Building blocks for e-learning

By HARIATI AZIZAN
educate@thestar.com.my
OUM’s partnership with Saudi Arabia in developing e-learning there may open doors for more opportunities.
IT IS all systems go for Open University Malaysia (OUM) after securing the premier e-learning project with the Saudi Arabia Higher Education Ministry.
Appointed as consultants for the kingdom’s National E-Learning and Distance Learning project, OUM and its associate company METEOR Technology and Consultancy Services Sdn Bhd are in the midst of establishing the national centre of e-learning for Saudi Arabia.
OUM is honoured to gain the kingdom’s confidence in the university’s technological capabilities and skills, says its president and vice-chancellor Prof Tan Sri Anuwar Ali.
“Saudi officials visited our facilities many times before we clinched the deal; they are confident that our system can be used in their university.
“I’m sure they have done the appropriate research in other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom before approaching OUM, but they chose us because they think we are the most suitable for them,” he adds.

Mustapa (right) meeting Dr Abdulla (left) at the METEOR project office and an e-learning centre in Riyadh. Looking on are Prof Dr Mansor and Prof Anuwar.The five-year project, costing about RM47mil, is the type of Malaysia-Saudi collaboration that the Malaysian Higher Education Ministry is encouraging Malaysian tertiary education providers to undertake, says its minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, who visited the METEOR project office and the future e-learning centre in Riyadh during his working trip to Saudi Arabia last month.
“The government is confident that OUM has the expertise to deliver and we hope that this relationship will continue. Everyone is looking forward to the success of this project, as it will hopefully spark off other collaborative projects,” Mustapa had told the Malaysian press after meeting the OUM on-site team.
Senior adviser for the Saudi Arabia Higher Education Ministry and National E-Learning Project director Dr Abdulla Al-Megren, who gave a presentation of his country's e-learning ambitions, says the e-learning project is one of its major educational ventures aimed at providing greater access to higher education, particularly for girls, while raising the quality of the delivery process.
“Saudi has one of the highest populations of young people in the world, hence the need for greater outreach. E-learning seems to be the most effective way to deliver higher education to all.”
He explains that Saudi universities had requested for help from the ministry after encountering problems in their individual e-learning initiatives.
“Universities called upon the ministry to organise a more concerted effort in implementing e-learning and distance education (in Saudi) because of the rapid growth of technology and other challenges they faced, including financial, staff training and course content,” he says.
With OUM on board, he says, the Saudi Government is confident that the national e-learning undertaking will be a success.
The different work cultures of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, however, have been an interesting challenge, says Prof Anuwar.
“But things are progressing well despite everything as we have regular contacts and video-conferencing to work things out.
“A challenge for us is how we prepare all aspects of e-learning because it is a relatively new concept in Saudi Arabia.
“So, there will be a lot of hand-holding in the beginning, especially to change the mindset of the Saudi public.
“Based on OUM's experience, it will take at least two to three years before the public can fully understand and accept e-learning,” he notes, adding that luckily most of his Saudi counterparts are IT-savvy and have allocated a budget to create awareness and promote e-learning programmes in the kingdom.
OUM vice-president Prof Dr Mansor Fadzil concurs, acknowledging that glitches, technical and non-technical, cannot be avoided.
“To get a quality product, you need time, especially to train manpower. This is something that we hope our Saudi partners can understand.”
The e-learning project will be implemented in two stages over the next five years, with the first phase comprising the installation of infrastructure and learning management systems, as well as the training of trainers and development of learning courseware in Arabic.
The second phase will see the expansion of e-learning facilities throughout the country, particularly in the remote areas.
In February, the first phase got off the ground, with the setting-up of the e-learning centre in the Saudi capital.
“We have also started developing the courseware as well as conducting training workshops. It is vital to equip the Saudis so that they can ultimately take over and sustain the programme, “ says Prof Dr Mansor.


Source: http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/2007/6/3/education/17886537

EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF E-LEARNING TOOLS

EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF E-LEARNING TOOLS
AMONG LECTURERS IN A TERTIARY INSTITUTION: A
PERCEPTUAL SURVEY

A study conducted by

ASST. PROF. DR. NOR AZIAN MOHD. NOOR
Institute of Education
International Islamic University Malaysia
[norazian@iiu.edu.my]

ABDULHAMEED KAYODE AGBOOLA (Ph.D)
Institute of Education
International Islamic University Malaysia
[kayode68@hotmail.com]

