Pharmacy and Engineering Students’ Perceptions and Satisfaction with Canvas LMS as a Support in Blended English for Specific Purposes Courses

Learning Management Systems (LMSs) have become an important tool adopted by higher education institutions worldwide to support online and blended courses, or even to complement face-to-face learning. The adoption of these platforms by Moroccan universities remains limited, and there is a notable paucity of studies examining student perceptions and satisfaction when these platforms are used in instruction. Accordingly, the principal objective of this case study was to explore pharmacy and engineering students’ experiences with Canvas LMS in a blended English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course. Data were collected from 74 respondents via a questionnaire consisting of Likert-scale items measuring perceived usefulness, ease of use, system quality, and overall satisfaction, along with open-ended questions. Participants generally viewed Canvas as useful, easy to use, and of good system quality. Moreover, satisfaction correlated significantly and positively with all three factors, with perceived usefulness showing the strongest association. In addition to providing further support for the quantitative results, the qualitative data highlighted additional benefits, challenges, and recommendations for enhancing the use of LMS platforms to support the blended course. Based on these findings, this study recommends providing teachers with professional development that addresses not only technical aspects but also best practices for using LMS tools to support students’ learning.

Introduction

The COVID-19 outbreak affected not only the global economy and healthcare systems, but also education. Because of this pandemic, long-standing pedagogical beliefs and institutional practices in higher education have been re-evaluated (Rapantaet al., 2021). During this period, lockdown measures compelled educational institutions to suspend face-to-face instruction and resort instead to remote teaching. This abrupt transition uncovered the extent to which traditional education models were unprepared for large-scale disruptions. This perspective is succinctly expressed by Zhouet al. (2022), who stated, “the crisis illuminates the urgent need for higher education systems to evolve in practice, theory, and research to absorb or overcome such shocks in the future.” (p. 8940). There are many ways to achieve this evolution Zhou and his colleagues called for. One of them is the deliberate integration of technologies into educational practice.

Learning management systems (LMSs) were among the most extensively adopted technologies during the lockdown. Broadly speaking, they can be defined as digital platforms specifically developed to centralize and enhance the educational experience (Subramanianet al., 2014). More specifically, LMSs perform both pedagogical and administrative tasks. Pedagogical functions include supporting a variety of multimedia formats, promoting peer interaction through discussion boards and forums, and offering self-paced quizzes and tasks, while administrative functions involve uploading instructional materials, administering assessments, keeping track of student progress, and maintaining effective communication with learners (Ajlouniet al., 2024; Al-Ataby, 2021; Dahlstromet al., 2014; Lonn & Teasley, 2009). According to several studies, the pedagogical and administrative functions of LMSs enable instructors to provide an organized learning environment, enhance their instructional efficiency, and promote student engagement and autonomy (Lonn & Teasley, 2009; Oudat & Othman, 2024).

All of these benefits explain, to a large extent, why the end of the pandemic did not put an end to the use of learning management systems by higher education institutions worldwide. Another possible reason for being still widely utilized is that they support not only fully online instruction but also blended and face-to-face learning formats (Fathemaet al., 2015; Salgado-Chamorroet al., 2023). One more reason is that LMSs can be accessed on phones, tablets, or computers which enable students to access materials, participate in discussions, and complete assignments anytime and anywhere (Sunet al., 2008). In fact, some researchers argue that these instructional management tools have become one of the most important technologies in today’s educational landscape (Nguyen, 2021; Mizanet al., 2023). However, it is important to note that while it is true that Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are essential to the future of education, their adoption alone does not guarantee successful learning outcomes (Nguyen, 2021; Rulinawatyet al., 2024). Therefore, these platforms should not be treated as optional add-ons because this limits their educational value; rather, they should be integrated as a deliberate component of sustainable, student-centered digital ecosystems in higher education (Aldiabet al., 2019; Oudat & Othman, 2024; Mizanet al., 2023). In fact, this view applies to all technologies, not only to learning management systems. According to Zhouet al. (2022), “technology cannot enhance learning unless adopted, embraced, and effectively used.” (p. 8942).

