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 outline Introduction Theoretical Framework Methodology Results/Findings Path Analysis Model Conclusion Implication to Policy and Practice PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU

Introduction Distance 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 modes Do 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 questionnaire Main constructs Worthiness of e-learning Readiness to adopt e-Learning Population; 1327 Sample297

PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU Sampling COLLEGEFACULTY/INSTITUTE/ SCHOOL SAMPLE SIZE College of Education and External Studies(CEES) 31973(24%) College of Humanities and Social Sciences(CHSS) 31871(23.9%) College of Physical &Biological sciences(CPBS) 21648(16.16%) College of Health Sciences(CHS) 13030(9.76%) College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences(CAVS) 19241(13.8%) College of Architecture and Engineering(CAE) 15234(11.4%)

PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU Research methodology(4 ) Data analysis Descriptive analysis Inferential analysis Multivariate analysis Regression 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 model Linear relationship btwn Readiness to adopt DE/ e- learning (dependent variables) and issues of concern (independent variables). ReLM= (TDE)+0.751(AICT)+0.013(PODL)+ 0.35(SDE) (IDE) (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: Positive 1. AICT(0.753): Access to ICT facilities 2. TDE(0.082): Training in distance education 3. IDE(0.038: Incentive while participating in DE activities 4. SDE( 0.o35): Support from administrators 5. 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 by 7. EDE(-0.154): effort required to write DE materials 8. IPDE( ): lack of intellectual property rights

PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU RDE MODEL Training in DE (0.082) Time commitment required in translating course material into DE(e-Learning) formats (-0.191) Efforts needed to translate course material to DE(e- Learning) (-0.154) Formulation of an ODL policy 0.105(0.013) Readiness to Adopt DE (ReLM) Access to ICT (0.751) Incentives provided when participating in DE activities (0.038) Support from the administration (0.035) Lack of a policy on intellectual property management (-0.154) RDE MODEL

PANAF.PROJECT/OBSERVATORY/PANF.EDU Conclusion CEES 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 THANK YOU