ABSTRACT
This study investigated the diffusion of e-learning innovation among the
lecturers of the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). The collection
of data in this study took two approaches: In the first approach, a Lecturer Elearning
Perceptual Survey Questionnaire (LEPSQ) was used to collect data
from the academic staff of IIUM, based on a proportional stratified random
sampling. 98% response rate was attained totaling 324 respondents in all. The
second approach used E-learning Readiness Survey questionnaire, which was
adapted for collecting of data from 26 Deans, acting Deans and heads of
departments, who were administrators in each of the faculty of the University.
Analysis revealed five factors, the regression analyses showed two factors as
significant; that is, e-learning training and e-learning confidence, for both elearning
adoption and e-learning readiness. The significant factors have
practical importance and were replicated for this study. In addition, the elearning
sustainability survey revealed that the academic staff was making
progress, but more efforts would be worthwhile to overcome some hindrances,
which were infrastructure related and personal incapability. Finally, some issues
emerged from the opinions, views and suggestions of the respondents. Among
these issues were: that e-learning will not take over conventional learning, that
users needed to be educated, and the provision of adequate infrastructure,
administrative, technical and mental supports to all users were very crucial for a
successful implementation of e-learning in the University, IIUM.
Keywords: Lecturers' Perceptions; E-Learning Implementation; Predicting
Factors; E-Learning Adoption; Gender Effects; Adoption Variables.
INTRODUCTION
According to John Chambers (as cited in Rosenberg, 2001, p. xv), “the
biggest growth in the Internet, and the area that will prove to be one of the
biggest agents of change, will be in e-learning.” The world’s global economy of
financial transactions, and commerce in goods and services which increasingly
occurs through high-speed computers and telecommunications have changed
the scenario for manpower needs from labour intensive industries to jobs that
call workers to be highly skilled in computers and telecommunications. The
demand for a well-educated workforce has driven many countries to rethink
their education systems. An education system has to be suited to the demands
of the technological age so that a competitive edge can be maintained. Such
demand for technology savvy workforce is reflected in Alvin Toffler’s declaration
(as cited in Rosenberg, 2001), that “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be
those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and
relearn”, p. 3). An ancient proverb says:- “if we don’t change our direction, we’ll
end up exactly where we are headed” (cited in Rosenberg, 2001, p. 41). This
indicates that learning institutions will have to constantly change and adapt in
their environments if they are not to lag behind.
The advantages that technology provides to training and learning
include not only the possibility of one-on-one interaction for every learner, the
ability to simulate new ideas, the chance to try things out at one’s own pace and
to fail in private without the fear of ridicule from other students (Galagan, 2002).
The Internet has also become an important instructional tool to facilitate the
transfer of many types of information from one computer to another, and is
rapidly becoming an effective means of communication in schools and colleges.
Internet-based instruction has been manifested in one-to-one (e.g. tutor-tostudent),
one-to-many (e.g. tutor-to-group) and many-to-many (e.g. group-togroup)
approaches to instruction. The forms of communication may be
synchronous, which occurs in real-time, with all parties communicating within
the same time frame; or it may be asynchronous, where there may be a time
delay between the communicators when sending, receiving and replying to any
given communicative event (Webb, Jones, Barker & Schaik, 2004).
According to Murphy and Greenwood (1998), “research findings
suggest that Information and Communication Technology is significantly underused
by students and teachers. The problem is worldwide and many
explanations were offered for it” (p. 415). Among them were the unavailability
and / or inaccessibility of resources in schools (Veen, 1993; Byard, 1995; Wild,
1996; Dearing, 1997). The scarcity of opportunity to use computers has been
cited as reasons why students and teachers were slow in the ICT uptake
(Blackmore, Stanley, Cole, Hodgkinson, Taylor & Vaughan, 1992); Dunn &
Ridgway, 1991), teacher early year school pressure (Wild, 1996), and the lack
of experience and training at the pre-service level in using ICT (Oliver, 1994;
Wild, 1995). Also, the lack of teacher or teacher trainers’ encouragement to
students on using ICT in schools and the lack of confidence on the part of
student teachers and their trainers in computing skills were cited as reasons for
the low ICT use (Dunn & Ridgway, 1991; Downes, 1993; McDonald, 1993a;
Collison & Murray, 1994).
Murphy and Greenwood (1998) added that conflicting reports have
hinted that age and gender effects could be the factors in determining the extent
of the low student teacher ICT uptake (Woodrow, 1991; Blackmore et al., 1992;
Lienard, 1995). Some reports from Summer (1990) and McMahon and Gardner
(1995) have suggested that male students experience less anxiety about ICT
and make more frequent use of it. Other studies have underscored that female
students have shown lower confidence or knowledgeability than males about
using computers (Oliver, 1993; Van Braak, 2001).
Many other studies have agreed with the claim that there are no
significant differences between the attitudes of male and female students
regarding ICT use (Koohang, 1989; Kay, 1989; Hunt & Bohlin, 1993; Marshall &
Bannon, 1986; Woodrow, 1991). The age phase for which students are being
trained to teach has been implicated as significant in ICT uptake because
studies have shown that the students trained for primary schools demonstrated
more anxiety and used computers less than the students trained for secondary
schools (Blackmore et al., 1992; Oliver, 1994). Also, the students’ area of
specialization has been pinpointed as having a strong influence on their ICT
use. For example, Summers and Easdown (1996) mentioned subject specialism
of student teachers, and also the lecturers’ area of discipline as factors that may