In the Moroccan context, the digital infrastructure within higher education institutions has witnessed significant improvement over the past few years. Internet connectivity is now freely available across most university campuses, and platforms such as Moodle have been made accessible to faculty members for instructional purposes. However, the use of this platform by Moroccan academic staff to complement face-to-face instruction or to adopt blended learning models remains relatively limited. This limited uptake may be partially attributed to the non-compulsory nature of LMS use in institutional policies. Furthermore, there is a noticeable gap in the empirical research addressing students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with these platforms when employed by their instructors. Conducting empirical studies that explore students’ perceptions, satisfaction, and actual use of LMS platforms is crucial to understanding how these tools influence classroom learning. Without such evidence, assumptions regarding the effectiveness of LMS integration remain speculative.

To fill this gap, this study aimed to explore and compare pharmacy and engineering students’ perceptions and experiences with the use of the Canvas LMS in the context of a blended English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course. Specifically, the study attempted to examine how students perceived the ease of use, usefulness, and system quality of the Canvas platform and how these perceptions influenced their satisfaction with the Canvas LMS as a support tool for the course. It also attempted to identify whether any differences existed between the two groups in terms of satisfaction.

To meet these objectives, this study sought to answer the following specific research questions:

• How do pharmacy and engineering students perceive the usefulness, ease of use, and system quality of Canvas LMS?

• To what extent are PU, PEOU, and SQ associated with students’ overall satisfaction with Canvas LMS?

• What benefits, challenges, and recommendations do students perceive regarding their use of Canvas LMS in the blended ESP course?

Literature Review

Hybrid learning has recently gained popularity and credibility because of its potential to improve teaching and learning effectiveness (Al-Ataby, 2021; AlNajdi, 2014). Overall, hybrid learning combines the benefits of face-to-face instruction with affordances of online platforms. It is very important to note that blended learning is not a random mix, but rather a deliberate and well-thought-out combination of collective learning in classrooms with self-paced, individualized learning online (AlNajdi, 2014; Nguyen, 2021). That is, student learning is enhanced through the incorporation of both digital and traditional teaching methods, as well as the fact that learners gain greater control over the timing and pace of their studies. One of the most important educational technologies that plays a central role in facilitating the implementation of blended learning is Learning Management Systems (LMSs).

They can be defined as Internet-based platforms that are designed to support and manage teaching and learning processes in an efficient and organized manner (Elmunsyahet al., 2023). Some of the main functions of these educational technologies are enabling instructors to share course content, facilitating discussions, managing assignments, recording grades, and scheduling activities (Cavus, 2015; Subramanianet al., 2014). According to several authors, LMSs are beneficial for both instructors and students. When used effectively, they make teachers’ jobs easier by automating administrative tasks, such as grading and attendance. They also improve teaching and learning efficiency by enhancing communication between instructors and their learners, and collaboration among learners. Moreover, they foster student engagement through interactive tools. Last but not least, they promote self-paced learning and autonomy by offering structured and easily accessible materials (Aldiabet al., 2019; Bradley, 2021).

Several LMS platforms have been developed for this purpose. Canvas LMS is one of the most widely adopted ones by schools and universities around the world (Al-Ataby, 2021). Like most LMS platforms, Canvas can serve as a digital hub that supports all aspects of the learning process, in the sense that professors can use it to organize content, assign quizzes and homework, and encourage collaboration among students (Al-Ataby, 2021; Burrack & Thompson, 2021; Santianaet al., 2021). Canvas LMS offers a free-for-teacher version that educators can independently use at no cost. This is particularly beneficial in contexts in which institutions may not provide access to an official LMS. A very interesting feature offered by the Canvas LMS, even in its free version, is Mastery Paths. This tool allows teachers to personalize learning by assigning different tasks and resources to students according to their earlier results. In this sense, Mastery Paths help teachers to support learner autonomy.

