution; however, there are few empirical studies that have
looked at faculty instructional use of the LMS using data from
the databases supporting the LMS itself. Previous conceptual
studies were conducted by Janossy (2008) as well as Dawson
et al. (2008) attempting to answer the question of course de-
sign by analyzing digital data points. For instance, based on a
self-developed scale of functions supported by commonly
used LMSs, Janossy (2008) evaluated instructional use of
the LMS by looking at the contents of the LMS database
course tables without content and then comparing the tables
as faculty added course features to the system. The researcher
claimed that the Busage model and metric can be applied by
any institution using any LMS package to unambiguously and
accurately assess its usage across the entire institution^
(Jannosy, 2008). While this might be the case, the scales did
not emerge from the data itself but applied to the data for tool
use classification.
A more recent study took an approach of measuring and
analyzing time spent on task by students as a way to evaluate
the use of the LMS (Whitmer et al. 2016). With this approach,
even if faculty designed a course with rich features, features
were not reported unless students used the features. Other
empirical analyses have been performed in a single campus
study (Fritz 2013) and in multi-campus study of 927 institu-
tions with 70,000 courses (Whitmer et al. 2016b). From the
student use perspective, five course archetypes were identi-
fied: supplemental (53%), complementary (24%), social
(11%), evaluative (10%), and holistic (2%). The strength of
this study was the large sample and multiple institutions pro-
viding data. The potential gap was that it is unknown if student
use archetypes that reflect course design elements provided by
faculty. Students can use only what is offered by the faculty,
but they may not use all that is offered. Ideally, we would look
at both student use and the context of the course archetypes.
The intentions of faculty can be understood better not from
student activity only, but from the course design itself.
The lack of empirical studies using data from the LMS
itself may be due to the fact that, like many large systems,
the vast amounts of data generated by the LMS is difficult
to extract and analyze, and often requires specialized skills
for both data extraction and interpretation. Blackboard
Inc.’s own data science group admits that common indica-
tors as activity, enrollment, or other measures can be diffi-
cult to understand and the relationship between student
achievement and the use of electronic tools may have a
large variation (Whitmer et al. 2016a, b). While proprietary
software is available for collecting activity data within
Blackboard, as well as through the vendor consulting ser-
vices, both methods require additional expenditures. For
some institutions, this type of expense may not be a part
of the LMS budget.
TechTrends
This research contributes to the literature in two ways.
First, it describes the process of extracting meaningful data
from Blackboard databases used by the institution utilizing a
popular free software package from the Open Source
Community for Educational Learning Objects and Tools
(OSCELOT) called BbStats – Activity Dashboard
(Machajewski 2014), which was the second most frequently
downloaded project in this repository with 14,490 downloads
between 2010 and 2016. Second, it demonstrates the use of
latent class analysis, a novel approach that provides data-
driven insight into the patterns of the LMS tool use.
Data Collection
The data for this research was collected from a Managed
Hosted system in the Virginia Blackboard data centers using
BbStats Activity Dashboard. The data was filtered by a spe-
cific term, Fall 2016, based on the course id identifier
(course_id). The data sample represented all courses at
University of Illinois at Chicago, which created an artifact in
the Blackboard Learn system. While other courses and orga-
nizations were also used during the specific term, only term-
bound, academic courses were included. Examples of exclud-
ed courses were continuous courses, courses from past terms
which may be reusing old course shells, or merged sections
with non-standard parent sections.
The Blackboard tools reported on by BbStats included
course content items, which can be any artifact created in
the course such as a file, folder, or text item. The use of
any artifact qualifies a course to be included in the re-
search sample. For each element of course design, (i.e.,
content items, announcements, assessments, assignments,
discussion board forums, grade center columns, blogs/
wikis/journals (combined),) a separate excel data file
was created that included the course_id, a count of that
element within the course, and the number of students.
These files were imported into SAS 9.4 and merged to
create a comprehensive raw data file with one record per
course_id and zero-filled for elements with no use in the
course. Indicator variables were coded for each design
element for presence/absence in the course in addition to
the count variable. Additional variables such as delivery
method (online versus in-person) and college/department
were associated with each course as well. Design of the
course is then defined by the use of the grade center,
content items, announcements, assignments, assessments,
blogs, wikis, journals, and discussion forums. The
resulting file contained a single record for each course,
indicators and counts of each design element, number of
students enrolled in the course, delivery method, and
college.
TechTrends