influence their extent of ICT use.
This study specifically aimed to survey the perceptions of academic
staff of the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) to assess their
opinions, readiness, and sustainability based on the following classification of elearning
implementation constructs, which are: 1). E-Learning Confidence, 2).
E-Learning Training, 3). E-Learning Adoption, 4). E-Learning Readiness, 5). ELearning
Consequences, and, 6). E-Learning Sustainability.
METHOD
The study employed two types of questionnaire detailed as follows: a
self-constructed questionnaire, titled: Lecturer E-learning Perceptual Survey
Questionnaire (LEPSQ), which was comprised of 35 items placed on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from “very strongly disagree” to “very strongly agreed”, was
used to collect data from a proportional stratified random sample of 324
academic staff of the International Islamic University Malaysia.
The second instrument that was used in the present study was the “ELearning
Readiness Survey” questionnaire, which was adapted from Marc
Rosenberg (2000). It comprises of 20 items with short answers that were
designed along a qualitative research method, which was used to collect data
from 26 Deans or Heads of department in each Kulliyyah of the University. The
data that was was analysed qualitatively based on the analytic procedures that
were provided by Marc Rosenberg (2000). Construct validity of items was
tested for its reliability using an internal consistency method, which indicated a
value of 0.8. The pilot study was conducted on the academic staff of the
International Islamic University Malaysia.
A Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied on the data from
the respondents (N=324) in order to examine the dimensionality and the
appropriateness of the variables to be selected. Basically, Bartlett test of
sphericity is significant and that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy is 0.912, which is far greater than the threshold of 0.6. The anti–
image correlation matrix revealed that all measures of sampling adequacy
ranged between 0.630 and 0.957, which were well above the acceptable value
of 0.5. This further proves the factorability of the items. Five factors were
extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1. These five factors accounted for 66%
of the total variance.
FINDINGS
In this study, the respondents’ background demographic characteristics
were classified into gender, age, nationality, faculty/center, teaching experience
and area of specialisation, and computer and internet skills respectively. The
results have shown that the majority of the respondents were males. As
indicated by the findings, males were the dominant gender within the
University’s academic staff population, whose age range was still within 25-44
years old. Individuals within this age group were considered to be active and
youthful individuals. Relatively, almost all of the respondents have high level of
teaching experience that range between 1-10 years, and many of them were
majoring in human sciences and pure science majors.
Majority of the respondents were skilled in the required computer
software programmes, such as, word processor, spreadsheets or excel,
databases, statistics package, presentation software, copy and transferring of
files, document scanning and creating PDF files. The distribution of the
respondents skillfulness in the Internet tools, such as web searching, web
evaluating, e-mail, World Wide Web browsing, newsgroup, creating
homepages/websites, chatting, and participating in
teleconference/videoconferencing was quite encouraging. Respondents have
indicated that they acquired their computer and internet trainings through formal
training, but it would be adequate if they could be improvised with extra ICT
skills. Lastly, the majority of the respondents indicated that they accessed the
Internet for 10 hours and above per week.
As for the age and experience, the table revealed that there were linear
relationships between them and e-learning adoption (p = 0.01), while software
skills correlated well with e-learning confidence, e-learning training and elearning
adoption (p = 0.01). As for the Internet skills, it correlated well with elearning
confidence and e-learning adoption (p = 0.01). These correlation
results indicated that there were statistically significant linear relationships
between age, experience, software skills and Internet skills. As for the analysis
of variance (ANOVA) to test for the influences of the strata groups (gender and
areas of specialization) on the extracted factors, the results revealed that
gender has a significant influence on the respondents’ perceptions of e-learning
confidence. For areas of specialisation and e-learning confidence, the result
showed that it has no statistically significant effects on e-learning confidence,
while gender and areas of specialisation had no interactive effects on the
respondents’ e-learning confidence. Also, gender and areas of specialization
had no influence on the respondents’ e-learning training at all. Finally, the
respondents’ gender and areas of specialisation had no interactive effects on elearning
consequences, e-learning readiness and e-learning adoption.
In terms of the regression analyses for e-learning adoption, summary of
the analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the overall model was
statistically significant, and the set of independent variables explained 34 per
cent of the total variance in e-learning adoption. For the predictive power, two
predictors were statistically significant, namely; e-learning confidence and elearning
training, but e-learning training was the best predictor of e-learning
adoption with the highest Beta value (0.47). As for e-learning readiness, the
overall model was statistically significant, 32 per cent of the total variance was
explained by the independent variables in e-learning readiness. The predictive
power of the individual predictors indicated that only three predictors were
statistically significant, namely; gender, e-learning confidence and e-learning
training. They were significantly related to e-learning readiness, but e-learning
training was the best predictor of e-learning readiness with the highest Beta
value (0.47).
However, regression analyses have shown no effects of multicollinearity,
as revealed by the tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIF) values, which
