Thesis on The Challenges & Opportunities of eLearning for Higher Education in KPK Pakistan

Front Page

Thesis on

The Challenges & Opportunities of eLearning for Higher Education in KPK Pakistan

By Allah Nawaz Candidate for PhD in Management Studies

Supervisors

1. Dr Bahadar Shah

2. Dr Shadiullah Khan

Department of Public Administration, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, KPK, Pakistan JULY 2011

2 /225

Title Page

Thesis on

The Challenges & Opportunities of eLearning for Higher Education in KPK Pakistan

By Allah Nawaz Candidate for PhD in Management Studies

Supervisors 1. Dr Bahadar Shah Dean, Faculty of Law & Administrative Sciences Hazara University, Garden Campus, Mansehra, KPK, Pakistan

2. Dr Shadiullah Khan Dean of Arts/Chairman Dept. of Public Administration, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, KPK, Pakistan

A Doctoral Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Public Administration, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Studies JULY 2011

3 /225

DECLARATION

The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and the appropriate credit has been given where references has been made to the work of others.

Allah Nawaz

Candidate for PhD in Management Studies Department of Public Administration Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, KPK, Pakistan

July, 2011

4 /225

Preface The ICTs are being applied across the board in public and private life around the globe. Governments, multinationals, small-n-medium enterprises, on one hand, and health, agriculture, entertainment, information, education and research, on the other – all are experimenting with multiple uses of computers. Though developed countries are leading in production and use of ICTs, the developing and under-developed states are no more unaware of harnessing ICTs for development (ICT4D). However the impacts of eLearning on higher education has been verily reported as high, medium, low and even no-impacts in some studies however, overall impression from the research is positive in the sense that despite threatening stories of eProjects, computers are mushrooming in the higher education institutions (HEIs).

Furthermore, HEIs are widely expected to play pioneering-role in the ‘information-age’ with ‘knowledge-society’ by generating knowledge and skills that are required by the contemporary ‘global-knowledge-economy.’ This role is strengthened by the evidence that education-sector is popping-up as the ‘biggest user of software-applications.’ The presence of digital-gadgets in higher education is as old as the technology itself referring to an evolution in the design and application of educational technologies or eLearning. With the rapid and unprecedented innovations in chip-technologies over the years, eLearning has passed through multiple paradigm shits across its all dimensions: a. eLearning (of students, teachers, administrators), b. eTeaching/ePedagogy (by teachers, trainers and tutors), and c. eEducation (by management and staff).

A repeated claim of the technology-proponents is that ICTs conceive unprecedented opportunities, particularly, for the ‘developing-countries’. This optimism is founded on two grounds. Firstly, the miraculous capabilities of the digital-gadgets have transformed the society into a ‘global-village’ through a kind of connectivity, which is never quoted in the history of mankind. Secondly, the developing and developed countries have long been the victim of isolation, disempowerment, and various ‘types of divides.’ ICTs are frequently reported as having the potential to bridge all of these divides and weld the world-citizens into a global-

5 /225

community. Web 1.0 is merging into Web 2.0 by departing from 1-way to 2-way communication through 2nd-generation internet-products like, blogs, wikis, and social-bookmarking etc. The digital-initiative, which has ignited the educational digitization in developing and poor countries, is the ‘Free and Open Source Systems (FOSS)’ movement. Long-locked educational resources (world libraries, scholarly publications etc.) and ICT-tools – all are posted on the informationsuperhighway (Internet) as a public property with the objective of realizing EFA and LLL as incorporated in the mission of ICT4D.

Though ICTs are gushing in a copious stream, a wide array of studies caution that development and implementation of eLearning in HEIs is a rocky, complex and challenging endeavor, primarily not in terms of technology rather the training and motivation of users to adopt ‘information-culture’ and thereby make effective use of the technologies. Positive perceptions and attitudes of the users have been posted over and over as the predictors of success and failure in educational digital initiatives, specifically in the HEIs.

A volume of research from developed and developing countries suggests that ‘going digital’ is neither automatic nor a one-shot activity. It is rather a social process of working in eTeams of developers and users who hold opposing perceptions about the usefulness of ICTs in pedagogy, learning and institutional administration. All the stakeholders need to be brought into consensus and collaborate across the development-trajectory according to their respective roles.

Given that the success and failure of an eProject in HEIs depends on the eReadiness of the ‘university-constituents,’ it is argued that the perceptions of these users differ not only within the institute but also from one setting to another, organization to organization and particularly from country A to country B. The ICTs are perceived differently by the citizens in developing countries as compared to their counterparts in the developed world due to variations in the context of their work. Similarly, the hardware/software-model successful in America may be a failure in Malaysian education-system. Taken together, it is postulated that ‘the perceptions and context of technology-use’ primarily determine or make and break the development, use and prospects of eLearning environments in any situation. A de-contextualized eProject is destined to under-perform and ultimately fail.

6 /225

The context is a broader term covering both environmental and human aspects of the workplace within which developers and users work on eLearning development and use requirements. For example, being in a developing country is an environmental context while being male/ female, professional/non-professional and technically-savvy or techno-phobic are the dimensions of human context. The impacts of these contextual variables change from country to country, city to city, institution to institution and person to person thereby creating a jigsaw-puzzle for the eProject-teams to identify and understand the contextual-varieties for developing esprit-de-corps in the developers and users.

The following research output unveils the real-world eLearning problems of developers and users in HEIs of KPK with sample data from two cities (Peshawar and DIK), which host larger number of old and new institutions as compared to other locations in the province. The predictor and criterion constructs (variables) have been extracted from global, regional and local literaturesurveys and substantiated by field-surveys of teachers, students and administrators in the higher education system of the province.

The findings testify most of the global hypotheses however, regional similarities are more amplified showing major impacts of ‘being a developing country.’ Empirical data accentuates that the threats and opportunities for developing eLearning environments in a developing country is more dependent on the regional and local conditions of the critical success factors for the same, which naturally demands for an excessively localized versions of information systems development (ISD) methodologies wherein choice and installation of technologies is more usercentric and less techno-centric and the eLearning projects are treated as social eProjects (involving all the stakeholders) and not ICT Professionals only.

Allah Nawaz Candidate for PhD in Management Studies Department of Public Administration Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, KPK, Pakistan

July, 2011

7 /225

Acknowledgements Thanks to Almighty Allah who bestowed me with health, mind and facilities to conduct and document this research project. Allah, The Great, is the one who makes everything possible. All praise and bounty goes to Allah and will always be so.

In an academic research-project, beside a galaxy of fellow researchers and teachers a long line of friends, relatives and most importantly, respondents make invaluable contributions in multiple ways. It is therefore, incumbent on the researcher to categorically acknowledge the contribution of every individual, group and institution who added value to the contents, ideas, style and academic-weight of this document.

As a special note, I record my heartfelt respect and appreciation for my worthy teacher and Supervisor, Dr Bahadar Shah, who has long been a source of inspiration and role model for almost all of my academic achievements. During this research work, he relentlessly encouraged and supervised me from the start to end. My teacher is a nice human being with abundance of sympathy and care for his students, fellow faculty members and whoever comes into his contact. He extended me consistent reinforcement and instant guidelines in exploring, analyzing and evaluating the topic and then organizing everything in black-n-white to produce the research papers and thesis.

The teachers, co-researchers, and staff of the department function as a network for producing and using collective-intelligence to learning the research process and then applying the same in the individual projects. I acknowledge the scholarly-cum-brotherly support of Dr Gohar Zaman, Madam Safia Gandapur, Dr Shadiullah Khan, Amanllah Khan Miankheil, Abdul Sattar Khan, Qamar Afaq Qureshi, Dr Najibullah Khan, GM Kundi, Muhammad Siddiue and Madam Uzma Khurshid. Furthermore, the robust ministerial services of Umer Hayat Khan, Superintendent of the Department, in preparing this document are unforgettable.

8 /225

Likewise, I am indebted to teachers and students from all the sample universities of KPK particularly, Mr Saifud-Din, Lecturer Qurtuba University of Science and Information Technology, DIK, who assisted me in the distribution and recollection of questionnaires from DIK and Peshawar. It will be injustice not to put on record the laborious task of questionnaire distribution and recollection from the universities of Peshawar by Mr Shakeel Azam Awan, Advocate High Court and Visiting Professor in Law College Peshawar and Arshad Azam Awan, Advocate. The credit also goes to my friends Mr Muhammad Ramazan, from Health and Physical Education Department, GU and Qazi Fazal Ahmad, Information Officer, PID for their encouragement and consistent remainder to do this work.

My kids, Masab Ali Nawaz, Seerat-uz-Zahra, Aisha Nawaz and Maryam Nawaz, and my wife deserve appreciation for their continuous support across the research process, particularly, when I had to spend long ours on the laptop. They stood shoulder to shoulder in reinforcing me throughout the conduct of this project. God may bless them all with happiness in this and the life hereafter.

Finally, I acknowledge the role of online companies working for the development of ‘open information society’ at the ‘global village-level’ by providing me access to scholarly databases of the latest research on the topic of eLearning, particularly the Directory of Open Access Journals (doaj.org), which assisted me in locating the relevant research work published in the leading educational journals on eLearning theories and practices and Wikipedia.org, which is the best instant source of getting information about any aspect of eLearning in HEIs all from technical, human and social perspectives.

Allah Nawaz Candidate for PhD in Management Studies Department of Public Administration Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, KPK, Pakistan

July, 2011

9 /225

Table of Contents (Brief)

Preface ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations & Terminologies ................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 22 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................... 22 1.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................................... 26 1.3 Objectives and Motivations ................................................................................................. 26 1.4 Significance ......................................................................................................................... 27 1.5 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................... 28 1.6 Organization of the Thesis................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 29 2.1 eLearning: Concepts and Practices in HEIs ........................................................................ 29 2.2 Development and Use of eLearning .................................................................................... 48 2.3 Users of eLearning Environments ....................................................................................... 76 2.4 Major Challenges (Problems) .............................................................................................. 86 2.5 Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 90 2.6 Working Concepts (Research Variables) ............................................................................ 96 2.7 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 97 2.8 List of Hypothesis................................................................................................................ 97 2.9 Conclusions from the Literature Review ............................................................................. 98 Chapter 3 Research Design....................................................................................................... 100 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 100 3.2 Survey Approach ............................................................................................................... 101 3.3 Population and Sampling ................................................................................................... 103 3.4 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................... 105 3.5 Data Analysis Tools .......................................................................................................... 108 3.6 Data & Instrument Validity ............................................................................................... 108 Chapter 4 eLearning Experiences and Paradigm Shifts........................................................ 109

10 /225

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 109 4.2 eLearning in Advanced Countries ..................................................................................... 110 4.3 eLearning in Developing Countries................................................................................... 114 4.4 eLearning in Pakistan ........................................................................................................ 119 4.5 Paradigm-Shifts in eLearning ............................................................................................ 126 4.6 Discussion on Global Experiences .................................................................................... 145 Chapter 5 Empirical Study of HEIs in KPK........................................................................... 149 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 149 5.2 Descriptive Facts and Figures ........................................................................................... 150 5.3 Testing of Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 154 5.4 Discussion and Interpretation of the Results ..................................................................... 171 Chapter 6 General Discussions................................................................................................. 184 6.1 Contextual Disparities ....................................................................................................... 184 6.2 The Role of User-Perceptions and Attitudes ..................................................................... 185 6.3 Demanding Nature of Educational Technologies (ETS) ................................................... 186 6.4 Complexity of Development and Use Practices ................................................................ 187 6.5 Leading Challenges for eLearning in HEIs ....................................................................... 188 6.6 Opportunities and Prospects .............................................................................................. 189 6.7 The Implications of Research ............................................................................................ 190 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................... 193 7.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 193 7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 199 7.3 Researcher’s Observations (Recommendations) ............................................................... 204 References .................................................................................................................................. 206 Annexure 1 Publications from the Thesis ............................................................................... 221 Annexure 2 Sample Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 223 Annexure 3 List of the Sample Institutes ................................................................................ 225

11 /225

Table of Contents (Detailed)

Preface ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations & Terminologies ................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 22 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................... 22 1.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................................... 26 1.3 Objectives and Motivations ................................................................................................. 26 1.4 Significance ......................................................................................................................... 27 1.5 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................... 28 1.6 Organization of the Thesis................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 29 2.1 eLearning: Concepts and Practices in HEIs ........................................................................ 29 2.1.1 Definition ...................................................................................................................... 30 2.1.2 Evolution of eLearning ................................................................................................. 32 a. Traditional Computer-based Learning ........................................................................... 33 b. Blended Learning .......................................................................................................... 34 c. Virtual Learning............................................................................................................. 35 d. eLearning 2.0 ................................................................................................................. 35 2.1.3 eLearning Technologies ............................................................................................... 36 a. Computer ....................................................................................................................... 37 b. Networking .................................................................................................................... 37 2.1.4 Digital Literacy ............................................................................................................. 42 2.1.5 Computing Curricula .................................................................................................... 43 2.1.6 Contributions of ICTs to Higher Education ................................................................. 45 a. Learning and Teaching Roles ........................................................................................ 46 b. Administrative Roles ..................................................................................................... 47 2.2 Development and Use of eLearning .................................................................................... 48

12 /225

2.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 48 2.2.2 Approaches and Attitudes............................................................................................. 50 2.2.3 eProject-Management ................................................................................................... 52 a. Educational Technology Planning ................................................................................. 53 b. Needs analysis ............................................................................................................... 54 c. Design and Development ............................................................................................... 56 d. Implementation of eLearning ........................................................................................ 60 e. Feedback and Evaluation ............................................................................................... 61 2.2.4 User-Training (eTraining) ............................................................................................ 62 a. Teachers-Training .......................................................................................................... 63 b. Students’ Training ......................................................................................................... 65 c. Training of the Administrators ...................................................................................... 66 2.2.5 Change Management .................................................................................................... 67 a. Problems of ICT-related Change ................................................................................... 68 b. Approaches and Attitudes to Change ............................................................................ 69 2.2.6 Context of eLearning in HEIs....................................................................................... 70 a. Internal Context ............................................................................................................. 71 b. External Context ............................................................................................................ 73 2.3 Users of eLearning Environments ....................................................................................... 76 2.3.1 User-Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 77 a. Perceptions ..................................................................................................................... 77 b. User-Theories ................................................................................................................ 79 c. Learning/Teaching Styles .............................................................................................. 80 2.3.2 User Types in eLearning .............................................................................................. 81 a. Teachers ......................................................................................................................... 83 b. Students ......................................................................................................................... 84 c. Administrators/Staff ...................................................................................................... 84 2.3.3 User-Satisfaction .......................................................................................................... 85 2.4 Major Challenges (Problems) .............................................................................................. 86 2.4.1 Development and Implementation Problems ............................................................... 87 2.4.2 Use Problems ................................................................................................................ 88

13 /225

2.4.3 User Resistance to Change ........................................................................................... 89 2.5 Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 90 2.5.1 Global Availability of ICTs .......................................................................................... 91 2.5.2 Free and Open Sources Systems (FOSS) ..................................................................... 92 2.5.3 Global Paradigm Shifts in eLearning ........................................................................... 92 2.5.4 Local ICT Industry and ICT-Professionals .................................................................. 93 2.5.5 Local/ National/ and International/ Partnerships .......................................................... 94 2.5.6 Growth of Information-Society/Culture ....................................................................... 95 2.6 Working Concepts (Research Variables) ............................................................................ 96 2.7 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 97 2.8 List of Hypothesis................................................................................................................ 97 2.9 Conclusions from the Literature Review ............................................................................. 98 2.9.1 eLearning: A Birdseye View ........................................................................................ 99 2.9.2 eLearning System Development: A Global Perspective .............................................. 99 2.9.3 Challenges/Problems & Opportunities/Prospects? ....................................................... 99 Chapter 3 Research Design....................................................................................................... 100 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 100 3.2 Survey Approach ............................................................................................................... 101 3.3 Population and Sampling ................................................................................................... 103 a. Population .................................................................................................................... 103 b. Sample and Sampling Procedure ................................................................................. 103 3.4 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................... 105 3.4.1 Literature Survey ........................................................................................................ 105 3.4.2 Field Survey of HEIs .................................................................................................. 105 a. Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 105 3.4.3 Operationalization of the Concepts ............................................................................ 107 3.5 Data Analysis Tools .......................................................................................................... 108 3.6 Data & Instrument Validity ............................................................................................... 108 Chapter 4 eLearning Experiences and Paradigm Shifts........................................................ 109 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 109 4.2 eLearning in Advanced Countries ..................................................................................... 110

14 /225

4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 110 4.2.2 Approaches ................................................................................................................. 110 4.2.3 Development and Use Practices ................................................................................. 111 4.2.4 Challenges .................................................................................................................. 112 4.2.5 Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 113 4.3 eLearning in Developing Countries................................................................................... 114 4.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 114 4.3.2 Approaches ................................................................................................................. 115 4.3.3 Development and Use-Practices ................................................................................. 116 4.3.4 Challenges .................................................................................................................. 117 4.3.5 Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 118 4.4 eLearning in Pakistan ........................................................................................................ 119 4.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 119 4.4.2 Approaches ................................................................................................................. 120 4.4.3 Development and Use-Practices ................................................................................. 122 4.4.4 Challenges .................................................................................................................. 124 4.4.5 Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 125 4.5 Paradigm-Shifts in eLearning ............................................................................................ 126 4.5.1 Agents of Paradigm-Shifts ......................................................................................... 126 a. Globalization................................................................................................................ 127 b. Digital Revolution ....................................................................................................... 129 4.5.2 Dimensions of Paradigm Shifts in HEIs ..................................................................... 130 a. From Technocracy to Democracy (Role of HEIs) ....................................................... 132 b. From Behavior to Belief (Constructivism) .................................................................. 135 c. From Computerization to Personalization ................................................................... 140 d. From Teacher to Student ............................................................................................. 143 4.6 Discussion on Global Experiences .................................................................................... 145 4.6.1 Common Concerns ..................................................................................................... 146 4.6.2 Unique Issues.............................................................................................................. 147 4.6.3 Digital Opportunity Initiatives (DOI) ......................................................................... 147 Chapter 5 Empirical Study of HEIs in KPK........................................................................... 149

15 /225

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 149 5.2 Descriptive Facts and Figures ........................................................................................... 150 5.2.1 A Profile (Demographics) of the Respondents ........................................................... 151 5.2.2 Research Variables ..................................................................................................... 153 5.3 Testing of Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 154 5.3.1 Demographic Impacts ................................................................................................. 154 a. Impacts of ‘Type of Respondent’ (RTP) (H1) ............................................................. 154 b. Differences between Computer & Non-Computer (CNC) (H2) .................................. 155 c. Impacts of Sector on the Responses (PPR) (H3) .......................................................... 155 d. Gender-Effects (GDR) (H4) ......................................................................................... 156 e. Age Impacts (AGE) (H5) ............................................................................................. 156 f. The Impacts of Experience with Computer (EXP) (H6) .............................................. 157 g. Difference of Response due to ICT Qualification (ITQ) (H7) ..................................... 157 h. Difference of Opinion due to Subjects (SNS) (H8) ..................................................... 158 i. Differences between the Cities (CTY) (H9) ................................................................. 159 j. Differences due to the Age of an Institute (AOI) (H10) ................................................ 159 k. Designation-Effects (H11 and H12)............................................................................... 160 5.3.2 The Relationships between the Research Variable .................................................... 161 a. Correlation Analysis (H13) ........................................................................................... 161 b. Perceptions (PRC) Explained by Research-Variables (H14) ....................................... 163 c. ETS Explained by Research-Variables (H15) .............................................................. 164 d. Development Explained by Research-Variables (H16) ................................................ 165 e. Use Explained by Research-Variables (H17) ............................................................... 166 f. Problems (PRB) Explained by Research-Variables (H18) ............................................ 167 g. Satisfaction Explained by Research-Variables (H19) .................................................. 168 h. Opportunities Explained by Research-Variables (H20) ............................................... 169 i. Prospects explained by Research-Variables (H21)........................................................ 170 5.4 Discussion and Interpretation of the Results ..................................................................... 171 5.4.1 Descriptive Findings ................................................................................................... 171 a. Mean Scores on Research Variables............................................................................ 171 b. Group Mean Scores on Demographic Classifications ................................................. 172

16 /225

5.4.2 Demographic Implications (tests of significance) ...................................................... 173 a. Categorical Analysis .................................................................................................... 173 b. Combined Analysis ..................................................................................................... 179 5.4.3 The Impacts of Predictors (Research Variables) ........................................................ 182 5.4.4 Collective Impacts of Demographic and Research Variables .................................... 183 Chapter 6 General Discussions................................................................................................. 184 6.1 Contextual Disparities ....................................................................................................... 184 6.2 The Role of User-Perceptions and Attitudes ..................................................................... 185 6.3 Demanding Nature of Educational Technologies (ETS) ................................................... 186 6.4 Complexity of Development and Use Practices ................................................................ 187 6.5 Leading Challenges for eLearning in HEIs ....................................................................... 188 6.6 Opportunities and Prospects .............................................................................................. 189 6.7 The Implications of Research ............................................................................................ 190 6.7.1 For Individual Users and Developers ......................................................................... 190 6.7.2 For Higher Education Institutes.................................................................................. 191 6.7.3 For Government.......................................................................................................... 191 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................... 193 7.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 193 7.1.1 Gaps between Theory and Practice of eLearning ....................................................... 193 7.1.2 Lack of Local Research .............................................................................................. 194 7.1.3 Borrowed Models of eLearning.................................................................................. 195 7.1.4 Lack of User-Participation ......................................................................................... 195 7.1.5 Ineffective User-Training ........................................................................................... 196 7.1.6 Issues of Sustained Technical Support ....................................................................... 197 7.1.7 Multiplicity of Digital-Divides ................................................................................... 198 7.1.8 Failure to Catch-up with Paradigm-Shifts .................................................................. 198 7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 199 7.2.1 Top-Management Support .......................................................................................... 200 7.2.2 Robust ICTs Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 200 7.2.3 Collaborative Development ........................................................................................ 201 7.2.4 User-Participation ....................................................................................................... 202

17 /225

7.2.5 Contextualizing the eLearning Initiatives .................................................................. 203 7.3 Researcher’s Observations (Recommendations) ............................................................... 204 References .................................................................................................................................. 206 Annexure 1 Publications from the Thesis ............................................................................... 221 Annexure 2 Sample Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 223 Annexure 3 List of the Sample Institutes ................................................................................ 225

18 /225

List of Figures & Charts Figure 2.1 Schematic Diagram of the Theoretical Framework ..................................................... 97 Figure 2.2 A Model for Defining eLearning in HEIs .................................................................... 99 Figure 2.3 ADDIE Model of eLearning Development Process .................................................... 99 Figure 2.4 A List of Challenges & Opportunities for eLearning .................................................. 99 Figure 4.1 The Internet Users in the World ................................................................................. 148 Chart 5.1 Uses of Different Software by Teachers, Students and Administrators ...................... 153 Chart 5.2 The Number of Hours spent Daily on the Computers ................................................. 153 Chart 5.3 Mean Scores on Research Variables ........................................................................... 171 Chart 5.4 Mean Scores across Demographic Groups .................................................................. 172 Figure 5.1 Collective Impacts of Demographics and Research Variables .................................. 183

List of Tables Table 1.1 Logical and Physical Organization of the Thesis .......................................................... 28 Table 2.1 Differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 .................................................................. 42 Table 2.2 Approaches to ICT-Related Change in HEIs ................................................................ 69 Table 2.3 Attitudes to ICT-Related Change in HEIs ..................................................................... 70 Table 2.4 List of Research Variables (Definition of Working Concepts) ..................................... 96 Table 2.4a List of Demographic Variables (The Respondents’ Profile) ....................................... 96 Table 3.1 Quantitative Studies on eLearning in HEIs (A) .......................................................... 102 Table 3.2 Qualitative Studies on eLearning in HEIs ................................................................... 102 Table 3.3 Population, Sampling Procedure and Sample Sizes .................................................... 104 Table 3.4 Operationalized List of Variables................................................................................ 107 Table 3.5 List of the Demographic Variables and Attributes ...................................................... 107 Table 5.1 Public/Private Classification according to Cities and Respondent-Type .................... 151 Table 5.2 Male/Female Classification according to Cities and RTP........................................... 151 Table 5.3 Computer/Non-Computer Groups (CNC) across CTY and RTP ................................ 151

19 /225

Table 5.4 List of Respondents from Sample HEIs of KPK, Pakistan ......................................... 152 Table 5.5 Uses of Different Software by Teachers, Students and Administrators ...................... 152 Table 5.6 Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables ............................................................... 153 Table 5.7 Differences between Types of Respondents (ANOVA) ............................................. 154 Table 5.8 Computer vs. Non Computer Differences (t-Test) ...................................................... 155 Table 5.9 Public vs. Private Differences (t-Test) ........................................................................ 155 Table 5.10 Gender Effects (t-Test) .............................................................................................. 156 Table 5.11 The Impacts of Age of the Respondent (t-Test) ........................................................ 156 Table 5.12 Change in Response due to Experience with Computer (t-Test) .............................. 157 Table 5.13 The Impacts of ICT-Qualification (t-Test) ................................................................ 157 Table 5.14 The Impacts of Subjects (science & non-science) (t-Test)........................................ 158 Table 5.15 Differences between Big & Small Cities (t-Test) ..................................................... 159 Table 5.16 The Impacts of Age of the Institute (t-Test) (table-value = 1.96) ............................. 159 Table 5.17 Designation Effects on Teachers (ANOVA) ............................................................. 160 Table 5.18 Designation Effects on Administrators (ANOVA) ................................................... 161 Table 5.19 Table of Correlations ................................................................................................. 161 Table 5.19a Analysis of the Correlations between Research Variables ...................................... 162 Tables 5.20 Regression on Perceptions Practices (PRC) ............................................................ 163 Tables 5.21 Multiple Regression on (ETS) ................................................................................. 164 Tables 5.22 Regression on Development Practices (DEV) ......................................................... 165 Tables 5.23 Regression on Use Practices (USE) ......................................................................... 166 Tables 5.24 Regression on Problems of eLearning (PRB) .......................................................... 167 Tables 5.25 Research Variables Determine the User-Satisfaction (STF) ................................... 168 Tables 5.26 Research Variables Explain the Variance in Opportunities (OPR) ......................... 169 Tables 5.27 Research Variables Explain the Variance in Prospects (PRO) ................................ 170 Tables 5.28 Significance (p-Values) of Demographic Impacts................................................... 179 Tables 5.29 Decisions on Hypothesis about Demographic Impacts ........................................... 180 Tables 5.30 Significance (p-values) of the Impacts of Predictors on Criterion Variables .......... 182 Tables 5.31 Decisions on the Hypotheses about Regression Analysis ....................................... 182

20 /225

Abbreviations & Terminologies

ADB:

Asian Development Bank

AIOU:

Allama Iqbal Open University

AIS:

Association of Information Systems

APP:

Associated Press of Pakistan

AT:

Advanced Technology

CBL:

Computer Based Learning

CD:

Compact Disk

CIIT:

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology

COST:

European Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research

CSCW: Computer Supported Collaborative Work DOI:

Digital Opportunity Institutive

DSS:

Decision Support System.

DVD:

Digital Video Disk

eCourse:

Online, Virtual Courses.

EDSS:

Educational Decision Support System

EFA:

Education For All

EIS:

Executive Information System.

EMIS:

Education Management Information System

ePedagogy:

Teaching with the help of ICTs.

ePortfolio:

A digital Folder to store Personal Files for Presentation to others.

eProject:

Project for the development of eLearning environment.

eTeacher:

Teacher using ICTs in teaching, coaching and mentoring functions.

eTechnology:

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)

ETP:

Educational Technology Planning

FAST:

Foundation for Advancement of Science & Technology

FOSS:

Free and Open Source Systems

GUI:

Graphical User Interface

HEC:

Higher Education Commission

HEIs:

Higher Education Institutions

21 /225

HTML: Hyper Text Markup Language ICTs:

Information and Communication Technologies

IEEE:

Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.

ISDLC: Information System Development Life Cycle ISP:

Internet Service Provider

IT:

Instructional Technology/Information Technology

ITPS:

IT Professional Services

KPK:

Khyber Pakhtoon Khwa

LCMS: Learning Content Management System LLL:

Life Long Learning

LMS:

Learning Management System

NTC:

National Telecommunication Corporation

NUST:

National University of Science & Technology

PAKSAT:

Pakistan Satellite

PERN:

Pakistan Education and Research Network

PES:

Proprietary eLearning Software

PRR:

Pakistan Research Repository

PTCL:

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited.

RSS:

Rich Site Summary

SAP/PAK:

Sector Assistance Program (of ADB) in Pakistan

SS:

Social Software

TCP/IP:

Transfer Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

TPS:

Transaction Processing System

UNDP: United Nations Development Program UNDPAPDIP: UNDP Asia Pacific Development Information Program UNESCO:

United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization.

VLE:

Virtual Learning Environment

VU:

Virtual University

WBCMS:

Web-Based Content Management Systems

WBL:

Web Based Learning

WWW: World Wide Web XT:

Extended-Technology

22 /225

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are generating a new global economy, which gets its power from technology, fuel from information and knowledge takes the driving seat (Tinio, 2002). These technologies provide the electricity of information-age (Macleod, 2005) to construct an information-society or knowledge-economy (Hameed, 2007). However, technological innovations and applications are founded on the education system of a country. For example, any digital initiative is fueled by a batch of ICT-professionals to develop and users to apply technologies for organizational objectives (Sattar, 2007; Ezziane, 2007). Given that, it is the education system which helps nations in harnessing ICTs for government, business, agriculture, banking and education by generating a skilled workforce. However, this requires the education system itself to be computerized first and then educate the masses in adopting computers into their informal and formal lives (COST, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

Within education, ICTs have started emerging (Oliver, 2002). In the western european context, it is now common to integrate ICT into logistical, organizational and educational functions of HEIs (Valcke, 2004; Baumeister, 2006) showing that ICTs are changing the nature of work and the workplace for all the university constituents (Ezziane, 2007). UNESCO (2007) reports that the use of ICTs in and for education is rapidly expanding in many countries and considered both as a necessity and an opportunity. Sife et al., (2007) found that ICTs are changing the organization and delivery of higher education because they are adopting alternatives to the traditional classroom pedagogy and developing a variety of eLearning courses. Research also suggests that ICTs offer new learning opportunities for students (eLearning), develop teacher’s professional capabilities (ePedagogy) and strengthen institutional capacity (eEducation) (Ezziane, 2007) and most universities today offer some form of eLearning (Kanuka, 2007).

23 /225

Furthermore, the concept of globalization calls to address poverty and inequality in developing countries by the global diffusion of digital technologies (Macleod, 2005). Tahir Hameed (2007) argues that the diffusion of ICTs is correlated with the overall level of socioeconomic development and that ICTs play vital role in enhancing economic growth and reducing poverty. UNESCO (2004) reports that in the context of globalization and newly emerging knowledge economies, higher education is recognized as an essential driving force for national development in both developed and developing countries. Roknuzzaman (2006) asserts that HEIs of any state are deemed to be the pioneers in adopting ICTs. Thus, the new global economy has serious implications for the nature and purpose of educational institutions (Knight et al., 2006). “ICTs affect the way students learn, teachers teach, administrators administrate and the leaders lead the university (Nyvang, 2006).”

It is reported that education is the major consumer of software applications and web services (Buzhardt & Heitzman-Powell, 2005) indicating that e-Learning is widening the picture of education (Baumeister, 2006) thereby creating several stakeholders including knowledgeindustry, academia, designers, policy makers and other institutions involved in ICT-based higher education (COST, 2007). eLearning offers a “great and exciting opportunities for both educators and learners (Manochehr, 2007).” The knowledge revolution and economic globalization has created knowledge-based industries who work on the basis of computer-literate workforce thereby forcing all the countries to restructure their educational system to include digital literacy with priority (Ezziane, 2007; Nawaz, 2010, 2011).

Despite the theoretical benefits that e-Learning systems can offer, difficulties can often occur (Graff et al., 2001). The reported impacts of ICTs in education have not been as extensive as in other fields (Oliver, 2002) and these have hardly impacted the actual teaching approaches and practices (Valcke, 2004). The marriage between education and technology has often been rocky (Buzhardt & Heitzman-Powell, 2005) facing problems like, language barrier, absence of prerequisites, technology hurdles and so on (Hvorecký et al., 2005). Given this, eLearning is still often used only as a buzz word, and its deep impact on educational institutions is not seen (Baumeister, 2006). Thus, the efforts for the integration of ICTs in higher education are

24 /225

reportedly struggling with several problems (Dalsgaard, 2006). Researchers have pointed out that there are a number of challenges for the universities in developing countries when they implement the e-Learning systems (Sife et al., 2007; Nawaz et al., 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Nawaz et al., 2011).

It has been found that the use of ICTs is dependant on the perceptions of developers and users about the nature of technologies and their role in different walks of life (Aviram & Tami, 2004). Bastien Sasseville (2004) have found that ICT-related changes are “not perceived as a collective experience or social change rather, personal challenge.” An analysis of the literature suggests that two broader theories are discussed over and over across the literature saying that ICTs can either play ‘instrumental’ or ‘substantive’ role in the learning process (Macleod, 2005). Instrumental view asserts that ICTs are just technologies and their role depends on their use while substantive view posits that these technologies have the power to change the society and their mere existence can make the difference. Likewise Jonathan Ezer, (2006) classifies this issue into ‘instrumental’ and ‘liberal’ conceptions of eLearning. While, Kundi & Nawaz (2010) discuss it as a shift “From Objectivism to Social Constructivism”. (See Section 2.3.1 (a and b) for details on perceptions and theories).

“The effective use of IT/S in organizations requires the sensitive handling of human issues in addition to the technical matters (Walsham, 2000:105).” Difficulties can often occur when systems are not designed with consideration to learner perceptions, characteristics (i.e., gender, learning-style), and the context of use (Graff et al., 2001).” The teachers and students differ in their perception, attitude, and learning styles therefore benefit more if ICTs match with their individual learning preferences (Cagiltay et al., 2006). Similarly at the group and organizational level, Roni Aviram & Debbie Tami (2004) have identified seven approaches and five attitudes towards the development and use of ICTs in education. The approaches are: administrative, curricular, didactic, organizational, systemic, cultural and ideological and attitudes include: agnostic, conservative, moderate, radical, and extreme radical towards the development and use of ICTs in the HEIs (See Section 2.2.2 for details on approaches and attitudes).