Statistical Analysis example, 49% of courses used assignments through

Blackboard, and the median use was 5 assignments for those
The comprehensive raw data file was imported into Mplus, courses. Grade center was used in 79% of courses with a
version 7.4 to conduct latent class analysis. Latent class anal- median 15 grade columns.
ysis (LCA) is a model-based clustering approach that iden-
tifies homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous popu- Model Results Latent class models with k = 2 to 5 classes were
lation (Lazarsfeld and Henry 1968). Maximum likelihood es- examined and showed that 3 classes provided the best fitting
timation identifies a latent categorical variable with k levels or solution (lowest BIC, Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood
classes based on observed indicators with parameters that in- ratio test showing a significantly better fit than 2 classes), and
dicate the size of each class and the probability of each indi- fairly good separation of classes (entropy = .79). Three sub-
cator by class. The process involves fitting consecutive groups identified and named were Holistic tool use (28%),
models, k = 2, 3, 4, etc. and examining likelihood ratio tests, Complementary tool use (51%), and Content repository
fit indices (e.g. Bayesian Information criteria, BIC), entropy, a (21%). Figure 1 represents the latent class profiles identified
measure of class separation, and standardized residual z- by the final model, their relative sizes estimated for the popu-
scores to determine the best solution (i.e., the number of clas- lation, and the probability of tool presence within a course.
ses that provide the best fit to the data). Our input for the LCA Class 1: Holistic tools use (100% of courses use grade
models were the following design element indicators (present/ center, >90% use announcements, and least used tool is as-
absent): announcements, assessments, assignments, discus- sessments, 40% of courses in this subgroup). This latent class
sion board forums, and grade center. Content was universally represents academic courses with the highest likelihood for
present across the courses (97%) and wikis, blogs, and using all of the examined tools. This group is estimated to
journals were minimally used (4%), therefore, these elements encompass 28% of the courses offered.
were excluded due to lack of variability. Once the solution was Class 2: Complementary tools use (100% of courses use
selected, class assignment was done using the highest poste- grade center, roughly 55% of courses use announcements and
rior probability. We used this class indicator to further profile 48% use assignments). This largest identified latent class com-
and describe the subgroups using other variables not used to prises 51% of courses, takes advantage of the above grade
create the classes, e.g., delivery method, college/department, center benefits, about half use announcements and assign-
number of students. ments, but discussion boards and digital assessments such as
quizzes or exams are rarely used.
Class 3: Content repository was the smallest (21%) identi-
fied class (Roughly 45% of courses use announcements and
Results 19% included discussion forums, other tools were not used).
The third latent class notably takes no advantage of the digital
Sample Description The data set included 2562 courses. On grade center, but uses some class-wide collaboration tools
average, there were 38.4 (SD = 56.9) students enrolled in a such as the discussion forums, instructor-to-student commu-
course, with a median at 22 and range from 1 to 1304. nication tools such as announcements, and the digital reposi-
Table 1 provides an overview of the design elements used tory of content similar to all groups included in the case study.
by faculty across the course. There is considerable variation Additional results describe the typical number of enrolled
in the use of tools, and when present, the extent of use. For students per latent class, number of tools for each course, and
proportion delivered online or in-person (Table 2). These var-
Table 1 Course elements for 2562 courses at University of Illinois at iables were not directly used to create the latent class solution,
Chicago, Fall 2016
but statistically significant differences across the subgroups
Course Element % of courses that used Range Median (IQR) supports validity of the latent class solution. Finally, the re-
that element sults were grouped for each of the schools or colleges identi-
fied by the UIC’s Student Information System (Fig. 2). At UIC
Announcements 64 0–234 9 (16)
we note that colleges with the largest proportions of Holistic
Assessments 17 0–177 6 (11)
tools courses have more online and blended courses.
Assignments 49 0–102 5 (8)
Content Items 97 0–407 39 (45)
Discussion Board 32 0–191 6 (13)
Discussion
Grade Center 79 0–250 15 (20)
Blogs/Wikis/Journals 4 0–48 2 (4)
The purpose of this study was to better understand how our
Median and interquartile range (IQR) refer to the count of each course faculty members use the current LMS to inform discussions
element when present in a course and decision-making about our teaching technology needs.
 TechTrends