Although the technical capabilities of a Learning Management System (LMS) are important, they do not necessarily determine its effectiveness. In fact, how teachers and students perceive the platform may matter even more. Previous research has often explored, in particular, how satisfied students are with their LMS experiences (Prahaniet al., 2022; Santianaet al., 2021). According to Nguyen (2021), student satisfaction is influenced by how the platform supports their learning goals and meets their expectations. Various factors have been identified in the literature as influencing students’ overall experiences. In this study, the focus is on three key factors: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and system quality.

Based on Davis’s (1989) original definitions, this study defines perceived usefulness as students’ belief that the Canvas LMS supports and enhances their academic performance, and perceived ease of use as how effortlessly learners can navigate and use the system. Both constructs have been consistently found to have a significant effect on learners’ overall satisfaction with LMS use in several studies (Sunet al., 2008; Al-Azaweiet al., 2017; Al Kurdiet al., 2020). The third factor examined in this study was system quality. Drawing on the work of DeLone and McLean (2003), system quality is understood here as the reliability, adaptability, response time, and interface usability of the Canvas platform. These elements reflect how well the system functions and how smoothly it supports the learning experience. Similar to perceived usefulness and ease of use, system quality has also been shown to be strongly associated with students’ overall satisfaction with learning management platforms (Ozkan & Koseler, 2009).

Materials and Methods

This case study involved third-year pharmacy students from the Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Dentistry at Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah University of Fez, and fourth-year engineering students from the Euromed Polytechnic School (EPS) at the Euro-Mediterranean University of Fez. It was conducted during the spring semester of the 2024–2025 academic year. Approximately 80 pharmacy and 37 engineering students were invited to take part in the study; however, only 74 students responded to the survey. In an effort to reduce any possible bias in responses, the questionnaire was administered after the completion of exams and the release of final grades. Participants were also informed that their participation was entirely voluntary and that their answers would remain anonymous.

The questionnaire used in collecting data consisted of three sections. The first one comprised a set of demographic and background questions on their prior experience with LMS platforms. The second section included four Likert scales: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, System Quality, and Overall Satisfaction. All of the items in these scales were rated on a 5- point Likert scale. The last section contained three open-ended questions that asked students to describe the challenges they faced when using the Canvas LMS, what they appreciated about the platform, and the recommendations they had for improving a blended ESP course supported by LMS platforms.

Before the administration of the questionnaire, two professors in the field of educational technology reviewed its validity. The researcher also piloted the questionnaire with six students. After making the necessary modifications based on the comments and remarks of the professors and students, data were collected. The reliability of the scales was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. Following the guidelines for Cronbach’s alpha coefficient size suggested by Hairet al. (2015), the results demonstrate that the strength of the association between the items making up each scale is very good, as shown in Table I.

Table I. Measurement Scales, Reliability, and Original Sources

Scale	N of items	Reliability (Cronbach’s α)	Adapted from
Perceived usefulness (PU)	7	0.871	(Davis, 1989)
Perceived ease of use (PEOU)	6	0.858	(Davis, 1989)
System quality (SQ)	7	0.893	(DeLone & McLean, 2003)
Overall satisfaction with canvas LMS	4	0.854	(Koh & Kan, 2020)

Descriptive statistics of frequency, percentage, mean, and median were computed in order to summarize and arrange the data in a more interpretable format. Spearman correlation analysis was also conducted in order to assess the strength of the relationship between perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, system quality, and overall satisfaction. The responses to the open-ended questions were subjected to thematic analysis in order to identify key themes and patterns.

Results

Demographic and Background Information

A total of 74 students completed the questionnaire: 44 third-year pharmacy students and 30 fourth-year engineering students. Table II provides details about their age and gender.