were within the acceptable levels (1.05 to 2.41), and the computerised values of
the threshold indicated that the statistically significant predictors of e-learning
adoption and e-learning readiness had threshold values that were lower than
the values of the confidence interval in their lower and upper bounds. Therefore,
for e-learning adoption, both of the significant predictors; e-learning confidence
and e-learning training were of practical importance, while age, e-learning
confidence and e-learning training were of practical importance to e-learning
readiness, based on their threshold values.
Finally, as for the cross-validation of the regression analysis for the
predictors of e-learning adoption and e-learning readiness, the analysis
revealed that e-learning confidence and e-learning training were statistically
significantly related with e-learning adoption and they were replicated, and both
were of practical importance in the cross-validation analysis. While e-learning
training was still the best predictor for both e-learning adoption and e-learning
readiness.
Comments, Views, Opinions and Suggestions of the Critical Mass
Based on the respondents’ comments, views and opinions, three themes
can be deduced from them, namely; that (1) e-learning will not take over
conventional learning, (2) users needed to be well-educated through the
provision of adequate professional development plans, (3) and the provision of
appropriate infrastructure, administrative, technical and mental supports to all
users were very crucial for a successful implementation of e-learning in the
University, IIUM.
DISCUSSIONS
According to the results, the findings revealed that e-learning confidence
and e-learning training were statistically significant for both e-learning adoption
and e-learning readiness. Murphy and Greenwood (1998) reported that younger
lecturers showed a significant level of confidence than older ones on the use of
computers in teaching. But contrarily, Muse (2003) found that computer
confidence had no effect on the criterion variables of his study on ICT use.
However, in Osborn’s study (as cited in Muse, 2003), it was reported that
if users of ICT valued the tools very well, they would develop their confidence
for it. Wigfield (as cited in Schunk, 2000) mentioned that valuing a task can lead
to greater self-regulatory efforts. Therefore, to improve the perceptions towards
e-learning implementation, it was suggested that users should be encouraged
to increase their confidence in computing skills. Lack of confidence was
reported as a reason for low ICT uptake (Murphy & Greenwood, 1998).
The regression analyses showed that e-learning training were statistically
significant, and the best predictor for e-learning adoption and e-learning
readiness. This is an indication that the lecturers need basic knowledge
upgrading on the use of ICT tools. The cross-validation analyses had shown
that e-learning training was replicated in both the estimation and crossvalidation
sub-samples.
Further more, Veen (1993) suggested that the lack of initial training of
teachers was an anathema to ICT use and implementation. In a study
conducted by Murphy and Greenwood (1998), it was reported that the lecturers
felt that they were not well-trained and exposed to ICT tools as compared to
their students. Thus, this findings suggested that more ICT trained and
confidence building in the area would be worthwhile in enhancing their abilities
to teach with e-learning tools. Also, Jonassen (1996) mentioned that educators
need to experience the personal value embedded in the technology as both
productivity tools to increase efficiency and as mind-tools for providing learning
opportunities to students. On this note, Fabry and Higgs (1997) admonished
that educators must experience the power of technology to implement it, while
training is considered as a critical factor in the successful implementation and
integration of technology.
Additionally, Ertmer, Bai, Dong, Khalil Park and Wang (2002) highlighted
that efforts to provide professional development for teachers were increasing.
Flynn (as cited in Education Week, 2001) related that conversation around
professional development has gained more attention and focus recently as
compare to talks about hardware and infrastructure, and funding for
professional development has increased manifolds, and several surveys have
proven that teachers were now participating in a variety of professional
development activities that were available. But, despite these increases in
resources and training opportunities, teachers were still struggling to achieve
high levels of integration (Becker, 2000; NCES, 2000).
Although argument riffed that the use of computers was incompatible
with the traditional requirements of teaching, whereas, others claimed that
placement of computers within the reach of teachers and within supportive
school cultures was very important so that teachers can improve their ICT
potential (Cuban, 1993). But Anderson and Dexter (2000) conceived otherwise,
they argued that unrestricted access and training would not amount to effective
use of computers if teachers were not encouraged, or expected to use
computers in meaningful ways. In this regard, they suggested that strong
leadership is critical to computer integration and ICT implementation in general.
Therefore, Ertmer et. al (2002) mentioned that few educators today
would argue with the premise that the principal plays an important role in
facilitating technology use in the schools. Crystal (2001) admonished that
building administrators for technology leadership is the nexus through which all
issues flow. But many of the faculty leaders and administrators were novice
technology users, who use the computers only for the basic functions, such as,
word processing and power-point presentation, they had gained little experience
or training in the knowledge and skills needed to be effective technology
leaders.
According to Schmelzer (2001), a broad experience is important for
administrators (Deans and Heads of departments), who could be considered as
the technology leaders. Their vast experiences will help them to develop an
understanding of how technology can improve instructional practices and
provide a repertoire of strategies for supporting teachers’ efforts to use
technology in the classroom. Leaders’ vision and adequate planning are crucial
necessity to embark on this objective. Contrarily though, research has
documented that strategies that promote the status or image of teachers who