25 /225

The role of context, within which ICTs are used, is consistently identified by almost every research study on the integration of educational technologies (Tinio, 2002; Nyvang, 2003; Sasseville, 2004; Loing, 2005; Macleod, 2005; Ezer, 2006; Baumeister, 2006; Stephenson, 2006; Hameed, 2007). The construct of context is multifaceted as it includes community, culture and technology and this is important when it comes to understanding implementation of ICT (Nyvang, 2003). Thus, the context can either be a support or a barrier in the way of eLearningproject-trajectory (Sasseville, 2004: Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b).

“Who benefits from IT/S in the developing countries is not determined by the technology, but is related to human choices concerning technology use (Walsham, 2000:105).” So, eLearning can not be purchased off-the-shelf therefore, all the developed and developing countries are making efforts to control the problems and yield maximum out of ICTs. (See Chapter 4 for details). Pakistan is making all out efforts to bring digital revolution in the higher education system. Last decade has seen huge government funding into the universities in terms of providing hardware facilities in HEIs. Similarly, government has created an infrastructure for internet and connected thousands of villages, towns and cities with the globe. All government websites show determination to bring eLearning revolution not only for the HEIs rather for LLL and EFA (HEC, 2008; EPP, 2008; PCB, 2008; Nawaz, 2010).

Given the number and intensity of eLearning development and use problems mentioned above, eLearning is more than technology and it is not simply the purchase of one or another hardware and software. Supply of technological infrastructure is not the guarantee for appropriate use of the systems. There is need for the motivation and involvement of users with clear objectives about the application of digital tools in pedagogy, learning and institution management. The findings of empirical study reveal that ICTs are playing supplemental or instrumental role in the teaching and learning practices in KPK. Even majority of users have no idea about LMS or CMS, they are very used to MS-Office applications and surfing of internet. However, the respondents see opportunities in ICTs therefore prospects are there (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c, 2011). (See Chapter 5 for details).

26 /225

There is absence of evidence about the benefits of eLearning in learner’s performance, however, the expanded use of computers in education continues (Cagiltay et al., 2006). Therefore, research is needed in every country to underline their own native contextual and user demands for ICT tools (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b, 2010c, Nawaz & Kundi, 2011, Nawaz, 2011). This study aims at identifying the contemporary conditions with regard to eLearning in the HEIs of Pakistan through an empirical study of the sample institutions from Peshawar and Dera Ismail Khan to come up with a customized solution model to effectively convert ICTs into eLearning, ePedagogy and eEducation.

1.2 Problem statement Despite the promising nature of eLearning solutions, research is consistently identifying issues in the development and use of ICTs in HEIs in both developed and developing countries. Human, organizational, and contextual problems are widely reported as the critical factors to make or break the eLearning initiatives in any HEI. This study is an effort in the same line of research to explore the context of HEIs in KPK, Pakistan with a view to understanding the native context and developing a domesticated eLearning model for local application of ICTs for pedagogy, learning and institutional administration.

1.3 Objectives and Motivations Given the scenario in the background, eLearning is either a threat or opportunity for the HEIs of the world in general and developing countries in particular (Nawaz, 2011). However, as argued above, the benefits are subject to the ability of developers and users to harness the technologies and change their context simultaneously as to create a customized and localized match between the requirements of eLearning and objectives of a particular institute, community, or state. This requires research on the nature of technologies, native context and the relationships between the two at the moment and in future. Thus, the objectives of this research-project can be classified as under: 1. Identification of the eLearning technologies as they are available, accessible, adaptable and usable in our environment.

27 /225

2. Underlining the contextual/demographic variables that are most significant in the native environment in terms of their correlation with eLearning theory and practice. 3. Measuring and determining the nature and significance of the demographic impacts on the eLearning theory and practice of the local developers and users. 4. Constructing a set of eLearning development and use strategic guidelines for Pakistan in general and KPK in Particular on the basis of global literature survey and empirical study of the local environment. 5. Exploring the criteria for digital-literacy and computing curricula for the indigenous eLearners as required by the local, national and international market so as to fill the gap between academia and industry in terms of ICT graduates.

1.4 Significance 1. The use of ICTs are increasing communication among students and teachers, providing access to so far inaccessible resources, encouraging ‘authentic’ learning because learners can access real-world data that is not provided by textbooks (Aaron et al., 2004; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a, Nawaz, 2010). 2. At the international level, various agencies such as the World Bank, UNESCO, United Nations, and G8 countries have adopted a digital divide framework (Macleod, 2005). 3. eLearning plays dominant role in minimizing the impacts of digital divide particularly in the context of developing countries (Macleod, 2005). 4. Successful development and use of eLearning technologies is new, difficult, and challenging to practitioners, researchers, and policymakers (Abrami et al., 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b, Kundi et al., 2010; Qureshi et al., 2011). 5. If used wisely, ICTs can break down barriers to learning that are faced in traditional classroom-based instruction (Kuriloff, 2005; Nawaz, 2010). 6. Research is unveiling that if harnessed appropriately; technology tools facilitate the learners in developing higher order thinking skills (Abrami et al., 2006; Nawaz, 2010).

28 /225

7. ICT solutions may help to solve problems related to education such as teacher shortages, high drop-out rates, low achievement, lack of opportunity, and lack of materials (Wells, 2007).

1.5 Hypotheses The Demographics and Contextual Factors determine the Perceptions (Theories) and Attitude of Users (Teachers, Students and Administrators) to the Development and Use of eLearning tools and techniques in HEIs of KPK, Pakistan. (H1 to H21)

1.6 Organization of the Thesis Table 1.1 Logical and Physical Organization of the Thesis Chapter

Question Answered

Purpose

1 Introduction

What are we talking about?

2 Literature Review

What, Why and How of eLearning Development and Use.

3 Research Design

How to investigate the eLearning experiences in HEIs? What is happening to eLearning in HEIs of the Globe?

To highlight the significance and dimensions of the issue. To Learn from the Existing Researchers about the Definition, Evolution, ETs, Development, Use, User, Problems, Prospects of eLearning. To develop a customized model for research in the local environment. Analyzing the experiences of advanced and developing countries including Pakistan. Exploring the current theories and practices in the HEIs of KPK, Pakistan. Positioning our native eLearning environment in comparison to the global models. Reality Note.

4 Global Experiences of eLearning 5 Empirical Study of HEIs in KPK 6 Discussions

7 Conclusions and Recommendations

eLearning Theories and Practices in HEIs of KPK, Pakistan,? What are the similarities and differences between Global and National/Local experiences? How can the solution be implemented?

29 /225

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 eLearning: Concepts and Practices in HEIs eLearning is a buzzword among the teachers and students of HEIs around the world. Some talk of it as a fashion while others intend to learn and integrate ICT-gadgets in their teaching and learning practices. eLearning refers to any level of applying computers and related technologies in pedagogy, learning and education-management. For example, most of the teachers and students in higher education use Internet for browsing, emailing, chatting or any other purpose and thereby learn to add new aspects to their teaching and learning – this is also a kind of being involved in eLearning (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a). Likewise, using a computer to prepare a lecture (by teacher), an assignment (by student) and typing and publishing a notification in a software (by administrator) or doing all this online, as Virtual University does – all reflect eLearning in action.

The educational applications of ICTs are multiple; starting from a simple information delivery (for example, accessing an online catalogue of a digital library) and ending with modern uses of cognitive tools (Web 2.0 technologies), which belong to the family of ‘adaptive technologies or systems that support and enhance the learning process (Sirkemaa, 2001). eLearning therefore, covers a continuum of educational applications with Word, Excel, Access and PowerPoint as the main gadgets on one end with no or little impact on teaching, learning and administrative practices. On the other extreme are the virtual learning environments with web-based applications and virtual lecture halls having far reaching impacts on teaching, learning and education management (Sife et al., 2007; Nawaz, 2010).

In the contemporary digital scenario, social software has changed not only the tools but also the style, preferences, tastes, perceptions and thus culture of the users. For example, teachers, students and administrators around the world are so used to using email as an ‘opener to their

30 /225

daily work’ that any problem with email system in the morning keeps them upset for all the day (Qureshi et al., 2009b). Wikipedia (2009), quoting the pioneer of online-learning “Bernard Luskin” notes that “e” in ‘eLearning’ stands for “exciting, energetic, enthusiastic, emotional, extended, excellent and educational in addition to electronic.”

2.1.1 Definition eLearning is widely researched in the perspectives of “higher education as well as corporate training (Tinio, 2002)” and explained as the 'application of electronic technologies’ in supporting, enhancing and delivering teaching and learning (Gray et al., 2003). ICTs represent computers, networks, software, Internet, wireless and mobile technologies to access, analyze, create, distribute, exchange and use facts and figures in a manner that has been unimaginable hitherto (Beebe, 2004). A variety of concepts is interchangeably used to represent eLearning including: computer-based instruction, computer-assisted instruction, web-based learning, electronic learning, distance education, distance learning, online instruction, multimedia instruction, online courses, networked learning, virtual classrooms, computer mediated communication, Technology supported education/learning and technology uses in education (Tinio, 2002; Abrami et al., 2006; Baumeister, 2006; Manochehr, 2007; Sife et al., 2007; Wikipedia, 2009). eLearning is an individualized instruction delivered over public (Internet) or private (Intranet) computer networks therefore, it was first known as ‘internet-based training’ and then ‘web-based training’(Manochehr, 2007).

In eLearning the information networks such as, internet, intranet, and/or extranet are used to deliver course contents and facilitate teachers, students and administrators (Tinio, 2002). The term networked learning is also used as a synonym for eLearning (Baumeister, 2006). Internet and web-based applications are most widely used educational technologies in the eLearning systems (Luck & Norton, 2005) therefore; teachers, students and education managers are using the web for a variety of purposes (Manochehr, 2007; Nawaz, 2010).

Traditionally, students used transmissive modes of learning, however, now there are shifts from content-centered to competency-based curricula as well as departures from teacher-centered

31 /225

delivery to student-centered delivery where students are encouraged to take on the driving seat for their own learning (Oliver, 2002). eLearning offers a complete information technology support to these innovations (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005) for example, its tools and techniques can be applied in any learning situation, no matter whether it happens face-to-face, in blended or hybrid courses, or online virtual learning (Abrami et al., 2006). Broadly, there are two types of eLearning: 1. Self-managed (asynchronous) and 2. Teacher-led (synchronous). First is off-line while the later is online in the sense that in asynchronous learning, teacher and student are not required to be there at the same time. The eLearning programs are saved on the internet/intranet and accessed at anytime from anywhere, as long as the user has an account with an internet service provider (ISP). Web-based learning is worldwide accessible, easy to maintain, platformindependent, secure, fresh in contents and serve a variety of learning styles by providing a self controlled system (Manochehr, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

The concept of eLearning also has non-educational conceptions. Hans-Peter Baumeister (2006) notes that the meaning of eLearning varies with a change in the context: Political dimension denotes the modernization of whole education system; but Economic view defines eLearning as a sector of eBusiness. In nutshell, eLearning begins with a partial or supplementary use of ICTs in classroom then steps into a blended or hybrid use (a mix of face-2-face and electronic instruction), and finally, emerges as a fully online synchronous and asynchronous virtual learning environments serving physically dispersed learners (Sife et al., 2007). However, it can never be possible to completely replace face to face learning and pedagogy with virtual education except some institutions may be operating completely online (distance learning) but rest of the institutions will continue blended use of educational technologies because ‘this, in itself, serves the purpose (Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).’

To cut short, eLearning is a Technology supported education/learning (TSL) where the medium of instruction is computer technology. In higher education, the tendency is to create Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) combined with a Management Information System (MIS) to create a Managed Learning Environment) in which all aspects of a course are handled through a user interface standard throughout the institution. A growing number of physical universities, as

32 /225

well as newer online-only institutes, have begun to offer academic degree and certificate programs through Internet (Wikipedia, 2009; Nawaz, 2010).

2.1.2 Evolution of eLearning As said earlier, eLearning ranges from a supplemental use of computers to entirely depending on ICTs for teaching, learning and education management. However, modern sophisticated uses of eLearning in some parts of the world has not reached this level instantly rather along the development trajectory of the ICTs themselves. As the computers and communication technologies became more and more advanced and increasingly supportive in the education environment, the eLearninng models grew into more sophisticated tools for real eTeachers, eStudents and eAdmininstrators. The modern eLearning refers to “much broader sense than computer-based learning of 1980s (Wikipedia, 2009; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

Broadly, eLearning has gone through the following stages over the past decades: 1. In 1970s and 1980s, eLearning was called computer-assisted learning, computer-based training or technology-based training. Pedagogically, early programs mostly involved electronic page turning and were didactic in approach (see Section 2.2.2 for detail on approaches) with transmitted knowledge as the purpose. The teachers used to transmit the knowledge rather than facilitating the learner and learning process (Gray et al., 2003; Dinevski & Kokol, 2005). (traditional computer-based learning) 2. By the 1990s other forms of educational-media came into market to supplement old eLearning and brought eLearning at the public level offering discussions and debates through communication technologies – a kind of “negotiated-knowledge (Gray et al., 2003).” Email and discussion groups are playing key role in this kind of eLearning (Valcke, 2004). In the late 1990s, innovations in computer hardware, computer software, and Internet technologies introduced a line of education products that established the eLearning industry (Baucus & Baucus, 2005). (blended learning) 3. By the end of 1990s, virtual learning environments (VLEs) have emerged with tools and techniques for the course-management and interactivity of teachers and learners through a long line of opportunities particularly, the web-baed applications, which enable not to

33 /225

simply deliver knowledge rather empower learners to develop research skills and capitalize on web to “harvest knowledge (Gray et al., 2003).” Jonathan Ezer (2006) contends that in contrast to instrumental education, ‘Liberal’ theory advises to harvest the intellect and develop analytical and critical thinking because liberal education views the search for knowledge as an active and interconnected social activity and not merely a recollection of facts. (virtual learning).

Given this evolutionary scenario of eLearning applications, it becomes clear that HEIs have been passing through three stages of evolution and growth: 1. traditional computer-based learning (supplemental use of ICTs); 2. blended (mixed) learning; and 3 virtual learning. These lie on the continuum of two extremes with one extreme of low-tech applications and on the other end are hi-tech environments while in the middle are different forms of blended learning (see for example, Oliver, 2002; Young, 2003; Beebe, 2004; Heinze & Procter, 2006; Manochehr, 2007). HEIs, particularly in developing countries, are voyaging through different levels of blended learning with multiple experimental applications of ICTs in teaching, learning and education management due to the varying availability and accessibility of educational technologies and professionalism of their use (Qureshi et al., 2009b).

a. Traditional Computer-based Learning Conventional teaching emphasizes content where course is written around textbooks and teachers teach through lectures and presentations and so design the learning activities that the contents could be rehearsed (Oliver, 2002). Likewise, traditional computer-mediated instruction is based on a certain level of technical rationality and objectivist and behaviorist ideas, which emphasize that knowledge and reality exists out there therefore the pedagogy takes a the learner from basic to applied knowledge and ultimately into practice (Young, 2003). In traditional computer-based learning there is low collaboration with teacher-centered learning contexts where there is one-way communication from the teacher to the learner and learning materials are disseminated in print format (Allan, 2007). However, eLearning is now moving away from the traditional computer based learning (CBL) (Manochehr, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

34 /225

Thus, initial stages of eLearning revolves around teachers planning and leading students through a series of instructions to achieve a desired learning outcome, so the emphasis are on the planned transmission of a body of knowledge supported by ICTs (Oliver, 2002). This type of instructional design is based on behaviorism with the belief that learners respond to stimuli that can be reduced into computer-based tutorials, drills and practices. Designers of such learning systems, distort the environment to implement their self-conceived perceptions of how learners acquire knowledge therefore, computer is used as a tool to do the same while broader environmental context is ignored (Young, 2003; Nawaz et al., 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

b. Blended Learning Blended learning is a combination of face to face and computer based teaching and learning or a combination of traditional classroom practice with eLearning solutions (Tinio (2002). It is a shift from computer-based instruction where students learn from technology, to enabling students to learn with the technology (Young, 2003). Blended learning is also called “multi-modal learning (Beebe, 2004).” It is a learning facilitation that incorporates different modes of delivery, models of teaching, and learning styles, introduces multiple media to the dialog between the learner and the facilitator (Heinze & Procter, 2006). Furthermore, blended eLearning applications within the higher education sector are mushrooming (Kanuka, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

Since blending refers to the mix of traditional and digital methods of teaching, learning and administration, therefore all the institutes, which are beginning to computerize come under the general umbrella of blended learning. The research shows that eLearning is enjoying a growing maturity, blending the technology with other forms of delivery such as face-to-face teaching (Gray et al., 2003). However, blended learning is not simply a matter of the combination of faceto-face and online instruction rather it depends on social interaction. Community building and maintenance is an integral part of Blended Learning, but all that can fail if there is mismatch between the facilities and individuality of students and lecturers (Heinze & Procter, 2006).

35 /225

c. Virtual Learning Virtual learning (VL) dates back to 1840, when Sir Isaac Pitman, the English inventor of shorthand, came up with the idea of delivering instruction via correspondence courses by mail. But only with the advances of modern technology has distance education grown to a multibillion dollar market (Spallek, 2003). Virtual university (VU) at vu.edu.pak is the best example of virtual learning with zero-physical contact but virtually 100percent connected with its eStudents. The VU is a potent vision for the future of higher education to utilize new ICTs and radically restructure higher educational provision. It is a ‘university without walls’, an un-packed virtual institution thus ‘The University’ as an institution, seizes to exist (Goddard & Cornford, 2007). Where content and instructions are delivered through Internet, intranet, extranet, satellite TV, and CD-ROM with multimedia capabilities (Manochehr, 2007). The university, then, becomes far more externally oriented, an intermediary on the global stage, acting as collaborator, client, contractor and broker of higher education services (Goddard & Cornford, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b; Nawaz, 2011)

Contemporary learning theory is based on the notion that learning is an active process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring knowledge and that instruction is the process by which this knowledge construction is supported rather than a process of knowledge transmission (Oliver, 2002). Contemporary settings are now favoring curricula that promote competency and performance. Curricula are starting to emphasize capabilities and to be concerned more with how the information will be used than with what the information is (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

d. eLearning 2.0 The shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 (See Section 2.3.1, b, ii for detial on Web 2.0) has also lifted eLearning to eLearning 2.0. From this perspective, traditional eLearning systems used instructional packets to deliver to the students through Internet. The learning consisted of

36 /225

readings and preparing assignments, which were evaluated by the teacher. In eLearning 2.0, the new eLearning places increased emphasis on social learning, collaboration and use of social software such as blogs, wikis, podcasts and virtual worlds like, ‘Second Life’ ‘WebTrain’ etc. The first 10 years of eLearning (eLearning 1.0) was focused on using the internet to reproduce the instructor-led knowledge. eLearning 2.0, however, is constructed on the concept of collaboration, which assumes that knowledge is socially constructed. The collaboration tools like has become one of the virtual environments used in several universities of USA and UK. (Wikipedia, 2009; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

2.1.3 eLearning Technologies The researchers (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005) give a broader classification of educational technologies into:

1. Infrastructure including Computers, Networks; Internet, Intranet and facilities for offline/online access and user interfaces. 2. Learning content management systems (LCMS) for delivery, tracking, management and reporting of online content. 3. Learning management systems (LMS) for performance management, employee development plans, financial and activity tracking/reporting, and integration with other systems. 4. Learning technologies for mentoring, chatting, forums, discussions, Web seminars, online meeting and virtual classroom sessions. 5. m(mobile)-learning technologies are just showing up that will enable learning anywhere and anytime.

ICTs refer to not only the modern hi-tech computers and networks rather these technologies begin with radio as communication mediums to transmit information to remote places. So there are old and new ICTs where radio, television, telephone, fax, telegram, etc are now old while the computer-networks, Internet, e-mail, and leading-edge mobile learning (Hameed, 2007). At the same time, eLearning technologies are burgeoning in terms of hardware, software and a variety

37 /225

of applications in education for teachers, students and administrators. Although eLearning technologies consist of several tools and techniques, including several ‘old and new’ digital gadgets (Sife et al., 2007) however, computers, networking and hypermedia are the core paradigms for different roles of eLearning (Ezziane, 2007).

a. Computer The primary tool for eLearning is the computer, which has traveled a long way since 1960s when UNIVAC in USA and Baby-Computer in UK emerged as the pioneers of a technology, which is now controlling almost every aspect of human life. The transformation from XT (extendedtechnology) to AT (advanced-technology) or Personal Computer (PC) in 1980 was the second big innovation making computers ‘a personal gadget’ for everybody and anybody.

A computer is an intelligent-machine and a powerhouse for users in terms of its processing capabilities and speed (i.e., user command is executed on a click), storage capacity (hard-disk and from floppy to flash and XDrives), and graphic interfaces (i.e., graphical-user-interface GUI) to interact with different parts of the machine, like, activating a software, using CD-drive, printing a document or picture, copying a file from hard disk on a ‘data-traveler.’

However, for a long time, computers were being used as ‘stand-alone’ systems and the energies of this machine remained self-contained within a ‘single user-single computer’ format. The emergence of computer as a ‘connecting-machine’ was the ‘innovative-explosion’ which presented the PC as an ‘integrating-machine’ to bring all the existing technologies controlled from a single platform. Obviously, the integration between the computers themselves stand-out as the most powerful integration of machines. This gave birth to the concepts of ‘networking.’

b. Networking Networking is connecting computers together to share resources and communicate across the network. Since networking has elevated the role of computers therefore a huge body of research

38 /225

is underway to make connectivity more and more powerful. Thus, networking is evolving from simple networks into complicated forms of Internet, intranet and extranet along with webtechnologies thereby converting the world into a ‘global-village,’ because networking eliminate the geographical and physical constraints in global communication and interaction. Networking technologies offer a multitude of tools and techniques based on the communication-protocol of TCP/IP, onto which Internet is anchored. According to Glogoff (2005) a network is a platform (internet, intranets and extranets) decorated with web-based tools of hypermedia and multimedia applications managed through learning and content management systems (LMS, LCMS). It is therefore evident that Internet is becoming an indispensable tool for learning and social life (Barnes et al., 2007; Nawaz, 2010).

The Internet technologies like e-mail/conferencing on the Web, is usable in assisting teaching however, Web, and most recently WebCT (an online learning and content management system), remain the most popular mediums. Most education web sites provide basic course information such as syllabus, schedule, announcements, reading lists, synchronous or asynchronous communication, online testing, discussion groups, conferences, whiteboards, streaming audio, and video (Zapalska et al., 2004). Ezziane (2007) asserts that the paradigm of networking in HEIs refers to delivering education through network by enabling learners to access study materials as well as establish communication channels between students and teachers. Thus, iincreased access to and use of the Internet is making a unique contribution to the teaching and learning process and will be an important part of future strategies to provide services to increased number of students in very diverse locations (Mehra & Mital, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011; Nawaz, 2011).

ICTs are used almost interchangeably with the Internet (Beebe, (2004).Most of the online education is delivered over Web and supported by a variety of technologies like e-mail, digital presentations, film clips to network geographically dispersed community where the educators are rapidly learning about the powers of Web and striving to incorporate it into eLearning environments (Glogoff, 2005). Furthermore, the success story of the Internet - after it was given away by the Pentagon – derives from the fact that academics in the late 60ies discovered its communication potential (Baumeister, 2006). Thus, the Internet tools like, WWW, conferencing

39 /225

and e-mailing are increasingly making some fundamental academic skills easier, such as surfing knowledge databases and communication as a medium of academic exchange. Roknuzzaman, (2006) asserts that as an important tool for information and communication, the Internet plays a dynamic and multifaceted role in higher education and research. Laffey & Musser (2006) note that the use of Internet for teaching and learning has received increasing attention over recent years and ‘Internet-based educational technology, digital content and networked applications’ can contribute to substantial improvements in education by transforming teaching and learning theories and practices.

This is true that many of the eLearning efforts in HEIs do nothing more than delivering the traditional print syllabus via the Internet but many studies confirm that innovative applications of Web are endless (Wood, 2004). Likewise, John Thompson (2007) notes that accessing the Internet is like going to the library for a book however, Internet offers opportunities which need to be explored the technologies are designed well and used as intended (Wijekumar, 2005). Internet technologies (now offering Web 2.0, such as blogs, wikis, RSS, podcasting etc.), virtual reality applications, videogames and mobile devices are some of the many innovations, which are common in daily life for communication and entertainment are equally helpful in learning and emerging as such (Chan & Lee, 2007). Through such technologies, the Internet is no longer a series of isolated silos of information; it has become a platform for users to communicate and interact with one another. Web 2.0 could be characterized as a social phenomenon that creates and distributes Internet content through a paradigm of "open communication, decentralization of authority, [and] freedom to share and re-use" material (Wikipedia, 2009).

i. The Internet (Web 1.0) With the Internet and computer technology available to most teachers, educational technology becomes increasingly indispensable in the field of education (Oh & French, 2004). Internet-

based educational technology can contribute to substantial improvements in education (Laffey & Musser, 2006). Internet-based emerging communication tools, such as e-mails, bulletin boards, etc., provide more reflective and useful interactions among learners, instructors and resources (Arulchelvan & Viswanathan, 2006). Internet technologies are now incorporating

40 /225

Web 2.0, virtual reality applications, videogames and mobile devices, which are used everyday for communication and entertainment as well as learning (Chan & Lee, 2007). A major impact of the Internet has been to promote asynchronous access to online information, with traditional forms of technologies and gradually giving way to new forms of web-casting or video blogging (vlogging) (Klamma et al., 2007).

Wikipedia defines the Internet as “a global system of interconnected computer networks that interchange data by packet switching using the standardized Internet Protocol (TCP/IP).” It is a “network of networks” which connects (by wire or wireless) millions of local to global levels of private, public, academic, business, and government networks. The Internet provides access to unlimited data sources through the services like email, chatting, file transfer and and other utilities. The terms Internet and www are not the same. The Internet refers to a universal communications system of hardware and software to connect computers. While, Web is one of the services available on the Internet. Web is a store of interconnected documents and other datasources that are linked together through hyperlinks and URLs (Wikipedia, 2009).

One of big expectations from eLearning is to provide equal opportunities of education for everyone. The eCourses on internet can reach any corner of our planet thereby delivering same high-quality education everywhere. It is expected that universities acting over the Internet can offer eCourses for a big population of students in Third-World countries (Hvorecký et al., 2005). The success story of the Internet - after it was given away by the Pentagon – derives from the fact that academics in the late 60ies discovered its communication potential (Baumeister, 2006). As we enter the third millennium, education via the internet, intranet or network represents great and exciting opportunities for both educators and learners. The internet is the largest, most powerful computer network in the world (Manochehr, 2007).

The use of broadband services has started to grow in homes and offices located in major cities. This trend is expected to accelerate (Hameed, 2007). HEC (2008) has introduced a host of programs to establish a world-class ICT infrastructure for providing high-speed internet connectivity to universities all over the country. These digital initiatives create a platform to deliver a range of ICT-based educational services, including a Digital Library and Video

41 /225

Conferencing Facilities. In Pakistan, there are “17,500,000 Internet users as on March 2008 (Internet Web Stat, 2009).”

ii. Web 2.0 Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technology trends that facilitate a more socially connected Web where everyone is able to add to and edit the information space (Sife et al., 2007). On web 1.0, adding content was the specialty of Internet designers using technical jargon of computer programming but now ‘easy-to-use Internet sites’ empower users to publish their data on Internet without even knowing HTML. Through Web-based applications and services like Web logs (blogs), video blogs (vlogs), wikis, podcasts; anyone can be a part of the Web 2.0. Among all web 2.0, social networking sites, MySpace.com and Facebook.com are very popular because these sites let members create their own Web pages, fill them with personal profiles, photos, and blogs. MySpace community has more than 160 million members and receiving registration of over 200,000 each day (Thompson, 2007; Wikipedia, 2009).

The first generation Internet allowed easy access to a vast range of published materials. The second generation Internet allows them to contribute to it (Klamma et al., 2007). If Web 1.0 was a read-only medium, Web 2.0 is a read/write medium. Web 2.0 relies on user participation. Web 2.0 as a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information with increasing role of the users as anyone can create and upload text, audio, and video to the Internet (Wikipedia, 2009; Nawaz, 2010).

The tools of Web 2.0, such as blogs, wikis, RSS, podcasting etc are equally helpful in learning as they are in daily life (Chan & Lee, 2007). With such a diverse use of Web 2.0 applications at IHEs, the potential for such applications seems vast, but its reach is yet undetermined. There is instant need to reshape traditional learning beliefs and educational methods in order to capitalize on the benefits of Web 2.0. For this purpose, HEIs need an understanding of our users and their changing behavior, and structuring hybrid organizations and thus use the collective knowledge and skills contributed by various players with diverse backgrounds and dispersed around the globe (Thompson, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz, 2011).

42 /225

Table 2.1 Differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 Web 1.0 Publishing (Britannica Online) Personal websites Content management Directories (taxonomy)

Web 2.0 Blogging Participation (Wikipedia) Wikis Tagging (folksonomy)

Source. Klamma et al., (2007)

2.1.4 Digital Literacy The demand for a universal computer-literacy stems from the ways in which ICTs are dominating different aspects of the contemporary life and work (Oliver, 2002). The advocates of social inclusion through ICTs propose a focus on electronic literacy as a key to overcoming the digital divide (Macleod, 2005). Different groups of people: students, teachers, and employers-have different ideas about what computer literacy means (Johnson et al., 2006). During the last 25 years, several models and approaches of computer and information literacy have started to merge (Ezziane, 2007). Now, digital literacy skills are considered necessary for effective and mindful learning in the emerging digital environments (Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006). People acquire their technology literacy in two ways: formally through school programs or in the workplace, and informally, whether at home, from friends, or by themselves (Ezziane, 2007).

The illiterate of the 21st century are not those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn (Tinio, 2002). The definition of computer literacy has evolved overtime as technology improved and society became more dependent on computers. Some 50 years ago when a computer nearly filled a room, computer literacy meant being able to program a computer (Johnson et al., 2006). Today, when every user holds a computer, computer literacy is defined as an understanding of computer characteristics, capabilities, and applications, as well as an ability to implement this knowledge in the skillful, productive use of computers in a personalized manner (Martin & Dunsworth, 2007). Terms such as computer competency, computer proficiency, and computer literacy are used interchangeably (Johnson et al., 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

43 /225

With today’s technological society, basic computer literacy is emphasized in every institution’s requirements (Ezziane, 2007). Digital literacy is usually conceived of as a combination of technical-procedural, cognitive and emotional-social skills. For instance, using a computer involves procedural skills (e.g., handling files and editing pictures), cognitive skills (e.g., the ability to intuitively read the visual messages embedded in graphic user interfaces). With the increasing popularity of digital workplaces and learning environments, digital literacy is perceived as a survival skill (Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006). With the changes in technology, the different elements of computer literacy are prone to change constantly and hence it is important for educators to constantly revise the course to include the latest technology advancement (Martin & Dunsworth, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

2.1.5 Computing Curricula The ‘curricula’ of any country is viewed as “a snapshot of the current state of knowledge (Ezer, 2006).” During the last 20 years, there has been a voluminous growth in the demand for ICTprofessionals. This growth was partly driven by: 1. tremendous technological advances, such as the networking, graphical user interfaces, Internet and WWW; and 2. greater recognition of ICTs by the individuals and organizations, and their widespread use by the individuals, with even no technical knowledge of ICTs (Ekstrom et al., 2006). However, technology integration into pedagogy and learning processes requires the development of a comprehensive and latest curriculum for the digital literacy of teachers and students (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Nawaz, 2011).

Given the fact that technology means nothing if it is not used (Mujahid, 2002)”, efforts are underway around the world to develop a model curriculum for their ICT-graduates with a view to create compatibility between the knowledge and skills demanded by the employers. Several researchers are working in this line (see for example, Oliver, 2002; Macleod, 2005; Ekstrom et al., 2006; Ezer, 2006; Andriole, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006; Ezziane, 2007; Martin & Dunsworth, 2007). Given the popularity of ICTs, across the board, the development of computing-curriculum is challenging because every stakeholder defines computer-literacy verily (Johnson et al., 2006) according to his/her background. Furthermore, in curriculum design, it is becoming more

44 /225

challenging to keep updating the curriculum with the diversity of new generation of students who “may know more about the subject” than their teachers (Cawson, 2005), are the new “dot.com generation” enters university with an intensive education in technology (Ezziane, 2007)

Debate about whether education should be focused on the current job market (instrumental) or intellectual attainment (liberal) is ongoing. Research shows that most of the current ICT training and education is ineffective because it is more technical and less concerned with the contexts and real world problems (Ezer, 2006). Due to increased demand for ICT-professionals, the universities across the world have responded by developing programs without “an existing model for guidance (Ekstrom et al., 2006).” However, researchers warn that the gap between what we teach and what we do is widening … academic programs should acknowledge this gap between theory and practice, because it has enormous implications for the ability of their graduates to find work (Andriole, 2006; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz, 2010, Nawaz, 2011).

Traditional computer science programs did not equip their graduates with the practical network or system administration skills that organizations needed to expand and maintain their IT infrastructures, or the web development skills required to take advantage of the many opportunities opened up by the Internet (Ekstrom et al., 2006; Andriole, 2006). Jonathan Ezer, (2006) asserts that the issues of computing curriculum development stem from the instrumental vs. liberal perceptions of eLearning. In instrumental education emphasis is placed on the relevance and utility of education, where students are expected to apply their knowledge vocationally, contributing to the economy (Kundi & Nawaz, 2010). The risk of such a system is that students are encouraged to simply meet some identified need, rather than think critically. While, Liberal education emphasizes to harvest the intellect and develop a highly analytical and critical way of thinking. The problems of this system are that education become divorced from the world of work, and education ceases to have any immediate use (Nawaz, 2010).