Fig. 1 Latent class profiles 1

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Holisic Tools Use 28%
0.5
0.4
Complementary Tools Use
0.3 51%
0.2
Content Repository 21%
0.1
0

We used a cost-effective approach; that is, we extracted our
own data using BbStats, a freely available software. Our anal-
yses revealed 3 patterns of tool use among our courses that
illustrate the extent to which we use the functionality of our
current LMS. The Holistic subgroup (28% of courses) had
courses with a larger class size, a greater likelihood of online
delivery and 5 tools used per course (content, grade center,
announcements, and possibly assignments, discussions, and/
or assessments), on average. The complementary tool use
group was the middling half (51%) of all courses with regard
to tool use, class size, and proportion of online courses. These
courses averaged 3 tools per course (content, grade center, and
announcements or assignments). The content repository sub-
group (21% of courses) had almost no (<2%) online courses,
had smallest class sizes and averaged about 2 LMS tools per
course (i.e., content and announcements or discussion board).
There was no use of grade center, assignments, or assess-
ments. These findings allow us to characterize how we use
our current LMS, yet do not address faculty satisfaction with
the status quo, knowledge of available tools and functions,
and their desire to learn and incorporate new technologies into
their teaching.
The three identified latent class profiles represent the intent
behind the instructional design of the courses. They do not
provide evidence of student use or satisfaction. When courses
are deployed in the Blackboard Learn system in the BHolistic
tool use^ profile, 28% of courses offer the option for students
to access their grades in a digital system, read announcements
(through email or in the course), and complete online quizzes
or exams. Instructors designing courses within this category
might take advantage of student tools such as grade notifica-
tions through email and Blackboard notification framework,
the Bb Student mobile app, and browser-based communica-
tion to students in the global navigation of the Blackboard
Learn system.
The BComplementary tool use^ profile represents the larg-
est number of courses in the UIC system at 51%. The use of
the grade center and significant support for announcements
and assignments shows an intention to use Blackboard
Learn to communicate grades, keep students informed of the
course progress, and accept digital assignments. These are key
features of a Learning Management System, which track aca-
demic progress and automate key teaching methods.
The use of the Blackboard Learn system as a BContent
repository^ makes up only 21% of the system. This latent
class profile may represent initial phases of a faculty member
digitizing a course experience. It may represent the view of the
role of technology in teaching as faculty-to-student communi-
cation and content-to-student communication. Certainly, this
intent by faculty does not tap into student-to-student

Table 2 Number of students and course tools by latent class subgroup

Holistic Tools Use Complementary Tools Use Content Repository Test

n = 706 n = 1309 n = 547 (p value)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F test

Number of students per course 44.5 (60.1) 41.0 (52.2) 24.5 (60.9) 22.0 (<0.0001)
Number of tools used per course* 5.3 (0.7) 3.2 (0.8) 1.6 (0.7) 3687.9 (<0.0001)
n (%) n (%) n (%) χ2
Online 205 (29.2%) 86 (6.8%) 9 (1.7%) 284
In-Person 496 (70.8%) 1184 (93.2%) 523 (98.3) (<0.0001)