were advanced in their use of ICT were not likely to have effect on the adoption
behaviours of other teachers (Jebeile & Reeve, 2003). Nevertheless, the
researcher would strongly suggest that addressing the factors that were found
to be significant in this study would be worthwhile for the e-learning
implementation this University.
Moreover, the results of the cross-validation of the predictors of elearning
adoption with the data from the second sub-sample (n=162) produced
e-learning confidence and e-learning training as statistically significant
predictors of the e-learning adoption and e-learning readiness. Thus, e-learning
training and e-learning confidence as a significant predictor of e-learning
adoption were replicated in the cross-validation.
For the second phase of the study, which is the E-learning Sustainability
survey, the overall descriptive analysis revealed that the majority of the
respondents answered that initiatives for e-learning implementation were still
underway with relatively apparent e-learning sustainable success. While handful
number of minority answered that, they could see few substantive evidences.
This means that there were potentially visible opportunities that e-learning will
be supported and sustained, if it is finally implemented in the University.
However, comparing the results from both of the instruments (selfdeveloped
and the adapted sustainability survey questionnaire), the researcher
concluded that the results were quite congruent with one another, though they
were designed and followed different analytical methods. Also, it has been
evidently substantiated that the results corresponded well with each other. For
example, the regression analyses, where e-learning confidence and e-learning
training were concluded as statistically significant and replicated predictors for
e-learning readiness and e-learning adoption were in consonance and reflective
of the thematic deductions from the views, comments and opinions of the Dean,
Head, Acting Heads of various faculties and departments in the University,
IIUM. This means that there were high levels of indication from the regression
analyses that the respondents, who were academic staff, would implement elearning
for instructional delivery in their teaching activities providing they were
equipped with necessary skills through professional training and other support.
In the thematic deductions, themes number 2 and 3 highlighted on the needs for
training and other supports from the IIUM authority for the academic staff and
faculty administrators.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the regression analyses for e-learning adoption and elearning
readiness showed that e-learning confidence and e-learning training
were their statistically significant predictors, but e-learning training was their best
predictor. There were no effects of multicollinearity, the tolerance and variance
inflation factors (VIF) values were within the acceptable levels. The threshold
values indicated that the threshold values were within the acceptable range.
Both e-learning confidence and e-learning training were of practical importance
in predicting e-learning adoption and e-learning readiness.
In addition, the cross-validation regression analyses revealed that e-learning
confidence and e-learning training were statistically significantly related with elearning
adoption and e-learning readiness, and both were replicated and were
of practical importance for the predictors of e-learning adoption and e-learning
readiness. And e-learning training remained as the best predictor for both elearning
adoption and e-learning readiness.
For E-learning Sustainability survey, the respondents thought that
initiatives for e-learning implementation were still underway with relatively
apparent e-learning sustainable success, but some of them thought that they
could see few substantive evidence, which they hoped would be sustained,
should the University implement e-learning at the long run.
References
Anderson, R.E., & Dexter, S.L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence
and impact. Centre for Research on Information
Technology and Organisations. IT in Education University of
California, Irvine. Retrieved October 25, 2004, from
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1053&content=crito
Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, lecturing, and computing
survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Retrieved October 25, 2004, from
www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ccsso.pdf.
Billings, D.M. (Ed.) (1988). A conceptual model of correspondence course
completion. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 23-35.
Blackmore, M., Stanley, N., Coles, D., Hodgkingson, K., Taylor, C., & Vaughan,
G. (1992). A preliminary view of students’ information technology
experience across UK initial teacher training institutions. Journal of
Information Technology for Teacher Education, 1, 241-254.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative Data Analysis. London:
Routledge.
Byard, M.J. (1995). Information technology under school-based policies for
initial teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11,
128-140.
Calverley, G., & Shephard, K. (2003). Assisting the uptake of on-line resources:
why good learning resources are not enough. Computers and Education,
41, 205- 24.
Collison, J. & Murray, D. (1994). What goes on in school-based IT?. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 99-109.
Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper &
Row.
Crystal, J. (2001). Running a successful technology campaign: A political
primer. Technology and Learning, 21(11), 35-42.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers
College Record, 95, 185-210.
Dearing, R. (1997). Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO).
Retrieved November 2, 2004, from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe
Downes, T. (1993). Student-teachers’experiences in using computers during
teaching practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9, 17-
33.
Dunn, S. & Ridgway, J. (1991). Computer use during primary school teaching
practice: a survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 7-
17.
Education Week. (2001, May). Technology counts 2001: The new divides.
Technology Reports Finds Inequities. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in
Education, Inc. Retrieved November 2, 2004, from
www.edweek.org/sreports/tc01/; or,