Table II. Demographic Information of Participants (Pharmacy and Engineering Students)

	Pharmacy students (n = 44)	Engineering students (n = 30)
Gender
Male	17 (38.6%)	17 (56.7%)
Female	27 (61.4%)	13 (43.3%)
Age Group
20–24	43 (97.7%)	29 (96.7%)
25–29	1 (2.3%)	1 (3.3%)

Participants were asked whether they had previously taken a course in which the instructor had used an LMS platform. The results indicate that a higher percentage of engineering students (63.3%) had prior experience using an LMS compared to pharmacy students (43.2%). To assess students’ familiarity with the Canvas LMS specifically, they were asked how well they knew about the platform before taking this course. Around half of both pharmacy and engineering students reported no familiarity with Canvas whatsoever. However, the proportion of engineering students who were either very familiar or moderately familiar with Canvas was greater than that of pharmacy students. The results are clearly presented in detail in Table III.

Table III. Participants’ Prior LMS Experience and Familiarity with Canvas

	Response options	Pharmacy students (n = 44)	Engineering students (n = 30)
Have you previously taken a course where the instructor used an LMS?	Yes	19 (43.2%)	19 (63.3%)
	No	25 (56.8%)	11 (36.7%)
How familiar were you with Canvas LMS before this course?	Not familiar at all	22 (50.0%)	15 (50.0%)
	Slightly familiar	14 (31.8%)	7 (23.3%)
	Moderately familiar	7 (15.9%)	5 (16.7%)
	Very familiar	1 (2.3%)	3 (10.0%)

Research Question 1

How Do Pharmacy and Engineering Students Perceive the Usefulness, Ease of Use, and System Quality of Canvas LMS?

Perceived Usefulness (PU)

In an attempt to investigate participants’ perceptions of the usefulness of the Canvas LMS, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements using a five-point Likert scale. Table IV presents the median, mean, and standard deviation for each item.

Table IV. Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Usefulness of Canvas LMS among Pharmacy and Engineering Students

	Field of study
	Pharmacy students			Engineering students
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median
Item 1: Canvas helps me perform better in my course.	3,61	,754	4,00	3,43	1,104	4,00
Item 2: Using Canvas has helped me save time as a student.	3,68	,983	4,00	3,67	1,093	4,00
Item 3:Canvas supports effective communication with my instructor.	3,43	,974	4,00	3,17	1,206	3,00
Item 4: Canvas supports collaboration with classmates on academic tasks.	2,93	,925	3,00	3,10	1,094	3,00
Item 5: Canvas makes it easy to track tasks and deadlines.	3,82	,922	4,00	3,63	,928	4,00
Item 6: Canvas enhances my understanding of course content.	3,75	,811	4,00	3,33	1,061	4,00
Item 7: Canvas helps me access course materials anytime and anywhere.	4,11	,813	4,00	3,50	1,167	4,00
	Weighted mean: 3.62Std. Deviation: 0.599			Weighted mean: 3.40Std. Deviation: 0.898

The results clearly suggest that participants viewed the Canvas LMS as useful for academic purposes. As can be seen in Table IV, the median was 4 for items 1, 6, and 7. This indicates a shared consensus among pharmacy and engineering students that Canvas helped them perform better in their courses, enhanced their understanding of the course content, and allowed access to course materials anytime and anywhere. Furthermore, the median was also 4 for items related to the management usefulness of Canvas. This means that both pharmacy and engineering students found the platform very helpful in saving time and tracking tasks and deadlines.

However, a median of 3 for item 4 suggests a neutral stance among the participants. In simple terms, both pharmacy and engineering students do not seem convinced that the Canvas LMS effectively supports collaboration with classmates. Interestingly, when it comes to communication with the instructor through the platform, pharmacy students appeared to agree that Canvas facilitates effective communication (median = 4), while engineering students showed a lack of strong conviction on this point (median = 3).