The efforts to define a model curriculum for IT began at the first Conference on IT in December 2001 represented by ACM, AIS, and IEEE Computer Society. The participants emphasized that the new curricula must meet the needs of users within an organizational and societal context through the selection, creation, application, integration and administration of computing

45 /225

technologies. In order to be able to do so, an IT graduate must possess knowledge and skills about hardware and networking; Programming; Designing, selection, application, and deployment of computing systems and integrate them into the organization; meeting the needs of users; technical skills to develop and maintain modern IT applications; and security (Ekstrom et al., 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011; Nawaz, 2011).

Despite some similarities in the computing curricula there are clear distinctions of being developed and developing countries. In a comparative study of the computing curricula in India and America, the researcher found that there are similarities in terms of offering fundamental courses in IT, system development, basics of operating systems, hardware architecture, web technologies and programming fundamentals. However, the differences are more obvious for example; India is more instrumental while American education is more liberal in computing curricula with less emphasis on hard sciences than Indian curriculum (Ezer, 2006). The research from Pakistan also verifies the existence of the same paradigm in higher education of our country (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b, 2010c; Qureshi et al., 2011; Nawaz et al., 2011)

2.1.6 Contributions of ICTs to Higher Education When used appropriately, ICTs become most effective tools for teachers, students and administrators to achieve the objectives of EFA and LLL through anytime, anywhere and for anyone (Tinio, 2002; Oliver, 2002). The computers and Internet have removed the barriers of time and space for learning (Shimabukuro, 2005).The research has documented the correlation between ICTs and the positive academic outcomes like, better attitudes to teaching and learning (Haddad & Jurich, 2006). For example, computer mediated communication can reduce low motivation and feelings of isolation. eLearning is more effective in distance education, where technology replaces face-to-face instructional environment (Abrami et al., 2006).

ICTs such as videos, television and multimedia computer software that combine text, sound, and colorful, moving images can be used to provide challenging and authentic content that will engage the student in the learning process. Interactive radio likewise makes use of sound effects, songs, dramatizations, comic skits, and other performance conventions to compel the students

46 /225

(Tinio, 2002). Thus, the impacts of eLearning applications are quite evident from the evolving priorities within the higher education system. These include: meeting the needs of a more diverse population of learners, lifelong learning, greater links between research and teaching and more engagement with the end-users. So, ICTs, are taking the driving seat in shaping the way in which universities are responding to the new world calls (Goddard & Cornford, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

There is a misconception that ICT innovation necessarily has to end up in the commercialization of education (Pfeffer, 2004). However, there is a great polarization of views on the topic. Some traditional stakeholders in higher education: institutions, teachers’ unions, students, and scholars strongly oppose the commodification of higher education (UNESCO, 2004, 2007)

The strategic use of ICTs can help to preserve old and to create new teaching, learning and education management. Many traditional HEIs are using ICTs without aiming at the commodification of higher education. During the last years the expectations in commercial prospects of online higher education were frequently frustrated. Huge amounts of money were lost, several high profile projects faltered completely (Pfeffer, 2004). Furthermore, the FOSS movement is making all digital resources available to the masses free of cost, which is obviously, a ‘de-commodification’ strategy for HEIs (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Nawaz, 2010).

a. Learning and Teaching Roles There are three general approaches to the instructional use of computers and the Internet, namely: 1. Learning about ICTs, where digital literacy is the end goal; 2. Learning with ICTs where technologies facilitates learning; and 3. Learning through these technologies thereby integrating technological skills development with curriculum (Tinio, 2002). Literature confirms that ICTs are being deployed in university settings all over the world with the aim to equip the students with ICT-based skills so that they are ready to work in modern ‘electronic office’ (Sahay, 2004). The role of ICTs in HEIs are:

47 /225

1. As an object: That is learning about the technology itself. Courses are offered to get knowledge and develop skills about different tools. This prepares students for the use of ICTs in education, future occupation and social life (Jager & Lokman, 1999). 2. Assisting tool: ICT is used as a tool, for example while making assignments, collecting data and documentation, communicating and conducting research. Here ICTs are applied independently from the subject matter. 3. Medium for teaching and learning: This refers to ICT as a tool for teaching and learning itself, the medium through which teachers can teach and learners can learn. It appears in many different forms, such as drill and practice exercises, in simulations and educational networks (UNESCO, 2004, 2006, 2007). Technology based instructional delivery method is equally effective in learning outcomes for students when compared to traditional faceto-face course delivery (Schou, 2006). The researchers have long argued that computers possess the potential to transform learning environments and improve the quality of the learning (Abrami et al., 2006; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010; Kundi et al., 2010).

b. Administrative Roles ICTs have been found more relevant in the administration of education. ICTs are being used in time tabling and institution management to improve the use of staff time, student time and space thereby reducing costs significantly (Sanyal, 2001). “A major role of IT is being a facilitator of organizational facilities and processes. That role will become more important as time passes. Therefore it is necessary that every manager and professional staff member learn IT not only in his/her specialized field but also in the entire organization and inter-organizational settings as well (Turban et al., 2004:32; Nawaz et al., 2007; Nawaz, 2010; Qureshi et al., 2011).”

The actual ICT use fosters logistics and administrative processes, distribution of materials and communication about instructional issues (Valcke, 2004). Technology developers are responsible to so develop the eLearning products that they serve all the education community including teachers, administrators, district superintendents, legislators etc (Buzhardt & Heitzman-Powell, 2005). Computer literacy is one of the most important skills a person can have in today’s

48 /225

competitive environment. One of the most important changes is the transformation of blue-collar workers into white-collar workers (Ezziane, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

“Enabling technologies for mangers are called Management Support Systems (MSS), which consist of the following: Decision Support Systems (DSS), Executive (enterprise) Support Systems (ESS)’ Group Decision Support Systems (GDSSS), and Intelligent Systems (Turban et al., 2004:545).” In the educational background, these systems are called educational management information systems (EMIS) and educational decision support system (EDSS). EDSS combines the data provided by EMIS with analytical models to generate options for the decision makers. EDSS promotes the culture of informed decision-making by providing relevant, reliable, accurate and timely information to educational policy analysts and policy-makers, educational planners, managers and administrators, researchers and other users of the data produced (UNESCO, 2006; Qureshi et al., 2009a).

2.2 Development and Use of eLearning 2.2.1 Introduction The experience of introducing different ICTs in the classroom and other educational settings all over the world suggests that the realization of the potential educational benefits of these new technologies is not automatic (Tinio, 2002). It is rather raising multiple debates over the substance, trajectory, purpose, and implications of ICTs in education. For example, ICTs can become an end in themselves rather than a means to support and enhance education (Sahay, 2004). In the context of globalization, international connectivity, instant communication through Internet and mobile technologies, the universities of all countries are confronted with huge challenges, both external and internal (Loing, 2005; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c).

The effective integration of ICTs into the educational system is a complex, multifaceted process that involves not just technology but also curriculum and pedagogy, institutional readiness,

49 /225

teacher competencies, and long-term financing, among others (Tinio, 2002). The growth of innovative practices in eLearning has contributed to the development of new skills and competencies and novel ways of using them within project teams (Gray et al., 2003). However, the design and development principles need to be aligned with teacher and instructors understanding of student requirements (Young, 2003). Because ICTs can contribute to learning, they cannot deliver learning and thus, the integration of pedagogy and learning models within the appropriate technology is essential to make eLearning successful (Nyvang, 2006; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

A research from universities by David Lewis & Ruth Goodison (2004) reveals that those who were using successful eLearning-initiatives, strongly perceived that the “developments needed to be driven by pedagogy, not the technology.” Likewise, data on eLearning experiences in developed and developing countries provide enough evidence to understand that it is not technology (Jewels & Ford, 2006) rather human and cultural issues which can either work as critical success factors or turn into critical failure variables (Nawaz & Kundi, 2006). For example, culture is a highly influential mediator in the present educational environments. The pedagogical model is also part of the culture of the organization (Nyvang, 2006).

ICTs open up new opportunities for students and teacher but they also create new challenges (Sahay, 2004). Abrami et al., (2006) pinpoint the existing skepticism about eLearning, such as, it is a threat to formal education from nursery to university and it is not the technology itself which is increasing learning with computers rather the instructional and content differences, or novelty effects. Several researchers report that despite the best of intentions, many of their eLearning projects ultimately fail due to many reasons such as, inappropriate technology, poor projectimplementation, improper use of the equipment, lack of follow-up, inadequate training of stakeholders and incompatibility of the project with a shifting social and political context (Wells, 2007; Nawaz et al, 2007).

Given that there are different perceptions of ICTs, the eProjects for eLearning become a challenging and uphill adventures where developers have to consider a variety of factors (variables) (Qureshi et al., 2009b) including development approaches and attitudes, project

50 /225

management techniques, user participation, user training, change management and the context within which the development and use of eLearning is about to happen (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c).

2.2.2 Approaches and Attitudes Aviram & Tami (2004) have extracted seven approaches: administrative, curricular, didactic, organizational, systemic, cultural and ideological and five attitudes: agnostic, conservative, moderate, radical, and extreme radical attitude towards the application of ICTs in HEIs. Approaches refer to the perceptions about the nature and aims of eLearning (what ICTs can do?) while attitudes are the behaviors one adopts about the nature and extent of changes required for the introduction of ICTs in education (what a user have to do?) (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

Approaches to the Roles/Uses of eLearning and ICTs Approach

Perceptions about the Nature and Roles of eLearning or Educational Technologies?

1

Administrative

2

Curricular

3

Didactic

4

Organizational

5

Systemic

6

Cultural

7

Ideological

The availability of technology is the progress and an important aim, so focus is on the quantity and quality of equipment. The use of ICTs with a specific curricular aim. Technology is conceived as a neutral tool in the service of prevailing subject matters. Didactic approach dictates the inevitable or desirable change that can be brought through ICT in pedagogy. ICTs can help creating viable, flexible and robust organizational structures to teach, learn and administer effectively. ICTs have to be used systematically. All the changes must be preplanned and predefined. Cultural approach recognizes that the ICT revolution has powerful defining impact our culture and thus lives. Philosophical or critical social thinkers believe that whatever the change, it should be in tune with the Social-values of the society.

Adapted from: Aviram & Tami (2004) Administrative, Curricular, Didactic and Organizational approaches are more ‘instrumental’ than Systemic, Cultural and Ideological approaches, which emphasize more broader ‘substantive view’ or role of ICTs in higher education. The instrumental view is mostly supported by the administrators, bureaucrats and politicians (Baumeister, 2006). While substantive approaches are

51 /225

possessed mostly by the academics and intellectuals who maintain that eLearning technologies must systematically change the educational culture according to the ideological requirements of a particular context.

Attitudes towards eLearning or Educational Technologies 1 2

Attitudes Agnostics Conservatives

3

Moderate

4

Radical

5

How to behave with eLearning or Educational Technologies? Don’t have a clear opinion as to the impact of ICT on education Education will survive, ICT with minimal change, as it has survived other technologies Usually more active problem based, authentic or research-oriented learning and teaching methods and the connected organizational changes are mentioned in this context To survive the ICT revolution, education has to radically change in all their parameters. Quick and broader changes beyond radicalism.

Extreme radical Adapted from: Aviram & Tami (2004)

These approaches and attitudes are commonly regrouped into three paradigms or groups of people each with a distinct mind-frame: technocrat, reformist and holist, meaning that at the broader level, the development of eLearning is happening either in technocratic, reformist or holistic manners:

1. The Technocrat paradigm: Sundeep Sahay (2004) defines the technocrats as those who see ICTs as a means for education and believe that educational institutions will survive the current ICTs as they did the other technologies in the past. This group holds administrative, curricular or didactic approaches with agnostic and conservative attitudes (Aviram & Tami, 2004). 2. The Reformist paradigm: Reformists perceive that ICTs bring in new didactics and teaching/learning methods thus reform the various educational processes (Sahay, 2004). They hold didactic and organizational approaches with moderate attitudes. They promote interdisciplinary, constructivist, and collaborative learning environments (Aviram & Tami, 2004). 3. The Holistic paradigm: Holists emphasize the role of socio-cultural context in the use of new educational technologies (Sahay, 2004). They are cultural and ideological in approaches with conservative, radical or extreme radical attitudes. They have well-

52 /225

defined theories and well-calculated attitudes for the education system and learn from others (Aviram & Tami, 2004).

2.2.3 eProject-Management The efforts to integrate ICTs into teaching and learning have a history as long as the technologies themselves (Aaron et al., 2004). Research suggests that eProjects are either initiated at the subject/ departmental or institutional levels. Departmental eLearning initiatives are mostly driven by an individual staff while in most of the new universities, where institutional strategy is popular, stresses the role of ICT in relation to broader aims like widening participation in education (Lewis & Goodison, 2004). The broader pattern of eLearning projects include the identification of needs for development with ICT, choice of ICTs and development of practice with ICT (Nyvang, 2006; Nawaz, 2010).

In the eLearning projects a team of developers with special knowledge and skills are required including project-manager, system instructional designer, product instructional designer, learning administrator, and tutors and writers (Gray et al., 2003). Aaron et al., 2004) suggest that project management, instructional design, team-based course development and other academic and administrative techniques are crucial to the success of technology integration in a broader institutional context. Literature suggests that for a successful eProject, people are the most important asset for the eLearning project manager and these people must be competent in soft skills such as, communication, conflict resolution, motivation, getting along with others, and leadership (Jewels & Ford, 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz, 2011).

eLearning system development is a systematic management activity, which is undertaken according to predefined and well-thought-out phases and steps(UQA, 2001). The development cycles have be suggested to effectively manage the trajectory according to the principles of ICTProject development and the context of all developmental activity. Gray et al., (2003) analyzed the development practices of HEIs in seven European countries and found that most of the projects perform six main steps in f developing their eLearning environments including: Needs analysis; Instructional design; Development; Delivery; Evaluation; and project management.

53 /225

Likewise, Ekstrom et al., (2006) suggest that by the selection, creation, application, integration and administration of ICTs, institutions can create system within an organizational and societal context thereby meeting the needs of users and society.

a. Educational Technology Planning It is imperative that management policies are designed for the benefit of both academic and administrative staff (UQA, 2001). Educational Technology Planning (ETP) should be aligned with the institutional policies, culture, values, and history and a specific timetable should be sorted out to handle multiple expectations of different users (Stockley, 2004). Development of eLearning is not simply a matter of selecting a team with technical skills, it also requires developers with expertise in pedagogy and online communication skills (McPherson & Nunes, 2004). A strategic plan for educational technology includes plans both for the technological infrastructure and the manner in which these tools will be integrated into teaching and learning practices (Stockley, 2004; Baumeister, 2006; Qureshi et al., 2009b)

ETP is conducted in: top-down, initiated by administrators; bottom-up, driven by the people delivering a product or service; or mixed, involving a bit of both. Top down approaches can guarantee proper resources, but limited lower-level participation can result into user-resistance. Likewise, in bottom up approach, the workforce may be ready to understand and execute innovation, but there can be lack of top management’s physical and political support (Aaron et al., 2004), although the development of a strategic plan for educational technology is an uphill task (Stockley, 2004; Nawaz et al., 2007; Nawaz, 2010).

Innovation can follow diverse tracks. Experienced institutions are innovating in scale and technological complexity of tools, learner management systems and interactive tools but this is more challenging for the universities taking on eLearning for the first time (Gray et al., 2003). These institutes pay high level of attention to technical issues while very nominal and unplanned focus is placed on educational change (Valcke, 2004). However, effective planning means getting all the stakeholder of an eLearning project on board through cross-cultural

54 /225

communication among all groups, and build a shared set of ends and means (Aaron et al., 2004; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz, 2011).

The findings from several universities give an encouraging sign of the fact that most of the institutions are moving away from behaviorist forms of design towards a constructivist or collaborative pedagogical approach (Gray et al., 2003). The research also suggests that planning for the integration of teaching technologies can become more systematic through a variety of tools and techniques where many players and processes construct a dynamic process of planning, implementation, evaluation and rethinking (Aaron et al., 2004; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

b. Needs analysis Most educators accept the premise that, in an ideal world, learning will be delivered in a manner and context that best suits the needs and learning styles of individual learners (LaCour, 2005). The developers need the abilities to identify and analyze user needs and take them into account in the selection, creation, evaluation and administration of computer-based systems and an ability to effectively integrate IT-based solutions into the user environment (Ekstrom et al., 2006). For example, the success of an eLearning software is measured on how far the product fulfils stakeholders needs and requirements on time and within a budget (Ward et al., 2006).Understanding human requirements takes time and effort but these assessments are essential in planning the introduction of ICTs to communities (Hameed, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b; Nawaz et al., 2011).

Results show that promoters of technology view ICT as a way of transforming education (substantive-approach) whereas teachers see it only as a means to an end (instrumental conception). The advocates of technology base their vision on broader social changes; the other group considers only the student-requirements and the practical ways to meet them (Sasseville, 2004) therefore, the developers must balance the needs of all stakeholders (Abrami et al., (2006) by getting academic computing staff, faculty, and administrators together (Kopyc, 2007; Nawaz, 2010).

55 /225

Higher education has to ensure that it serves the needs of the professions, industry and the wider community and does not merely continue its traditional role of producing more researchers and academics (UQA, 2001). Given the changing nature of higher education and the pressures placed on institutions; the significance of addressing stakeholders' needs has increased (Marcella & Knox, 2004). The selection and adaptation of technologies must be based on educational needs and objectives, and not the technologies in themselves (Haddad & Jurich, 2006). So there is need to move educational practices forward by understanding the users, their behavioral changes and an appreciation of the needs of dot.com, knowledge-based, hybrid organizations which use these users of eLearning (Thompson, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

Teachers need to identify needs and plan, implement, and assess classroom instruction through the collaborative use of technology and other resources (Willis, 2006). But, they commonly face several obstacles therefore developers must categorically address the needs of diverse teachers and students (Ezziane, 2007). This is on record that the transition from traditional instruction to eLearning is best accomplished through systematically addressing the needs of faculty (Phillips et al., 2008; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

Recent research shows that technology properly deployed in the classroom can make the learning process more interactive and enjoyable if curriculum is customized to learners' needs and personal interests (Radosevich & Kahn, 2006). The challenge of meeting the needs of Net-savvy students is daunting, but educators are assisted by the fact that this generation values education and they do want to learn (Barnes et al., (2007). Since, individual learning styles differ, and instructors cannot always accommodate each student’s needs, however, if several learning opportunities are provided, learners can choose the matching one. Learning style is a predictor of an individual’s learning behavior (Manochehr, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011).

To investigate user needs a mix of techniques are used including paper and web-based questionnaires, interviews with teachers and learners, expert review, and direct observation (Gray et al., 2003). However, a sustained collaboration among all the university constituents could foster exchange of ideas and allow all to express their needs and be actively involved in

56 /225

the development process (Juniu, 2005). Similarly, ICT-professionals should work with departmental heads to identify faculty members who can serve as technology liaisons to their home departments. These technology role models can motivate their colleagues to use technology (Reilly, 2005). In an African university experience, researchers found that faculty members have contributed significantly through participation in the evolution of eLearning, particularly in conducting a university-wide needs analysis (Thurab-Nkhosi et al., 2005; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b; Nawaz et al., 2011).

c. Design and Development The development of ICT-based work environment for other than educational organizations is different from developing an eLearning environment in a HEI due to the difference of ‘organizational objectives’ and ‘user characteristics.’ Non-educational organizations classify their users according to top, middle and bottom management groups of users with different requirements. However, in eLearning, the main users are teachers and students where teachers have to be supported in teaching but both teachers and students have to be facilities in learning (Nawaz, 2010). So design and development of an eLearning environment is all about the instructional design and content development along with the provision and adaptation of educational technologies (Nawaz, 2011).

There is wide recognition, that eLearning projects are complex and an effective eLearning development team requires the presence of multidisciplinary skills, across all and within individual members of the team. The roles in these projects often included: Project Manager, System Instructional Designer, Product Instructional Designer, Learning Administrator, Tutors and Writers (Gray et al., 2003). An information system development lifecycle is followed in every eProject such as, ADDIE model, which suggests a lifecycle with five steps: analyse, design, develop, implement and evaluate (Widipedia, 2009; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

57 /225

i. Instructional Designing After conducting survey of several European universities, Gray et al., (2003) found that in terms of instructional design, no clear definitions are available as to explain the pedagogical approaches adopted rather most of the projects seem using a common-sense approach. However, in order to provide professionals, designers, and educators with better guidelines for instructional design, there is the need of a definition that is as exhaustive and simple as possible (Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006). Without a clear definition, facilitation of effective eLearning is highly unlikely, for example, given the variety of communication technologies and social software, academics need to consult instructional designers to ensure that the chosen technologies will teach the concepts effectively and meet their students’ needs (Kanuka, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a, Kundi & Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

The concept of instructional design is a sequential, flexible, practical, and non-linear process reflecting the university’s educational rationale and the context of the environment (ThurabNkhosi et al., 2005). There is a number of instructional design and multimedia firms specialized in custom-authored training materials including Avalanche Multimedia, Cosmic Blender, and Redmon Group (Baucus & Baucus, 2005). Teacher need to be aware of the differences between instructional design for eLearning as compared to traditional face-to-face situations. Traditional methods of instructional design must be adjusted with the contextual demands of the technology use (Abrami et al., 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2006). In its simplest sense, instructional design is the process of converting general principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials and learning activities. “It is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning (Kanuka, 2007).”

The instructional design models for traditional computer-based learning strategies have been built upon realist and objectivist views of knowledge, and expressed through the decontextualized acquisition of passive, inert knowledge however, current research in instructional design is developing constructivist computer-based instructional frameworks

58 /225

(Young, 2003). Incorporating instructional changes, fostering students' critical thinking skills, and possessing strong constructivist pedagogies must always be prerequisites for the use of computer technology in instruction (Juniu, 2005) so that the instructional design matches the goals and potential of eLearning (Abrami et al., 2006). Within institutions of higher education, the increasing use of instructional designers as pedagogical experts for eLearning activities suggests that teachers must learn as much as possible about designing and developing effective instructional design (Kanuka, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

Some educators identify the classroom-based teaching as an asset and view computer-based instruction simply as an alternative delivery system for traditional pedagogy instead of a tool for implementing new pedagogy (Kuriloff, 2005). While others, view technology as the key answer to the problems in education and an indispensable institutional transformation and reform. These "techno-promoters" are from the non-academic group of information technology division, professionals with expertise in instructional design, project management, and the newest technological tools, and administrators who must work effectively in support of their academic colleagues for the improvement of teaching and learning in higher education (Juniu, 2005).

One of the challenges facing instructional designers is to incorporate the individual differences such as nationality, gender and cognitive learning style of teachers and learners (Graff et al., 2001). Furthermore, when instructional designers are employed as pedagogical experts but not content experts—and the instructors are content experts but not pedagogical experts—the result is a bifurcation of content and pedagogy. Connections of these two domains should not be neglected (Kanuka, 2007). “Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning and cognitivism help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials (Wikipedia, 2009).”

ii. Content Development In the eLearning environment, the new forms of educational content (radio programs, Web-based courses, interactive multimedia on CDs or DVDs, etc.) are developed, existing contents are adapted and print-based content are converted into digital media (Tinio, 2002). Beside the classroom and published content the generic eLearning education and learning content (courses,

59 /225

events, resources, mentoring, etc.) is gaining momentum in the eLearning solutions. The trend of the learning content development is its interactivity and to serve the learners with different background knowledge (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005). In the eLearning environments, learningcontents are delivered via internet, intranet, extranet, satellite TV, and CDs, using web-based learning, virtual classrooms and digital collaboration (Manochehr, 2007).

In the traditional computer-based learning environment, the curriculum has fixed lessons and contents however, the new learning environments learning contents are no longer constant and constantly change (Jager & Lokman, 1999). Professional content developers such as instructional designers, scriptwriters, audio and video specialists, programmers, multimedia course authors, and web-developers are needed (Tinio, 2002). Traditional content-driven eLearning provides transmitted knowledge through professionally designed graphics, audio and visual materials (Gray et al., 2003). However, current approach is a kind of holistic in which ICTs are taught with substantive knowledge and skills to empower learners not only in technical competence but also technology integration at the broader organizational levels (Chan & Lee, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

The new adaptation tools have created flexibility to move and produce content to different hardware platforms and user devices. For example, the same content might be accessible with a desktop computer and a personal digital assistant (PDA) (Sirkemaa, 2001). In Web-based learning, technical standardization of content has also become a pressing issue. Standardization allows different applications to share content and learning systems resulting in some costefficiencies. (Tinio, 2002) therefore, the production of eContent requires an inner-institutional organization (Baumeister, 2006). “At the same time powerful Web 2.0 tools (vlogging, social software, folksonomies, etc) enable an affluence of ‘user generated content’ (UGC) based on the ‘networked individualism’ of people (COST Action 298, 2007).”

Content development is a critical area that is too often overlooked. (Tinio, 2002). When designing and implementing learning software, developers must go beyond their traditional paradigms to the interdisciplinary exchange with teachers, authors and learners. The instructional material is no longer built in a series of straight consecutive units with predefined materials

60 /225

(Ehlers, 2005) therefore, teachers should possess and draw on a rich knowledge base of content, pedagogy, and technology to provide relevant and meaningful learning experiences for new generation of learners (Willis, 2006; Nawaz, 2010, 2011).

d. Implementation of eLearning Implementation of eLearning in HEIs is a demanding process, which involves handling multiple challenges and problems because implementation of new systems always changes the existing behaviors and routines, which are obviously disliked resulting into user-resistance (Nyvang, 2006; Nawaz et al., 2007). Ivan Vrana, (2007) argues that “implementation of ICT in universities is not an act but it is a long lasting process.” The researcher explains the process as made of: building a communication network, providing required hardware and software environment, implementing MIS for different roles of managers, installing helpdesks to supply users with required, organizing computing for research and arranging for the training of all categories of users, and many others.

To handle the implementation issues, universities arrange for several structural arrangements such as: flat management structures, where there is team decision-making; the appointment of a full-time community manager to oversee and assist; building a knowledge management system based on the ideas of the user-community and establishing an advisory board that may contain some internal as well as external experts (consultants), to review and to identify improvements (Gray et al., 2003). However, many models have been proposed for the implementation of ICTbased systems. Work in the 1990s used the concepts of interpretivism and social construction to view the implementation as a social, dynamic, and situated process where people as active enablers of the technology implementation. These studies concede that technology “evolves after the design phase as it is traced by relevant social groups through the construction of different meanings (Bondarouk, 2006).”

It is reported that too often implementation of eProjects fails primarily due to misunderstanding the complexity of relationships between new system and the organizational context (Ågerfalk et al., 2006). Therefore, social constructivists see implementation as meeting the needs of social

61 /225

groups through technology with the dominant role previously existing social groupings on technology development process. The process of implementation will be founded on the experiences, knowledge, habits, and norms or users, and institutional cultures (Bondarouk, 2006; Qureshi et al., 2009; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c).

e. Feedback and Evaluation Nearly all the projects in the study place emphasis on the collection of feedback from users. In large projects automatic tools are used to collection feedback while smaller projects use direct meetings between designers and learners to modify their projects' learning strategies and technological options (Gray et al., 2003). The evaluation of Web-based learning environments is a continuing process throughout the development lifecycle (Nam & Smith-Jackson, 2007). Evaluation is the process of gathering information that will facilitate improving a program (formative) or that will help determining its value (summative). There is difference between formative and summative evaluation. Summative evaluation is an evaluation to prove but formative evaluation is an evaluation to improve the programs or the product. Summative evaluation is the evaluation for validation while formative evaluation is the evaluation for revision (Martin & Dunsworth, 2007).

In the eLearning projects, there is a lack of feedback towards higher levels of decision and general policy, and little impact on strategy definition and implementation (Loing, 2005). For example, few attempts have been made to develop such formative evaluation frameworks who focus both on the instructional system and user interface system (Nam & Smith-Jackson, 2007). Defining and documenting success and failure of eLearning projects requires evaluation at every stage of project development and use including formative evaluation when projects are underway and summative evaluation when projects are completed. Participatory evaluation is very useful (Wells, 2007). Through participation, faculty has the crucial opportunity to share their concerns, thereby fostering pedagogical values and providing feedback to administrators (Kopyc, 2007; Nawaz, 2011).

62 /225

Formative evaluation of computer literacy should be conducted at universities so that the courses that are offered match the student and market requirements (Martin & Dunsworth, 2007). Furthermore, the rapid growth of Web-based learning applications has generated a need for methods to systematically collect continuous feedback from users to improve learning environments (Nam & Smith-Jackson, 2007). The formative evaluation is the process of collecting qualitative or quantitative data during the development process where data is collected to make revisions or modifications before the final product is developed. One can evaluate almost anything, such as a person, a curriculum, a student, a process, a product, a program, instructional design to determine weaknesses and address them (Martin & Dunsworth, 2007).

2.2.4 User-Training (eTraining) Both instrumental and substantive views of eLearning emphasize the role of user. Instrumentalists contend that technology is neutral and therefore its impacts and benefits entirely depend on how are they harnessed and used for individual, organizational, national, and international purposes (Macleod, 2005). While substantive theorist go beyond this and accentuate that instrumental view of ICTs is an underestimation of the potential of these technologies. They can be used more intellectually and intuitively to cast deeper impacts on the society by providing maximum possible services to the human kind (Ezer, 2006). Thus, they overstress the concept of use to represent ‘not the tools’ rather ‘technologies’ in terms of modeling and applications of ICTs in eLearning structures and operations. However, use of either instrumental or substantive applications of ICTs in the learning environments squarely depends on the quality of “eTraining” given to the teachers, students, and administrators (Blázquez & Díaz, 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011; Nawaz, 2011).

Thus the success of technology infusion in education depends on the training of teachers because it is the teachers who are going to teach students as well as administrators (Oh & French, 2004). The adoption of ICTs is a lifelong learning process however, for immediate uses particularly in organizations like universities, the users are supposed to quickly learn to use the new technologies. So, training is a narrow term than education that aims at preparing a learner for a particular job, function, or profession. Education refers to a long term learning process with high

63 /225

level objectives of developing moral, cultural, social and intellectual dimensions of an individual and society (Drinkwater et al., 2004). Furthermore, lack of technology integration among teachers in classrooms is considered as a major concern of education in the background of technology-driven, information based, global society (Gray et al., 2003; Zhao & Bryant, 2006).

The development of innovative competencies in eLearning is rapidly surfacing as the key issue for teacher training (Gray et al., 2003). Within universities the implementation of eLearning is difficult for many reasons including the hesitance of faculty and staff members: decision makers and academics to change (Loing, 2005). The research shows that many eLearning projects fail due to many reasons but particularly, the lack of adequate training to support the program (Wells, 2007; Nawaz, 2011).

Likewise, for the students, a teacher’s role has changed from providing well-cooked teacher’s knowledge for passive students to self-cooked inputs by the students themselves. For this purpose, the students have to be self-disciplined, self-motivated and at the most mature in the field of ICTs and their applications (Hvorecký et al., 2005). However, it is notable that like teachers, the learners’ preferences for their learning path characteristics of

depends on their personal

age, gender, perceptions about ICTs, familiarity with the computer

applications, and the way of learning preferred by the learner (Cagiltay et al., 2006). There is need to change the roles of both teacher and learner. The eTeacher is no more a ‘sage on the stage’ rather a ‘guide on the side’ in the new learning environments. Likewise, an eStudent is no more passive receivers of contents rather partners in the learning process (Mehra & Mital, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

a. Teachers-Training Teacher-training determines the success and failure of eLearning in HEIs (Oh & French, 2004). The knowledge is becoming a central economic driving force, with the shift from the concept of ‘information society’ to that of ‘knowledge societies’ demanding the reevaluation of the existing traditional educational processes and the role of teachers and the nature of their training in the

64 /225

light of emerging ICTs (Loing, 2005). Students cannot achieve computer literacy without a computer literate faculty (Johnson et al., 2006; Nawaz, 2011).

The concerns about eLearning practices in HEIs include the debates over the best means of integrating technology into teacher preparation and preparing teachers to do the same in their classrooms (Oh & French (2004). A large body of literature supports the idea that technology training is the major factor that could help teachers develop positive attitudes toward technology and integrating technology into curriculum (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). Recent studies on educational technology confirm the necessity of preparing teacher candidates to integrate technology into the classroom curriculum and the inadequacy of existing education program to teach and model the integration process effectively (Willis, 2006). Simply hiring a teacher does not ensure quality education. To be effective, teachers must keep abreast of new perspectives on learning theories and their area of specialization (Haddad & Jurich, 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

From the standpoint of self-efficacy theory, the ideal method for developing teachers' selfefficacy for computer use would be to provide them with training and support to work successfully with computers in their classrooms (Albion, 1999). Academics are required to possess a wider range of teaching techniques and resources, greater sensitivity to cultural differences, and have the capacity to adjust teaching and learning structures for communication with broader population (UQA, 2001). However, powerful teaching strategies, effective pedagogy, appropriate curriculum, faculty development and updating equipment are typically the most important considerations in teacher education (Oh & French (2004). In the eLearning environments, the eTeacher works as a mentor, coach or facilitator and is expected to perform management, intellectual and social functions with the help of modern technologies, which definitely demands continuous training of the teachers in ICTs for their successful integration into the pedagogy (Blázquez & Díaz, 2006; Nawaz, 2011).

The research reveals that contemporary teacher training does not match the educational needs partly because administrators and technologists disallow faculty in the decisions about the design and development of technology-integration (Juniu, 2005). For example, there is no prescribed

65 /225

national syllabus for ICTs for teacher training in UK. Unlike UK, in Ghana there is a standard curriculum for ICTs in initial teacher training (Cawson, 2005). Anyhow, teachers need training of technology integration in curriculum areas that can be reproduced in their own classrooms and not the training which trains them in software applications and skills (Willis, 2006).

