Volume 5 • Issue 1 • PP: 43–57 • 2026
Evaluating Microsoft Teams, Blackboard, Canvas, and Zoom for Online Teaching Effectiveness: A Multi-Dimensional Comparative Study in Higher Education
View PDF Abstract
The rapid institutionalisation of online and hybrid delivery models in higher education has left instructors and academic administrators managing a fragmented landscape of dedicated learning management systems, video conferencing platforms, and collaborative productivity suites that overlap substantially in function but differ markedly in pedagogical affordance. Selecting a platform or combination of platforms is consequential for instructor workload, student engagement, and learning outcomes, yet the evidence base for such decisions remains limited to narrow singleplatform evaluations or anecdotal comparisons. This paper presents a systematic multi-dimensional comparative evaluation of four widely adopted platforms—Microsoft Teams, Blackboard, Canvas, and Zoom—drawing on original survey data from 284 instructors and 642 students across five higher education institutions. Nine evaluation dimensions are examined: content delivery, real-time collaboration, assessment and feedback, usability, technical reliability, student engagement support, accessibility, analytics and reporting, and third-party integration. Quantitative analyses include one-way analysis of variance across all nine dimensions, Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons, Pearson correlation analysis, and multiple regression modelling of the predictors of instructor overall satisfaction. Canvas achieves the highest composite scores for usability, analytics, and integration; Blackboard leads on assessment and reporting depth; Microsoft Teams leads on real-time collaboration; and Zoom leads on content delivery in synchronous sessions but performs poorly on the asynchronous dimensions where dedicated learning management systems are strongest. The paper synthesizes findings into a platform selection framework and eight evidence-based recommendations for practitioners designing or evaluating technology-enhanced teaching environments.
Keywords
References
[1] W. Bao, “COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University,” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 113–115, 2020, doi: 10.1002/hbe2.191.
[2] B. L. Moorhouse, “Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Journal of Education for Teaching, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 609–611, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205.
[3] S. Dhawan, “Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis,” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 5–22, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0047239520934018.
[4] R. A. Rasheed, A. Kamsin, and N. A. Abdullah, “Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review,” Computers & Education, vol. 144, p. 103701, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701.
[5] J. N. Bailenson, “Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue,” Technology, Mind, and Behavior, vol. 2, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1037/tmb0000030.
[6] G. Fauville, M. Luo, A. C. M. Queiroz, J. N. Bailenson, and J. Hancock, “Zoom exhaustion & fatigue scale,” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, vol. 4, p. 100119, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100119.
[7] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989, doi: 10.2307/249008.
[8] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003, doi: 10.2307/30036540.
[9] H. M. Selim, “Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models,” Computers & Education, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 396–413, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004.
[10] P.-C. Sun, R. J. Tsai, G. Finger, Y.-Y. Chen, and D. Yeh, “What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction,” Computers & Education, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1183–1202, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.
[11] D. Al-Fraihat, M. Joy, R. Masa’deh, and J. Sinclair, “Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 102, pp. 67–86, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004.
[12] D. R. Garrison and H. Kanuka, “Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education,” Internet and Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 95–105, 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.
[13] H. Fiock, “Designing a community of inquiry in online courses,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 134–152, 2020, doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985.
[14] R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811678.
[15] L. Al-Qora’n, O. A. S. Salem, and N. Gordon, “Heuristic evaluation of Microsoft Teams as an online teaching platform: An educators’ perspective,” Computers, vol. 11, no. 12, p. 175, 2022, doi: 10.3390/computers11120175.
[16] C. Tan, D. Casanova, I. Huet, and M. Alhammad, “Online collaborative learning using Microsoft Teams in higher education amid COVID-19,” International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2022, doi: 10.4018/IJMBL.297976.
[17] J. J. Gumasing, A. B. Vasquez, A. L. S. Doctora, and W. D. D. Perez, “Usability evaluation of online learning management system: Comparison between Blackboard and Canvas,” in Proceedings of the 2022 9th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (Europe). ACM, 2022, pp. 1–10, doi: 10.1145/3523132.3523137.
[18] S. Algamdi and S. Ludi, “Enhancing digital learning: A usability evaluation of the Canvas LMS at the University of North Texas,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData). IEEE, 2023, pp. 6101–6103, doi: 10.1109/BigData59044.2023.10386175.
[19] W. A. Cidral, T. Oliveira, M. Di Felice, and M. Aparicio, “E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study,” Computers & Education, vol. 122, pp. 273–290, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001.
[20] F. Martin and D. U. Bolliger, “Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment,” Online Learning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 205–222, 2018, doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092.
[21] S. Lonn and S. D. Teasley, “Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of learning management systems,” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 686–694, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008.
[22] J. S. Mtebe and R. Raisamo, “Investigating perceived usefulness and ease of use of learning management systems in Africa,” International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 4–17, 2014.
[23] K. Swan, “Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses,” Distance Education, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 306–331, 2001, doi: 10.1080/0158791010220208.
[24] M. Adnan and K. Anwar, “Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives,” Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 45–51, 2020, doi: 10.33902/JPSP.2020261309.
[25] J. Konig, D. J. Jager-Biela, and N. Glutsch, “Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany,” European Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 608– 622, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650.
[26] N. Cavus, “Distance learning and learning management systems,” Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 191, pp. 872–877, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.611.
[27] A. G. Picciano, “Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model,” Online Learning, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 166–190, 2017, doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225.
[28] D. Turnbull, R. Chugh, and J. Luck, “Transitioning to E-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have higher education institutions responded to the challenge?” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 26, pp. 6401–6419, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10639- 021-10633-w.
[29] N. Dabbagh and A. Kitsantas, “Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning,” Internet and Higher Education, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3–8, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002.
[30] J. Biggs and C. Tang, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill / Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2011.
[31] B. Means, Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, and M. Baki, “The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A metaanalysis of the empirical literature,” U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Tech. Rep., 2013, eD542084.
Cite This Article
Choose your preferred format