panaf.project/observatory/panf.edu ready to change gears? an analysis of how issues of concern...

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



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?


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


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


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)


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


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%)


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.


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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.


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


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 ready to change gears? an analysis of how issues of concern...

Documents

sample297 slide

university college

college of agriculture

college of humanities

college of architecture

elearning modes

elijah omwenga slide

elearning population