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/05/09/34tc.h20.html?
Ertmer, P.A., Bai, H., Dong, C., Khalil, M., Park, S.H. & Wang, L. (2002). Online
Professional Development: Building Administrators’ Capacity for
Technology
Leadership. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(1), 5-11.
Expression of Interest Integrated Project (February 2003). E-Learning- the
cultural and societal impacts on the design and perception of elearning
solutions. Call for Expression of Interest.
Retrieved January 5, 2004 from
http://kmr.nada.kth.se/papers/SemanticWeb/EOI_PAeLLA_fainal.pdf
Fabry, D.L. & Higgs, J.R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in
education: Current status. Journal of Educational computing Research,
17(4), 385-395.
Galagan, P. (2002). The Learning Revolution. In Woods, J.A. & Cortada, J. W.
(2002). The 2002 ASTD Training and Performance Yearbook
(Eds.), (pp. 75-82). New York: McGraw-Hill
Gay, L.R. (1997). Educational research: competencies for analysis and
application (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and application (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
Hunt, N.P., & Bohlin, R.M. (1993). Teacher education students’ attitudes toward
using computers, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25,
487- 97.
Jebeile, S., & Reeve, R. (2003). The Diffusion of E-Learning Innovations in an
Australian Secondary College: Strategies and Tactics for Educational
Leaders. The Innovation Journal 8(4).
Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking.
Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice Hall.
Kay, R.H. (1989). Gender differences in computer attitudes, literacy, locus of
control and commitment, Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 21, 307-316.
Koohang, A.A. (1989). A study of attitude towards computers: anxiety,
confidence, liking and perception of usefulness, Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 22, 137-150.
Lienard, B. (1995). Pre-course information technology skills of teacher trainees:
a longitudinal study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 110-
120.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Marshall, J.C., & Bannon, S.H. (1986). Computer attitudes and computer
knowledge of students and educators, Association for Education
Data Systems Journal, 18, 270- 286.
McDonald, S. (1993a). Information technology: building structures in initial
teacher training to develop effective practitioners. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, (9), 141-148.
McMahon, J., & Gardner, J. (1995). Facilitating and inhibiting factors in student
computer usage. In Hagen, C.O. (Eds.), Empowering teachers and
learners through Technology. Birmingham: Staff and Educational
Development Association.
Moore, G.C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure
Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation.
Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
Murphy, C., & Greenwood, L. (1998). Effective Integration of Information and
Communications Technology in Teacher Education. Journal of
Information and Technology for Teacher Education, 7(3), 413-429.
Murray, P.J. (2003, June). E-learning and its benefits for developing nursing
practice. Peer reviewed research paper. ITIN 15(2). Retrieved
October 25, 2004, from www.bcsnsg.org.uk/itin15/VOL15-res.pdf
Muse Jr., H.E. (2003). The Web-based community college student: An
examination of
factors that lead to success and risk. Internet and Higher Education, 6,
241- 161.
NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics) (2000). Public school
teachers’ use of computers and the Internet. Washington, D.C: US.
Department of Education. Retrieved October 20, 2003, from
http://nces.ed.gov.pubs2000/distance.html#types.
Oliver, R. (1993). A comparison of students’ information technology skills
in1985 and 1991, British Journal of Educational Technology, 24,
52-62.
Oliver, R. (1994). Factors influencing beginning teachers’ uptake of computers,
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2, 71-89.
Rosenberg, Marc. J. (2000). The e-learning readiness survey: 20 Key strategic
questions you and your organisation must answer about the
sustainability of your e-learning efforts. Version 1.0. Copyright. Retrieved
February 12, 2004, from
www..ucalgary.ca~srmccaus/eLearning_survey.pdf
Rosenberg, Marc. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for Building Online Learning
in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill
Rosenberg, Michael (November, 2001). E-Leaning Basics: A guide to the elearning
industry. Retrieved December 10, 2002, from the archive
http://elearning2.nosapo.pt/bibliografia.htm
Schmelzer, T. (2001, June). Training administrators to be technology leaders.
Technology and Learning, 21(11), 16-24.
Schunk, D.H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd Ed.).
New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, Merill.
Sorenson, D.L., & Reiner, C. (2003). Charting the uncharted seas of online
student ratings of instruction. New Direction for Teaching
and Learning, 96, 1- 21.
Spencer, K. (1999). Educational Technology-An Unstoppable Force: A
Selective Review of Research into the Effectiveness of
Educational Media. Educational Technology and Society, 2(4), 1-
16.
Summers, M. (1990). Starting Teacher Training- new PGCE students and
courses, British Education an Research Journal, 16, 79-87.
Summers, M., & Easdown, G. (1996). Information technology in initial teacher
training: preconceptions of history and geography interns, with
reflections of mentors and tutors. Journal of Information
Technology for Teacher Education, 5, 155-172.
Van Braak, J. (2001). Factors Influencing the use of Computer Mediated
Communication by Teachers in Secondary Schools. Computers
& Education, 36, 41-57.
Veen, W. (1993). The role of beliefs in the use of information technology:
implications for teacher education, or teaching the right thing at the
right time, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 2, 139-153.
Webb, E., Jones, A., Barker, P., & Schaik, P. (2004). Using e-learning dialogues
in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
41(1), 93-103).
Wild, M. (1996). Technology refusal: rationalizing the failure of student and
beginning teachers to use computers. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 27, 134-143.
Woodrow, J. (1991). Locus of control and computer attitudes as determinants of
the computer literacy of student teachers. Computers and Education, 16,
237-245