Teachers are advocated and pushed to use technology by various agencies including media, educational government, professional associations, and parents, which can be counter productive. Understanding teachers’ perceptions of technology integration training and its impact on their instructional practice will help the technology training programs (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). The research reports that most of the academics prefer informal methods of learning over the formal courses of learning accept for using some ICT tools (Davey & Tatnall, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011).

Technology training alone can not necessarily ensure that these teachers would infuse technology into their routine instruction and a radical change in their instructional practices would occur. However, they need to get technical and human resource support for continuous technology integration after the training (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). After initial training, there should be encouragement for exploration, testing and experimentation so a teacher can find ways that computer technology can be used in their specific functional area (Johnson et al., 2006). To effectively infuse technology into the curriculum, teachers need intensive curriculum-based technology training, which takes them beyond the basic computer skills to effectively embed technology into the learning courses and curriculum (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

b. Students’ Training As far as the students’ training is concerned, there are two types of student-users: Computer and Non-Computer (CNC). For the students of ICTs, it is the computing curriculum (see Section 2.1.5 for detail on computing-curricula) which matters in the quality students training in the use of new technologies. Depending on the instrumental or substantive/liberal models of eLearning, the computing curricula are developed. As discussed in the literature review, the computing

66 /225

curricula in the advanced countries is more substantive and liberal than the used in less developed countries, which is more instrumental and emphases on the supplemental uses of technology (Nawaz, 2011).

Similarly, the students with no computer-background, like those from natural sciences and social sciences need training not at the level of computer students but to their own level of need for computer applications. This training is mostly conducted by the computer-personnel. However, research shows that such trainers fall short of educating the students in how to use computers in a particular field of study except the general uses of ICTs. Researchers have however, suggested to use non-computer training personnel for the purpose of preparing non-computer students not from computer-point of view rather from the pragmatic use of computers in the real world (Nawaz, 2011).

c. Training of the Administrators Both the decision-making and implementation staff have to understand ICTs. Decision makers’ knowledge of computers and related technologies definitely helps in making reality based decisions. Otherwise, the gap between the user perceptions begins widening. In most of the universities, administrators and administrative staff is given training in the use of computers in their administrative functions. Most of this training is about the office automation tools like the use of word-processors, number-manipulation software, and database management and particularly, the mangers are trained in the development and use of presentation software like PowerPoint (Nawaz, 2011).

In the advanced countries, administrative staff is also trained in using EMIS, EDSS, LMS, CMS, and other eLearning software. However, in developing countries, there is still need to train administrators in the basic and preliminary use of computer in automating the routine functions of an administrative office in an educational institution. Most of the administrative staff learns computers informally through colleagues, friends and self-training.

67 /225

2.2.5 Change Management The dependence on ICTs is transforming the universities UQA (2001). It has been recognized that eLearning is not merely another medium for the transmission of knowledge but that it changes the relationship between the teacher or trainer and learner (Gray et al., 2003). So, successful integration of ICTs in education depends on the planning for the changes demanded by technologies (Aaron et al., 2004). Cultural change is brought about by a greater access to information and the fact that this access is provided by new technical means makes it more "scientific". This type of cultural change also creates a form of stress to keep the pace with change and fear of becoming an “outcast in the new information society (Sasseville, 2004).” The technology paradigm shifts changed not only the way of computing but also how the technology itself is perceived by society (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

ICTs are bringing not only technological innovations, but also social change and have powerimplications besides affecting the way people use the information and think and conceptualize the world (Sasseville, 2004). ICT-related change management is the most influential change process in our educational systems in the last and coming decades - a change process that is not only going to determine the form of the educational system but also the nature of education and thus the nature of the coming generations (Aviram & Tami, 2004). For example, one of the most striking organizational changes is “the transformation of blue-collar employees into white-collar workers (Ezziane, 2007).”

The universities have to change in three dimensions: 1. university structures and the interrelations between universities and the private sector; 2. Academic productivity and the relations between 'change managers or developers' and academic workforce; and 3. Teaching and learning,

and

the

social

relations

between

academic

staff

and

students

in

the

teacher/learner/artefact interface (UQA, 2001). The pedagogical and academic tradition is important to the teachers in the adaptation process because they seek a change towards a new practice based in tradition. This could be interpreted as a contradiction holding back change and limiting innovation. The teachers express it in another way and see the implementation of ICT as

68 /225

a way of re-interpreting values inherent in tradition (Nyvang, 2003; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b; Nawaz et al., 2011).

Education cultures pass through different phases of maturity regarding change: ready to move forward, backward, or maybe not at all (Aaron et al., 2004). Similarly, technology-related changes are not perceived as a collective experience or social change rather, personal challenge (Sasseville, 2004; Nawaz & Kundi, 2006). Thus, ePedagogy transforms the teacher from "sage on the stage" to "guide on the side", and student changes from being passive content-receivers to active and participative learners (Mehra & Mital, 2007).

a. Problems of ICT-related Change One of the biggest threats to ICT-enabled projects is resistance to change (Tinio, 2002). Teachers are reluctant to integrate ICTs into their daily scholarly activities and this situation has not changed over the past few years (Sasseville, 2004). Research shows that technical issues are given priority over the educational change, which is not linked with the institution wide strategies (Valcke, 2004). While most educators acknowledge the significance of eLearning, problems continue to recur in the adoption process showing a critical gap between perceptions, theories and practices of teachers (Knight et al., 2006). Thus, there are many problems and concerns related to eLearning such as, low rates of participation, learner resistance, high noncompletion rates, poor learner performance (Kanuka, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2007).

Similarly, the academics sometimes refuse to change curricula and pedagogic approaches; teaching staff and instructors lack incentive and rewards; there is a lack of feedback towards higher levels of decision and general policy, and little impact on strategy definition and implementation (Loing, 2005). Thus, there are many barriers in the implementation of eLearning solutions in HEIs. Some problems are classical: inertia of behavior of people, their resistance to changes, etc. People who lack better access to information have a fear of isolation But if eLearning environments are created properly, they can develop collaboration in all folds of the university life (Vrana, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

69 /225

b. Approaches and Attitudes to Change As discussed in section 2.2.2, there are different views about the nature and aims of ICTs in education therefore varying behaviors and attitudes are found in the development, use and change management of eLearning projects. “One of the most obvious characteristics of human beings is their readiness to attribute meaning to what they observe and experience (Checkland & Scholes, 1991:1).” Whatever is the conception of technology, the same is expressed in the physical attitudes of the people. The administrative, curricular, didactic, organizational, systemic, cultural and ideological approaches are physically implemented through either agnostic, conservative, moderate, radical, or extreme radical attitudes towards the eLearing development and implementation trajectory (Aviram & Tami, 2004; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c).

Likewise, the research shows that developers (promoters) view ICTs as a way of transforming education whereas users (teachers, students and administrators) see it only as a means to an end (Sasseville, 2004). At the broader level, however, there are two extreme views of ICTs for education (Macleod, 2005). Some educators are strong advocates of technological innovation while others are reluctant to accept ICTs as indispensable to the learning process. These divergent reactions and concerns have thus created a continuum that represents various attitudes towards technology (Juniu, 2005). On one extreme is the instrumental view, which takes eLearning gadgets as an addition to the technology cache. The impact of this view and resultant use is only at the technical levels. On the contrary, there is substantive view, which posits that ICTs are more than tools with positive and negative impacts for both technical and broader social changes. The approach-attitude matrix by Aviram & Tami (2004) helps in extracting the guidelines about ‘what to change?’ and ‘how to change?’ see Table and Table.

Table 2.2 Approaches to ICT-Related Change in HEIs

1 2 3

Approach Administrative Curricular Didactic

4

Organizational

What to change? Achieve a certain ratio of computers – technical change Curricular changes only Inevitable or desirable change in the teaching/learning of the subject matters Involve organizational changes in school, consisting of

70 /225

more flexible attitudes 5 Didactic and organizational changes in school will not be Systemic possible without systemic changes 6 ICT revolution is a deep cultural revolution changing all Cultural modes and patterns of our lives Demanding most basic social and educational changes 7 Ideological Adapted from: Aviram & Tami (2004)

Table 2.3 Attitudes to ICT-Related Change in HEIs

1 2 3 4 5

Attitude Agnostic

How to change?

Don’t have a clear opinion as to the impact of ICT on education Believe that education will survive, ICT with minimal Conservative change, as it has survived other technologies Extensive change in their didactics. Moderate Have to go through such changes if they are to survive Radical the ICT revolution De-schooling, mega changes Extreme radical Adapted from: Aviram & Tami (2004)

2.2.6 Context of eLearning in HEIs The development, use and change management of eLearning happens within a particular context. The contextual factors influence the eLearning practices, which has to be understood and handled by both the developers and users of eLearning environments. The context is multifaceted and includes community, culture and technology and becomes very important when understanding implementation of ICT in education (Nyvang, 2003). The context of an organization like university is made of internal and external context (Loing, 2005). Internal contextual factors are the human characteristics and the organizational attributes. The external context includes the government ICT policies and the broader social environment (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b).

The role of context in eLearning is consistently identified by almost every research study concerning the integration of educational technologies (Tinio, 2002; Oliver, 2002; Nyvang, 2003; Aaron et al., 2004; Loing, 2005; Cawson, 2005; Macleod, 2005; Ehlers, 2005; Baumeister, 2006; Stephenson, 2006; Hameed, 2007). In traditional computer-enhanced learning, the

71 /225

computer was used as a tool to complete a task or get something done so it did not need to address the broader environmental context of the individual (Young, 2003). Even today, Jonathan Ezer (2006), in a study of Indian universities, found that “most IT education is ineffective because it is too technical and not at all concerned with local contexts and real world problems.” Similarly, another research reveals that “despite the best of intentions, many of eLearning projects ultimately fail because these efforts are not undertaken by considering the changing social and political context (Wells, 2007).”

Thus, context is either a support or an obstacle in the process of eLearning project trajectory (Nyvang, 2003; Sasseville, 2004). System developers need to design an eLearning model within the context of the existing support and resource infrastructures (Tran et al., 2005). There is no universal eLearning-model to fit every context; rather learning has to be conducted within a culturally familiar context (Stephenson, (2006).” Hans-Peter Baumeister (2006) asserts that eLearning is a multi-dimensional phenomenon which needs to be understood in terms of its relationship with the societal environment within which it is applied. It means that an application model successful in Atlanta, USA may be “ineffective or inappropriate” for students in Kuala Lumpur.

a. Internal Context In the eLearning projects, consideration must be given to the learning objectives and outcomes, the characteristics of the learners, and the learning context in order to leverage optimum out of the eLearning facilities (Tinio, 2002). Likewise, the use of project management, instructional design, course development and all other academic and administrative techniques are crucial for a successful integration of technology in a broader institutional context (Aaron et al., 2004). Lynch et al., (2005) report that in a conference, eighty-three teachers from 29 Australia’s universities recorded their perceptions of the factors influencing their teaching work. By eliciting their perceptions it came out that the academics categorized internal context into individual domain and organizational domains and that these two domains were viewed as interacting within university environments as well as interacting with each other thereby forming a web of interrelated factors that appear to influence the individuals and organization.

72 /225

i. Individual Domain (Demographics) Despite the theoretical benefits that e-learning systems can offer, difficulties can often occur when systems are not designed with consideration to learner characteristics such as nationality, gender, and cognitive learning style (Graff et al., 2001). Within the Individual domain, two key factors were users’ motivation towards eLearning and their capabilities in using eLearning facilities (Lynch et al., 2005). The learners’ preferred learning path depends on their personal characteristics such as age, gender, teacher-led or self study preferences, familiarity with computer based applications, and preferred way of learning (Cagiltay et al., 2006). Likewise, teachers’ use of ICTs is influenced by multiple factors including: demographics (like age, educational background); accessibility of hardware; experience in use of instructional technology, perception about usefulness and ease of use (Mehra & Mital, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2007; Kundi et al., 2010).

Furthermore, the new Net Geners use media in many different formats, which shows another notable characteristic of new learning styles as is their behavior of multitasking – using computers and the Internet at the same time as video games, print media, music, and the phone (Barnes et al., 2007). Thus, the teachers, students and any other users of ICTs, behave according to their demographic characteristics of age, educational level, cultural background, physical and learning disabilities, experience, personal goals and attitudes, preferences, learning styles, motivation, reading and writing skills, computer skills, ability to work with diverse cultures, familiarity with differing instructional methods and previous experience with e-learning (Moolman & Blignaut, 2008; Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

ii. Organizational Domain The organizational policies, structures of authority and responsibility, rules of business, and on the top its culture determines the destiny of any project including an eProject for creating eLearning environments in a HEI. In the background of eLeraning development and use practices, “the organizational context of ICT-integration is a major impediment (Sasseville,

73 /225

2004).” Similarly, the perceptions, development and use of eLearning vary with the change in organizational context (Cawson, 2005; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

Within the organizational domain, organizational support provided through allocation of resources and symbolic support reflected in an institution’s systems, policies and processes are the critical success and failure factors (Lynch et al., 2005). The relationships between eLearning and its organizational context are “complex and still incomplete (Ågerfalk et al., 2006).” To move the educational practices forward, HEIs need to experiment with new organizational models and appreciation of hybrid organizations that are using new graduates with diverse backgrounds (Thompson, 2007; Nawaz et al., 2007)

b. External Context There is a perceived conflict between the requirements of industry/market for graduates and whatever, is taught by the universities (Hagan, 2003). ICT graduates are required to develop a myriad of knowledge and skills (Ekstrom et al,. 2006). Stephen J. Andriole, (2006) comments that the gap between theory and practice is widening and the new global ICT curricula fails to address the changes in the practice of the field. Another research reports that because of the more theoretical emphasis of computer science programs, graduates often did not acquire a sufficient understanding of organizational processes to be able to support ICT applications from a user or organizational perspective (Ekstrom et al,. 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz, 2011).

Network-enabled organization (NEO) requires technical talent to fill positions such as network managers, web administrators, e-commerce developers, and security specialists (Hagan, 2003). Universities, on the other hand, face important challenges in educating the IT workers of tomorrow in these highly technical fields. Even with increasing enrollments, the number of graduates in computer science and information systems has been inadequate to meet worldwide industry demand (Ezziane, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

74 /225

i. Government Policies Though teachers and students matter in eLearning projects but government agencies control goal -setting, working conditions, performance evaluation, and the resource allocation for eProjects specially in public sector universities (Aaron et al., 2004). The governments are establishing committees, forming task forces, and dedicating substantial funds for the enhancement of technology-based instruction (Abrami et al., 2006). Somesh. K. Mathur (2006) writes that the growth of a powerful Indian ICT industry is founded on the concerted efforts by the Government. Goddard & Cornford (2007) therefore, note that eLearning has clear implications for national, regional and local governments in terms of the need to establish policies and practices that enhance the capability of universities to engage with a range of development processes that cross institutional boundaries.

When formulating policy, administrators tend to favor the reformist approach, but in practice they are generally technocratic (Sahay, 2004). Most of the administrators, bureaucrats and politicians apply “administrative approach” to eLearning that is, having a certain ratio of computers and other related equipment in the institution thus, sheer existence of technology in terms of quantity and quality of equipments (Aviram & Tami, 2004). Hans-Peter Baumeister (2006) adds by saying that the political meaning of eLearning is the modernization of the whole education system however, in government policy, ICTs are seen just as one of the tools for learning (Knight et al., 2006) however, while, eLearning is “much more than computers in the classroom (Manochehr, 2007).”

In Australian universities, as the number of student have increased, governments have not responded with increases in funding and support. As a result, many universities have been compelled to seek to expand their revenue base into private sources, both domestically and overseas (UQA, 2001). There is a great controversy on educational commercialization. The traditional stakeholders including HEIs, teachers’ unions, students, and scholars loudly oppose commodification of higher education (UNESCO, 2004). However, current declines in many world economies have forced the higher education to increase online courses and create funds showing educational commercialization at the HEI levels (Schou, 2006). However, free and open

75 /225

source systems (FOSS) are counter fighting for decommodifying EFA and LLL (Snow, 2006; Mejias, 2006; Stephenson, 2006; Nawaz, 2010).

One of the many challenges facing developing countries today is preparing their societies and governments for globalization and the information and communication revolution (Tinio, 2002). In Pakistan, government has tried to eradicate illiteracy, but government projects for mass literacy have become administrative and bureaucratic nightmares. This is one of the reasons why Pakistan hasn't been able to improve its literacy level (Sattar, 2007). Similarly, lack of local expertise in project management; sufficient or up-to date project planning, tracking and control skills are usually not available in the beneficiary countries; and lack of local research and content -

are some of the most significant hurdles in improving the access to and awareness of

eLearning in Pakistan (Hameed, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

ii. Broader Social Context The integration of ICTs in HEIs demands a re-definition and re-evaluation of their role in education and development of siceity according to the conditions of social context. The new social context has changed and now there are there are communication networks, where access to information and knowledge is radically changed, and where knowledge is becoming a central economic driving force (Loing, 2005). Thus, “learning cannot be separated from its social context (Ward et al., 2006).” The eTeachers of modern age are who serve the knowledge society, are pushed to use technology by various agencies including media, educational government, professional associations, and parents (Zhao & Bryant, 2006; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

As knowledge is becoming a tool for power as well as an object of trade, universities are driven to situations of competition, among one another and with the private sector, especially with the development of eLearning and trans-national systems. New departments in traditional universities, or new institutions (.edu organizations) of various kinds, are appearing. (Loing, 2005). The advantages of eLearning depend on the nature and type of the context (Aaron et al., 2004). Crichton & Kopp (2006) conducted a study on eLearning practices in China and found that most of the currently applied eLearning-models in China are based on the American settings,

76 /225

however, unlike China American universities abound in resources so Chinese should better tune their projects with domestic context and get real advantages from ICTs. Robert Stephenson (2006) emphasizes that the use of educational-technologies in a new setting requires adapting the technologies.

2.3 Users of eLearning Environments Technology means nothing if it is not used (Mujahid, 2002) however use depends on the users’ motivation towards eLearning and users’ command over eLearning technologies (Lynch et al., 2005). People need word processing not to survive rather to command over the efficient ways of sharing information about livelihoods and employment. ICTs for human development are not about technology, but about people using the technology (Hameed, 2007). The university teachers expect better support for lectures, a better access to databases, better support of research, better connectivity with the rest of the world. The students have similar expectations. But these high expectations are often in a sharp contrast with reality (Vrana, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011).

Students criticize the current state of affairs and do not report an overall positive attitude towards ICT related educational innovation. At a broader level, the conceptions of students about ICT and education are very positive but they are extremely critical about the educational use of ICT by the teaching staff (Valcke, 2004). Furthermore, in majority of eLearning programs offered today, the burden for learning is placed wholly on the shoulders of the learner (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005). Having said that, some educators may be strong advocates of technological innovation while others may more reluctant in accepting technology as an integral part of the learning process, These divergent reactions and concerns have thus created a continuum that represents various attitudes towards technology (Juniu, 2005; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

The new technologies in HEIs is changing the roles of all the teachers, students and education administrators and “research shows that the users are still trying to understand their roles but their roles are still blurred (UQA, (2001).” There is a great deal of uncertainty among the decision-makers, managers, developers, trainers and learners about their relationship with

77 /225

eLearning tools and techniques. For example, instructors have to adopt new roles as tutors and facilitators in the learning processes (Ehlers, 2005). Thus, users are expressing doubts, suspicions, trust, and beliefs about the nature of their relationship with ICTs and difficulties in working with new technologies (Bondarouk, 2006). Technology integration into education is thus re-engineering the roles of teachers and students from old models to new paradigms embedded in the digital environments of modern technologies (Mehra & Mital, 2007). Similarly, “the diversity of students in eLearning poses a challenge to the instructor (Moolman & Blignaut, 2008).”

2.3.1 User-Characteristics a. Perceptions One way to assess an individual's approach to computer use for instruction is by testing an individual's attitudes to this. Numerous studies have explored individual differences in attitudes towards computers (Graff et al., 2001). Understanding teachers’ perceptions of technology integration training and its impact on their instructional practice will help both the technology training programs and social studies (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). Students use the computer and the Internet depends on the perceived usefulness of this resource in terms of effective communication and access to information to complete projects and assignments efficiently (Gay et al., 2006). Very little research has been published about students' perceptions of their computer literacy, especially in third world countries (Bataineh & Abdel-Rahman, 2006).Technology paradigm shifts changed not only the way of computing but also how the technology itself is perceived by society (Ezziane, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c)

For example, male students preferred using computers in their learning than females. Individual differences are evident in terms of attitudes to computer-based learning and Internet use and that these differences exist principally on two levels, which are nationality and cognitive learning style (Graff et al., 2001). "Net Generation" is a force for educational transformation. They process information differently than previous generations, learn best in highly customizable

78 /225

environments, and look to teachers to create and structure their learning experience (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005) furthermore, male students have more positive perceptions about computers and information technology than female students. Older students may have a somewhat more positive perception of computers (Gay et al., 2006). Students bring prior knowledge to their learning experiences. This prior knowledge is known to affect how students encode and later retrieve new information learned (DiCerbo, 2007).

ICT is generally perceived as a welcome addition to the arsenal of pedagogical tools and approaches in the classroom (Sasseville, 2004). However, by compelling instructors to collaborate with people outside the classroom (government agencies, university administrators, technical support staff etc), technology can be perceived as a threat to the private practice of pedagogy (Aaron et al., 2004). The relevant concern, then, is how well teachers perceive and address the challenges for education (Knight et al., 2006). Based on the perceptual differences of eLearning users Mehra & Mital (2007) have categorized, particularly teachers, into: 1. Cynics: They have negative perceptions about eLearning but strong pedagogical beliefs therefore unwilling to change; 2. Moderates: They like ICTs and ready to change and adapt to new pedagogical practices with some guidance and training; 3. Adaptors: These are the intellectual leaders who use eLearning for inner progress and external enhancements by continuously innovating their pedagogy with latest technologies.

Thus, there can be three extreme perceptions and attitudes about eLearning among the teachers community. Cynics are those who dislike ICTs to change the pedagogy and love their traditional methods of teaching. May be it is the same type of teachers about which Hans-Peter Baumeister (2006) notes “taking a realistic view, teaching, whether it be face-to-face or eLearning, is not always numbered amongst the most beloved tasks in our universities.” So, moderates and adapters are the catalysts who hold positive theories about the nature and role of ICTs in higher education and ready to adapt accordingly (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

79 /225

b. User-Theories The multiplicity of perceptions about the nature and role of ICTs in HEIs can be grouped into two broad user-theories or beliefs, which are guiding most of the eLearning development and use practices around the globe:

1. Instrumental theory: It is the most commonly held belief, which views technology as a ‘tool’ without any inherent value (neutral) and its value lies in how is it used so a onesize-fits-all policy of universal employment of ICTs (Macleod, 2005; Radosevich & Kahn, 2006). Instrumental education is based on the premise that education serves society. An emphasis is placed on the relevance and utility of education, where students are expected to apply their knowledge vocationally, contributing to the economy. The risk of such a system is that students are encouraged to simply meet some identified need, rather than think critically with the purpose of achieving some sort of personal or communal advancement (Ezer, 2006). 2. Substantive theory: This is a determinist or autonomous approach, which argues that technology is not neutral and has positive or negative impacts. Technological determinism encourages the idea that: the mere presence of technology leads to familiar and standard applications of that technology, which in turn bring about social change (Macleod, 2005; Radosevich & Kahn, 2006). The substantive theory matches with the ‘liberal theory’ of education (Ezer, 2006), which views learning as active and interconnected experience and not simply a recollection of facts (Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

Designing and delivering e-learning is not simply a matter of selecting a tutoring team with subject matter expertise and/or technical skills, but is also choosing educationalists with pedagogical, information and communication skills that are required to manage and facilitate online learning (McPherson & Nunes, 2004). Technologies (ICTs) should not be guided by a technologically deterministic approach but situated in the context of an appropriate development and critical theory of technology approach, which takes into account a broad range of social, cultural, political and economic enabling factors (Macleod, 2005). In India, for example, most

80 /225

ICT education is ineffective because it is too technical and not at all concerned with local contexts and real world problems (Ezer, 2006). There is also increasing acknowledgement that it is not just technical skills that project team members need in order to ensure project success. Soft skills’ in team members are vital (Jewels & Ford, 2006; Nawaz, 2011).

There is a need for a new approach to university computing curricula that adequately exploits the complementary strengths of the apparently competing fields of computing. This definitely requires an appropriate integration of ‘hard science’ and ‘soft science’ paradigms into a single whole, to evolve a more flexible and comprehensive paradigmatic framework that gives equal treatment to technical and socio-organizational aspects of computing. This in turn requires crossdepartmental collaboration (Ojo, 2003). 21st-century learners do not require a high level of technical proficiency and teachers prefer “low-threshold technology that promotes a constructivist approach to teaching and learning while also customizing the curriculum to the learner (Radosevich & Kahn, 2006).”

c. Learning/Teaching Styles The students have different learning styles: Some learn fast and advance rapidly while others prefer to learn at a slower pace and repeat. In addition, some like working alone whereas others prefer to working in groups. Information technology allows customization of the learner's learning experience and makes it possible to accommodate different learning styles (Sirkemaa, 2001). Learning style is an individual’s inherited foundation, particular past life experience and the demands of the present environment that emphasize some learning abilities over others. Researchers believe that learning style is a good predictor of an individual’s preferred learning behavior. While instructors cannot always accommodate each student’s need, it is important that several learning opportunities are provided. A match between learning style and teaching style reveals increases student’s satisfaction (Manochehr, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011; Nawaz, 2011).

Most educators accept that ideally learning should be delivered in the manner and environment that matches the needs and learning styles of individual learners (LaCour, 2005). A research

81 /225

reveals that for the instructor-based learning class (traditional), the learning style was irrelevant, but for the web-based learning class (eLearning), the learning style was significantly important. The results indicated that students with the Assimilator learning style (these learn best through lecture, papers and analogies) and the Converger learning style (these learn best through laboratories, field work and observations) achieved a better result with the e-learning (webbased) method (Manochehr, 2007).

One of the challenges facing instructional designers is in producing e-learning systems, which take account of individual differences such as cognitive learning style (Graff et al., 2001). However, the new technologies like personalization, integration, and electronic portfolios help develop systems according the user learning styles. The learners will be able to have more control over how, where, and when they experience educational and professional development in pursuit of their individual goals (LaCour, 2005). Net Geners are independent and autonomous in their learning styles, which makes them more assertive information seekers and shapes how they approach learning in the classroom. They have an independent learning style, which has grown out of the habits of seeking and retrieving information from Internet. Furthermore, multitasking is an integral part of the Net Generation lifestyle (Barnes et al., 2007)

Research shows that teachers don’t find eLearning environments matching with their teaching styles (Mehra & Mital, 2007) however; web-based learning is worldwide accessible, low in maintenance, secure, platform-independent, and always current and can accommodate various learning styles. Educators and students are using the web in a variety of ways to enhance their teaching and learning experiences. E-learning can be delivered to the learners easily, in an individualized manner (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Nawaz et al., 2011).

2.3.2 User Types in eLearning Teachers, students and administrators all use ICT-based tools in an eLearning environment however, their use varies different types of eLearning. The nature and extent of use is different under traditional computer-based learning, blended learning and virtual learning facilities. User challenges, problems, and solutions are changing with the advancements in educational

82 /225

technologies. In blended and virtual learning, all teachers, students and administrators are supported with highly user-friendly and networked facilities where both ICTs are used both individually as well as collectively in a collaborative manner. Furthermore, the role and functions of HEIs have changed from traditional to modern formats and these are constantly changing. The researchers (Sanyal, 2001; Oliver, 2002; UNESCO, 2004) have summarized these new functions into:

1. Education for All: Higher education system of a country has a responsibility towards the whole education system as it has towards the whole of society. 2. Production of Hi-Tech Workforce: HEIs must generate graduates who provide leadership roles in education as researchers, teachers, consultants and managers, who create and apply new knowledge and innovations, and who generate perspectives on development problems and service to public and private sectors. 3. Research Function: Through research function, HEIs identify the preconditions for a supportive policy context and build national technical capacity. 4. Education Management: Educational management has been the most relevant application of ICTs. Computers are used for time tabling and school management to improve the use of staff time, student time and space to reduce the costs significantly (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz, 2010).

These new functions and the new technologies like Internet, web-based technologies, Web 2.0 products like social software – all are reengineering the pedagogic and learning theories and practices. There are shifts from objectivism to constructivism, technocratic to reformist and holist paradigms, and from instrumental uses of ICTs to their substantive role in the education and society. These changes are therefore constantly updating the use and user-dynamics in the eLearning environments. Susana Juniu (2005) calls teachers, students and administrators as the “Univeristy-Constituents.”

83 /225

a. Teachers The challenging nature of ePedagogy demands greater preparedness by the teachers by possessing a wider repertoire of teaching techniques (UQA, 2001). An eTeacher is considered as a mentor, coach or facilitator and expected to perform diverse functions particularly: 1. Managerial: The teacher plans the teaching program, which includes objectives, timetable, rules and procedures, content development and establishment of the practical work and interactive activities. 2. Intellectual: This is the traditional teaching function. The teacher should know the syllabus and the particular subject which will inform the learning content. 3. Social: This is a fundamental function in eLearning and eTraining that the teacher creates conducive learning environment, interacts with students and examines their feedback. To perform this function, the eTeacher should motivate, facilitate and encourage the students in the new learning environments (Blázquez & Díaz, 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

Five types of teacher-users of eLearning have been identified by the researchers: builders of eLearning tools, tool-users, tool-adapters, tool-abiders and those who are indifferent to the use of computers (Johnson et al., 2006). They further suggest that universities must develop a large body of tool users. Then motivate some creative faculty members to become adapters by providing them incentives and support from the highest level of administration. The most important type of teacher users is the tool adapters, who are skilled users and can adapt/utilize it to fit the student and faculty requirements. Tool adapters should be tenured faculty who enjoy teaching and do not fear technology (Nawaz & Kundi, 2011; Nawaz, 2011).

The research indicates that decisions made by teachers about the use of computers in their classrooms are influenced by multiple factors including the accessibility of hardware and relevant software, the nature of the curriculum, personal capabilities and teachers' beliefs in their capacity to work effectively with technology are a significant factor in determining patterns of classroom computer use (Albion, 1999; Tinio, 2002). Furthermore, Teacher anxiety over being replaced by technology or losing their authority in the classroom as the learning process becomes

84 /225

more learner-centered—an acknowledged barrier to ICT adoption— can be alleviated only if teachers have a keen understanding and appreciation of their changing role (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b; Nawaz et al., 2011).

b. Students Computers are regarded as beneficial to the students not because these machines can create a better form of learning but mainly because the knowledge and skills needed to operate the new tools are essential in today's job market. The ability to work with this new technology is perceived as an asset for the future success of their pupils (Sasseville, 2004). Even according to researchers, student manipulation of technology in achieving the goals of education is preferable to teacher manipulation of technology (Abrami et al., 2006). The challenge of evolving pedagogy to meet the needs of Net-savvy students is daunting, but educators are assisted by the fact that although these students learn in a different way than their predecessors did, but they do want to learn (Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

Contemporary eStudents are denoted by several concepts to express their involvement with ICTs: Computer Geeks/Nerds (Thomas & Allen, 2006); Net-Generation, Net Geners, and NetSavvy students (Barnes et al., 2007); Millennials, and Electronic Natives (Garcia & Qin, 2007). Instead of learning from computers, students are able to learn with computers in these constructivist environments (Young, 2003).Given that most students almost anytime, anywhere can access various forms of information technology - MP3, cell phones, PDAs (Aaron et al., 2004), it is obvious that the Net Generation is different from the previous generations in terms of their technological abilities, teamwork skills, and openness to participatory pedagogies (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Nawaz, 2010; Qureshi et al., 2011).

c. Administrators/Staff The actual ICT use fosters logistics and administrative processes, distribution of materials and communication about instructional issues (Valcke, 2004). ICT has had more impact on administrative services (e.g. admissions, registration, fee payment, purchasing) than on the

85 /225

pedagogic fundamentals of the classroom (Dalsgaard, 2006). Likewise, ICTs are also facilitating in organizational learning through improved forms of communication and sharing (Laffey & Musser, 2006). Usually, administration (or management) provides the original momentum to create an IT committee and will be responsible for charging the group with its mission. Highquality IT literacy teaching requires the administration to provide support for faculty by adequately funding the staffing of IT services personnel to levels that can accommodate the demands placed upon them (Nawaz & Kundi, 2011; Nawaz, 2011).

Leadership plays a key role in ICT integration in education. Many teacher- or student-initiated ICT projects have been undermined by lack of support from above. For ICT integration programs to be effective and sustainable, administrators themselves must be competent in the use of the technology, and they must have a broad understanding of the technical, curricular, administrative, financial, and social dimensions of ICT use in education (Tinio, 2002). The support from senior administrative level ensures the successful implementation of the strategic plan for educational technology (Stockley, 2004) however, university administrators and information technology (IT) departments struggle to provide the most appropriate resources to support classroom integration in isolation from the educators (Juniu, 2005). Administrators must balance the needs of all stakeholders (Abrami et al., 2006; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

2.3.3 User-Satisfaction The research indicates that users are rarely satisfied with the functionalities of new eLearning systems and worried about the problems of integrating the system with other organizational systems (Drinkwater et al., 2004; Russell, 2005). The HEIs are constantly facing problems of “user dissatisfaction with newly introduced systems, mismatches between a new technology and the existing work practices, underestimating the technological complexity for employees, and inefficient end-user support (Bondarouk, 2006).” The individual satisfaction is closely related with the commitment of the individual to participate and contribute (Klamma et al., 2007). Similarly, “a match between learning style and teaching style reveals increases in student achievement and satisfaction (Manochehr, 2007).”

86 /225

Mixed results have been reported about the user-satisfaction from eLearning systems around the world. Irons et al., (2002) report that “users of new eLearning systems are less satisfied than those using the traditional methods of teaching and learning.” While, David Radosevich & Patricia Kahn (2006) found high levels of satisfaction (mean = 6.02 on 7-point scale). However, as discussed in the literature, satisfaction is dependent on a number of factors including the personal characteristics, environmental pressures and the eLearning facilities available (Qureshi et al., 2011).

