Open Access Peer-reviewed Perspective

The reality of e-Learning: Success and failure of learning management system

Main Article Content

Niroj Dahal corresponding author
Netra Kumar Manandhar


A learning management system (LMS) is a digital learning platform for developing, delivering, and managing courses, learning resources, activities, and assessments (to name but a few). Traditional classroom-based, online, blended, and distance learning are all possible learning methods that could be executed in LMSs. Learning management systems and associated tools have brought significant benefits to higher education institutions worldwide, including improved content deliverability, accessibility, and retrievability. This is also valid in the case of Kathmandu University School of Education (KUSOED), Nepal. In 2011, KUSOED launched LMS and continued online and blended learning practices. The LMS follows a social constructivist approach to education, allowing educational stakeholders (parents, students, leaders, facilitators) to engage in learning activities to scaffold the learning experiences. However, the perception of LMS as only a management system for storing data limits the implications of fostering learning through a technology-integrated education model. This article aims to discuss the success and failure aspects of LMS in the context of the KUSOED. The discussion will cover various perspectives on LMS as an emerging learning technology and draw conclusions based on our experiences at KUSOED. For the success aspects of LMS, we discovered four factors: sign-in, resources and learning management, content management, and integration. Nevertheless, for the failure aspects, we found content creation and sharing, communicative features, course structures, learning engagement, and assessment. Overall, this research has implications for educational institutions, instructors, developers, and system providers. These stakeholders can make more informed decisions about implementing and using these systems to their fullest potential in learning.

learning management system, classroom-based learning, online learning, blended learning, distance learning, success and failure

Article Details

Author Biography

Niroj Dahal, Department of STEAM Education, Kathmandu University School of Education, Hattiban, Lalitpur, Nepal

Niroj Dahal, Ph.D. Scholar in STEAM Education, works at Kathmandu University School of Education as lecturer. Prior to that, he has been working as a visiting faculty member of Kathmandu University School of Education (KUSOED) and Kathmandu University School of Arts (KUSOA), Hattiban, Lalitpur, Nepal in M. Ed in Mathematics Education, M Phil and Bachelor programs as well as visiting faculty member of Nepal Open University (NOU) under Faculty of Social Sciences and Education, Manbhaban, Lalitpur, Nepal in M Phil programs. Areas of his research interests are ICT in Education, Mathematics Education, Open, Distance & e-Learning, STEAM Education focusing on Technology & Mathematics, and ICT & e-Research. For more than a decade, he has been teaching graduate and undergraduate students. Also, he has been continuously participating in more than a dozen national and international conferences, workshops, and seminars. He has published articles in a variety of national and international journals in the field of mathematics education by integrating ICT tools.

How to Cite
Dahal, N., & Manandhar, N. K. (2024). The reality of e-Learning: Success and failure of learning management system. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 4(1), 903-910.


  1. Alhazmi, A., Imtiaz, A., Alhammadi, F., & Kaed, E. (2021). Success and Failure Aspects of LMS in E-Learning Systems. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (IJIM), 15(11), 133.
  2. Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5261–5280.
  3. Atim, A., Ilidina, M., Nurul, E. D. A. M., & Ercan, K. (2021). Critical success factors in e-learning: A case study. E-Bangi: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 18(4), 42–58.
  4. Dahal, N. (2019). Online assessment through Moodle platform in higher education. ICT Integration in Education Conference (pp. 19–21). Kathmandu, Nepal.
  5. Dahal, N. (2022). Ensuring Quality in Qualitative Research: A Researcher’s Reflections. The Qualitative Report.
  6. Dahal, N., Luitel, B. C., Pant, B. P., & Rajbanshi, R. (2022). Enhancing Student-Teachers Assessment Skills: A Self-and Peer-Assessment Tool in Higher Education. International Journal of Education and Practice, 10(4), 313–321.
  7. Dahal, N., Luitel, B. C., Pant, B. P., Shrestha, I. M., & Manandhar, N. K. (2020). Emerging ICT Tools, Techniques and Methodologies for Online Collaborative Teaching and Learning Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, 5(5), 17–21.
  8. Dahal, N., Manandhar, N. K., Luitel, L., Luitel, B. C., Pant, B. P., & Shrestha, I. M. (2022). ICT tools for remote teaching and learning mathematics: A proposal for autonomy and engagements. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(1), 289–296.
  9. Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. J. (2018). A System’s View of E‐Learning Success Model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 16(1), 42–76. Portico.
  10. Jami Pour, M., Mesrabadi, J., & Asarian, M. (2021). Meta-analysis of the DeLone and McLean models in e-learning success: the moderating role of user type. Online Information Review, 46(3), 590–615.
  11. Jaoua, F., Almurad, H. M., Elshaer, I. A., & Mohamed, E. S. (2022). E-Learning Success Model in the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic in Higher Educational Institutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2865.
  12. Lochmiller, C. (2021). Conducting Thematic Analysis with Qualitative Data. The Qualitative Report.
  13. Magd, H., Nzomkunda, A., Negi, S., & Ansari, M. (2022). Critical success factors of e-learning implementation in higher education institutions: A proposed framework for success. Global Business and Management Research, 14(2 SI), 20-30.
  14. McPherson, M. A., & Nunes, J. M. (2008). Critical issues for e-learning delivery: what may seem obvious is not always put into practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 433–445.
  15. Papadakis, S. J., Semerikov, S. O., Yechkalo, Y. V., Velychko, V. Y., Vakaliuk, T. A., Amelina, S. M., ... & Tkachuk, V. V. (2023). Advancing lifelong learning and professional development through ICT: insights from the 3L-Person 2023 workshop. Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, October 25, 2023.
  16. Papadakis, S., Kiv, A. E., Kravtsov, H. M., Osadchyi, V. V., Marienko, M. V., Pinchuk, O. P., Shyshkina, M. P., Sokolyuk, O. M., Mintii, I. S., Vakaliuk, T. A., Azarova, L. E., Kolgatina, L. S., Amelina, S. M., Volkova, N. P., Velychko, V. Ye., Striuk, A. M., & Semerikov, S. O. (2023). ACNS Conference on Cloud and Immersive Technologies in Education: Report. CTE Workshop Proceedings, 10, 1–44.
  17. Papadakis, S., Kiv, A. E., Kravtsov, H. M., Osadchyi, V. V., Marienko, M. V., Pinchuk, O. P., ... & Striuk, A. M. (2023). Unlocking the power of synergy: the joint force of cloud technologies and augmented reality in education. In 10th Workshop on Cloud Technologies in Education (CTE 2021) and 5th International Workshop on Augmented Reality in Education (AREdu 2022), Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, May 23, 2022.
  18. Priatna, T., Maylawati, D. S., Sugilar, H., & Ramdhani, M. A. (2020). Key Success Factors of e-Learning Implementation in Higher Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 15(17), 101.
  19. Rizana, A. F., Hediyanto, U. Y. K. S., Ramadhan, F., & Kurniawati, A. (2020). E-learning success determinants in higher education: A systematic literature review from users’ perspective. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 830(3), 032012.
  20. Rodrigues, M., Gonçalves, S., & Fdez-Riverola, F. (2013). E-learning Platforms and E-learning Students: Building the Bridge to Success. ADCAIJ: Advances in Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence Journal, 1(2), 21–34.