Source : http://www.icde.org/oslo/icde.nsf//001D61E94257C604C1257295004D3F27/$FILE/008.pdf

E-Learning in Canada: Evidence, Gaps and Promising Direction

Summary of a panel discussion at CADE-AMTEC 2007 in Winnipeg, featuring Michele Jacobsen, Terry Anderson, Heather Kanuka, and Margaret Haughey.Michele Jacobsen:Context: special issue of CJLT on e-learning with an emphasis on Canadian research. Systematic literature review of over 700 documents. We took the report and sent it to several researchers in the field. So we have the report plus four commentaries. This puts the peer review process right out there in the open.What the researchers found, public response:- e-learning is a rapidly growing field- it provides greater access- funding may divert resources- teacher classes remain essentialPolicy makers:- generally supportive, but- must be used in appropriate contextsOthers said:- it requires careful attention to design, etc- we need to review policiesReviews of e-learning (about 300 documents) were generally positive. E-learning requires sustained support. But there is a lack of empirical evidence to support e-learning.Heather KanukaIt was a fine job of reviewing the literature. Much of the literature was qualitative (only 15 percent quantitative). That makes it hard to say what works and what doesn't. The e-learning research community has to face the reality that its efforts have failed to provide guidance. Much of the research in e-learning is based in realist philosophy, the assumption that there are natural laws that can be observed. If this assumption is erroneous - and I think it it - then we are asking the wrong questions. We simply can't pile up the generalizations fast enough.Many e-learning researchers guide their research on the assumptions that government natural laws. Hence the lament of there being only 15 percent quantitative. So a large body of the research has little social relevance. It doesn't reflect the messiness we face as practitioners. We need to find practical solutions to the everyday problems we face, and to recognize that we are living in a 'swampy lowland of practice'. Need to use more emergent methodology that addresses messiness.So I want to put a different sin on the finding of the researchers, that we can't find best practice. I want to say that the majority of researchers are using emergent paradigms and are finding socially useful results. Over the years I have found what works and what doesn't, and I'm comfortable with saying that, and I'm fine with not being able to generalize best practices.Terry AndersonThere is a lack of funding for research in education in Canada. It's bad enough that only 15 percent were quantitative. 7 quantitative studies that were Canadian. There's a limited amount of insight you can get from that. The only way to generate value that you get so many of them that the effect of individual contexts are wiped out. If we had a few hundred, a few thousand, we might be able to extract some meaning from that data.So then we ask, why aren't we doing more. And we have to say that, as Canadians, we are simply n ot committed to research in e-learning, or in education generally. By contrast, the UK, 74 different institutes. Also awards, eg. National Teaching Fellowships. And they have the JISC and a whole bunch of things.Other countries can do things, even Russia can do things, it's not just the fact that we are in a federation.What I really liked what they did was that they looked at all the other documents, eg. government studies, media, and so on. And they came back and made correlations between them saying positive things and why, eg., saving money, and they were happy to say the reason for e-learning is access and distance learning.It's interesting you see the rebuttals, the old paradigm wars are alive and well, the left and qualitative studies vs the right (and I notice the right were too scared to come here today).Margaret HaugheyWe were asked to respond to the documentation itself, and in the first place I thought of it as a classification scheme, so I look at the effort to create a classification scheme that was based on different types of work. They didn't quite pull it off. The translation of it into numerical data and the trying to give things a plus or a minus with a rating scale didn't really work.E-learning - what does it mean? We tend to talk of it as though it were dropped from the heavens - what is the impact? Or thinking of it as a tool. But the world has moved into an environment in which technology is everywhere. What's happening in e-learning is really a reflection of what's happening in other fields.When I did my review, at the same time Ungerleider did his (but I didn't get the same kind of press) it was full of case studies. Look at this conference - personal learning environment, connective knowledge. There's a whole new way of thinking. Even as you're trying to study e-learning, it's transforming itself. Informal learning. So I put back to the authors that their definition was so broad it included everything, and when you include everything you can't draw any useful conclusions. Kids learning to keyboard - is that e-learning?Also - integration, immersion. Thinking about it while we're doing it.I would disagree with the generality, you use such general categories everything gets dumped into it. I see work on dialogue, on developing community. These are areas where there is a body of work.DiscussionDave Cormier: "Do we really need the 'e' any more?" As long as we're still thinking of technology as something 'other' it will never be really integrated.Margaret - I agree. It puts the emphasis on pedagogy.Terry- agree, but it is interesting that the authors classified it into instructional, presentational, etc. As long as we keep in mind that it's multipurpose, we'll be ok.Rick: I wonder if we're back to the old 'media effectiveness' question, just smudged. I wonder if people are thinking of online learning environments, Moodle, when they're thinking of this. But the 'media effectiveness' thing was debunked 20 years ago.Terry - that zombie has risen from the coffin.Heather - we get into conversations about what the impact is of the use of technology. Not technology determinism, but belief that technology is non-neutral. There is an impact. Telephone is the same as not face-to-face. We need to know, eg., how does text-based mediated communication change activities. Asking what the consequences are and how they impact our communication.Rick - isn't the problem the term? We don't get specific. We talk about text-based, that's one thing. But there's Elluminate, which is audio, that's a different thing.Diane Janes - wondering about the zombie and the effectiveness debate, and tying it with funding, that wants us to be effective. "I don;t want my child to be damaged by something that's not effective." Was the zombie ever dead? The world comes back and says, "How effective is this?"Margaret - the conference where we presented these papers had a whole lot of OECD people at it, and then Charlie spoke, saying, you should stop it, you're not accomplishing anything. But the better analogy would be, the automobile. Once, we had maps with gas stations, because we needed them. And roads. These days, we just assume they're there. There are so many things that are part of the infrastructure of the automobile. The question of impact was asked then - why should we do this. The horse, it doesn't need gas stations. If it were only that we introduced tech, and everything else was the same, we could do the research. But things change - the curriculum, the testing, the teaching strategies.Terry - the easy out is to say 'how do we know that was effective'. The only answer is to say, 'How would I learn'. To say with some authority, that's what I'm using.-- the labling issue was a bit of a barrier. We're so hung up on computers, we wonder what we are going to do with voice over internet, oh no, we know nothing about VoIP. But if we say 'audio', we have a lot to say about audio. Because we say 'computers' we're losing a lot of what we learned from distance education when there were no computers. It was only in rare models that we had no contact. The labeling can really get in the way so much.Heather - I agree. Peters wrote an excellent article on building on the foundations. There's a lot of talk about old wine in new bottles...Terry - it's in the Bible.--- I don;t know anything about the methodology or the breadth of the study.Michele - journals, public policy, scholarly academic reviews....--- maybe one of the reasons we got 15 percent is that there was a huge pile that was missed. Eg. Journal of Medical education - was 95 percent empirical research. Parallel reviews. If those were missed in many of those disciplines, empirical research is a requirement...Michele - It was a focus on Canadian educational journals.Terry - listed pretty broad sources.Michele - It is online, cjlt.ca--- Re: people looking at technology as a value-neutral tool - it's not, of course -- people tend to think of technology as always a good thing. Wonder if you have a response to that attitude. Have we created an industry that becomes self-propelling.Terry - well the most-used technology is the blackboard, so I don't think we're overwhelmed. I think we've got lots of conservatives.Heather - we have to justify the way things are currently done.--- I was upset with my son's science teacher, he was using a 1981 textbook, there's no computer, it's 1970s style education, for a junior high school in Alberta it's not very good stuff. My daughters history text is from 1983, it says there are a million computer users now in the U.S.Heather - I was wondering what's the difference between animated objects vs transparencies?Margaret - the real shadow piece is around th questions that is asked around impact and testing and accountability, we can see from the United States, there's a big emphasis again on objectives.Michele - I'm also looking at the issues of equity. Also in Alberta, a school, fully funded by Apple, with one-to-one computing. There's no system of accountability, no system for assessing whether it's being used responsibly. Or access is so locked down you can't reasonably do research