Overall, the weighted mean value for pharmacy students was 3.62 (SD = 0.599), while that of engineering students was 3.40 (SD = 0.898). These results suggest that students, in general, found the Canvas LMS to be useful. Moreover, the relatively low standard deviations indicate that this perception was commonly shared among the participants in both groups.

Students’ responses to the open-ended question “What do you like most about using Canvas LMS in your course?” align with and reinforce the quantitative findings. The majority of participants emphasized Canvas’s role in organizing content effectively. One participant reported that “Everything is organized in one place—courses, assignments, and announcements.” Others highlighted how Canvas supported their learning by helping them manage time and coursework more efficiently:

• “It allows me to gain time.”

• “Helps me stay on track.”

• “I can do the assessments anytime and from anywhere.”

• “I believe it helps someone like me who doesn’t remember due dates.”

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)

Students’ perceptions regarding the ease of use of the Canvas LMS were measured using a six-item scale. The respondents were asked to rate the level of ease for different aspects of Canvas on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very difficult, 2 = difficult, 3 = neutral, 4 = easy, 5 = very easy). The results are clearly presented in Table V.

Table V. Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Ease of Use of Canvas LMS among Pharmacy and Engineering Students

	Field of study
	Pharmacy students			Engineering students
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median
Item 1: Learning how to use Canvas	3,59	,996	4,00	3,37	1,159	4,00
Item 2 : Navigating the Canvas course space to find course content, schedules, and due dates	3,80	,904	4,00	3,47	1,279	4,00
Item 3 : Submitting assignments through Canvas	3,89	,868	4,00	3,70	1,208	4,00
Item 4: Completing course-related tasks (e.g., taking quizzes, participating in discussions.)	4,14	,702	4,00	3,63	1,098	4,00
Item 5: Communicating and collaborating with classmates via Canvas	3,02	,927	3,00	3,60	1,070	4,00
Item 6: Contacting and communicating with my instructor through Canvas	3,16	,939	3,00	3,50	1,137	4,00
	Weighted mean: 3.59Std. Deviation: 0.585			Weighted mean: 3.54Std. Deviation : 1.013

According to the data shown in Table V, both pharmacy and engineering students generally found learning how to use the platform easy (median = 4). Similarly, students reported that it was easy for them to navigate the Canvas interface to locate course content, schedules, and due dates (median = 4). In the same vein, the median was also 4 for Items 3 and 4. This suggests that most students encountered no difficulty submitting their assignments or completing tasks, such as taking quizzes and participating in discussions.

Interestingly, pharmacy and engineering students appear to have differing views on the ease of using Canvas for collaboration and communication. The median score of 4 for items 5 and 6 suggests that engineering students found communicating and collaborating with classmates, as well as contacting and interacting with the instructor through Canvas, to be easy. However, the median for these two items among pharmacy students was 3 which indicates that while these tasks were manageable, they were not necessarily perceived as easy.

The scale’s overall mean value was 3.59 (SD = 0.585) for pharmacy students and 3.54 (SD = 1.013) for engineering students. Thus, it can be inferred that while students generally found the platform somewhat easy to use, the lower standard deviation for pharmacy students suggested greater consistency in their responses. In contrast, higher variability among engineering students points to a wider range of experiences with the platform.

Students’ feedback on the open-ended questions corroborated the results of the quantitative data. When asked what they liked most about using Canvas LMS in the blended English course, many participants described the platform as “easy to use” and “simple.” Similarly, in response to the question “What challenges or difficulties have you faced while using Canvas LMS?”, many students clearly indicated that they did not encounter any major issues. For example:

• “Honestly, I haven’t faced any significant challenges or difficulties while using Canvas LMS.”

• “To be fair, nothing. It’s easy to use it, and the teacher helped us to know where we can find each thing.”

System Quality (SQ)

Given that the system quality of any technology directly impacts students’ engagement and satisfaction with a course, respondents were asked to specify their level of agreement or disagreement with several statements using a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neutral = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5). The results are well displayed in Table VI.