2.4 Major Challenges (Problems) “More than half of all information technology projects become runways – overshooting their budgets and timetables while failing to deliver on their goals (McManus & Wood-Harper, 2004:3).” Similarly, “While networked learning is making its appearance in universities, its overall impact is, as yet, rather limited (Baumeister, 2006).” Several researchers have identified the problems for the development, use and integration of ICTs into teaching, learning and educational management (see for example, Drinkwater et al., 2004; Bondarouk, 2006; Vrana, 2007; Kanuka, 2007; Sife et al., 2007; Wells, 2007) such as: 1.

Inertia of behavior of people, like their resistance to changes, etc.

2.

Underestimation, lack of awareness and negative attitudes towards ICTs.

3.

Lack of systemic approach to implementation and lack of follow-up.

4.

High rates of system non-completion.

5.

Lack of user-training.

6.

Lack of administrative and technical end-user support.

7.

User dissatisfaction with new systems.

8.

Mismatches between technologies and the context, culture and work practices (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b; Nawaz et al., 2011) .

At the broader level, there are development and use problems, which need to be understood and handled at their time of emergence. Both development and use problems are independent as well as interdependent on each other. For example, user participation is important at both the development and use levels of eLearning environments.

87 /225

2.4.1 Development and Implementation Problems eLearning is not merely another medium for the transmission of knowledge but that it changes the relationship between the teacher or trainer and learner. It requires new skills, competencies and attitudes amongst those planners, managers, teachers and trainers who are going to design and develop materials and support learners online. Thus, the development of innovative practices and the generation of new competencies in eLearning are fast becoming key issues (Gray et al., 2003). The focus is frequently placed on design and developing ICT-based environments and insufficient attention is given to the delivery process (McPherson & Nunes, 2004; Kundi et al., 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

M. Valcke (2004) presents his finding in the manner that there are “uncomfortable” and “comfortable” zones for the eLearning developers and users. Valcke argues that ICT is no more an issue, which can be handled in isolation from the educational, administrative and logistic issues. eLearning project management places the professional development and the organizational management in a critical and uncomfortable position. Bernard Loing (2005) suggests that in the background of emerging ICTs, the developers and users are facing multiple ‘internal and external’ challenges for the development and use of eLearning. According to another researcher (Nyvang, 2006), the implementation of ICT in higher education is not a trivial process rather it poses a number of challenges and problems to the university authorities

Implementation of ICT in higher education learning environments is a complex task where teachers, students, administration and technical support staff, all are affected by and affect the implementation of eLearning systems (Nyvang, 2003). The research highlights that a high frequency of eProjects either fail completely or partially fail to meet the objectives like, in-time development and within budgets delivery. Since, many failures occur internally, they remain organizational secrets but some failures are very expensive and generate a lot of negative publicity (Turban et al., 2004:619; Nawaz et al., 2007; Qureshi et al., 2011).

88 /225

University constituents hold differing perceptions and attitudes about the role of technology in the classroom and at the same time power structures in higher education, and insufficient communication among the various groups present obstacles to real technological and educational development (Juniu, 2005). There is evidence on the fact that during the eLearning project development very little communication occurs between users and ICT professionals or developers (Shank & Bell, 2006). In the development practices, people feel that they are increasingly controlled by machines and that the human factors of their work are disappearing. They find loosing their privacy and unsure about the security of data and information (Vrana, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011).

2.4.2 Use Problems Given the differences of perceptions (Young, 2003) users behave differently while using the eLearning tools and techniques for teaching and learning purposes. A key challenge for institutions is overcoming the cultural mindset whereby departments and individuals act as silos, keeping information and control to themselves (LaCour, 2005). Moreover, the training that educators do receive does not always match with their educational needs, because the faculty is rarely involved in the decisions about technology and design of new strategies for technologyintegration (Juniu, 2005). In developing countries, “ICTs have not permeated to a great extent in many higher learning institutions in most developing countries due to many socio-economic and technological circumstances (Sife et al., 2007).”

The greatest challenge in learning environments is to adapt the computer-based system to differently skilled learners. If the environment is too complex the user will be lost, confused or frustrated. On the other hand, too simple or non-systematic environments cause motivational problems (Sirkemaa, 2001). Technology is by nature disruptive, and so, demands new investments of time, money, space, and skills and changes in the way people do things (Aaron et al., 2004). Furthermore, face-to-face communication is critical for classroom social relationships and interpersonal processes while, online technologies have reduced support for social interaction. Although emotions can be conveyed through e-mail or chatting, it does not replace “the fundamentals of our socio-emotional well-being (Russell, 2005).” Thus, “barriers can make

89 /225

technology use frustrating for the technologically perceptive, let alone the many teachers who may be somewhat techno-phobic (Ezziane, 2007).”

Susana Juniu (2005) points out a very critical problem in the use of eLearning facilities and that is the dependence of teachers, students and administrators on the ICT-department or technical support needed by the users across the using process. The faculty users do not only depend on ICT staff for technological support but also face pressures from the pedagogues to demonstrate the role of technology in supporting constructive, authentic, and cooperative learning. Research suggests that only the technology training cannot ensure better use of new tools, users also need continuous technical and human resource support for technology integration (Zhao & Bryant, 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

2.4.3 User Resistance to Change The user-resistance and reluctance to change is widely investigated topic in eLearning (see for example, Jager & Lokman, 1999; Sasseville, 2004; Loing, 2005; Vrana, 2007; Kanuka, 2007; Mehra & Mital, 2007). Since, teachers decide about what happens in the classroom therefore their acceptance plays a dominant role in the successful use of computers in the classroom (Aaron et al., 2004). Although most of the teachers have adopted ICTs like power point slides and internet into their teaching, they are still unwilling to adopt more sophisticated computerbased teaching innovations (Mehra & Mital, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2011; Nawaz, 2011).”

It has been found that new things are intimidating and cause resistance (Jager & Lokman, 1999). For example, if teachers refuse to use ICTs in their classrooms, then eLearning can never progress except limited benefits. Furthermore, due to the innovative nature of ICT-enabled projects, the developers must have a keen understanding of the innovation process, identify the corresponding requirements for successful adoption, and harmonize plans and actions accordingly (Tinio, 2002). In Canada, teachers are reluctant to integrate technological innovations into their daily scholarly activities and, at least in Quebec, this situation has not really changed over the past few years (Sasseville, 2004).

90 /225

Within universities, the implementation of ICT is not an easy task for instance, decision makers and academics are sometimes reluctant to change curricula and pedagogic approaches; teaching staff and instructors lack incentive and rewards in a system where professional status and career trajectories are based on research results rather than pedagogic innovation (Loing, 2005). There are many obstacles for implementation of the ICT in universities. Some of them are classical, as are e.g. inertia of behavior of people, their resistance to changes, etc. If the ICT should serve properly, it should enforce an order in all folds of the university life. People who loose their advantage of the better access to information have a fear from order. Regrettably, managers sometimes belong to this category (Vrana, 2007).

Technological change is not perceived as a collective experience rather a personal challenge therefore, solutions to the problem of integrating technological innovations into the pedagogy are more focused on the individual teachers (Sasseville, 2004). Some teachers are strongly advocate the technological innovation but may resist in accepting technology as an integral part of the learning process. These divergent reactions and concerns have thus created a continuum that represents various attitudes towards technology (Juniu, 2005). Similarly, “Inexperience may lead to developing learners’ anxiety (Moolman & Blignaut, 2008).”

Political sustainability refers to the acceptance of new system by the administrators handling the policy and leadership matters in the universities (Tinio, 2002). Particularly, in a bottom up approach, the grass-roots may be better placed to understand and implement innovation, but there can be a lack of physical and political support (Aaron et al., 2004). In the case of eLearning projects initiated at ground (bottom-up), research informs that there is a lack of feedback towards higher levels of decision and general policy, and little impact on strategy definition and implementation thereby creating resistance on the part of administrators to help and cooperate (Loing, 2005; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz, 2011).

2.5 Opportunities Education determines, more than anything else, a country's prospects for human development and competitiveness. Fortunately, the information revolution offers some extraordinary

91 /225

opportunities in education (MoST 2000). Universities and even smaller departments within organizations are becoming capable to afford sophisticated digital systems (Ezziane, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a, 2010b; Kundi et al., 2010).

Common sense tells us that we should teach different learners differently. Parents demonstrate this intuitive wisdom when they communicate differently to their children according to their specific ages (Spallek, 2003; Goddard & Cornford, 2007). Electronically supported processes in the teaching and administrative spheres do not seem to be displacing traditional ways of doing things. Rather, the outcomes are often a matter of the new ‘virtual’ and the old ‘traditional’ notions of the university co-existing in a tense relationship (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

2.5.1 Global Availability of ICTs The Internet and World Wide Web has opened a wide range of learning opportunities for both the developed and developing countries. This is particularly significant for developing countries that have limited and outdated learning resources. Likewise, these new technologies also offer access to resource persons: mentors, experts, researchers, professionals, business leaders, and peers across the world (Tinio, 2002).

The developing countries are not supposed to produce hardware because firstly, hardware is becoming inexpensive as well as a huge number of ‘Branded Computers’ are transported to the developing and poor countries, which are hi-tech but very cheap in comparison to the new computers of same model and specifications. So availability of hardware is not a big deal in the developing world (Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

Similarly, software is also available not through standard channels rather piracy but with the inception of Web 2.0 and FOSS, it is gradually becoming very cheaper for the developing countries to capitalize on the free of cost software that is available online and which is also coming in a variety to serve different purposes of applications in the teaching, learning and administrative functions in the HEIs.

92 /225

2.5.2 Free and Open Sources Systems (FOSS) The history of social software is as long as the history of computers itself, for example, it took the Web less than four years to attract 50 million users while radio needed almost 40 years to gain the same number of users (Mejias, 2006). While some research material has been available electronically from the first days of the Internet, libraries are putting more and more material on the Web and thus becoming virtual libraries. For example, the University of Texas made a move toward a bookless library system by posting 60,000 volumes online and trying to bring all their collections online (Snow, 2006).

Robert Stephenson, (2006) defines FOSS in the language of Richard Stallman, the founder of Free Software Movement, “as a matter of liberty, not price.” Free software refers to four kinds of freedom for the users: a. “The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. b. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. c. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. d. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.”

Carey & Gleason (2006) note that open source systems are becoming culture in the HEIs, for example, in the February 2006 survey of U.S. higher education chief information officers (CIOs), it was found that two-third of the CIOs have either adopted or seriously planning in the favor of FOSS. This shift is being innovated by the instructional technology (IT) professionals and academic computing faculty in higher education.

2.5.3 Global Paradigm Shifts in eLearning As the learning technologies are mushrooming and becoming more and more inexpensive and widely accessible, the modes of teaching, learning and education delivery are going through

93 /225

significant changes. There are paradigm shifts in different dimensions of eLearning and the environment around it. For example, the teacher’s role has shifted from being ‘a sage on the stage’ to ‘guide on the side’ (Tinio, 2002; Young, 2003; Mehra & Mital, 2007). Modern eTeacher is mentor, coach or facilitator for the successful integration of ICTs into the pedagogy (Blázquez & Díaz, 2006). Likewise, contemporary students are called “Millennials, Electronic Natives, the Net Generation”

who are grown up digital therefore possess absolutely new

learning habits like independence and autonomy in their learning styles and multitasking due to the availability of new gadgets (Garcia & Qin, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

Given the new learning environments emanating from the explosion of ICTs, the pedagogy is departing from transmitting knowledge based on behaviorism where students are passive receivers of whatever is given by the teacher, to negotiated and harvested knowledge founded on cognitive and social constructivism where students are free to construct their knowledge by negotiating with others and harvesting the learning process. (See Section 4.5.2 (b) for details on the paradigm shift in eLearning)

2.5.4 Local ICT Industry and ICT-Professionals ICTs are no more meant for the elite or privileged classes of the world. These are available, accessible and affordable to a wide range of nations and world citizens. The developing countries are said to be the major beneficiaries of these technologies provided they effectively plan their integration into their economies. The biggest opportunity available to them is the growth of local ICT professionals who are basic to the successful use of new technologies (Tinio, 2002). Pakistan can capitalize on its ‘local ICT resources’ to bring digital revolution. During the last decade Pakistan is taking visible steps in this regard. A huge amount of money has been invested in computerizing the HEIs to produce local ICT professionals, which are indispensable like infrastructure (Bajwa, 2006; Hameed, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

Given the benefits of using ICTs in educational business, all the nations are trying hard to digitize thereby casting mounting pressure on the HEIs to play active role by making local availability of knowledge and skills and, as a result, regionally engaged universities can become

94 /225

a key local and national powerhouse for development, especially in less developed regions of the globe (Goddard & Cornford, 2007). HEIs in Pakistan are generating more than 6000 ICTGraduates annually (HEC, 2008).

2.5.5 Local/ National/ and International/ Partnerships The use of new collaborative technologies requires team work more than we are used to. Networking and social software helps users in working collaboratively while still preserving their personal preferences and styles (Juniu, 2005). The collaboration requires partnerships between the university constituents (teachers, students and administrators) as well as at the national (partnerships between the universities and public and private sector) (Baumeister, 2006) and international partnerships between world organizations and states (Tinio, 2002; Kopyc, 2007). For example, the emergence of a strong Indian IT industry happened due to concerted efforts on the part of the Government, and host of other factors like private initiatives, emergence of software technology parks, and public private partnerships (Mathur, 2006).

Likewise, partnerships of universities with outsiders is in variety including collaboration with other educational institutes, NGOs, government agencies, multinational enterprises (MNEs), UNO and national/international outsourcing companies providing eLearning solutions. Victoria L. Tinio (2002) contends that private sector-public sector partnerships in ICT-based projects is a new strategy that is gaining currency in several ministries of education particularly, in developing countries. These partnerships reveal in many forms like, private donations, government grants, and provision of equipments and technical assistance in planning and using available resources. During the mid-1990s, SDNP of UN in Pakistan appeared as the very first external partnership for the use of ICTs for providing Internet, email and networking services in Islamabad. Through the same collaboration, several individuals and organizations were trained in ICTs and networking (Hameed, 2007).

Furthermore, although the prices of computers are falling and the developing countries are finding a variety of technologies with low budgets however, new and advanced technologies and their availability in abundance requires a lot of finances. At the same time, governments are

95 /225

reducing the funding of public universities therefore affording an expensive eLearning infrastructure is becoming an uphill task for the HEIs in public sector. To resolve this issue, Carey & Gleason (2006) argue that since it is not possible for the individual universities to duplicate leading edge technologies at every institute level, therefore, universities are relying on third-party solutions to meet student demands more economically and on a level that cannot be duplicated by an individual institution. Thus, outsourcing is the collaboration with the outsiders who are specialized in a particular eLearning technology or service.

2.5.6 Growth of Information-Society/Culture ICTs have created new societies, which are discussed under different concepts including ‘information societies’ (Sasseville, 2004; McPherson & Nunes, 2004); knowledge societies (Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006; Klamma et al., (2007); and open information society (Bajwa, 2007) with knowledge economy (Hameed, 2007). The higher education commission (2008) aims to ensure that a comprehensive ICTs strategy is implemented to develop a knowledge-society in Pakistan.

Members of BytesForAll Pakistan (http://www.asia-commons.net/) are making significant effots in formulating an ‘open information society’ in Pakistan by building partnerships and organizing workhops at national and regional levels. For example, a workshop was organized by South Asia Partnership-Pakistan and Bytesforall in collaboration with South Asia Partnership International (SAP-I) on the theme, “Towards an Open Information Society in Pakistan” from March 21 – 22, 2007, at the National Secretariat of SAP-PK in Lahore, Pakistan (Bajwa, 2007)

As discussed across the thesis, the shift from traditional modes of life to modern life styles is characterized by several new dimensions. The traditional societies are turning into ‘information and knowledge societies’ where societies are switching from isolated stance to global and collaborative trends at the global level with collaboration as a critical norm in the culture (Valcke, 2004). Our world's culture is no longer only literary and artistic, it is also technologic and scientific and at the crossroads of these two aspects, refusing this would reflect the inability to integrate into modern societies (Sasseville, 2004; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

96 /225

2.6 Working Concepts (Research Variables) Table 2.4 List of Research Variables (Definition of Working Concepts)

1

Variables

Working Definitions

Code

Perceptions

Perception of users about the nature and role of ICTs

PRC

(eLearning) in HEIs. 2

Educational

The ICTs that are used for teaching, learning and

Technologies

administration like computers, networks, internet.

ETS

(instructional technologies) 3

Development

eLearning environment is developed through an

DEV

information system development life cycle. 4

Use

The Teachers, Students and Administrators use ICTs

USE

for teaching, learning and administration of education. 5

Problems

The problems of developing and using ICTs in

PRB

teaching, learning and education management. 6

User-Satisfaction

The level of satisfaction of different users from ICTs in

STF

their respective areas of application. 7

Opportunities

The opportunities of eLearning perceived by the users.

OPR

8

Prospects

The future of eLearning (expectations).

PRO

9

User

PPR, RTP, CTY, CNC, ITQ, EXP, GDR, AGE, DST,

Demographics

DSA, AOI

Table 2.4a List of Demographic Variables (The Respondents’ Profile)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Variable Respondent type Sector Gender Area Subject Age

Code RTP PPR GDR CNC SNS AGE

7 8 9 10 11 12

Variable Experience Age of Institute IT Qualification Designation (teachers) Designation (administrators) City

Code EXP AOI ITQ DSG DSA CTY

97 /225

2.7 Theoretical Framework Figure 2.1 Schematic Diagram of the Theoretical Framework

2.8 List of Hypothesis 1. Demographics have impacts on all the research variables.

(H1 to H12)

2. All the research-variables are significantly correlated.

(H13)

3. Perceptions are explained by the research variables.

(H14)

4. The views about ETS are determined by other research variables. (H15) 5. Development is explained by other research variables.

(H16)

6. Use depends on the nature of other variables.

(H17)

7. Problems are defined by the research variables.

(H18)

8. User-Satisfaction depends on other research factors.

(H19)

9. Opportunities are explained by other variables.

(H20)

10. All variables collectively determine Prospects.

(H21)

98 /225

2.9 Conclusions from the Literature Review The literature review was conducted at two levels of the research project. First ‘preliminary literature review’ was undertaken with a view to develop the research project. From this primary survey, required elements for the research project were extracted, which included ‘problem statement’, ‘list of the working concepts’, ‘theoretical framework’, ‘research hypothesis’, and the ‘research project’. Main literature was then conducted to build on the same concepts and models identified in the preliminary literature survey. At the broader level, the literature review aimed at:

1. Defining the ‘Boundaries’ of the Topic in terms of the ‘Existing Research.’ 2. Developing a Mature ‘Statement of the Problem’ in the Language of Experts. 3. Optimizing the ‘Working Concepts’ into a Precise List of ‘Variables’ and their ‘Attributes’. 4. Constructing a ‘Theoretical Framework’ by ‘Connecting the Variables’ to represent the ‘Theory’ behind the research topic which has then been Tested through Empirical Data. 5. Generating ‘Hypotheses from the ‘Theoretical Framework’ of the Project. Each Arrow in the Model Represents One or More Hypotheses. 6. Selecting and Justifying the appropriate ‘Research Methodology’ for the current project containing the ‘Approach’ for ‘Data Access’, and ‘Methods’, ‘Data Collection’, and ‘Data Analysis’.

At the broader level, the overall objective of both preliminary and main literature review was directed towards finding answers to the following basic questions of this research. A huge body of literature is available to throw light on these questions however, they need to be analyzed into a compact theory or single understanding of the phenomena: 1. What is eLearning? (eLearning: A Birdseye View) 2. How is it developed? (eLearning System Development) 3. What are the Challenges and Opportunities? (Problems & Opportunities)

Sections 2.9.1, 2.9.2 & 2.1.3 are the modular answers to the above questions.

101 /225

organizational situation wherein it is to be used therefore; researchers have to unearth contextual backgrounds as they influence the development and use of eLearning tools and techniques (Ågerfalk et al., 2006).

Given the fact that innovative applications of ICTs in education requires to first understand a number of factors related to the government policies, available educational technologies, development and practices and on the top contextual aspects of the eLearning system including demographic factors of the users and organizational context – this research aims at understanding the context of eLearning in HEIs of KPK, Pakistan with data on the above cited variables for analysis and interpretation to reach a set of domesticated guidelines for eLearning development and use in the native environment. The data have been collected about both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the issue to triangulate the findings to “ensure that results provide deeper and more insightful information (Sirkemaa, 2001).” Similarly, “through a mixed methods approach, an evaluator can employ triangulation by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data and yield more decisive findings (Radosevich & Kahn, 2006).”

3.2 Survey Approach There is a huge body of studies both in developed and developing countries about the theories and practices of eLearning in HEIs both from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. The quantitative studies, which used survey approach to access the problem situation are many for example, by Irons et al., 2002, Luck & Norton 2005, Marcella and Knox (2004), Abrami et al., 2006, Johnson et al., 2006, Radosevich & Kahn (2006), Bataineh & Bani-Abdel-Rahman (2006), Thomas & Allen 2006, Mehra & Mital (2007), Martin & Dunsworth 2007, Garcia & Qin (2007), & DiCerbo (2007), Nawaz, 2010, 2011 – which are a few from a long list. Likewise, there are qualitative studies based purely on the secondary sources, for example, studies by Sasseville (2004), Valdez et al., (2004), and Davey & Tatnall (2007) are good examples. (Table 3.1 gives the detail the detail of these studies).

101 /225

organizational situation wherein it is to be used therefore; researchers have to unearth contextual backgrounds as they influence the development and use of eLearning tools and techniques (Ågerfalk et al., 2006).

Given the fact that innovative applications of ICTs in education requires to first understand a number of factors related to the government policies, available educational technologies, development and practices and on the top contextual aspects of the eLearning system including demographic factors of the users and organizational context – this research aims at understanding the context of eLearning in HEIs of KPK, Pakistan with data on the above cited variables for analysis and interpretation to reach a set of domesticated guidelines for eLearning development and use in the native environment. The data have been collected about both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the issue to triangulate the findings to “ensure that results provide deeper and more insightful information (Sirkemaa, 2001).” Similarly, “through a mixed methods approach, an evaluator can employ triangulation by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data and yield more decisive findings (Radosevich & Kahn, 2006).”

3.2 Survey Approach There is a huge body of studies both in developed and developing countries about the theories and practices of eLearning in HEIs both from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. The quantitative studies, which used survey approach to access the problem situation are many for example, by Irons et al., 2002, Luck & Norton 2005, Marcella and Knox (2004), Abrami et al., 2006, Johnson et al., 2006, Radosevich & Kahn (2006), Bataineh & Bani-Abdel-Rahman (2006), Thomas & Allen 2006, Mehra & Mital (2007), Martin & Dunsworth 2007, Garcia & Qin (2007), & DiCerbo (2007), Nawaz, 2010, 2011 – which are a few from a long list. Likewise, there are qualitative studies based purely on the secondary sources, for example, studies by Sasseville (2004), Valdez et al., (2004), and Davey & Tatnall (2007) are good examples. (Table 3.1 gives the detail the detail of these studies).

102 /225

Table 3.1 Quantitative Studies on eLearning in HEIs (A) 1 2

3

Researchers

Scale-Used

Theme of the Study

Country

Radosevich & Kahn (2006) Bataineh & BaniAbdelRahman (2006) Marcella & Knox (2004)

7p (1=S/Disagree, 7=S/Agree

Tablet Technology and Recording Software to Enhance Pedagogy Jordanian students' perceptions of computer literacy.

USA

Systems for the management of info in a university-context: An investigation of user needs. Integrating technology into the teachinglearning: Pedagogical and technological perceptions of management faculty Improving Computer Literacy of Business Mgt Majors Evaluation of Computer Literacy Course: What and How to Teach? Identifying the Generation Gap in Higher Education: Where Do Differences Lie? Information technology in developing a meta-learning environment. A Review of e-Learning in Canada.

UK

4

Mehra & Mital (2007)

5

Johnson et al., 2006 Martin & Dunsworth 2007 Garcia & Qin (2007) Sirkemaa 2001

6 7 8 9 10

Abrami et al., 2006 DiCerbo (2007)

6p (Never, Almost Never, Rarely, Occasionally, Frequently, Very Frequently) 6P (Below average, Average, Good, Competent, Very good, Excellent) 5p (1=S/Disagree, 5=S/Agree)

4p (1=No Confidence, 4= High Confidence 4p (0-Not Useful, 3= V/Useful 4p (1=S/Disagree, 4=S/Agree 5p (1=Poor, 5=Excellent -1 to +1 Review of 1,146 Docs 10p Rating of 15 items by (1 = unrelated; 10 = highly related)

11

Irons et al., 2002

7p (1=S/Agree, 7=S/Disagree)

12

Thomas & Allen 2006 Luck & Norton 2005

5p (1=Definitely, 5=Definitely Not) 4p (‘yes definitely', 'not sure', no definitely not', 'don't understand') 7p (1=S/Agree, 7=S/Disagree)

13

14

Nawaz, A. 2011

Knowledge Structures of Entering Computer Networking Students and Their Instructors Distance Learning: Digital Divide and Student Satisfaction. Gender Differences in Students’ Perceptions of IT as a Career Perceptions of achievement. 17+9 Students (Face2Face Group and eGroup) The Challenges and Opportunities of eLearning in HEIs of KPK, Pakistan

Jordan

India

USA USA USA

Canada

USA USA Australia UK

Pakistan

Table 3.2 Qualitative Studies on eLearning in HEIs 1 2 3

Sasseville (2004) Valdez et al., (2004) Davey and Tatnall (2007)

‘Discourse-Analysis’ of secondary sources Content analysis of the data from each of the six individual case studies 36 Interviews; 16 Universities, 11 Countries 171 questions Semi-structured interview, Narrative Analysis

To reach the conclusions about the ‘integration of ICTs in the classroom Effective Tech-Integration in Teacher Education

Canada

The Lifelong Learning of IS Academics – A Study of Formal and Informal Learning by Academics (Australia, UK, Netherlands, Spain, USA, Canada, Japan, China, Sweden, Norway and Finland)

11 Countries

USA

Table 3.1 provides enough inspiration to select survey approach to study the theories and attitudes of students, teachers and administrators about eLearning development and use practices in HEIs. A self-constructed structured questionnaire was derived from an extensive literature survey of both quantitative and qualitative studies.

103 /225

3.3 Population and Sampling a. Population The main stakeholders in eLearning are the teachers, students and education administrators in any educational setup. Similarly, HEIs have these three constituents for the development and use of ICTs in their respective functions in the background of higher education. These computerusers have different academic backgrounds particularly with reference to their digital literacy. Those who have a certificate, diploma, bachelor, masters, MPhil and PhD in computer science or any stream of ICTs and those whose subjects are either physics, chemistry, medical or public and business administration, economics, journalism or Islamiyat. The second group of users either has some formal training in computer applications or learning them informally. The research reveals that most of these users are adopting computer technologies informally and learning from friends, peers and themselves (Roknuzzaman, 2006).

There are twenty HEIs in KPK, Pakistan, including universities and other educational institutes. These institutes are offering education in all the subjects of pure and social sciences as well as degrees in computer-literacy. All the university-constituents (students, teachers, and administrators) are using computers to their respective levels of computer-proficiency. The ‘Target-Population’ of the project consists of twenty (20) higher education institutions with seventeen (17) universities and three higher degree awarding institutes (HEC, 2008) in KPK, Pakistan. There are about 3401 teachers and 7791 administrators in the higher education of KPK.

b. Sample and Sampling Procedure The ‘Sample-Population’ for the study included all the HEIs in the cities of Peshawar and Dera Ismail Khan. These two cities were selected on the basis of their following unique attributes for being selected as true samples of students, teachers and administrators from the HEIs in the province:

104 /225

a. Peshawar representing the big city while D I Khan as an example of small city but strong educational base in the province. b. Both the cities host two of the oldest universities of the province (University of Peshawar – 1950 and Gomal University - 1974). c. The cities have both the oldest as well as new universities (pre-2000 and The post=2000) d. The cities also host both the public and private sector institutions. e. These institutions are populated with students, teachers and administrators from almost all cities and areas of the province.

For the development of research project (synopsis), a pilot study was conducted to test the instrument and research variables and determine the appropriate sample size using a standard procedure. The detail is given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.3 Population, Sampling Procedure and Sample Sizes

N

Sampling-Procedure

n

[2/((E2/Z2)+(2/N))]

137

1

Teachers

3401

2

Administrators

7791

3

Students

Infinite

85 [(2 Z2/)/E2]

132 Total

388

Since low response rate was expected therefore over 388 questionnaires were distributed to the teachers, students and administrators. The response rate was: teachers 137; students 132 and administrators 85 = 354 (92%). The number of subjects in the teacher and student groups was increased to include the representation from more subjects that were not included in the pilot study, particularly from social sciences. The data was collected from June 2008 to August 2008.

105 /225

3.4 Data Collection Methods 3.4.1 Literature Survey Literature survey was conducted to examine the existing research on the topic and extract variables, the relationships between the variables as identified by the researchers. Literature survey also helps the researcher in adopting the appropriate research methodology for the topic. As discussed in the literature review, FOSS has opened a flood of knowledge resources to the world researchers by giving access to the world libraries, databases and data sources. Following data sources were used to conduct literature survey for the topic:

1. Books (hard copies) 2. eBooks (off-line on CDs and online particularly, Wikipedia eBooks) 3. Free and Open Source Systems (FOSS), i.e., eJournals. We used the ‘Directory of Open Access Journals’ (doaj.org) as a search-engine to locate and access open-sources. 4. The websites of United Nations eLearning Programs for higher education. 5. The websites of Universities around the world. 6. Social software websites. We used Wikipedia.org, Blogs & facebook. 7. The websites of the Government of Pakistan 8. The websites of the Universities’ in KPK

3.4.2 Field Survey of HEIs a. Questionnaire A structured questionnaire was developed after a thorough analysis of the literature capitalizing on the documents including research papers, documents from UNO, Universities, Government and FOSS web-sites as well as Books and eBooks. The instrument included questions about 8

106 /225

research variables (see Table 2.4 for details) and 12 demographic variables (see Table 2.4a for details) measured with 46 items on 7point scale). (see Annexure 3 for a sample Questionnaire).

In the above-mentioned ICT-related surveys in HEIs (Table 3.1), several scales have been used to measure the responses through questionnaire. For example: 1. Irons et al., 2002 and Radosevich & Kahn (2006) used 7p scale. 2. Marcella & Knox (2004) and Bataineh & Bani-Abdel-Rahman (2006) recorded the response on 6p. 3. Sirkemaa 2001, Thomas & Allen 2006, and Mehra & Mital (2007) applied 5p scale in their instruments. 4. Johnson et al., 2006 Martin & Dunsworth 2007 Garcia & Qin (2007, and Luck & Norton 2005 used 4p scale to classify the responses.

Furthermore, scales have been used in both the ascending and descending order. Some have used 1 for strong disagreement and the upper last scale (4, 5, 6, or 7) for strong agreement (see for example, Radosevich & Kahn (2006); Bataineh & Bani-Abdel-Rahman (2006); Marcella & Knox (2004); Mehra & Mital (2007); Johnson et al., 2006; Martin & Dunsworth 2007; Garcia & Qin (2007); Sirkemaa 2001; Abrami et al., 2006; DiCerbo (2007). In other words they used lower-scores for disagreement and higher scores for agreement. While others have used the scales in opposite: using upper scale for disagreement and 1 for agreement (see for example, Irons et al., 2002; Thomas and Allen 2006; Luck and Norton 2005). Given that most of the researcher are using lower scales for disagreement and higher for agreement therefore, the same mode have been used in this research with seven point Likert-scale representing: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Mildly Disagree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5 = Agree, 6 = Mildly Agree, and 7 = Strongly Agree.

107 /225

3.4.3 Operationalization of the Concepts Table 3.4 Operationalized List of Variables Variables 1

Perceptions about ICTs

2

Educational Technologies

3

Development

4

Use

5 6 6 7

Problems Satisfaction Opportunities Prospects

Attributes ICTs as Problem-Solver; Digital Divide; Instrumental vs. Substantive theories; Academic Role; and Social Impacts of ICTs Hardware (Availability, Expensiveness and Accessibility); Software (Availability, Expensiveness and Accessibility, Viruses); Network; and Internet Government ICT Policies; Organizational ICT Policies; ETP; User Needs Analysis; User Participation; and User Training; Implementation; Maintenance; Evaluation Perceived Ease of Use (PEU); and Perceived Usefulness (PU); Volume of Use; Types of Use; Experience with ICTs; user-developer- communication Problems of ETs, Development, Use and Satisfaction Satisfaction from ETS, DEV and USE of eLearning. Opportunities of ETS, Development and Use. Prospects of eLearning in HEIs of KPK.

Code PRC

ETS

DEV

USE PRB STF OPR PRO

Table 3.5 List of the Demographic Variables and Attributes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Variables Respondent-Type Sector Gender ICT-Background Subject Age Experience Age of the Institute ICT Qualification Designation of Teachers Designation of Administrators City

Working Definitions (Attributes) Teachers, Students and Administrators Public and Private Male/Female Computer/Non-Computer Science/Non-Science Age of the Respondents Experience with Computers. Age of the Institute Formal/Informal Lecturer, Ast: Professor, Ass:/Professor (Administrators) Managers, Staff Peshawar/Dera Ismail Khan

Code RTP PPR GDR CNC SNS AGE EXP AOI ITQ DSG DSA CTY

108 /225

3.5 Data Analysis Tools SPSS 12.0 has been used for the following purposes:

1. To create a Database of primary data on 12 Demographic and 8 Research Variables. 2. Application of Descriptive Tools to generate Cross-Tables and Charts. Cross-tabulation has been used to create presentations of Respondents across the main demographic attributes of RTP, CNC, PPR, GDR, and CTY. 3. Apply Tests-of-Significance to test hypothesis about the Mean-Differences between different groups of respondents. For this purpose, t-Tests and one-way ANOVA procedures have been used for 2groups and 2+groups respectively. 4. Perform Correlation-Analysis on the Research Variables to verify hypothesis about the relationships between the research variables. 5. Running Multiple Regression to test the hypotheses about the impacts of all the research variables (individually and collectively) on every individual research variable.