Open University expands e-learning capabilities

The Open University (OU) is to extend its e-learning scheme and introduce real-time forums.
The university has 200,000 students and already uses e-learning tools, but will introduce new technology to allow real-time interaction between students.
‘Most courses have forums, but this system will be for real-time communication rather than forums where people post at different times,’ said Niall Sclater, director of the OU’s virtual learning environment programme.
‘It will allow students to communicate with each other outside of scheduled sessions,’ he said.
Sclater says the distance learning specialist intends to introduce new systems by the end of the summer.
The technology needs to be scalable so the university can judge student response and increase availability during peak periods, he says.
The university already uses an in-house system that enables audio conferencing and interactive white boards on all of its language courses.
It is considering extending these functions to other courses if the collaborative forum functions prove popular.
Sclater says there is some debate as to whether universities should host these functions themselves or leave it to the students to organise.
‘Tools such as Skype that are not provided by the university can be used by pupils for free anyway,’ he said.
‘Obviously, if you have tutorial that leads to assessment then you have to provide something robust and scalable.
‘But if it is more ad hoc student-to-student communication, then maybe students can just source these things themselves.’
See also:

E-learning versus the classroom E-learning has assumed an increasingly important role in staff development and IT training, but demand for traditional classroom-based courses remains strong
12 Mar 2007

Academics launch e-learning investigation Boffins investigate the benefits of e-learning for future students
20 Jul 2006

E-learning jumps in popularityInteractive multimedia training catches up with