*Tools include content, grade center, announcements, assignments, discussion board, assessments, and blogs/wikis/journals (combined)
TechTrends
Fig. 2 Distribution of course 100%
types by college 90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Content Repository
communication, digital collaboration between either faculty
and students (assignments) or student-to-student collaboration
(groups, discussions), or digital assessment (assessments as
online quizzes or exams) in the online system. It may be that
these teaching and learning dimensions are facilitated in the
classroom or in other systems.
Undoubtedly, the cost-effective use of BbStats to access
data provides other institutions using Blackboard with an ex-
cellent opportunity to replicate this study, and it may provide
an opportunity for faculty collaboration for statistical analysis.
The aggregate profiles of courses by school or college often
reflect a general nature of the programs and curricular ap-
proach. The adoption of specific tools in the online portion
of a course should not be correlated to academic quality of the
program or effectiveness of instruction. This approach reports
only on the selection of tools in Blackboard Learn portion of
the course design. However, this presentation of the results
may suggest resources that may be needed by specific col-
leges, such as assigned instructional designers or instructor
training sessions in specific Blackboard tool use. Finally, as
the body of knowledge about the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning (SoTL) continues to increase, exploring the tool use
in the local learning management system may help to distrib-
ute SoTL findings to instructors and colleges according to the
digital evidence of their course design (Englund et al. 2017;
Openo et al. 2017).
Conclusions
The findings in this study need to be related to the patterns,
which were identified previously by measuring the student use
of courses across a large data set (Whitmer et al. 2016). That
study did not report on the faculty intent, in terms of the design
of the course, but on the time students spent consuming con-
tent. The present study adds that while students may be spend-
ing a large amount of time in the content of the course, at least
28% of courses at UIC were created with well-rounded oppor-
tunities for students to engage in assessments, discussions,
Complementary Tools Use Holisic Tools Use
announcements, assignments, and reviewing grade postings.
This affects approximately 31,417 student course enrollments
(706 courses with 44.5 enrollments on average out of the total
of 2562 courses with an average of 38.4 student course enroll-
ments). The definition of the Complementary group in the
study by Whitmer (2016) included content with announce-
ments and the use of gradebook. Our study identifies a differ-
ent course design profile as Complementary tool use. It in-
cludes digital assignments for roughly half of the courses.
Perhaps the time required to complete the assignments cannot
be recorded in the student activity data; however, there is a
clear intention on the side of faculty for students to submit
their assignments through the LMS. Along with the Holistic
tool use profile of courses, they make up 79% of courses at
UIC.
Comparing the student use of time in online courses and
faculty design intentions, there is clearly a gap. Perhaps time
spent on course items by students reflects their best judgment
on what will make them successful in the course. Faculty may
be designing opportunities for students, which are not well
communicated and utilized. Further research is needed to
bridge this gap and match student online behavior with faculty
expectations and their design for learning.
We observed that almost all courses in the sample had
content items and almost none used the blogs/wiki/journals
tools, making those tools irrelevant to understanding the pat-
terns of use due to their limited variability. Content may have
been as minimal as a syllabus, but the median number of items
across courses seemed plausible as did the median within each
subgroup. The range of number of content items and other
tools was noteworthy. The largest observed values may repre-
sent outlier courses that use a high frequency of tools, but it is
also possible that courses become cluttered as they are copied
repeatedly each time the course is offered. It may be that
maintaining an uncluttered course design is not easily accom-
plished with the current LMS and suggests a usability issue to
be explored with faculty and instructional designers. We also
observed a low proportion of courses used LMS assessments
across the sample (17%). While online classes might be