3.6 Data & Instrument Validity Every phase of any research is critical therefore errors at any stage may weaken or destroy the validity of the investigation (Goode & Hatt, 1952:185). The scientific method is characterized by two traits: validity and reliability. Validity is the characteristic used to describe research which measures what it claims to measure (Boyd et al., 1977:34). In this study the ‘Theoretical Model’ for research project was extracted from the literature to get the ‘Constructs’ which truly measure what is claimed to be measured.

Reliability is that attribute of research methodology which allows it to be repeated again and again by the same and by different researchers, but always with the same results (Boyd et al., 1977:34). The overall reliability of Cronbach’s alpha was estimated at 0.937, with 354 cases and 43 survey items. This value qualifies the required minimum threshold suggested for the overall reliability test, i.e. 0.7 (Koo, 2008).

109 /225

Chapter 4 eLearning Experiences and Paradigm Shifts 4.1 Introduction The higher education has a responsibility towards the whole education system as it has towards the whole society (Sanyal, 2001). The question that has been tantalizing both Universities and ICT industry in Europe is “Do the Universities provide the kind of graduates that the industry wishes? If not, what should be done?” There is no easy answer to this question (Katsikas, 2006). The topic of online education has recently inspired a great deal of discussion in USA and around the world and although the extent of growth is controversial, the number of online courses and programs in HEIs is increasing significantly (Maddux et al., 2005). To understand the relationship between Universities and ICT industry, one has to explore the relationship between teaching and research (Katsikas, 2006). Stakeholders, such as employers, parents, and educators, have raised their expectations from the graduates in computer literacy (Johnson et al., 2006). Given this, most of the universities have started offering computer literacy courses to all the students, however, to provide required computer-literate graduates, it is important to determine a desired computer literacy course and ePedagpgy (Martin & Dunsworth, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

There is no doubt that in statistical terms inequality in access to ICTs does exist between developed and developing nations. Most frequently the statistical disparities between countries regarding ICTs are based on measures of access to hardware and connectivity and the figures present a picture of developed world dominance in ICTs access. The United States has more computers than the rest of the world combined (Macleod, 2005). Internet technologies (including “Web 2.0” technologies), virtual reality, and mobile devices are some of the many technologies used everyday for communication and entertainment, and learning (Chan & Lee, 2007). The findings however, warn that given the threats and opportunities of globalization, ICTs are “either decreasing the inequalities in the world or increasing them (Hameed, 2007).”

110 /225

4.2 eLearning in Advanced Countries 4.2.1 Introduction In the European context, the ‘constitution of European universities’ (Magna Carta Universitatum), the universities have two functions: teaching and research. The constitution defines a university as “an institution that preserves, transfers, assesses and expands knowledge. It preserves and transfers knowledge through the educational process and it assesses and expands it through research (Katsikas, 2006).” ICTs revolution is a part of several other revolutions which are changing the education systems of western countries from modern into postmodern condition (Aviram & Tami, 2004). The extreme educational application of ICTs is virtual universities as the best examples of eLearning but they are considered as threats to ‘for profit institutions’ (Goddard & Cornford, 2007).

The research from advanced countries reveal that government financial support for the universities has been decreasing and HEIs are forced to generate income, which is evident from the mushrooming increase in online courses offered by HEIs in most of the advanced countries (Maddux et al., 2005; Davey & Tatnall, 2007). The significance of these ‘new’ institutions, however, lies not in their direct impact because they actually provide a nominal part of higher education in USA. Rather, their implication is primarily indirect, operating through the perceived threat to established Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in terms of their markets for students, and in terms of their demonstration effect (Goddard & Cornford, 2007; Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

4.2.2 Approaches Across the different subjects and universities (22 institutions), there was a strong perception amongst those who were leading successful ICT initiatives that ‘developments needed to be driven by pedagogy, not the technology.’ The evidence from all the universities reflects the

111 /225

recognition that ‘ICTs can play significant role in the modern independent learning,’ for example, universities provide their students with access to a vast range of up-to-date materials like, electronic journals. Likewise, email has strengthened the internal communication of students and teachers in all the universities under study (Lewis & Goodison, 2004). It is also believed that ‘students’ manipulation of technology for education is better than teacher manipulation of ICTs (Abrami et al., 2006).’

In a Higher Education institution in the North of England, Luck & Norton (2005) conducted a survey to explore and compare students' perspectives and experiences of face-to-face and online collaborative learning about the similarities or differences in undertaking education. The following results were reported: a. online learners favored collaborative learning and demonstrated rapid development; b. F2F group appeared more confident about having achieved learning outcomes, while eGroup was self-critical and expressed self-doubts; and c. the eLearning is rapidly growing without our proper understanding of the eLearning process. Furthermore, the current approaches to teaching ICT favored by many institutions appears to be an integrative and substantive in which ICT skills are taught holistically to prepare students not only in technical competence but also technology-integration in teaching and learning (Chan & Lee, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

4.2.3 Development and Use Practices In a research by Gray et al., (2003), 25 case studies were selected from 7 countries including both small and large scale projects. The results revealed that nearly half of the projects were developing blended learning environments while others were constructing virtual classrooms, tele-teaching and collaborative learning. Likewise, In a study of twenty-two universities with a sample from twelve different subjects, (Lewis & Goodison, 2004) report that two main approaches to ICT developments are as popular in developed world: 1. Subject-level initiatives: DOI by the ‘role-model’ faculty member(s) of a departments/subject within university. 2. Institutional strategy: Some institutions, particularly, the new universities were working with institutional digital initiatives to achieve broader aims.

112 /225

Similarly, in most of the universities, commonly practiced steps to develop and implement an eLearning project include: Needs analysis; Instructional design; Development; Delivery; Evaluation; Co-ordination and project management. The roles in these projects often include: Project Manager; System Instructional Designer; Product Instructional Designer; Learning Administrator; Tutors and Writers (Gray et al., 2003). However, the planning phase is considered critical in eLearning projects where all the university constituents come together and discuss the technologies, instructional requirements, contents required, user needs and many other factors before launching an eProject for computer-based learning, blended learning or virtual learning environments (Maddux et al., 2005; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

Furthermore, in the past couple of years, most important technological innovation in higher education has been the enhancement of academic courses with Web-based applications. The most well-known repository of links to academic Web sites is ‘World Lecture Hall’ is a good example of the type (Wood, 2004). However, teachers still face the problems of finding the educational technologies, which match the needs of 21st-century learners who do not require a high level of technical proficiency. Thus, the trend is to incorporate group collaboration in their pedagogy and thus promote a constructivist approach to teaching and learning while simultaneously adjusting the curriculum with learner requirements (Radosevich & Kahn, 2006).

4.2.4 Challenges Robert E. Wood, (2004) found that, on the face of it, many eLearning initiatives in the advanced world, reflect that the creative use of Web in education is unlimited, however, many researchers report that these new systems are just delivering the traditional print syllabus via the Internet. Similarly, Lewis & Goodison (2004) report that in most institutions, the pedagogic use of ICT has rarely went beyond the posting and retrieval of routine course information on web pages. They also disclose that in most of the cases, users are not involved in the development process and many of the academics perceive that ICT-applications will ultimately eliminate the need for teachers.

113 /225

In the developed countries, HEIs are competing at the global level therefore; pressure for becoming digitally more sophisticated is consistent. For example, “in the context of western higher education, appropriate strategies for the development and use of ICTs are instantly needed to stand the competition of emerging knowledge societies (Sahay, 2004).” Another researcher notes that given the technology driven nature of the present information-society, “lack of technology integration among teachers in American classrooms is a major concern in education today (Zhao & Bryant, 2006).” Davey & Tatnall (2007) asserts that in the background of recent global changes, the academics interviewed from USA, Europe and Australia complain about the rapidly decreasing resources and government funding of universities thereby pushing the HEIs to depend more on self-generated income sources.

4.2.5 Opportunities Though the availability of advanced resources are the distinct opportunities available to the HEIs in advanced countries, however, the real opportunities are the ‘principles and critical success factors’ that are being capitalized upon by the developers and users of eLearning initiatives. For example, in a study of six American universities (Valdez et al., 2004), it was discovered that successful development and use of eProjects was mounted on:

1. Central role of ‘Top-Management’ (deans and chairs) in the provision of a sustainable technological infrastructure (Top-Management-Support). 2. Faculty Role Models: In every university, there were a number of faculty members who had knowledge in the design, implementation, and use of eLearning tools in their classes thereby playing as campus-wide models of technology-integration. These ‘liaisons’ encourage and motivate their fellows in using technology (Technology Role-Models). 3. All the institutes have established an effective system for continuous technical-support to the teachers, students and administrators (Sustainable Technology Support). 4. Some of the universities are getting grants from private foundations or NGOs to establish special programs, and institutional reforms for technology integration (External Funding). 5. States are legislating and creating standards to guide in the design of computing curricula, course activities, and assessment criteria (State-Legislation and Standards).

114 /225

6. The universities are externally connected with a wide range of communities and reaching the technologically underprivileged classes (Linkages with External Communities).

Likewise, in UK, David Lewis & Ruth Goodison (2004) have recorded somewhat similar factors of success in eLearning initiatives: 1. The appointment of key faculty members to act as ‘champions’ of the initiative. 2. User-Perceptions are significant and can pose barriers for new system. 3. The establishment of a robust technical unit, which is well-equipped in supporting the changing needs of user-community. 4. Middle-Management can either be facilitators or barriers for eLearning project. 5. User-Participation in the development process. 6. Teacher-training to integrate technology into their core activities.

In Australia, Lynch et al., (2005) regroup these factors into ‘individual domain’ and ‘organizational domain’ where individual domain refers to the individual demographic and academic characteristics of the individuals and organizational domain includes the institutional attributes. The participants identified teachers' motivation towards ICTs and their capabilities in their use as the significant factors within Individual domain. While in organizational domain organizational support and symbolic support was placed as top determinants of the progress in eLearning efforts for enhancing the teaching, learning and administrative capabilities in HEIs.

4.3 eLearning in Developing Countries 4.3.1 Introduction There is a wide consensus on the potential of ICTs to promote economic growth, fight poverty, and integrate the developing countries into the global economy (Macleod, 2005). It is also perceived that eLearning can provide much better education for people in developing countries (Hvorecký et al., 2005). Similarly, this is well understood by under-developed countries (Tubaishat et al., 2006). Dr. Irshad Hussain (2007) asserts that in the context of knowledge-

115 /225

society, higher education can play a crucial role in reshaping and restructuring the social, economic and political institutions of a country

The emergence of digital telecommunications, expansion of the internet, and global economy in 1990's, created an impetus for a wider variety of ICT initiatives for developing countries to adopt national ICT policy models (Mujahid, 2002). The researchers argue that the greatest problem for underdeveloped countries is the sense of isolation from rest of the world while new communications technologies can reduce the isolation and open access to knowledge in ways unimaginable not long ago (Tinio, 2002). Furthermore, the development of eLearning has a key role to play in effectively reducing the impacts of the digital divide particularly in the context of developing nations (Macleod, 2005). Wims & Lawler (2007) advocate that one of the issues for developing world is their ‘disempowerment’ however, ICTs has the potential to remove the barriers to the global knowledge thereby empowering the developing states.

However, the reality of the ‘Digital Divide’ means that the integration of ICTs in various types of education poses the most challenging undertaking for developing countries and failure to meet the challenge would further widen the knowledge gaps and economic and social inequalities (Tinio, 2002). The developing countries are facing problems like: language barriers, absence of prerequisites, and technology hurdles (Hvorecký et al., 2005). For example, the African universities, which should lead in ICT revolution, are themselves ill-prepared with a poorly developed and inequitably distributed infrastructure for the African universities (Sife et al., 2007).

4.3.2 Approaches The focus on eLearning at University of Botswana is a blended approach to teaching and learning that integrates various modes, methods, and media (Thurab-Nkhosi et al., 2005). Pakistan is adopting a comprehensive approach (enabling and sectoral) to cover all the shortterm and long-term growth objectives. In Pakistan sectoral approach has been combined with the diffusion or enabler approach to maximize benefits of economic growth in the short term (Hameed, 2007). Malaysia’s National Philosophy of Education also calls for developing the

116 /225

potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, which means to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and physically balanced and harmonious (Koo, 2008).

Will ICT use be the silver bullet for the developing countries to shun their educational problems? The researchers answer this question by saying that it is not the technology but how is it used by the users (Tinio, 2002). In a comparative study of the ICT-curriculum in USA and India, Jonathan Ezer (2006) found that the Indian curriculum is more instrumental, focusing more directly on the current global economy, and the immediate usefulness of its graduates. This indicates that American and Indian curriculum designers perceive IT somewhat differently, and this may have significant implications for the way technology is developed in these two countries. Crichton & Kopp (2006) have found that the technology-integration model in HEIs of China is mostly based on American theories; however, there is need to address other contexts that demand greater ingenuity in the implementation of technology for student learning.

4.3.3 Development and Use-Practices In a survey of two middle-eastern universities (Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) in Jordan and Zayed University (ZU) in United Arab Emirates (UAE)), it was found that adoption of technology has (a) improved the motivation and confidence level of students, (b) improved their communication and technical skills, (c) encouraged students to collaborate using ICT tools, and (d) allowed students to be more independent (Tubaishat et al., 2006). So far most of the universities in developing countries possess basic ICT infrastructure such as Local Area Network (LAN), internet, computers, video, audio, CDs and DVDs, and mobile technology that form the basis for eLearning initiatives (Sife et al., 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz, 2010).

So far HEIs in in developing countries have mostly kept to their traditional functions (Sanyal, 2001) but it is radically changing now. For example, Malaysia's Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), is a high-tech effort to attract national and international investors with spillover effects on rest of the Malaysian economy (Mujahid, 2002). The Indian ICT applications have so developed that Indians hope in near future, India will rank in the first world (Krishna, 2006) and

117 /225

Global IT superpower (Mathur, 2006). Thus, ICTs are changing the organization and delivery of higher education; however, ICTs have not permeated to a great extent in many HEIs in most developing countries due to many socio-economic and technological problems (Sife et al., 2007). At the same time, Malaysia has her long-term vision, “Vision 2020” which calls for the whole nation’s preparation to face the challenges in the global economy of the 21st century (Koo, 2008).

4.3.4 Challenges India has one of the largest and most developed information technology industries in the world, which has created a small group of multimillionaires and a middle class of network and software engineers, computer programmers, and design specialists, however, the benefits have not reached the masses who live in desperate conditions (Macleod, 2005). Furthermore, no doubt that India has produced striking growth rates and excellent export earnings but expecting the same results from rest of the economy is unrealistic (Krishna, 2006). The developing countries are facing a number of challenges to implement the eLearning systems including: lack of systemic approach to ICT implementation, awareness and attitude towards ICTs, administrative support, technical support, transforming higher education, and self development (Sife et al., 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b).

Cultural and social values in developing countries create big hurdle in the technology integration (Tubaishat et al., 2006; Nawaz et al., 2007). For example, decisions made by the teacher about the use of ICTs is influenced by multiple factors including: demographics (like age, educational background); accessibility to hardware; experience in the use of eLearning tools, perceptions about usefulness, ease of use, creativity in the faculty and the students, training of the faculty, number of years of existence of the institute etc (Mehra & Mital, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b).

118 /225

4.3.5 Opportunities ICTs offer unprecedented opportunities to the developing countries to enhance educational systems, improve policy formulation and execution, and increase opportunities for the masses (Tinio, 2002). There is an ever-increasing demand for higher education in developing countries with a growing population of students, which is only solvable through virtual education (Loing, 2005). Furthermore, the developing countries can no longer base their development on their comparative labor advantage because now what counts is the knowledge-economy. Similarly, the brain drain from these countries is the result of non-recognition of the importance of knowledge and knowledge workers resulting into the widening divides in the least developed nations (Hameed, 2007). Thus, the universities in developing countries have to adopt eLearning technologies to improve teaching and leaning processes (Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011; Nawaz et al., 2011).

At the same time, teachers and learners no longer have to rely solely on printed books and other physical media in libraries rather Internet and WWW offer a wealth of learning materials on any subject and in a variety of media that is accessible from anywhere at anytime and by anybody (Tinio, 2002). eLearning also has the potential to shift power bases for developing countries, for example, the Internet provides communication system for the geographically dispersed people thereby empowering the marginalized groups (Macleod, 2005). The importance of higher education to gain prosperity and to develop human resources is well-understood by underdeveloped countries (Tubaishat et al., 2006) because they recognize that appropriate use of ICTs can enhance many aspects of life including health, education and economic growth (Wims & Lawler, 2007).

The developments in creating eLearning environment are squarely dependent on the relentless and constant support of the governments in developing countries. Malaysian government provides attractive taxation incentives for world-class technology companies to participate in MSC initiative (Mujahid, 2002). In Pakistan, the major impetus to the ICT industry has been the boost provided by the government itself, including incentives for the software and Internet sector

119 /225

(Talib, 2005). The emergence of a strong Indian IT industry happened due to the concerted efforts on the part of Indian Government (Mathur, 2006).

Multilateral organizations and international aid agencies also offer opportunities for eLearning initiatives in the developing world (Tinio, 2002). International Cooperation is important for many reasons for example: 1. Making funds available is a big issues for most of the developing countries. 2. To avoid costly problems of developing and applying technologies. 3. Many public sector projects fail due to bureaucratic lethargy, limited knowledge and skills or corruption, international partnerships provide better project management and evaluation of the eProjects (Hameed, 2007).

4.4 eLearning in Pakistan 4.4.1 Introduction Pakistan is situated in South Asia with Iran Afghanistan China, and India around its borders. Pakistan has a population of 165.8 million and is divided into four provinces: North West Frontier Province (KPK), Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. Total expenditure on education is only 2.9% of the National Budget (Sattar, 2007). Literacy rate is around 42.5 %, which includes the Urdu literacy while English language literacy is 20%. Per capita income is around 680 US dollars and the GDP growth rate were at 8.3% and 6.5 % respectively during 2004-05 and 200506 (Hameed, 2007).

The education policy of Pakistan (2008) sets forth a bunch of innovative plans to boost higher education across the country. For example, moving away from a static, supply-based education system to a demand-driven setup with continuous revision and updating of curricula to keep pace with changing needs of the job market and for accommodating the new developments. Several innovative programs have been initiated in this regard, such as, The National Education Testing Service (NETS), National Education Management Information System (NEMIS).

120 /225

Similarly, the ‘Vision of Pakistan IT Policy’ is “to harness the potential of Information Technology as a key contributor to development of Pakistan.” The ‘Mission’ is to “Rapidly develop the infrastructure in synchrony with the creation of excellently trained individuals and teams.” And the ‘Goals of Pakistan IT Policy’ are to “Make the Government a facilitator and an enabler to provide maximum opportunities to the private sector to lead the thrust in development of IT in Pakistan (MoST, 2000).” Among all the development sectors education has remained the most focused sector to improve the efficiency, accessibility and quality of the learning process in the developing countries and Pakistan. The DOI for Pakistan aims at bridging the digital divide through economic and development initiatives using ICTs (Mujahid, 2002).

The new economy is digital and based on knowledge workers and knowledge products (Afghan, 2000) while, Pakistan’s export structure is dominated by low-technology with a vey low world market share of technology-intensive exports (Amjad, 2006). The experience suggests that without a strategic integrated approach it will be difficult to realise full benefits from ICTs because technology is a means and not an end (Hameed, 2007). Pakistan has tried to eradicate illiteracy, but most of the government projects for mass literacy ended as administrative and bureaucratic nightmares thus creating the reasons for why Pakistan hasn't been able to improve its literacy (Sattar, (2007).

4.4.2 Approaches Pakistan has based its ICT policies on the universal roles of the new technologies, which are broadly characterized into: 1. ICTs as a Production Sector: It refers to the strengthening of ICT-related industries such as computer hardware, software, telecommunications and ICT enabled services. 2. ICTs as Enabler: It is the application of ICTs in education, health, government, business and other sectors of the economy for socio-economic development (Mujahid, 2002).

The government of Pakistan is departing from “a static, supply-based system to a demand-driven system” in which “revision and updating of curricula shall be made a continuing activity to keep

125 /225

performance in Pakistan, but the level of policy implementation and attainment has been extremely limited (ADB, 2005).”

Given that the distance between the type of graduates needed for new economy and the products of existing educational institutions is widening therefore, there is an instant call for identifying the gap between knowledge-required and knowledge-given and then developing these skills through training and education (Afghan, 2000). The advantages of previous decades, i.e. abundant natural resources or cheap labor are no more the powerhouses in the newly emerging information society or knowledge economy (Hameed, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

Our traditional education centers and degrees are no more relevant to the new economy. Both traditional education and traditional job centers are disappearing very fast (Afghan, 2000). After more than half a century, the development-indicators of Pakistan are not positive. For example, the participation rate at higher education is very low as compared to the countries of the same region. Similarly, there are problems of quality of staff, students, library and laboratory; relevance of education with the needs of society needs, research facilities, financial crisis, weaknesses of examination, ineffective governance (Memon, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

The ICT industry in Pakistan necessitates a platform for annual interaction between professionals from the ICT and Telecom industry for handling the potential growth of current ICT industry in Pakistan (Talib, 2005). However, the real challenge for the government is to change the mindset of the people and develop institutions which recognize the value of investing in education and skills (Amjad, 2006). But research suggests that “understanding human requirements takes time and effort (Hameed, 2007).”

4.4.5 Opportunities The Vision of Pakistan IT Policy is “to harness the potential of Information Technology as a key contributor to the development of Pakistan.” The Mission is to “rapidly develop the infrastructure in synchrony with the creation of excellently trained individuals and teams.” Goal of Pakistan IT Policy is to “make the Government a facilitator and an enabler to provide

126 /225

maximum opportunities to the private sector to lead the thrust in development of IT in Pakistan (MoST, 2000).” For this purpose, HEC has launched “ebrary” and McGraw Hill Collections to provide 45,000 online books in addition to 23,000 journals that have been made available through the Digital Library Program. The e-books support program will allow researchers to access most of the important text and reference books electronically in a variety of subject areas (HEC, 2009).

There is need to tune the focus of ICT vision and strategy on people and their involvement and not simply the technological options (Hameed, 2007). For capitalizing on ICTs for higher education, there is utmost need for the institutional-reforms and creation of research culture in Pakistani universities. Now that the government is providing substantial research funds to publicsector universities, a major hurdle has been removed. It is now up to the universities to produce the desired results (Memon, 2007). By providing HEIs with the eLearning tools and skills, government is trying to bridge the digital divide between institutions in Pakistan and the developed world and to enable the nation for the achievement of sustainable economic and educational progress (HEC, 2008). It is however; very encouraging that Pakistan had 17,500,000 Internet users as on March 2008 (World Internet Stats, 2009).

4.5 Paradigm-Shifts in eLearning 4.5.1 Agents of Paradigm-Shifts The world has changed with the introduction of computer into human culture. Particularly, the birth of ‘Personal Computer – PC’ laid a cornerstone for the solo flight of all individuals, organizations and nations into a new world of so far unimaginable digital gadgets. But the digital revolution just haunted the whole human race with the creation of ‘Internet and WWW.’ Internet is connectivity of the entire world computers into a single network where users can navigate across the computers and databases hooked on the network. The science of connectivity is progressing and increasingly making the whole world a ‘global-village.’ Globalization is the

124 /225

Pakistan Education & Research Network (PERN): This program is about the creation of a nationwide educational ‘intranet’ to connect education and research institutes with high-speed internet facility over a national network. The network offers “real-time transfer of audio and video, multimedia-enabled lectures, a range of other applications.” This project is being developed with the help of PTCL and NTC. The project is featured as: 

Around 60 universities are connected.



Access to 155 Mbps International Internet Bandwidth.



Increased Intranet bandwidth to give 50Mbps capacity.



Increased bandwidth available across campus has gone from 2Mbps – 5 Mbps.



45 Mb downlink provided through PAKSAT 1.



Additional applications such as video conferencing and ‘Voice-over-IP’ services for communication between all PERN connected universities (HEC, 2008).

Pakistan Research Repository (PRR): This project is an effort to “promote the international visibility of research originating out of institutes of higher education in Pakistan.” This service maintains a digital archive of the intellectual output of Pakistani institutions and distributes this information as widely as possible. The PRR Website (http//ePrints.hec.gov.pk) provides a single-entry access point to a cache of digitized MPhil and PhD thesis. Currently, it holds over 150 full-text Ph.D. theses, 250 thesis are in the process of being uploaded, 400 Ph.D. theses are in the process of digitization, while, the project is supposed to contain 2000 theses upon completion (HEC, 2008).

4.4.4 Challenges A major human resource issue in Pakistan is quality education and training, nurturing, and retention of technically skilled manpower. This problem is more severe in IT where technology changes are rapid and there is a large loss of critical trained manpower due to emigration (MoST, 2000). Similarly, Asian Development Bank reports on Pakistan in the words “there has been no shortage of well-intentioned policies, strategies, and targets for improving social sector

125 /225

performance in Pakistan, but the level of policy implementation and attainment has been extremely limited (ADB, 2005).”

Given that the distance between the type of graduates needed for new economy and the products of existing educational institutions is widening therefore, there is an instant call for identifying the gap between knowledge-required and knowledge-given and then developing these skills through training and education (Afghan, 2000). The advantages of previous decades, i.e. abundant natural resources or cheap labor are no more the powerhouses in the newly emerging information society or knowledge economy (Hameed, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

Our traditional education centers and degrees are no more relevant to the new economy. Both traditional education and traditional job centers are disappearing very fast (Afghan, 2000). After more than half a century, the development-indicators of Pakistan are not positive. For example, the participation rate at higher education is very low as compared to the countries of the same region. Similarly, there are problems of quality of staff, students, library and laboratory; relevance of education with the needs of society needs, research facilities, financial crisis, weaknesses of examination, ineffective governance (Memon, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

The ICT industry in Pakistan necessitates a platform for annual interaction between professionals from the ICT and Telecom industry for handling the potential growth of current ICT industry in Pakistan (Talib, 2005). However, the real challenge for the government is to change the mindset of the people and develop institutions which recognize the value of investing in education and skills (Amjad, 2006). But research suggests that “understanding human requirements takes time and effort (Hameed, 2007).”

4.4.5 Opportunities The Vision of Pakistan IT Policy is “to harness the potential of Information Technology as a key contributor to the development of Pakistan.” The Mission is to “rapidly develop the infrastructure in synchrony with the creation of excellently trained individuals and teams.” Goal of Pakistan IT Policy is to “make the Government a facilitator and an enabler to provide

126 /225

maximum opportunities to the private sector to lead the thrust in development of IT in Pakistan (MoST, 2000).” For this purpose, HEC has launched “ebrary” and McGraw Hill Collections to provide 45,000 online books in addition to 23,000 journals that have been made available through the Digital Library Program. The e-books support program will allow researchers to access most of the important text and reference books electronically in a variety of subject areas (HEC, 2009).

There is need to tune the focus of ICT vision and strategy on people and their involvement and not simply the technological options (Hameed, 2007). For capitalizing on ICTs for higher education, there is utmost need for the institutional-reforms and creation of research culture in Pakistani universities. Now that the government is providing substantial research funds to publicsector universities, a major hurdle has been removed. It is now up to the universities to produce the desired results (Memon, 2007). By providing HEIs with the eLearning tools and skills, government is trying to bridge the digital divide between institutions in Pakistan and the developed world and to enable the nation for the achievement of sustainable economic and educational progress (HEC, 2008). It is however; very encouraging that Pakistan had 17,500,000 Internet users as on March 2008 (World Internet Stats, 2009).

4.5 Paradigm-Shifts in eLearning 4.5.1 Agents of Paradigm-Shifts The world has changed with the introduction of computer into human culture. Particularly, the birth of ‘Personal Computer – PC’ laid a cornerstone for the solo flight of all individuals, organizations and nations into a new world of so far unimaginable digital gadgets. But the digital revolution just haunted the whole human race with the creation of ‘Internet and WWW.’ Internet is connectivity of the entire world computers into a single network where users can navigate across the computers and databases hooked on the network. The science of connectivity is progressing and increasingly making the whole world a ‘global-village.’ Globalization is the

127 /225

creation of global economy and society with common goals and interests therefore every country must prepare to become a member of global village (Nawaz, 2010).

Given that the entire world can talk to each other at anytime, from anywhere, and with very inexpensive tools and equipments, the concepts of globalization and global economy have got popularity among the world citizens, multinationals and governments. However, “if you look at the opportunities and the threats which exist in the context of globalization, information technology can become a tool of either decreasing the inequalities that already exist in the world or increasing it (Hameed, 2007).” Thus, there are issues to be handled by the nations, when joining the global economy and community. These issues are brining a change in the way people used to live, organizations used to do their business and governments used to administer and serve the masses (Kundi & Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2010).

a. Globalization Both developed and developing countries are facing the challenge of preparing their society and governments to face globalization, ICTs, and information society and digital economies. The eASEAN Task Force and the UNDP Asia Pacific Development Information Program (UNDPAPDIP) believe that with ICTs, countries can face the challenge of the information age. Furthermore, the new global economy has far reaching impacts on the nature and purpose of HEIs (Tinio, 2002). The implications of globalization for higher education are multiple and diverse. Globalization is at the centre of debate by education policymakers, scholars, professionals and practitioners worldwide. For example, governments are no more the only source of higher education and the academic community is has no more monopoly in making educational decisions (UNESCO, 2004). “The increasing speed and dissemination of ICT is already showing that our local universities and learning and research communities are no longer strictly local. They have gone global (Beebe, 2004).”

Similarly, ICT is not neutral but supported by an ideological complex that borrows ideas to present currents of thought as diverse as the globalization of the economy, the new information society, the end of national policy and the advent of world government (Sasseville, 2004).

128 /225

Globalization, which in its contemporary incarnation can be dated back to about 1980, is the intensification of economic links between countries through trade of information and communications technologies, and in the mobility of capital, commodities and (selective) segments of international labor, along neo-liberal principles or policies (Krishna, 2006). The knowledge revolution combined with economic globalization has created conditions in which countries that have focused on knowledge-based industries have been able to harvest significant rewards (Ezziane, 2007; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

Globalization and recent developments in the international delivery of higher education have generated a number of new terms including ‘borderless’, ‘transnational’, ‘transborder’ and ‘crossborder’ education. Borderless education refers to the blurring of conceptual, disciplinary and geographic borders traditionally inherent to higher education (UNESCO, 2004). In a general context of globalization, shrinking time and space in our societies, instant communication all over the planet with a fast increasing number (60 million added during the last 12 months) of Internet users now reaching the billion, the universities of all countries are confronted with huge challenges, both external and internal (Loing, 2005; Nawax & Kundi, 2010b; Qureshi et al., 2011).

The implications of globalization for higher education for education policymakers, scholars, professionals and practitioners worldwide are (UNESCO, 2004): 1. The emergence of new education providers such as multi-nationals, corporate universities, and media companies; 2. New forms of education-delivery including distance, virtual and new face-to-face; 3. Greater diversification of qualifications and certificates; 4. Increasing mobility of students, programs, providers and projects across national borders; 5. More emphasis on lifelong learning; and 6. The increasing amount of private investment in higher education.

129 /225

b. Digital Revolution The very phenomenon of globalization is a result of ICT revolution (Mujahid, 2002). As exhibited in the literature review and the initial pages of this chapter, ICTs have revolutionized all types of organizations particularly, the education systems around the world. Education systems began changing with the advancements in ICTs for education. eLearning evolved along with the progress in the digital gadgets for ePedagogy, eLearning and eEducation. The knowledge is becoming a central economic driving force, with the shift from the concept of ‘information society’ to that of ‘knowledge societies’ demanding the world-citizens to reevaluate the educational processes and the role of teachers and the nature of their training in the light of emerging ICTs (Loing, 2005).

Educators and students don’t have to depend entirely on the traditional data sources rather endless channels are now available through Internet wherefrom learners can access mentors, experts, researchers, professionals, business leaders, and peers across the (Tinio, 2002). Since education requires inputs for the fast changing internal/global business environment, it becomes imperative for the faculty to use digital tools like business databases, statistical tools, library databases, internet, office tools, websites, online business games etc. to enhance learning outcomes (Mehra & Mital, 2007; Nawaz, 2011).

Internet is best understood as creating a new set of relationships and places with a global arena in which struggles over the distribution of resources, power and information will be fought out (Macleod, 2005). Those HEIs who want to attract students and scholars on a global basis have to improve their delivery modes and their respective working structures, both on the level of a faculty and university (Baumeister, 2006). Learning cannot be managed. Learning can, however, be facilitated (Dalsgaard, 2006; Nawaz, 2010).

The latest type of computer program is the ‘social software’ which helps creating effective distributed research communities and used to teach in different subjects. Social software supports constructivist pedagogy where students are empowered to self control their learning (Mejias, 2006). Social software supports activities in a digital social network, which is a social network

130 /225

created through computer-mediated communication. The research on social software is investigating the relations between social entities in digital social networks and their interaction (Klamma et al., 2007).

The research suggests that the technology-integration should not be handled in purely technical perspective rather situated in the context of social, cultural, political and economic factors (Macleod, 2005). Due to the growing use of new ICTs, the existing method of knowledge processing needs to be revised to take into account the shifting market situation and the increasing global competitiveness higher education (Baumeister, 2006). The researchers point out that the technology-paradigm shifts have changed not only the way of computing but also how the technology itself is perceived by users and society (Ezziane, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

It is however notable that while embarking on an eLearning project, UNESCO guides the developers and users to remember that: 1. ICTs are only a part of a continuum of technologies, which support and enrich learning. 2. ICTs are the tools, which must be used and adapted to serve educational goals. 3. Several ethical and legal issues arise due to using ICTs in education, such as ownership of knowledge, exchange of education as a commodity, and globalization of education in the background of cultural diversity (UNESCO, 2007).