Table VI. Descriptive Statistics of System Quality of Canvas LMS among Pharmacy and Engineering Students

	Field of study
	Pharmacy students			Engineering students
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median
Item 1: The Canvas layout works well on a computer.	3,82	1,167	4,00	3,90	1,322	4,00
Item 2: The Canvas layout works well on mobile devices (phone/tablet).	3,25	1,222	3,00	3,20	1,243	3,00
Item 3: Information on the screen is well-organized and easy to locate.	3,73	1,065	4,00	3,57	1,223	4,00
Item 4: The texts, visuals, and icons on Canvas are clear and understandable.	3,82	1,105	4,00	3,73	1,143	4,00
Item 5: Canvas is available and functional whenever I need to access it.	3,89	1,061	4,00	3,60	1,192	4,00
Item 6: Canvas performs well without technical errors.	3,41	1,148	4,00	3,50	1,306	4,00
Item 7 : Pages load quickly.	3,75	,918	4,00	3,63	1,129	4,00
	Weighted mean: 3.66			Weighted mean: 3.59
	Std. Deviation : 0.777			Std. Deviation : 1.057

In terms of the adaptability of the Canvas LMS, the median of 4 for Item 1 and the median of 3 for Item 2 suggest that pharmacy and engineering students generally agree that Canvas works well on computers but are neutral about how the platform functions on phones and tablets. In other words, it seems that most students are generally satisfied with the compatibility of the Canvas LMS on computers, but not as much on mobile devices. With regard to Canvas availability, both groups reported a median of 4.00 for item 5 which suggests that students did not have a problem accessing or using the platform whenever they needed to.

In the same vein, the median of 4 for items 3 and 4 suggests that students view the interface design of Canvas LMS positively. Similarly, students from both streams reported a median of 4 for items 6 and 7, which concerned the reliability of the Canvas LMS. This indicates that pharmacy and engineering students generally did not face technical errors while using the platform and appreciated the quick response time when loading pages.

Overall, the scale’s average mean score was 3.66 (SD = 0.777) for pharmacy students and 3.59 (SD = 1.057) for engineering students. This suggests that the system quality of the Canvas LMS platform was generally viewed as positive. Again, the standard deviation implies that there is more consensus on this point among pharmacy students than engineering students.

Research Question 2

To What Extent are PU, PEOU, and SQ Associated with Students’ Overall Satisfaction with Canvas LMS?

Overall Satisfaction with Canvas LMS

To gain an overview of how satisfied participants were with the Canvas LMS, four statements were presented for students to rate on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neutral = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5). The overall weighted mean score was 3.68 (SD = 0.83) for pharmacy students and 3.49 (SD = 0.97) for engineering students. This implies that students were broadly satisfied with the use of the Canvas LMS platform for taking English for Specific Purposes courses.

In terms of affective satisfaction, pharmacy students reported a median of 4.00 for items 1 and 2. This reflects a clear agreement that the platform enhanced their engagement with the course and the enjoyment of using it to support their learning. Engineering students reported a similar median (4.00) for enjoyment, but they reported a slightly lower median of 3.50 for engagement. Notably, the median of 4 for items 3 and 4 implies that both pharmacy and engineering students are in favor of having other blended courses supported by the Canvas LMS platform. Likewise, they strongly encouraged its adoption by other instructors (Table VII).

Table VII. Descriptive Statistics of Student Satisfaction with Canvas LMS

	Field of study
	Pharmacy students			Engineering students
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median	Mean	Std. Deviation	Median
Item 1: Canvas helped me stayed engaged and involved in my ESP course.	3,64	,780	4,00	3,27	1,112	3,50
Item 2 : I enjoyed using Canvas LMS to support my learning.	3,52	1,067	4,00	3,52	1,022	4,00
Item 3: I would be happy to use Canvas LMS in future courses.	3,93	,998	4,00	3,53	1,224	4,00
Item 4: I would recommend that other teachers use Canvas LMS	3,64	1,259	4,00	3,67	1,028	4,00
	Weighted mean: 3.68			Weighted mean: 3.49
	Std. Deviation: 0.82892			Std. Deviation: 0.972

Correlation between the Three Factors and Overall Satisfaction with Canvas LMS

The Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient test was conducted to examine the relationships between overall satisfaction and the three key variables. The results of the correlational analysis are displayed in Table VIII.

