panaf.project/observatory/panf.edu ready to change gears? an analysis of how issues of concern...
Post on 26-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Ready to Change Gears? An Analysis of How Issues of Concern Influences Lecturers Rate of Adoption of
e-learning.
Dr. Christopher Gakuu
Prof. Arnol Libotton
Dr. Elijah Omwenga
Presentation outlineIntroduction Theoretical FrameworkMethodologyResults/FindingsPath Analysis ModelConclusionImplication to Policy and Practice
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
IntroductionDistance Education (DE ) and e-learning currently
used in University of Nairobi (UoN) as delivery modes.
This involves a paradigm shift in instructional delivery
UoN has 30 years experience in DE.Only 250 / 1327 lecturers had received any kind of DE
training by the time of this study.280 courses translated into print and e-learning modesDo the lecturers have concerns that have not been
addressed? If they do how would the concerns influence their
rate of adoption?
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Theoretical Framework Motivating factors (intrinsic and extrinsic)
- Intrinsic factors- -self-satisfaction , Flexible scheduling (Miller and Husman)
Wider audience(Crum Packer)Opportunity for research(Betts,1998;Wolcott& Herdelie,1998)Increased course quality (Betts,1998; Eisenburg,1990; Muskal,1998)Increased flexibility when using DE( Dillon & Walsh, 1996)stipends decreased work load; release time; new technology
inhibiting :decrease in live face-to-face interactions with students; lack of time to plan and deliver on-line courses; Lack of support and assistance in planning and delivering on-line courses; greater amount of time to learn new medium and technological skills
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Literature needs and concerns of early adopters
were universal and no significant difference between disciplines, or level of institution ,type of institution geographical location of the institution. (Wilson, 1998; Moore , 199).
Moore (1999) Adoption of Innovation Model. Modified Rogers and introduced a marketing perspective
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
cracks in the bell- curve located between each of the psychographic adopter categories.
The translation between the early adopters and the early majority creates dividing chasm due to the fundamental differences in the two psychographic groups.
Specific groups in the university( college or faculty) reflect psychographic segments with their own personality
Literature Review cont.(2)
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Research methodology cont.(2)
Research design Mixed mode Cross-sectional study Survey design Self-administered questionnaireMain constructs Worthiness of e-learning Readiness to adopt e-Learning Population; 1327 Sample297
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Sampling COLLEGE FACULTY/
INSTITUTE/SCHOOLSAMPLE SIZE
College of Education and External Studies(CEES)
319 73(24%)
College of Humanities and Social Sciences(CHSS)
318 71(23.9%)
College of Physical &Biological sciences(CPBS)
216 48(16.16%)
College of Health Sciences(CHS)
130 30(9.76%)
College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences(CAVS)
192 41(13.8%)
College of Architecture and Engineering(CAE)
152 34(11.4%)
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Research methodology(4)Data analysisDescriptive analysisInferential analysisMultivariate analysisRegression analysis for path analysis and
modelling Used SPSS computer package to analyse.Used Cronbach Alpha to test reliability
and validity.
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Analysis/Results: concerns
14 factors were listed and lecturers were asked to indicate the level of their concern
A five-points Likert scales: Extremely
important; Important; not sure of its importance; not very important; not important at all.
Factor Analysis (PAF)was used to determine most critical factors
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Main issues of concern cited(1)8 main issues came out of the factor analysis as the
critical ones.Training in DE and e-Learning(TDE)Access to ICT facilities(AICT)Presence of a guiding policy in DE(PODL)Support from the university administrators(SDE) Efforts needed to translate teaching materials into
DE/ E-learning formats(EDE)Time commitment in DE activities(TCDE)Incentives provided when participating in DE
activities(IDE)Provision of Intellectual property rights policy(IPDE)
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
The path analysis modelLinear relationship btwn Readiness to adopt
DE/ e-learning (dependent variables) and issues of concern (independent variables).
ReLM=0.105+0.082(TDE)+0.751(AICT)+0.013(PODL)+0.35(SDE)+ 0.038(IDE)- 0.015(IPDE)-0.154(EDE) 0.191(TCDE)
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
RDE MODEL : RESULTS cont.,Some issues had positive while other
negative influence in the model:Positive1.AICT(0.753): Access to ICT facilities2.TDE(0.082): Training in distance education3.IDE(0.038: Incentive while participating in
DE activities4.SDE( 0.o35): Support from administrators5.PODL( 0.013): Presence of ODL policy
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
RDE MODEL negative side,6. TCDE(-0.191): time commitment had the
highest followed by7.EDE(-0.154): effort required to write DE
materials8.IPDE( -0.015): lack of intellectual property
rights
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
RDE MODELTraining in DE0.105 (0.082)
Time commitment required in translating course material into DE(e-Learning) formats 0.105 (-0.191)
Efforts needed to translate course material to DE(e-Learning)0.105 (-0.154)
Formulation of an ODL policy0.105(0.013)
Readiness to Adopt DE (ReLM)
Access to ICT+0.105 (0.751)
Incentives provided when participating in DE activities0.105 (0.038)
Support from the administration0.105 (0.035)
Lack of a policy on intellectual property management 0.105 (-0.154)
RDE MODEL
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
ConclusionCEES and CHSS have been trained in DE for a
long time (since 1980s). Many CHSS lecturers wrote DE materials for External Degree Program in 1980s. Hence they have experience in DE
CBPS have completed all BED Science DE materials and some are already in e-Learning format( quite some experience)
CHS had a relatively very short-lived experience( PGD-STI)
CAVS & CAE have very little experience if any.
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Conclusion .....Hence, we can conclude that colleges are at
different level of exposure to DE, meaning that levels of awareness vary according to exposure
Colleges represent different psychographic
groups hence require different marketing strategies for adoption
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
Implication for policy and practice.There was significant differences on the issues of concern between
the various colleges. Why? They are at different stages in the adoption of DE/e-learning.
Hence need to segment the lecturers according to their e-Learning training needs.
The six university colleges represent different psychographic groups based on discipline .Hence each college should be treated as unique .
Different strategies for different colleges(C/O Moores,1999,Adoption of innovation model.
e-Learning training programmes should be tailored to the specific needs of individuals /groups.
It is possible to develop an intervention strategy to enhance the positive influences and to minimize the negative influences in RDE.
PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU
top related