4.5.2 Dimensions of Paradigm Shifts in HEIs The change in teaching, learning and education management is not just technical, it has rather transformed the whole scenario of education in HEIs. The tenets of globalization in the background of global village are not neutral rather contain ideological underpinnings which influence the technology-users not only the way they work rather their perception of pedagogy, learning and education delivery has gone through metamorphosis (Sasseville, 2004; Loing, 2005). Dinevski & Kokol, (2005) summarize these paradigm shifts from one point to another as: 1. “from instruction to construction and discovery, 2. from teacher-centered to learner-centered education,

131 /225

3. from the teacher as transmitter to the teacher as facilitator. 4. from absorbing material to learning how to navigate and how to learn, 5. from one-size-fits-all to customized learning, 6. from linear to hypermedia learning, 7. from learning as torture to learning as fun, and, 8. from school to lifelong learning.”

In the present knowledge-society where there is information overload the profession of the teachers is shifting from transferring knowledge to guiding learning processes (Jager & Lokman, 1999). In a research study, Professor Alan Cawson (2005) compares the situation with respect to ICTs in HEIs of UK and Ghana, and finds that over the last decade the approach to ICT learning has involved a shift, from seeing ICTs as either a subject or a set of skills to recognizing the importance of ICTs as tools for learning. Wims & Lawler (2007) suggest that if used adequately, ICTs can assist a pedagogical shift resulting into a constructive educational interaction between teachers and learners. There is need to implement a wider range of teaching and learning strategies based on a techno-constructivist paradigm that is aligned with the skills needed for an information society (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

Since mostly determined by economic requirements, educational institutions are planning to deliver not only personalities but also the "human capital" to deal with the demand of emerging knowledge economies (Baumeister, 2006). And within this changing techno-economic paradigm, the user is increasingly seen as the origin of innovation. At the same time powerful Web 2.0 tools enable an array of ‘user generated content’ (UGC) based on the ‘networked individualism’ of people (COST Action 298, 2007).

Given this, the eLearning developers have to go beyond the limits of their own discipline when designing and implementing eLearning and arrange interdisciplinary exchange with all the stakeholders (Ehlers, 2005). Thus, paradigm shifts in education and training “are on their way (Baumeister, 2006; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).”

132 /225

a. From Technocracy to Democracy (Role of HEIs) The higher education is moving away from an “elite system to a mass education system” that is evident from the increasing number of students around the world (UQA, 2001). Modern higher education while riding on the horse of ICTs, can perform new and broader functions in the favor of society at national and international level, for example: identify the preconditions for development; provide Education for All; produce graduates to provide leadership roles in education as researchers, teachers, consultants and managers for public and private sectors; enhancing educational management, and finally, HEIs can go beyond their traditional models of work to new formats of learning, teaching and research (Sanyal, 2001). Thus, eLearning and digital literacy have the potential to shift power bases for developing countries from elites to masses (Macleod, 2005).

i. Pioneering Role of HEIs Higher education is at the top of the education pyramid and determines to a large extent the state of the education system of the country, especially its quality. As such it has a responsibility towards the whole education system as it has towards the whole of society (Sanyal, 2001). In the context of globalization and knowledge economies, higher education in its knowledge producing and disseminating function, is recognized as an essential driving force for national development in both developed and developing countries (UNESCO, 2004). Universities are now expected to contribute to society by widening access to higher education, continuing professional development, applied research, contributing to local economic impact, and improving social inclusion (Beebe, 2004). The higher academic institutions of a country are pioneers in adopting and using ICTs (Roknuzzaman, 2006).

ii. Education For All (EFA) One of the biggest expectations from eLearning is about its ability to offer equal education for everyone. For example, the eCourses have the power to reach any corner of the planet and deliver same high-quality education everywhere (Hvorecký et al., 2005). Thus, technological,

133 /225

economic, and social changes of the past decades have made education for all (EFA) more significant than ever before. The HEIs are making efforts to bring educational opportunities to all and provide learners with knowledge and skills for evolving workplaces and sophisticated living environments, and to prepare citizens for lifelong learning (Haddad & Jurich, 2006; Nawaz, 2010).

In a conference by UNESCO on ‘Education for All’, broader objectives with principal requirements and strategies have been identified by the participants from member countries, which include: 1. Create such educational contents and process which fit in your own social and cultural requirements based on modern tools and techniques to provide autonomy for each individual in a global society. 2. Develop such formal and informal education services, which are accessible to all. 3. Harness the ICTs for all in order to broaden the reach of education, particularly for the excluded and underprivileged groups. 4. Replace costly and culturally alien education structures with less expensive systems, which are more flexible, diversified and globally affordable (Sanyal, 2001).

iii. Life-Long Learning (LLL) Thurab-Nkhosi et al., (2005) defines eLearning as “the appropriate organization of ICTs for advancing student-oriented, active, open, collaborative, and life-long teaching-learning processes." The difference between “traditional and current educaiton” is that formerly people were used to “Learn at a given age” while current education is for “Life long learning” (Amjad, 2006). The European Commission defines lifelong learning as “Any learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective (Davey & Tatnall, 2007).”

These studies suggest that "technology may transform the educational content and motivate students toward lifelong learning (Valdez et al. 2004).” Similarly, the new functions of HEIs include meeting the needs of learners and teachers for “lifelong learning (Goddard & Cornford,

134 /225

(2007).” UNESCO adopted Lifelong Learning as a master concept in 1970 after recognizing the relationship between the mass-education and economic and social outcomes therefore, by the end of the last century most world governments had recognized the importance of support for lifelong learning (Davey & Tatnall, 2007; Nawaz, 2011).

Bernard Loing (2005) notes that a critical inner challenges to eLearning is the diversity of new generation of students (net generes), HEIs and programs demanding consistent upgrading of knowledge contents and a need for lifelong learning. ICTs can help resolve all these issues. As academics and their associated systems become increasingly Web-based, the Internet is becoming a universal platform for “lifelong public service (Cohn & Hibbitts, 2005).” Thus, ‘reallife learning and lifelong learning’ are the same with differing titles (Davey & Tatnall, 2007).

iv. Bridging the Digital Divide (DOI) The issue of ‘digital-divide’ is commonplace and generated a plethora of public addresses, reports, policies, and plans attesting the importance of the concept (Macleod, 2005). Though computers are becoming more prevalent, the rapidly increasing digital divide continues to separate those who have access from those who do not (Drucker, 2006). Today’s is a world of many divides, with ‘Digital-Divide’ on the top, which is generating and worsening other economic and social divides (Hameed, 2007). The term ‘digital-divide’ is used to describe the gap in technology resources, information, and education (Wells, 2007). It refers to the divergence between individuals, communities, cultures and nations at socio-economic levels in terms of access to ICTs and use of internet (Moolman & Blignaut, 2008). Access and digital divide have always been an issue for eLearning in many countries (Koo, 2008).

The educational technologies have a key role in effectively reducing the digital divide particularly in the developing states (Macleod, 2005). Digital Opportunity initiatives (DOI) are the efforts to bridge the digital divide (Hameed, 2007). Policy makers in Africa and elsewhere have put forth technology, technical competence, and computer and information literacy as solutions for many of these problems, such as, teacher shortages, low achievement, high drop-out rates, lack of opportunity, and lack of materials (Wells, 2007). The incorporation of ICT into the

135 /225

educational curriculum has been promoted as a key step in bridging the digital divide (Wims & Lawler, 2007). HEC (2008) resolves on its website that by providing the HEIs with ICTinfrastructure, the nation can achieve sustainable economic growth and prosperity for all citizens and thereby bridge the digital divide between institutions in Pakistan and the advanced world.

A technologically deterministic perspective of the digital divide by most of the governments in developing countries proposes solutions based on access to hardware only, which is unfortunately further widening the digital divide within countries therefore, it is required to address the digital divide from social and community perspective by placing greater emphasis on broader development objectives (Macleod, 2005). Decontextualized attitude of authorities is one of the reasons for the brain drain from the developing states, thereby further widening the gaps (Hameed, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

b. From Behavior to Belief (Constructivism) The emergence of educational technologies is pushing academicians to construct alternative theories for learning (Oliver, 2002). The paradigm shift in HEIs refers not only to the departure from the traditional pedagogy, learning and education-management to modern; it also characterizes the changes within the eLearning environments for teaching, learning and administrative purposes (Young, 2003; Baumeister, 2006; Ezziane, 2007). This dimension of paradigm shift is described in terms of the progress from old-ICTs to new-ICTs in three stages of traditional-eLearning, blended-eLearning and contemporary virtual-eLearning. The technological advancements in eLearning is linked with the theories of learning like behaviorism, objectivism, constructivism, and cognitive and social constructivism.

Objectivism believes that everything related to learning is predictable therefore one learningmodel fits all. Likewise, behaviorism give priority to the stimulus-response relationship in learning and underplays cognitive role therefore sees the learning environment as in objectivism (Young, 2003). This is exactly like behavior of scientific management where worker is taken as a part of a big machine called organization (Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

136 /225

Constructivism advocates that reality does not exist out there objectively rather it is constructed by the human beings subjectively. It is not predictable in total rather most of it depends on the human interaction with the situation resulting into human perception (giving meaning), which in turn draws the picture/image of reality. The moves towards constructivism in higher education have been pushed by the emergence of universal connectivity through ICTs (Wims & Lawler, 2007), which enabled the masses to globally communicate and most importantly access to the world knowledge resources through the advent of internet after 1990s. Given the access to broader sources of knowledge, contemporary theory suggests that collaborative learning is the most effective means of facilitating teaching and learning in digital environments (Phillips et al., 2008).

Social constructivism is gaining foothold in higher education around the world because teaching and learning can now easily be undertaken as a social and community activity (Bondarouk, 2006) thereby propagating collective (social) as well as individual (cognitive) learning with the help of traditional email/chatting and modern wikis, blogs, vblogs, RSS feeds and several emerging collaborative technologies (Klamma et al., (2007). For example, RSS is a format used to publish frequently updated works like blog-entries, new headlines, audio and video (Wikipedia, 2009).

i. Objectivism and Behaviorism Historically, computer-based learning has been built around the realist/objectivist notions of knowledge with the assumption that reading, watching videos or controlling a button on these digital gadgets constituted ‘active learning’ but experience testifies that these models have failed to bridge the gap between theory and practice (Young, 2003). In this mode, learning is achieved through the “instructor presenting the learner with the required stimuli along with the required behavioral responses within an effective reinforcement regime. The degree of learning is assessed through observable measures such as tests, assignments and examinations (Ward et al., 2006).”

137 /225

As a psychological theory, behaviourism emerged as a reaction to theories of mind in the late 19th century, suggesting that mental processes cannot be understood without objective scientific methods like observational and quantifiable investigation as in the stimulus-response experiments (Ward et al., 2006). The objectivist teaching gives complete control of materials to the teacher who manages the pace and direction of learning thereby making learning a sequential process where there is a single reality about which the “learners display an understanding through declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge (Phillips et al., 2008).”

ii. Constructivism With the emergence of collaborative technologies, it has been recognized that behaviorist models do not fit with contemporary teaching and learning environments, therefore current research is focusing “to develop models of constructivist computer-based instructional development (Young, 2003).” Constructivists contend that ICTs should not be guided by a technologically deterministic approach rather in the context of social, cultural, political and economic dimensions of using technology so that by facilitating the development of electronic literacy, culturally relevant online content and interfaces and multimedia, the process of social inclusion can be achieved within developing countries (Macleod, 2005). The effectiveness of the behavioral approach is questionable in areas that require comprehension, creativity and 'gray' answers (Ward et al., 2006).

The constructivist theories of learning dominate today and propagate that learning is achieved by the active construction of knowledge supported by various perspectives within meaningful contexts and social interactions (Oliver, 2002). These environments create engaging and contentrelevant experiences by utilizing ICTs and resources to support unique learning goals and knowledge construction (Young, 2003). The constructivists believe that there is no single version of reality, rather a multitude of realities situated within each learner. As such, learning is dependent upon the “learners ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate information to create meaningful, personalized knowledge (Phillips et al., 2008).”

138 /225

The strengths of constructivism lie in its emphasis on learning as a process of personal understanding and the development of meaning where learning is viewed as the construction of meaning rather than as the memorization of facts. Learning approaches using contemporary ICTs provide many opportunities for constructivist learning through their student centered environments based on their context (Oliver, 2002). Given, that knowledge is constantly advancing; the design and development principles need to be aligned with teacher and students emerging requirements. The current trend in eLearning is to provide cognitive tools, which can be adapted for intellectual partnerships among teachers and students and facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning (Young, 2003).

iii. Cognitive constructivism The cognitive constructivism gives priority to the cognitive powers of an individual. For example, the ‘learning-style’ of every learner indicates his/her cognitive trends. The developers of eLearning face the challenges of producing systems, which accommodate individual differences such as nationality, gender and cognitive learning style (Graff et al., 2001). The ICTs can play a supplemental as well as central role in learning by providing digital cognitive or adaptive tools or systems to support constructivist learning (Sirkemaa, 2001). The design of computer-based learning environments has undergone a paradigm shift; moving students away from instruction that was considered to promote technical rationality grounded in objectivism, to the application of computers to create cognitive tools utilized in constructivist environments (Young, 2003).

Since students vary in their cognitive or learning styles, they also benefit from those teaching techniques that appeal to their individual styles (Cagiltay et al., 2006). Similarly, the rapid development of digital technologies in the emerging information society forces the individuals to command and employ cognitive skills in teaching and learning process (Aviram and EshetAlkalai, 2006). Thus cognitive learning is a product of the learners creating and testing their own hypotheses about the world realities, where data are processed according to the learners’ learning-style, preferences and “a dynamic process of personal trial and error (Ward et al.,

139 /225

2006)” through the active engagement of the learner and cognitive participation of teacher (Ezziane, 2007; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

iii. Social Constructivism In contrast to cognitive-constructivism, ‘social-constructivism’ emphasizes ‘collective-learning’ where the role of teachers, parents, peers and other community members in helping learners becomes prominent. Social constructivists emphasize that learning is active, contextual and social therefore the best method is ‘group-learning’ where teacher is a facilitator and guide (Tinio, 2002). Social constructivists explain the technology-adoption as a process of involving social groups into the innovation process where learning takes place on the learners’ experiences, knowledge, habits, and preferences (Bondarouk, 2006). In contrast to traditional classrooms where teachers used a linear model and one-way communication, the modern learning is becoming more personalized, student-centric, non-linear and learner-directed (Cagiltay et al., 2006).

While cognitive constructivists believe that learning takes place through interaction with environmental stimuli alone, social constructivists argue that culture also influences the design and development of the learning models (Ward et al., 2006). It is necessary to move eLearning beyond learning management systems and engage students in an active use of the web as a resource for their self-governed, problem-based and collaborative activities like using social software (Dalsgaard, 2006). The concept of social constructivism has been around since 1990s when research started on the interpretivism in the design and development of computer-based information systems (Bondarouk, 2006; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

Furthermore, Deaudelin et al., (2003) argue that human-computer interaction (HCI) is social (users treat computers as other human beings) and not para-social (users covertly interact with imagined others through the computer terminals as they do with the characters in mass media). Very few studies have investigated the student-computer interaction (SCI) and very little is known about the social aspects of SCI.

140 /225

c. From Computerization to Personalization When ICTs emerged, their primary use was the automation of individual and organizational jobs therefore no consideration of the user personalized relation with technology or customized use of it. It was not simply possible because technology did not allow that so whatever technology could do was great. So there was computerization or digitization of the individuals and organizations and not otherwise. However, as the computer technologies evolved into first information technologies and then information and computer technologies (ICTs), the scenario has begun to change (Sirkemaa, 2001). Now the ICTs are more diverse, powerful, mobile and integrative to help users in personalizing and adapting the ICTs to their individual requirements and not otherwise (Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

i. Computerization of Individuals and Organizations Transaction processing systems (TPS) were the first popular programs to automate mechanical, structured and routine matters and decisions. So the view of technology was naturally ‘instrumental’ and not ‘substantive’ in the sense that computerization was considered as a neutral process with no implications for humans and therefore society at large (Young, 2003). This was true because the technologies were primitive in terms of providing such work environments which could inspire broader level applications. Thus, before the emergence of new social technologies, the ICTs were not capable to be used for broader and instant social interactions therefore; most of the applications remained instrumental and not liberal and substantive (Cagiltay et al., 2006).

The emergences of networking, Internet, intranets, extranets, network-based organizations, web 2.0 and amazing tools of social software; all have gathered together to set up an environment of user-friendly ICTs, which not only help in automating a huge body of jobs but also offer socializing tools to conduct group activities like group decision making, group learning and hundreds of social interactions at the international level at anytime from anywhere (Phillips et al., 2008). Thus, it is the technologies themselves which are changing the work environments because users design multiple uses of ICTs only when technologies emerge. For example, video

141 /225

conferencing naturally forced the individuals and organizations to socialize without physical interactions, thereby introducing a technology-based group interaction with the feelings of physical involvement while all this happens virtually. The new ICT-based interactions like email, chatting, video conferencing all is due to the emerging technologies and not the liking or disliking of the users (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

Given the availability of varying digital gadgets, there is no need to fit with a single learningmodel for all rather, new technologies are friendlier and customizable (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005) such as, ‘personalization and adaptation’ technologies. It is observed that in future, technologies like personalization, integration, and electronic portfolios will progress toward the idea of expanding learning-facilities for learners of all ages and stages (LaCour, 2005). In the contemporary research on eLearning applications in HEIs, the adaptivity and personalization are perceived as the key issues of eLearning solutions (Klamma et al., 2007).

The significance of personalization and adaptation technologies is evident from the fact that every user has different demographics, perceptions, theories and learning styles therefore cannot be happy with a single model of technology when it comes to its use (UNESCO, 2004, 2007). New technologies offer opportunities at the end user computing levels to customize the environments according to very fine levels of detail. For example, moving files from one memory location to another as the user wishes is a traditional personalization tool, today a user can adapt technologies to his preferences about the color, theme, background of the desktop, online/offline work environments just a matter of click, receive RSS feeds on blogs, news headlines and other frequently updated sources of information, knowledge and inspiration.

ii. Personalization and Adaptation of ICTs Personalization and adaptation technologies are that group of ICTs, which are used in the design and development of ‘end-user-computing’ to make the environment user-centered. Adaptation is the process of modifying the learning environments so that to support the learning processes effectively (Sirkemaa, 2001). While personalization technologies range from allowing the user to simply display his name on a Web page, to advanced navigation and customization according to

142 /225

the rich models of user behaviors (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005). It is generally recognized that effective and efficient learning need to be individualized, personalized, and adapted to the learner’s preferences, competences, and knowledge, as well as to the current context. Adaptive learning systems keep the information about the user in the learner model and thus provide adaptation effects on the digital environment (Klamma et al., 2007).

i. Personalization Technologies

The theory and dynamics behind personalization is simple and its implementation is almost straightforward however, it requires highly sophisticated technology, for example, portal systems are built from the ground up to provide a personalization framework, which is smart enough to link each user's attributes with the appropriate information and resources for that user (LaCour, 2005). Through personalization, the learning organizations can help learners to become more familiar and comfortable with new technology features (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005). For instance, the personal uses of ICTs in teachers-training will construct teaching-models (Allan, 2007).

The educators express that learning has to be offered in a user-centered model based on the user learning-styles (LaCour, 2005). However, for this purpose, the current teaching force needs to be trained and constantly supported by specialists for technology integration (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). Training in technology-integration will enable teachers to teach learners in not only ‘how to use a particular digital gadget’ rather how can they solve their educational problems with ICTs (Chan & Lee, 2007). Traditional learning materials are typically too general to cover a very wide range of purposes, so personalization can be the most important added value that eLearning can offer to adjust to various working conditions and needs of students who have differing interests, objectives, motivations, “learning skills and endurance (Klamma et al., 2007).”

i. Adaptation Technologies

Adaptation happens in two ways: adaptation to the user's behavior (changing the system tools for user) and adaptation to the client device (changing the system tools for each other). The first type of adaptation means that the system should know what the user expects. In this case facts about

143 /225

the user are gathered and analyzed so that users can be grouped according to agreed criteria. The second type of adaptation refers to the portability of the platform, and is manifested in the flexibility to move and produce content to different hardware platforms and user devices. For example, the same content might be accessible with a desktop computer and a personal digital assistant (Sirkemaa, 2001).

The focus in adaptation is on ‘how the user manages the changing technology that is constantly changing and requires the user to learn new technical skills in order to work with technology (Sirkemaa, 2001). The emergence of Web technologies has enhanced the possibility of connecting diverse population of learners (LaCour, 2005). Furthermore, since technological developments occur very rapidly, students cannot often catch up with them therefore, while designing eLearning environments, both the old and new technological approaches should be applied simultaneously (Cagiltay et al., 2006; Qureshi et al., 2009b).

d. From Teacher to Student i. Student-Centric ePedagogy Teacher-centered and whole-class instruction is no longer the dominant teaching method (Jager & Lokman, 1999). As learning shifts from the ‘teacher-centered model’ to a ‘learner-centered pedagogy’ the teacher becomes a facilitator, mentor and coach from ‘sage on stage’ to ‘guide on the side’ where a teacher’s primary task is to prepare the students in “how to ask questions and pose problems, formulate hypotheses, locate information and then critically assess the information found in relation to the problems posed (Tinio, 2002).” For example, new hypermedia applications are offering individualized learner-centered education delivery systems (Spallek, 2003) emphasizing the learning with technology because it is quick way of acquiring knowledge (Sasseville, 2004).

However, practically, there is also counter evidence to the idea of student-centered pedagogy too, for example, a research shows that ePedagogy facilities has hardly affected the actual teaching approaches. They are dominantly teacher centered and little attention is paid to the full

144 /225

exploitation of communication facilities and interaction. The only pre-dominant role of ICTs is in facilitating the information and administrative processes (Valcke , 2004). Anyway, ICTs, if used correctly, can assist in adopting a more people or learner-centered and dialogical approach to education. These technologies can encourage and support a meaningful two-way, informational communication between teachers and learners (Wims & Lawler, 2007; Nawaz, 2010).

ii. Student-Centered Learning-Environment The learner-centered approach derives from the theory of constructivism, which argues that knowledge is neither independent of the learner nor a learner passively receives it, rather, it is created through an active process where a learner transforms information, constructs hypothesis, and makes decisions using his mental models or schemas based on experience of the individual, which also assist learners to ultimately give meaning and organization to individual experiences (Tinio, 2002). The use of ICT in education offers more student-centered settings, which are constructivist in nature due to their provision and support for resource-based, student centered settings and by enabling learning to be related to context and to practice (Oliver, 2002). As the Web has afforded new ways to network people dispersed across a broad, educators have learned a great deal about the ability of the Web to nurture, foster, and enable community (Glogoff, 2005).

The National Research Council of the U.S. defines learner-centered environments as those that “pay careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring with them to the classroom (Tinio, 2002).” Moves from content-centered curricula to competency-based curricula are associated with moves away from teacher-centered forms of delivery to studentcentered forms. Through technology-facilitated approaches, contemporary learning settings now encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning (Oliver, 2002). Instructional blogging offers additional opportunities to engage students and extend the virtual classroom. Learner-centered blogging acknowledges the important attributes of learners as individuals and as a group (Glogoff, 2005). However, in practice, as Mary K. Allan, (2007) found in New Zealand, there are “low collaborative activities and the significant preference is still given to the

145 /225

print over other forms of presentation” showing that the traditional dynamics of teacher-centered learning contexts are still dominating.

4.6 Discussion on Global Experiences Across this chapter one central theme that seems stretching throughout the cases of developed and developing states including Pakistan, is that eLearning is on its way to mushroom in every HEI of the world because, obviously, there are no limits on getting ICTs from around the world. The miraculous opportunities offered by ‘Internet and Web-Technologies’ are inexpensive, user friendly and do not need technically savvy users therefore they are transforming the whole world into a ‘global-village’ in the true sense of the word.

There are mixed results about the success and failure of eLearning projects in different HEIs in the developed and developing countries. Researchers are reporting both positive and negative attitudes of the users along with a variety of reasons for their attitudes. However, there are common threads across all the cases. For example, instrumental use is rampant across the globe with more substantive moves in the developed world and excessive instrumental applications in the developing countries. Similarly, there are differences in both theories and practices between the advanced and less advanced regions. For instance, “contextual differences include more rigid bureaucracies in many developing countries, coupled with problems such as foreign-exchange shortages and the erratic supply of infrastructure services such as electricity (Walsham, 2000:107).”

Furthermore, despite the efforts over the last decade, there is lack of knowledge about how to make eLearning accessible. The reasons to this are that the existing research has more investigated about ‘why eLearning should be made accessible rather than exploring about how the users are interpreting and executing eLearning to create an accessible environment. At the same time, there is lack of any comprehensive conception of what the best practice is and what factors affect that practice within higher education (Seale, 2006). It means that most of the research is focused on the instrumental uses of eLearning rather than substantive applications (Nawaz |& Kundi, 2010a).

146 /225

Pragmatically, there are both common and unique issues being faced by the developed and developing world. Common issues mostly relate to the user characteristics, training, satisfaction, motivation and computer literacy. While uniqueness of the same issues in developing countries is that they are more intense, widespread and intricate. Likewise, developing states have to face the unique barriers relating to the political, economic and technical conditions of their countries (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Qureshi et al., 2011).

4.6.1 Common Concerns Although the ICT resources are different in developed and developing countries, “a number of common themes can be identified which concern all the countries (Walsham, 2000:105).” For example, in the background of the development and use of eLearning environments, the same type of users (teachers, students and administrators), similar objectives and therefore most of their problems are also the same with, off course, differences in number and intensity of the issues. For example, user-demographics matter in the success of any eLearning project no matter whether the project is initiated in a developed or developing environment. Furthermore, userparticipation, user-training, user-satisfaction, the problems of technical support and support staff and creation of ‘information-culture’ among the users are also the common challenges faced by the HEIs around the world.

The research in both the developed and developing states give evidence about the common problems of eLearning in HEIs. For example, it is reported over and over that teachers believe that traditional face-to-face learning is the most powerful and graceful method of delivering knowledge contents. At the same time, research also reports that teachers feel intimidated with the intervention of computers into their privacy, which has existed for centuries. An analysis of the world eLearning experiences in HEIs clearly shows that teachers’ overall attitude is almost similar around the world, meaning that there is still a big gap between the theory and practice of instructors. For example, “many of the current VLEs provide no more than a drill-and-practice approach to learning. The technologies are simply being used to replicate the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ ways of teaching and learning (Drinkwater et al., 2004).”

147 /225

4.6.2 Unique Issues ICTs are being integrated into the teaching, learning and administrative practices of HEIs around the world. Both instrumental and substantive uses are underway both in the planning and implementation of eLearning projects in both the developed and developing worlds. Instrumental use is more popular and broadly applied in the developing countries while developed states have crossed the initial instrumental uses of ICTs and now working on the integrative and liberal applications of eLearning tools. Thus, the uniqueness of the problems for developed and developing states is primarily in terms of instrumental and substantive uses of ICTs in HEIs.

In the background of developing countries, as discussed in the literature review, the problems exist both at the development and use levels. The developing states are using ‘borrowed models’ of eLearning from the developed world, which are proving ineffective due to the contextual differences. The users’ demographics and work environments are different in different countries therefore; a framework which is successful in one country cannot give the same results in another country if the other is different in terms of people characteristics and the broader context within which the eLearning will work. Asian Development Bank (2005) notes that “while South Asia is the most illiterate region in the world, Pakistan is among the most illiterate countries within South Asia.”

4.6.3 Digital Opportunity Initiatives (DOI) DOI are the efforts to ‘bridge the digital divide’ (Hameed, 2007). In the Asian context, despite the odds, the statistics are very encouraging showing that developing world is on its way to using ICTs with increasing trends as a sign of better future. Figure 4.1 gives figures on the volume of users in different part of the world. Though, Latin American and Africa are preceding but Asia is proceeding Europe and North America. It is obvious, that Internet is proving the biggest opportunity for the developing countries to eliminate their isolation and connect to world knowledge resources with very inexpensive and most convenient methods and manners.

148 /225

Figure 4.1 The Internet Users in the World

Source: Internet World Stats (http://wwww.internetworldstats.com)

A researcher notes that “the enterprise and flexibility are the key values needed for universities to succeed in the rapidly changing culture of higher education system (UQA, 2001),” where technology does not drive education rather, educational goals and needs, and careful economics drive the use of technology (Tinio, 2002). In both the developing and developed world most of the teachers believe that learning should be designed and delivered in tune with the learner and environmental requirements (LaCour, 2005).

The researchers agree on the thesis that the only solution model for developing and using successful eLearning environments in the HEIs of the world is the design and implementation of digital initiatives according to the user and institutional context. The user differences because of the demographics (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz et al., 2011) and their knowledge and skills have been documented as the main factors in determining the role of ICTs in HEIs (see Section 2.2.6 and 9.2.6 for details on the context of eLearning). To meet these objectives, the most undeniable opportunity emerging from the Internet and web technologies are the Web 2.0, FOSS movement and the possibility of international, national and institutional partnerships. New social software helps creating partnerships between communities inside and outside the HEIs.

149 /225

Chapter 5 Empirical Study of HEIs in KPK

5.1 Introduction There is a continuum of perceptions, theories and attitudes of users with those who dislike new technologies on one extreme and those who are their promoters on the other end with many groups of users who can be positioned at different points between two extreme levels. So there is both difference of kind as well as difference of degree between the conceptions and behavior of the users about the nature and role of ICTs in higher education (Nawaz et al., 2007). The research reveals that these differences of degree expressed in multitude of attitudes stems from a variety of contextual factors relating to the individual, group and organizational behaviors. Researchers report that within a university, the context for eLearning consists of human attributes of teachers, students and administrators (age, gender, qualification, perceptions, experience with computers and learning styles) and organizational characteristics (policies, resources, management, culture and age) of the institute (Mehra & Mital, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b)

In the context of developing countries, the results are almost similar in many terms as well as different at broader level. In a study of Jordanin University, it was found that use of computers seems to have little or no effect on teachers' beliefs about their abilities or use of what they have learned in their actual teaching practice (Bataineh & Bani-Abdel-Rahman, 2006). From Brabados it is documented that there are favorable attitudes toward the use of ICT as a supplement, as opposed to using ICT as a replacement to traditional teaching activities (Gay et al., 2006). In Malaysia, research reveals that in relation to teaching and learning, ICT is more commonly used as a source of information, to support learning and in a role similar to traditional classroom tool. The use of ICT to facilitate communication between students and lecturers, and between lecturers was still not widespread at many colleges (Mokhtar et al., 2007; Kundi et al., 2010).

150 /225

In USA, a study by Johnson et al., (2006) reports that most popular computer applications in the universities are the products of MS-Office (Word, Exell, Accees and PowerPoint). The research discovers that the MS Access database application was not used in any of the core courses and MS Excel spreadsheets are used by students to complete assignments. The use of spreadsheets and word processing are highest on the list. The creation of Web pages and the use of databases are the least important (Johnson et al., 2006). Similarly, another study by Martin & Dunsworth (2007) documents somewhat the same type of result. They note that Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Internet and World Wide Web were highly rated as useful topics by both instructors and students. Though research publishes that faculties in HEIs use computers every day to send email, compose texts with word processing, and search the Web, however, very few use it to enhance their teaching (Kopyc, 2007). In a study from New Zealand, it is reported that “teachers play a crucial role in the adoption and implementation of ICT in education, however, studies show that teachers lack the necessary ICT knowledge and skills (Allan, 2007).”

This study also comes with mixed results however, dissatisfaction of students, teachers and administrators from the available education technologies, government policies, development and use practices – all is creating a very low level use of ICTs not in terms of volume of use but in the perspective of instrumental vs. substantive applications of eLearning tools and techniques. The research from both the developed and developing states show that ICTs are more used for supplemental roles in pedagogy, learning and education administration as evident by the popularity of MS-Office tools, which are actually “required for many jobs these days and have become a part of everyday life (Martin & Dunsworth, 2007).”

5.2 Descriptive Facts and Figures In this section basic facts and figures about the respondents and research variables are given to create a broader view of the ‘Respondent-Profiles’ (from Table 5.1 to 5.4 and Char 5.1) and their overall views on the research variables (Tables 5.5 and 5.6).