Table VIII. Spearman’s Correlations between the Three Factors and Overall Satisfaction with Canvas LMS

	Overall satisfaction with canvas LMS
Pharmacy students (N = 44)
1. Perceived usefulness	0.596**
2. Perceived ease of use	0.484**
3. System quality	0.547**
Engineering students (N = 30)
1. Perceived usefulness	0.867**
2. Perceived ease of use	0.629**
3. System quality	0.548**

The findings revealed significant and positive relationships between student overall satisfaction with Canvas LMS and Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and System Quality (SQ). However, there were some differences in the strength of these associations between the two groups.

For pharmacy students, the findings revealed that the strongest statistically significant correlation with overall satisfaction was with perceived usefulness (rs = 0.596, p < 0.01). This was followed by system quality (rs = 0.547, p < 0.01) and perceived ease of use (rs = 0.484, p < 0.01). Based on Cohen’s (1988) interpretation, the first two associations are strong, whereas the third is moderate. In simple terms, students who believed that Canvas LMS was useful and of high technical quality tended to report higher satisfaction with the platform.

Similarly, for engineering students, the strongest association with satisfaction was also found with perceived usefulness (rs = 0.867, p < 0.01). This was followed by perceived ease of use (rs = 0.629, p < 0.01), and system quality (rs = 0.548, p < 0.01). Following the guidelines set by Cohen (1988), all of the three correlations indicated strong relationships between the variables. Simply put, these results suggest that the more engineering students perceived Canvas as useful, easy to use, and technically reliable, the more satisfied they were with their learning experience.

Research Question 3

What Recommendations Do Students Offer for Optimizing the Use of Canvas LMS in Supporting the Blended ESP Course?

The participants’ answers to the question “What are the things you wish instructors would do differently to better support your learning on Canvas?” highlighted three main areas for improvement.

Providing a Platform Walkthrough

Several participants emphasized the importance of offering a platform walkthrough at the start of the course. They pointed out that not all students are tech-savvy, and some need initial support to use Canvas effectively.

• “Deliver a training on how to use Canvas effectively.”

• “Explain how to work in Canvas to make it easier and faster.”

• “Give some instructions on how to use the platform properly.”

Offering Constructive Feedback

Many participants acknowledged that automated quiz grading is efficient, as it allows them to see their results immediately after completing the quiz. However, they emphasized that this alone was not sufficient. They suggested that instructors should provide comments along with grades to help students understand how to improve. Likewise, students noted that professors should avoid taking too long to return constructive feedback and the final grades after assignments were submitted.

• “Give feedback quickly on assignments, so I know how to improve.”

• “Correction des quizs avec justification.”

• “Publier les notes et les retours rapidement.”

• “Give feedback regularly through Canvas to help us improve.”

Using Multimedia and Canvas Tools Effectively

Several participants suggested that their learning experience would be better if their professor relied more on videos and recorded lectures rather than PDFs and PowerPoint slides. They also mentioned that using tools such as notifications or reminders for deadlines could help them stay organized and avoid forgetting tasks.

• “Add some video courses to watch.”

• “Using more visuals and colors instead of writing things a bit old fashioned.”

• “Enable reminders or notifications for incomplete tasks to help students stay on track.”