expected to use LMS assessments, 12% of courses had an
online component. We will want to explore if assessment tool
options address faculty needs and concerns for possible
cheating.
Future Research
The pattern of course tool use at UIC can be used to gain an
understanding of the appropriateness of the LMS or the need
to evaluate other solutions. Further research is needed to iden-
tify what external tools are used by college to get a better
picture of the instructional technology ecosystem in place in
UIC. Furthermore, another dimension that is needed may be
brought via focus groups to learn about teaching approaches
that correspond to these identified groups and if different tools
or training might be needed to enhance teaching.
In addition, to deepen the insight on LMS use, it will be
necessary to collect qualitative feedback from users such as
students and faculty. What is the faculty satisfaction with the
system? How would they describe the ease of use? How much
time is involved in accessing necessary resources by students
or faculty? How does the use of audio and video resources,
which are often external to the LMS, affect their course design
and LMS use?
Some of the key questions requiring answers include: Can
the knowledge of course patterns be used to improve student
learning? Can the design archetypes be correlated to student
satisfaction, grades, or course evaluation feedback? How can
the findings of the study be applied in a larger context?
Certainly, analyzing course design and faculty intentions into
emerging patterns shed a light on the eLearning ecosystem,
but actionable next steps would be of great value.
Limitations
Data collection was highly mechanical without advanced em-
bedded logic or machine learning. This means that items,
which were disabled to prevent students from viewing them
on purpose (perhaps lecture notes) or items that were not de-
ployed for instructional use (experimental use or course in
development), were included in the study. The simple pres-
ence of a digital item in the course was counted as an inten-
tional use; therefore, we were not confident in the accuracy of
tool count data. We are confident in the presence/absence of
tools from our extraction method, but a limitation comes from
the lack of student data to verify if tools were used within a
course. We can assume assignments and assessments are used
TechTrends
by students when course credit is earned but not for discus-
sions or content when the features are not graded.
Courses were reported on with equal weight despite their
low or high enrollment. Therefore, the impact on the student
body of a specific tool incorporated in courses and present in
the report, may be disproportionally reflecting the importance
of a tool. The association with specific schools and colleges
may therefore be further out of balance if a school has a large
number of smaller class offerings. Courses created in
Blackboard LMS at UIC are already filtered for gradable sec-
tions only and exclude conference or discussion sections.
Courses covered by the study used content items (97%),
which is why an assumption was made that all courses in the
data set had a link, a folder, or text item of some sort created.
The latent classes were identified and named following these
limitations.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Abazi-Bexheti, L., Kadriu, A., & Ahmedi, L. (2010). Measurement and
assessment of learning management system usage. In Proceedings
of 6th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Educational
Technologies. WSEAS Press.
Berking, P., & Gallagher, S. (2013). Choosing a learning management
system. Advanced distributed learning (ADL) Co-laboratories.
Version 3 .0. Se rco Se rvice s, Inc.–O PM con tract no .
OPM0207008, Project Code: 02EA3TTAN MP, Vol.3. https://
www.adlnet.gov/public/uploads/ChoosingAnLMS.docx. Accessed
2 Jan 2017.
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, C., & Bichsel J. (2014). The Current Ecosystem of
Learning Management Systems in Higher Education: Student,
Faculty, and IT Perspectives. Retrieved from: http://www.
educause.edu/ecar.
Dawson, S., McWilliam, E. & Tan, J. (2008). Teaching smarter: how
mining ICT data can inform and improve learning and teaching
practice. Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 221–230).
Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.
Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technol-
ogy in higher education: Understanding conceptual change and de-
velopment in practice, Higher Education Research & Development,
36:1, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300.
Fritz, J. (2013). Using Analytics at UMBC: Encouraging Student
Responsibility and Identifying Effective Course Designs. (Research
Bulletin). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/
2013/4/using-analytics-at-umbc-encouragingstudent-responsibility-
and-identifying-effective-course-designs. Accessed 2 Jan 2017.
TechTrends
Janossy, J. (2008). Proposed Model for Evaluating C/LMS Faculty Usage
in Higher Education Institutions. Paper presented at the MBAA
International Conference, Chicago, IL.
Kroner G. (2014). Does your LMS do this? [Blog post]. Retrieved from
https://edutechnica.com/2014/01/07/a-model-for-lms-evolution/.
Lazarsfeld, P., & Henry, N. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Machajewski, S. (2014). Open source analytics for Blackboard Learn,
BbStats – Activity dashboard. Paper presented at the Big Data
Conference, Allendale, MI. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.
gvsu.edu/bigdata_conference2014/10.
Medina-Flores, R., & Morales-Gamboa, R. (2015). Usability evaluation
by experts of a learning management system. IEEE Revista
Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 10(4), 197–203.
https://doi.org/10.1109/rita.2015.2486298.
Openo, J., Laverty, C., Kolomitro, K., Borin, P., Goff, L., Stranach, M., &
Gomaa, N. (2017). Bridging the divide: Leveraging the scholarship
of teaching and learning for quality enhancement. The Canadian
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.6.
Orfanou, K., Tselios, N., & Katsanos, C. (2015). Perceived usability
evaluation of learning management systems: Empirical evaluation
of the system usability scale. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/
10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.1955.
Whitmer, J., Nuñez, N., Harfield, T., & Forteza, D. (2016). Patterns in
Blackboard Learn tool use: Five course design archetypes.
Retrieved from https://www.blackboard.com/Images/Bb_Patterns_
LMS_Course_Design_r5_tcm21-42998.pdf.
Whitmer, J., Nuñez, N. & Forteza, D. (2016a). Research in progress:
Learning analytics at scale for Blackboard Learn [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://blog.blackboard.com/research-in-progress-
learning-analytics-at-scale/.
Whitmer, J., Nuñez, N. & Forteza, D. (2016b). How successful students
use LMS tools – confirming our hunches [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://blog.blackboard.com/how-successful-students-use-lms-
tools/.