151 /225

5.2.1 A Profile (Demographics) of the Respondents Table 5.1 Public/Private Classification according to Cities and Respondent-Type

City DIK

Public/Private Public Private

Peshawar

Public Private

Total

Total Grand Total %

Student 38 19 57 31 44 75 132 37.28

Teacher 35 20 55 42 40 82 137 38.7

Administrator 14 19 33 20 32 52 85 24.02

Total 87 58 145 93 116 209 354 100

% 60 40 40.96 44.49 55.51 59.04 100

Total 102 43 145 139 70 209 354 100

% 70.34 29.66 40.96 66.5 33.5 59.04 100

Total 30 115 145 71 138 209 354 100

% 20.69 79.31 40.96 33.97 66.03 59.04 100

Table 5.2 Male/Female Classification according to Cities and RTP

City DIK

Peshawar

Male/Female Male Female Sub-Total Male Female Total Grand Total %

Student 31 26 57 39 36 75 132 37.28

Teacher 38 17 55 49 33 82 137 38.7

Administrator 33 0 33 51 1 52 85 24.02

Table 5.3 Computer/Non-Computer Groups (CNC) across CTY and RTP

City DIK

Peshawar

Computer/Non-Computer Computer Non-Computer Sub-Total Computer Non-Computer Total Grand Total %

Student 14 43 57 30 45 75 132 37.28

Teacher 13 42 55 32 50 82 137 38.7

Administrator 3 30 33 9 43 52 85 24.02

152 /225

Table 5.4 List of Respondents from Sample HEIs of KPK, Pakistan

Name of the Institute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 13 14 15

Frequency

Percent

76 37

21.5 10.5

16 13 8 24

4.5 3.7 2.3 6.8

49 20 19 25 15 20 9 11 12 354

13.8 5.6 5.4 7.1 4.2 5.6 2.5 3.1 3.4 100.0

Gomal, Dera Ismail Khan Qurtuba University of Science and IT (QUSIT), Dera Ismail Khan Gomal Medical College, Dera Ismail Khan Sarhad University DIK Al Khair University DIK Qurtuba University of Science and IT (QUSIT), Peshawar Peshawar University, Peshawar CECOS, Peshawar Abasyn University, Peshawar IMS, Peshawar Iqra University, Peshawar City University, Peshawar Islamia College-University, Peshawar Preston University, Peshawar Khyber Medical University, Peshawar Total

Note. See Annexure 3 for the Details on Every Institute Table 5.5 Uses of Different Software by Teachers, Students and Administrators

Teachers (n=137) Software Word Excel Access Power Point LMS CMS EMIS EDSS OAS Internet

n 127 95 25 68 22 18 7 5 43 130

% 92.70 69.34 18.24 49.63 16.05 13.13 5.10 3.64 31.38 94.89

Students (n-132) n 112 86 31 47 34 28 0 0 0 112

% 84.84 65.15 23.48 35.60 25.75 21.21 0 0 0 84.84

Administrators (n=85) n 74 63 17 21 0 0 29 14 59 47

% 87.05 74.11 20 24.70 0 0 34.11 16.47 69.41 55.29

153 /225

Chart 5.1 Uses of Different Software by Teachers, Students and Administrators

FRE Q UE NCY O F US E

FREQUENCIES OF THE USE OF SOFTWARE 140 120 100

Teachers (n=137)

80

Students (n-132)

60

Administrators (n=85)

40 20 0 Word

Excel Access Power Point

LMS

CMS

EMIS

EDSS

OAS

Internet

TYPE OF SOFTWARE

Chart 5.2 The Number of Hours spent Daily on the Computers

Number of Hours

Number of Hours Spend Daily on the Computers 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Computer

Non-Computer

Total Average

Teachers

3.8

2.4

3.1

Students

3.3

2.5

2.9

Administrators

1.8

1.2

1.5

Respondents

5.2.2 Research Variables Table 5.6 Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables Perceptions Educational Technologies Development Use Problems User Satisfaction Opportunities Prospects

N 354 354 354 354 354 354 354 354

Minimum 3.20 3.18 3.00 3.10 3.60 2.33 3.00 2.00

Maximum 6.40 6.55 5.89 6.75 6.34 6.00 7.00 7.00

Mean 4.9429 4.7779 4.3082 4.7961 4.8207 4.4030 5.3136 5.7359

Std. Deviation .61632 .57637 .52236 .58463 .47971 .65151 .79783 .89704

154 /225

5.3 Testing of Hypothesis The hypotheses will be tested about the: 1. The Impacts of the user-Demographics on their Perceptions of eLearning tools and techniques, their Attitudes towards and Expectations from ICTs, and 2. The Relationships between the ‘Research-Variables’.

5.3.1 Demographic Impacts The impacts of demographics on the user perceptions, theories and attitudes on the development and use of eLearning in higher education are well documented (see for example, Valcke , 2004; Gay et al., 2006; Wims & Lawler, 2007; Moolman & Blignaut, 2008). The developers of eLearning environments are constantly advised by the researchers to address demographic differences regarding the use of ICTs and develop strategies for generating and sustaining positive learner attitudes for effective uses of eLearning environments (Gay et al., 2006). The differences are based on the user-characteristics of gender, age, educational level, computer skills, previous experience with eLearning as well as learning styles, personal goals and attitudes, preferences, cultural background, experience, motivation (Moolman & Blignaut, 2008; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz et al., 2011).

a. Impacts of ‘Type of Respondent’ (RTP) (H1) Table 5.7 Differences between Types of Respondents (ANOVA) df = 2/351, Table-Value = 3.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Variables Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

The Impacts are 7/8 = 87.5%

F 6.618 7.406 37.032 .820 26.485 11.200 35.476 11.402

Sig. (p-value) .002 .001 .000 .441 .000 .000 .000 .000

155 /225

Table 5.7 shows that students, teachers and administrators are very different in terms of all the research variables, except use. Their view about the current use of ICTs is the same while there are severe differences of opinion on all other dimensions of eLearning. The means of students, teachers and administrators on Use are 4.84, 4.78 and 4.74 respectively. Thus, the impact of the type of respondents is 7/8 (87.5%).

b. Differences between Computer & Non-Computer (CNC) (H2) Table 5.8 Computer vs. Non Computer Differences (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

Cal. T-Val 10.025 12.946 8.504 14.656 12.955 9.327 7.603 6.547

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

The Impacts are 8/8 = 100%

There is clear dichotomy between the perceptions and attitudes of computer and non-computer respondents. The differences are 100% significant as indicated in the 2-tailed significance column of the Table 5.8, on all the variables thereby showing impacts 8/8 or 100%.

c. Impacts of Sector on the Responses (PPR) (H3) Table 5.9 Public vs. Private Differences (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

The Impacts are 5/8 = 62.5%

Cal. T-Val -3.167 -3.938 -2.375 -4.984 -2.740 -1.232 -.858 -.765

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .002 .000 .018 .000 .006 .219 .392 .445

156 /225

The respondents are similar in their opinions and attitudes on Satisfaction, Opportunities and Prospects but they have differences on perceptions, ETS, development, use and problems of eLearning showing 5/8 (62.5%) of impacts of being from a private or public institute.

d. Gender-Effects (GDR) (H4) Table 5.10 Gender Effects (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

Cal. T-Val 9.312 5.156 1.885 6.933 4.730 5.967 -.295 1.998

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .000 .000 .060 .000 .000 .000 .768 .046

The Impacts are 6/8 = 75%

Both Male and Female respondents have the same opinion about the Development and Opportunities of eLearning however; they are significantly different on all other variables except, Prospects where the P-value is 0.046, however, since it is less than 0.05 therefore Ho is rejected showing the impact.

e. Age Impacts (AGE) (H5) Table 5.11 The Impacts of Age of the Respondent (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

The Impacts are 3/8 = 37.5%

Cal. T-Val -.204 -.129 1.219 .127 -2.752 .002 -5.392 -2.699

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .838 .897 .224 .899 .006 .998 .000 .007

157 /225

Age differences are showing very limited impacts on the research variables. Both the age groups have the same opinion about PRC, ETS, DEV, Use, and STF. However, they are facing different types of PRB and find different OPR as well as foresee differently about the PRS of eLearning.

f. The Impacts of Experience with Computer (EXP) (H6) Table 5.12 Change in Response due to Experience with Computer (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

Cal. T-Val 5.146 6.779 6.333 4.308 5.363 6.012 1.604 3.403

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .110 .001

The Impacts are 7/8 = 87.5%

The experience with computers has significant impact on all the variables except that both groups view the same opportunities for ICTs in higher education. Table 5.12 tells that users with bigger experience with computers have more positive attitude. So greater the familiarity with computers, greater are the chances that users will develop positive attitudes for eLearning tools.

g. Difference of Response due to ICT Qualification (ITQ) (H7) Table 5.13 The Impacts of ICT-Qualification (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

The Impacts are 8/8 = 100%

Cal. T-Val 7.271 9.513 5.691 12.742 9.132 8.533 3.836 3.232

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

158 /225

Similar to the CNC, EXP and SNS classification of users, the respondents are significantly dissimilar on all the variables. Those who have formal ICT qualification (with degree, certificate or formal training computer-applications) are more optimistic and have scored higher than those with informal learning experiences. Those who learn computers from friends, colleagues, and themselves, they take time to accept technologies as the integral part of their organizational and private life.

h. Difference of Opinion due to Subjects (SNS) (H8) Table 5.14 The Impacts of Subjects (science & non-science) (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

Cal. T-Val 5.448 5.971 3.201 9.769 6.030 6.846 2.694 1.336

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .007 .182

The Impacts are 7/8 = 87.5%

There is also a big divide on the basis of users from science (i.e., computing, physics, medical etc.,) and non-science or social sciences (i.e., public and business administration, English etc.). Both have similar views on the Prospects of eLearning however, the differences are more significant with science group giving higher scores than the non-science subjects of the study. It is like the impacts of CNC however, one thing is notable that the ‘mean-differences or gaps’ between the groups are bigger in CNC variables than in SNS variables indicating that noncomputer science (physics, chemistry etc.) don’t view the technology like those with computer as a subject. Thus, users with ICT qualification are not only different from the non-computer group but also from users from science subjects other than computer.

159 /225

i. Differences between the Cities (CTY) (H9) Table 5.15 Differences between Big & Small Cities (t-Test) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

Cal. T-Val -4.833 -3.546 -.695 -1.725 -3.761 -.957 -3.505 -2.637

Sig. (2-tail) (p-value) .000 .000 .488 .085 .000 .339 .001 .009

The Impacts are 5/8 = 62.5%

There are divides between the users from DIK and Peshawar showing the impacts of small and big cities on Perc1eptions, ETS, Problems, Opportunities and Prospects. But they hold similar views on Development, Use and Satisfaction. However, it is notable that big city respondents have bigger scores on all the variables. Thus, Peshawar, with bigger population and large number of HEIs is leading in terms of eLearning. There is more maturity among the users from the big city revealing the impacts of ‘working in rich and poor work environments’ in terms of resources, opportunities, number of users and broader and narrower culture for eLearning.

j. Differences due to the Age of an Institute (AOI) (H10) Table 5.16 The Impacts of Age of the Institute (t-Test) (table-value = 1.96) df = 352, Table-Value = 1.96 Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

The Impacts are 3/8 = 37.5%

Cal. T-Val -1.998 -2.066 -1.382 -3.042 -1.781 -.869 -.720 .885

Sig. (2-tailed) (p-value) .046 .040 .168 .003 .076 .386 .472 .377

160 /225

On five of the variables, old and new institutes have the same type of responses however, they are different on Perceptions, ETS and use of eLearning with higher scores from new institutes as compared to the old ones. The new institutes are more optimistic than the old institutes showing that both age of users (Table 5.10) and age of the institute have little impacts however, Experience with computers (Table 5.11) have significant implications.

k. Designation-Effects (H11 and H12) i. Teachers (Designation-Effects DST) (H11) Table 5.17 Designation Effects on Teachers (ANOVA) df = 1/134, Table Value 3.0 Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

F 3.776 .735 .263 1.375 1.474 1.011 .850 1.655

Sig. (p-value) .025 .482 .770 .256 .233 .366 .430 .195

The Impacts are 1/8 = 12.5%

The impacts of designation on teacher responses are trivial because difference has been recorded only on Perceptions (Calculated F-ratio = 3.776 is greater than Table Value of 3.0). On all other variables the P-values are more than significance/confidence level of 0.05. Thus, there are no significant differences of response between professors, assistant professors and lecturers. However, assistant professors have bigger scores on all variables from other two groups.

161 /225

ii. Administrators (Designation-Effects - DSA) (H12) Table 5.18 Designation Effects on Administrators (ANOVA) df = 2/83, Table Value 3.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Variables

F

Perceptions about ICTs Educational Technologies Development Use of eLearning Problems (Challenges) User Satisfaction Opportunities from eLearning Prospects of eLearning

.084 2.599 1.297 .107 .329 .316 .161 .629

Sig. (p-value) .920 .080 .279 .899 .721 .730 .852 .535

The Impacts are 0/8 = 0%

No differences were measured between different groups of administrators and staff on any variable (All the calculated F-Ratios are less than the Table F-Value of 3.07). Similarly, the PValue on most of the variables is very high showing that all the groups have the same perceptions and attitudes towards eLearning. Similarly, the mean scores of all groups are very low on all the variables however, the score high on Opportunities and higher on Prospects.

5.3.2 The Relationships between the Research Variable a. Correlation Analysis (H13) Table 5.19 Table of Correlations PRC ETS DEV USE PRB .685(**) 1 .000 . DEV .440(**) .751(**) 1 .000 .000 . USE .611(**) .780(**) .577(**) 1 .000 .000 .000 . PRB 1 .746(**) .844(**) .745(**) .708(**) .000 .000 .000 .000 . STF .486(**) .665(**) .506(**) .718(**) .738(**) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 OPP .404(**) .350(**) .334(**) .281(**) .719(**) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 PRO .409(**) .459(**) .334(**) .372(**) .431(**) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

STF

OPP

1 . .275(**) .000 .203(**) .000

1 . .263(**) .000

ETS

162 /225

Table 5.19a Analysis of the Correlations between Research Variables

1

Variables

Correlation Scores

Problems

PRC (r = .746) ETS (r = .844) DEV (r = .745) USE (r = .708) STF (r = .718) OPP (r = .719) PRO (r = .431)

2

2

Educational

PRC (r = .685) DEV (r = .751) USE (r = .780) PRB (r = .844)

Technologies

STF (r = .738) OPP (r = .350) PRO (r = .459)

Development

PRC (r = .440) ETS (r = .751) USE (r = .577) PRB (r = .745) STF (r = .665) OPP (r = .334) PRO (r = .334)

3

Use

PRC (r = .611) ETS (r = .780) DEV (r = .577) PRB (r = .708) STF (r = .506) OPP (r = .281) PRO (r = .372)

It is obvious from the above table that the order of priority in the correlations between eight variables of the study starts from Problems with highest scores of correlation with rest of the variables. Educational technologies come second in having correlations with other variables. Similarly, Development is the third variable with high scores of correlation with rest of the factors. Use comes fourth in the weight of correlation score. In regression analysis of the same variables, the R2 scores for problems, educational technologies, development and use also appear in the same order of significance: Problems (R2 = 0.97), Educational technologies (R2 = 0.843), Development (R2 = 0.721), and for Use practices it is (R2 = 0.665).

From the correlation table, it surfaces that Problems are highly correlated not only because of getting the highest scores as compared to all other variables rather because of being correlated with more than other variables. For example, all the variables have lower scores of relationship with Opportunities however the correlation between Problems and Opportunities is very high as compared its relation with other variables. Similarly, Problems are also significantly connected with the Prospects of eLearning as well.

163 /225

b. Perceptions (PRC) Explained by Research-Variables (H14) Tables 5.20 Regression on Perceptions Practices (PRC) Model Summary

R .844(a)

R Square .712

Adjusted R Square .707

Std. Error of the Estimate .33384

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .712, meaning that 71% of variance in Perceptions is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 95.525 7 13.646 ANOVA Residual 38.562 346 .111 Total 134.087 353 a. Predictors: DEV, ETS, USE, PRB, STF, OPR, PRO b. Dependent Variable: Perceptions about ICTs

F 122.443

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 122.443, is far Grater than Mean Square = 13.646 with high P-Value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Perceptions is Highly Significant as a Whole. Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error (Constant) .173 .189 Educational Technologies -.154 .077 -.531 .058 Coefficients Development Use of eLearning -.088 .052 Problems 2.513 .164 User Satisfaction -.271 .049 Opportunities -.553 .052 Prospects of eLearning .041 .023 b. Dependent Variable: Perceptions about ICTs (PRC)

Standardized Coefficients Beta -.144 -.450 -.083 1.956 -.286 -.715 .059

t

Sig.

.914 -1.997 -9.193 -1.680 15.289 -5.496 -10.657 1.756

.361 .047 .000 .094 .000 .000 .000 .080

5 out of 7 variables support the Ha and thus, stand responsible for the variation in the Dependent variable. Use (p=.094) and Prospects (p=.080) are not explaining the dependent variable individually but collectively.

164 /225

c. ETS Explained by Research-Variables (H15) Tables 5.21 Multiple Regression on (ETS) Model Summary

R .918(a)

R Square .843

Adjusted R Square .839

Std. Error of the Estimate .23093

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .712, meaning that 84% of variance in Educational Technologies (ETS) is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 98.815 7 14.116 ANOVA Residual 18.452 346 .053 Total 117.268 353 a. Predictors: PRC, DEV, ETS, USE, PRB, STF, PRO b. Dependent Variable: Educational Technologies (ETS)

F 264.700

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 264.700, is far Grater than Mean Square = 14.116 with high P-Value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Education Technologies (ETS) is Highly Significant as a Whole. Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta (Constant) -.365 .129 Perceptions about ICTs -.074 .037 -.079 Development .066 .044 .060 Coefficients Use of eLearning .111 .036 .112 Problems 1.183 .133 .985 User Satisfaction .055 .035 .062 Opportunities -.305 .038 -.422 Prospects of eLearning .064 .016 .099 b. Dependent Variable: Educational Technologies (ETS)

t

Sig.

-2.825 -1.997 1.489 3.095 8.918 1.552 -8.040 4.049

.005 .047 .137 .002 .000 .122 .000 .000

5 out of 7 variables support the Ha and thus, stand responsible for the variation in the Dependent variable. Development (p=.137) and Satisfaction (p=.122) are not explaining the dependent variable individually but collectively.

165 /225

d. Development Explained by Research-Variables (H16) Tables 5.22 Regression on Development Practices (DEV) Model Summary

R .849(a)

R Square .721

Adjusted R Square .716

Std. Error of the Estimate .27846

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .721, meaning that 72% of variance in Development is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 69.491 7 9.927 ANOVA Residual 26.829 346 .078 Total 96.320 353 a. Predictors: PRC, ETS, USE, PRB, STF, OPR, PRO b. Dependent Variable: DEVELOPMENT

F 128.025

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 128.025, is far Grater than Mean Square = 9.927 with high P-Value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Development (DEV) is Highly Significant as a Whole. Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta (Constant) .383 .156 Perceptions about ICTs -.370 .040 -.436 Educational Technologies .096 .065 .106 Coefficients Use of eLearning -.125 .043 -.140 Problems 1.720 .151 1.580 User Satisfaction -.082 .043 -.102 Opportunities -.393 .045 -.599 Prospects of eLearning .008 .019 .013 b. Dependent Variable: Development Practices (DEV)

t

Sig.

2.449 -9.193 1.489 -2.882 11.358 -1.922 -8.692 .404

.015 .000 .137 .004 .000 .055 .000 .686

4 out of 7 variables support the Ha and thus, stand responsible for the variation in the Dependent variable. Educational Technologies (p=.137), Satisfaction (p=.055) and Prospects (p=.686) are not explaining the dependent variable individually but collectively.

166 /225

e. Use Explained by Research-Variables (H17) Tables 5.23 Regression on Use Practices (USE) Model Summary

R .815(a)

R Square .665

Adjusted R Square .658

Std. Error of the Estimate .34185

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .67, meaning that 67% of variance in Use is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 80.215 7 11.459 ANOVA Residual 40.435 346 .117 Total 120.651 353 a. Predictors: PRC, DEV, ETS, PRB, STF, OPR, PRO b. Dependent Variable: Use of eLearning (USE)

F 98.056

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 98.056, is far Grater than Mean Square = 11.459 with high P-Value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Use (USE) is Highly Significant as a Whole. Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error (Constant) .470 .192 Perceptions about ICTs -.092 .055 .243 .079 Coefficients Educational Technologies Development -.188 .065 Problems of eLearning 1.721 .197 User Satisfaction -.314 .050 Opportunities -.456 .056 Prospects of eLearning -.010 .024 b. Dependent Variable: Use of eLearning (USE)

Standardized Coefficients Beta -.097 .240 -.168 1.412 -.350 -.623 -.015

t

Sig.

2.451 -1.680 3.095 -2.882 8.727 -6.311 -8.143 -.413

.015 .094 .002 .004 .000 .000 .000 .680

5 out of 7 variables support the Ha and thus, stand responsible for the variation in the Dependent variable. Perceptions (p=.094), and Prospects (p=.680) are not explaining the dependent variable individually but collectively.

167 /225

f. Problems (PRB) Explained by Research-Variables (H18) Tables 5.24 Regression on Problems of eLearning (PRB) Model Summary

R .985(a)

R Square .970

Adjusted R Square .969

Std. Error of the Estimate .08437

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .970, meaning that 97% of variance in Problems is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 78.770 7 11.253 ANOVA Residual 2.463 346 .007 Total 81.232 353 a. Predictors: PRC, DEV, ETS, USE, PRB, STF, PRO b. Dependent Variable: Problems of eLearning (PRB)

F 1580.971

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 1580.971, is far Grater than Mean Square = 11.253 with high P-Value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Problems (PRB) is Highly Significant as a Whole. Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error (Constant) .122 .047 Perceptions about ICTs .160 .010 .158 .018 Coefficients Educational Technologies Development .158 .014 Use of eLearning .105 .012 User Satisfaction .134 .011 Opportunities .255 .006 Prospects of eLearning .004 .006 b. Dependent Variable: Problems of eLearning (PRB)

Standardized Coefficients Beta .206 .190 .172 .128 .182 .425 .007

t

Sig.

2.587 15.289 8.918 11.358 8.727 12.394 40.549 .628

.010 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .531

6 out of 7 variables support the Ha and thus, stand responsible for the variation in the Dependent variable. Only the Prospects (p=.531) variables is not explaining the dependent variable individually but collectively.

168 /225

g. Satisfaction Explained by Research-Variables (H19) Tables 5.25 Research Variables Determine the User-Satisfaction (STF) Model Summary

R .848(a)

R Square .718

Adjusted R Square .713

Std. Error of the Estimate .34923

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .718, meaning that 72% of variance in Satisfaction is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 107.638 7 15.377 ANOVA Residual 42.199 346 .122 Total 149.837 353 a. Predictors: PRC, DEV, ETS, USE, PRB, STF, PRO b. Dependent Variable: User Satisfaction (STF)

F 126.079

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 126.079, is far Grater than Mean Square = 15.377 with high p-value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Satisfaction (STF) is Highly Significant as a Whole. Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Er. (Constant) -.028 .198 Perceptions about ICTs -.296 .054 Educational Technologies .126 .081 Coefficients Development -.129 .067 Use of eLearning -.328 .052 Problems 2.295 .185 Opportunities -.584 .054 Prospects of eLearning -.094 .024 b. Dependent Variable: User Satisfaction (STF)

Standardized Coefficients Beta -.280 .111 -.103 -.295 1.690 -.715 -.129

t

Sig.

-.139 -5.496 1.552 -1.922 -6.311 12.394 -10.799 -3.945

.890 .000 .122 .055 .000 .000 .000 .000

5 out of 7 variables support the Ha and thus, stand responsible for the variation in the Dependent variable. Educational Technologies (p=.122), and Development (p=.055) are not explaining the dependent variable individually but collectively.

169 /225

h. Opportunities Explained by Research-Variables (H20) Tables 5.26 Research Variables Explain the Variance in Opportunities (OPR) Model Summary

R .928(a)

R Square .861

Adjusted R Square .858

Std. Error of the Estimate .30035

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .861, meaning that 86% of variance in Opportunities is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 193.482 7 27.640 ANOVA Residual 31.213 346 .090 Total 224.695 353 a. Predictors: PRC, DEV, ETS, USE, PRB, STF, PRO b. Dependent Variable: Opportunities

F 306.392

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 306.392, is far Grater than Mean Square = 27.640 with high p-value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Opportunities (OPR) is Highly Significant as a Whole. Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error (Constant) -.064 .170 Perceptions about ICTs -.447 .042 Educational Technoloiges -.516 .064 Coefficients Development -.457 .053 Use of eLearning -.352 .043 Problems 3.236 .080 User Satisfaction -.432 .040 Prospects of eLearning .002 .021 b. Dependent Variable: Opportunities

Standardized Coefficients Beta -.345 -.373 -.299 -.258 1.946 -.353 .003

t

Sig.

-.377 -10.657 -8.040 -8.692 -8.143 40.549 -10.799 .108

.706 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .914

6 out of 7 variables support the Ha and thus, stand responsible for the variation in the Dependent variable. The only variable Prospects (p=.914) is not explaining the dependent variable individually but collectively.

170 /225

i. Prospects explained by Research-Variables (H21) Tables 5.27 Research Variables Explain the Variance in Prospects (PRO) Model Summary

R .524(a)

R Square .275

Adjusted R Square .260

Std. Error of the Estimate .77145

R2 (Coefficient of Determination) = .275, meaning that 28% of variance in Prospects is explained by the independent variables. Sum of Squares df Mean Square Regression 78.140 7 11.163 ANOVA Residual 205.914 346 .595 Total 284.054 353 a. Predictors: PRC, DEV, ETS, USE, PRB, STF, OPR b. Dependent Variable: Prospects of eLearning (PRO)

F 18.757

Sig. .000(a)

F-Value of 18.757, is Grater than Mean Square = 11.163 with high p-value = .000 (p>F), showing that Regression of Independent variables on Prospects (PRS) is Significant as a Whole BUT with 28% impact. Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 1.700 .427 Perceptions about ICTs .217 .124 .149 Educational Technologies .711 .175 .457 Coefficients Development .060 .149 .035 Use of eLearning -.050 .121 -.033 Problems .308 .491 .165 User Satisfaction -.458 .116 -.333 Opportunities .015 .138 .013 b. Dependant Variable: Prospects of eLearning (PRO)

t

Sig.

3.977 1.756 4.049 .404 -.413 .628 -3.945 .108

.000 .080 .000 .686 .680 .531 .000 .914

Only Educational Technologies (p=.000) and Satisfaction (p=.000) variables explain the variation in Prospects. All rest of the variables does not explain the variation in Prospects. In the correlation analysis (Table 5.7), the Prospects has lowest score on relationships with rest of the variables (r=0.352). Thus, the same is confirmed by the multiple regression analysis that Prospects are not determined by the perceptions and attitudes of users towards other variables rather they believe in prospects beyond their feeling about the current conditions of development and use practices.

171 /225

5.4 Discussion and Interpretation of the Results The above analysis has been conducted in three broader groups of applications: 1. Descriptive Analysis (data-reduction or summary-statistics): Cross-tabulation of the Respondent-attributes, Summary-statistics of research variables, and descriptive statistics of the research variables across all the demographic classifications. 2. Tests of Significance: t-Tests to test the impacts of CNC, PPR, GDR, AGE, EXP, ITQ, SNS, CTY & AOI. To identify the significance of mean differences based on RTP, DST and DSA were tested by using one-way ANOVA. 3. Correlation & Regression Analysis: To measure the Coefficients of Determination, Correlation, and Regression.

5.4.1 Descriptive Findings a. Mean Scores on Research Variables Chart 5.3 Mean Scores on Research Variables Mean Scores on Research Variables 7 6 Scale

5 4 3 2 1 0 Mean

PRC

ETS

DEV

USE

PRB

STF

OPR

PRO

4.9429

4.7779

4.3082

4.7961

4.8207

4.403

5.3136

5.7359

Variables

172 /225

The lowest score on DEV is the indicative of wider consensus on the poor development practices for eLearning efforts in HEIs. Similarly, STF is second low score, which also reflects the weak level of satisfaction from different practices relating to eLearning development and use. It is however, promising that OPR and PRO both have received higher scores in comparison to all other variables showing the positive attitudes of the respondents towards the opportunities offered by ICTs and their prospected role in the future.

b. Group Mean Scores on Demographic Classifications Chart 5.4 Mean Scores across Demographic Groups

RTP

ITQ

4.615

4.623 Bottom

Top

DST

Middle

4.971

4.681

Lecturer

Professor

5.162

4.93

Non Science

SNS

Asst. Prof.

5.067

4.751

Science

5.195

4.731

Formal

4.334 Post2000

CNC CTY PPR GDR AGE EXP AOI

Informal

4.238

5.054 >= 5

= 35

4.979 Male

Female

4.966 Private

Peshawar

4.81

4.949

DIK

Public

4.874

4.726

Non-Comp

5.546 Computer

5.012

4.629

Teacher

Administrator

4.922

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Student

Scale

Mean Scores Across Demographic Groups

DSA

Demographics

Chart 5.4 gives the means scores of different groups developed around the demographic classifications. Across the chart several trends are visible. For example, respondents with computer qualification, some formal training and holding science subjects have clearly higher scores than their counterparts. Similarly, differences between public/private also indicate that private institutes seem having more positive attitudes than those from the public sector. On the whole, students and teachers have greater scores than the administrators however; students have scored lower than teachers reflecting the problems of eLearning facilities and services for the students in comparison to teachers.

173 /225

5.4.2 Demographic Implications (tests of significance) a. Categorical Analysis Now we shall analysis the impacts of each categorical variable on the research variables one by one. On testing of three demographics (TRP, DST and DSA), ANOVA has been applied while for all the rest of hypothesis, tests t-Test were used. 4 out of 12 applications resulted into the acceptance of H0 while, rest of the tests support Ha.

Type of Respondent Impacts (ANOVA) Variable RTP

Group Student Teacher Administrator

N 132 137 85

P-Val. Accepted

PRC 4.875 5.087 4.814 .002 H1

ETS 4.781 4.8912 4.5904 .001 H1

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables DEV USE PRB STF 4.2626 4.8439 4.8717 4.2702 4.5491 4.7825 4.9585 4.6034 3.9908 4.7436 4.5196 4.2863 .000 .000 .000 .441 H1 H0 H1 H1

OPR 5.5606 5.4307 4.7412 .000 H1

PRO 5.916 5.799 5.352 .000 H1

The Impacts are 7/8 = 87.5%

All the respondents are different from each other. Students have closer score to the teachers however; administrators have lowest scores from the other groups on all the variables. However, the respondents have no difference of opinion about the user of ICTs. They have same opinion as well as same problems in using the technologies. The impacts on 7 out of 8 variables are highly significant with p-values from .002 to .000 indicating higher levels of influence.

Computer/Non-Computer Differences (t-Test) Variable CNC P-Val. Accepted

Group Computer Non-Computer

N 101 253 .000 Ha

PRC 5.402 4.759 .000 Ha

ETS 5.295 4.571 .000 Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables DEV USE PRB STF OPR 5.364 5.251 4.861 5.7871 6.203 4.569 4.648 4.22 5.1245 5.5494 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

PRO 6.203 5.549 .000 Ha

The Impacts are 8/8 = 100%

The computer/Non-computer classification has brought out very visible influences on the groups. All the demographics have changed the theories and attitudes of respondents. The p-values on all

174 /225

the tests are .000 which confirms the impact of groupings on the respondents. Thus, respondents with computer background are totally different from the non-computer users of eLearning.

Public/Private Institute Differences (t-Test) Var PPR

Group Public Private

N 180 174

P-Val. Accepted

PRC 4.8422 5.0471 .002 Ha

ETS 4.6616 4.8981 .000 Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables DEV USE PRB STF OPR 4.2438 4.6487 4.7527 4.3611 5.2778 4.3748 4.9485 4.8911 4.4464 5.3506 .018 .000 .006 .219 .392 Ha Ha Ha H0 H0

PRO 5.7 5.773 .445 H0

The Impacts are 5/8 = 62.5%

The difference of being in public or private is also significant. 5 out of 8 (Ha) hypotheses have been accepted as showing changes in the responses except on STF, OPR and PRO. Both the groups have same lower levels of Satisfaction from eLearning. However, they have higher scores on Opportunities and Prospects and no significant differences from each other.

Gender Differences (t-Test) Variable GDR

Group Male Female

N 241 113

P-Val. Accepted

PRC 5.1303 4.5434 .000 Ha

ETS 4.8823 4.5551 .000 Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables DEV USE PRB STF OPR 4.3439 4.9346 4.9009 4.538 5.305 4.2321 4.5006 4.6497 4.115 5.3319 .060 .000 .000 .000 .768 H0 Ha Ha Ha H0

PRO 5.800 5.597 .046 Ha

The Impacts are 6/8 = 75%

There are mixed results about the gender effects in the eLearning environments. For example, it is consistently reported that females have comparatively negative attitudes towards ICTs than their male counterparts (Gay et al., 2006; Bataineh & Bani-Abdel-Rahman (2006). But Wims & Lawler (2007) found no significant differences among the male and female respondents about their attitudes towards ICTs. However, in this research gender effects have been recorded. There are mean differences between the male and female respondents where males score high while females have scored low showing their native attitude in comparison to the male users except their attitude on Opportunities. The t-Test application on group mean differences tells that H0 has been rejected on 6 of the tests and accepted on two variables of Development (p=.060) and Opportunities (p=.768).

Age (of the Respondent) Impacts (t-Test)

175 /225

Variable AGE

Group >= 35 < 35

N 172 182

P-Val. Accepted

PRC 4.936 4.9495 .838 H0

ETS 4.7738 4.7817 .897 H0

DEV 4.343 4.2753 .224 H0

USE 4.8001 4.7922 .899 H0

PRB 4.7492 4.8883 .006 Ha

STF 4.4031 4.4029 .998 H0

OPR 5.0872 5.5275 .000 Ha

PRO 5.604 5.859 .007 Ha

The Impacts are 3/8 = 37.5%

The research on the age-impacts also comes up with varying findings. For example, “older students (36 years old and older) were generally less comfortable than younger students with technological learning tools (Garcia & Qin, 2007). However, Mehra & Mital (2007) recorded “no significant association between age and eLearning (p value is .698).” This research has unfolded no impacts on 5 out of 8 variables with average p=.7712. So this study stands with the second view of ‘no impacts’ with greater impact (from p=.698 to .7712). This also suggests that that there is ‘no Generation-Gap’ in the eLearning users of the HEIs in KPK.

Impact of the Big and Small Cities (CTY) (t-Test) Variable CTY

Group DIK Peshawar

N 145 209

P-Val. Accepted

PRC 4.7586 5.0708 .000 Ha

ETS 4.6495 4.8669 .000 Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables DEV USE PRB STF OPR 4.2851 4.3243 4.7077 4.3632 5.1379 4.3243 4.7319 4.8991 4.4306 5.4354 .488 .085 .000 .339 .001 H0 H0 Ha H0 Ha

PRO 5.586 5.839 .009 Ha

The Impacts are 5/8 = 62.5%

The respondents from both the cities have no difference of opinion on DEV, USE, and STF however; they have variations in their responses on rest of the 5 variables. The scores are different but big city respondents have greater scores than the small city dwellers indicating the maturity of their dealings with ICTs. Both the groups have similar views on development and use practices as well as have parallel scores on satisfaction. However, their contradictions are more prevalent (5/8 = 63%) showing the environmental impacts of the cities. Big cities are richer than the smaller cities in terms of the availability, development and use practices. Despite being similar in DEV, USE, STF, the respondents from big cities reflect more maturity on views about PRC, ETS, PRB, OPR and PRO.

176 /225

Experience with Computer (EXP) (t-Test) Variable EXP

Groups >= 5