Discussion

The most interesting finding of this study was that perceived usefulness was found to be the factor with the strongest correlation with overall satisfaction for both pharmacy and engineering students. This finding aligns with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which identifies perceived usefulness as one of the key determinants of technology adoption and satisfaction. It can be concluded then that students’ satisfaction with the LMS platform depended largely on how much they felt it could support them in their studies. As indicated in the results, the students valued the fact that they could access the materials in Canvas LMS anytime and anywhere. They also appreciated features such as announcements and deadlines, which helped them stay focused, organized, and ultimately performed better in the course. In addition to accessibility, time management, and organization, Oudat and Othman (2024) also mentioned another benefit of the Canvas LMS which is collaborative learning. Notably, both groups in this study seemed neutral about the platform’s capacity to foster collaborative learning. One possible explanation is that the professor did not succeed in guiding students on how to use the Canvas LMS for teamwork. This echoes Bradley’s (2021) observation that LMS collaborative features often remain underused unless instructors provide explicit and effective guidance.

Perceived ease of use was also correlated with overall satisfaction with the Canvas LMS. This is an unsurprising result, as this factor is the second determinant of technology adoption and satisfaction in Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). What is particularly noteworthy is that in this study, the correlation between perceived ease of use and satisfaction was strong for engineering students but only moderate for pharmacy students. One possible explanation for this difference is that a greater proportion of engineering students (63.3%) had previously taken a course in which the instructor used an LMS, compared to only 43.2% of pharmacy students. This prior exposure may have made engineering students more confident and comfortable navigating the Canvas. These findings are consistent with those reported by Mizanet al. (2023), who suggested that previous experience with LMS platforms could reduce the learning curve and strengthen the link between ease of use and overall satisfaction.

Another important finding was that students from both groups rated the platform’s system quality positively. They appreciated the interface design of the platform and its reliability. They also liked the fact that it worked well on computers and that its pages loaded quickly. As a result, the association between this factor and overall satisfaction with Canvas was found to be moderately strong. This result is broadly in agreement with the work of Ozkan and Koseler (2009), who found that the technical quality of an LMS had a significant effect on students’ satisfaction. However, neither group of students was impressed by how the platform worked on smartphones and tablets. As reported by Ajlouniet al. (2024), the compatibility of an LMS platform with mobile devices significantly affects students’ willingness to use or not use the platform. Therefore, given that the Canvas LMS interface is different on phones and computers, the instructor should make sure to guide and help students learn how to use the platform effectively on both. This recommendation is in accordance with students’ suggestions in the open-ended questions, where they recommended that teachers offer initial guidelines or workshops so that all students can use the platform confidently.

The qualitative findings offer additional insights that are not apparent in the quantitative results. While it is true that the overall mean of the satisfaction scale for both groups indicated that students were broadly satisfied with the use of the Canvas LMS platform, their recommendations on how to make better use of Canvas suggest that relying solely on the platform’s technical capabilities is insufficient. For example, many students acknowledged that automatic grading of quizzes is a good feature, but they also stressed the need for constructive feedback from professors alongside the grades. This finding lends support to the view expressed by Zhouet al. (2022) that “technology cannot enhance learning unless adopted, embraced, and effectively used.” (p. 8942). Students further suggested that teachers should make better use of Canvas’s built-in tools. Taken together, these observations imply that instructors should see the LMS as more than just a storage space and should actively exploit its pedagogical potential (Al-Ataby, 2021). Therefore, a key recommendation is that teachers should be provided with professional development workshops that focus not only on the technical aspects of LMS platforms but also on best practices for using these systems to support student learning.

Conclusion

This study investigated pharmacy and engineering students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with Canvas LMS in blended English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses. The findings revealed that students found the platform useful, easy to use, and technically reliable, with perceived usefulness emerging as the strongest predictor of satisfaction. Both groups emphasized the importance of accessibility, organization, and timely feedback. This study highlights the need for institutional professional development focused on the pedagogical integration of LMS tools, as well as ongoing support for instructors and students. Future research could explore the longitudinal impact of LMS integration across multiple disciplines in Moroccan higher education.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.