Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 212

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 Researchers 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 Researchers 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 teachers 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 (Hvoreck 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 learners 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 (Hvoreck 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 todays technological society, basic computer literacy is emphasized in every institutions
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 todays

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?

Administrative

Curricular

Didactic

Organizational

Systemic

Cultural

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

Moderate

Radical

How to behave with eLearning or Educational Technologies?


Dont 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 managements 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 students needs, however, if several learning
opportunities are provided, learners can choose the matching one. Learning style is a predictor of
an individuals 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 universitys 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 expertsand the instructors are content experts but not pedagogical expertsthe 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 (gerfalk 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
(Blzquez & Daz, 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 teachers role has changed from providing well-cooked teachers
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 (Hvoreck 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 (Blzquez & Daz, 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

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?

Dont 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 Australias
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 institutions 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 (gerfalk 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 individuals 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 individuals preferred learning
behavior. While instructors cannot always accommodate each students need, it is important that
several learning opportunities are provided. A match between learning style and teaching style
reveals increases students 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 dont 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 (Blzquez & Daz, 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-centeredan 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 teachers 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
(Blzquez & Daz, 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)

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

Prospects

The future of eLearning (expectations).

PRO

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
(gerfalk 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
(gerfalk 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

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

Mehra & Mital


(2007)

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

Sampling-Procedure

[2/((E2/Z2)+(2/N))]

137

Teachers

3401

Administrators

7791

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

Educational
Technologies

Development

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 Cronbachs 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
(Hvoreck 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 (Hvoreck 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). Malaysias 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
nations 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, Pakistans 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 dont 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 (Hvoreck 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). Todays 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
learners 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 teachers 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.) dont 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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

<5

4.934
< 35

Pre2000

4.837

4.749

4.69

>= 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
<5

N
163
190

P-Val.
Accepted

PRC
5.119
4.7916
.000
Ha

ETS
4.99
4.5967
.000
Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables


DEV
USE
PRB
STF
OPR
4.4881 4.9631 4.9631 4.6196 5.3865
4.1526 4.6983 4.6983 4.2211
5.25
.000
.000
.000
.000
.110
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
H0

PRO
5.904
5.584
.000
Ha

The Impacts are 7/8 = 87.5%

The researchers have recorded difference between the respondents with less or more experience
in using the computers (Bondarouk, 2006; Mehra & Mital, 2007; Ezziane, Z. (2007; Moolman &
Blignaut, 2008). As the users get used to computers and their applications, their perceptions and
attitudes gradually change positively in the favor of new technologies. In our study, the impacts
have been recorded on all the variables except Opportunities. They all view the same
opportunities for eLearning however; their experience has changed their view on all rest of the
variables thereby showing significant differences between the groups. The increase in experience
with computers also motivates the users to learn more and thereby hold positive attitudes and
broader uses of ICTs in their official and daily routines. This demographic is therefore, an
international concept.

The Impacts of ICT-Qualification (ITQ) (t-Test)


Variable
ITQ
P-Val.
Accepted

Groups
Formal
Informal

N
119
235

PRC
5.2555
4.7847
.000
Ha

ETS
5.1436
4.5926
.000
Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables


DEV
USE
PRB
STF
OPR
4.521
5.257 5.1153 4.7815 5.5378
4.2005 4.5627 4.6715 4.2113
5.2
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha

PRO
5.949
5.627
.001
Ha

The Impacts are 8/8 = 100%

Like the impact of CNC, there are significant impacts of having formal training/education
(including those with computer as subject) or learning computer informally through friends or
personal efforts. People with some sort of formal training comparatively have mature theories
and attitudes for eLearning. The impact is very significant with p=.000 on all the variables
except PRO with p-value of .001, which is still far less than .05. Users with formal computer
related education and training score high on all the aspects of research.

177 /225

The Impacts of Subjects (SNS) (t-Test)


Variable
SNS

Group
Science
Non Science

N
152
202

P-Val.
Accepted

PRC
5.1408
4.7941
.000
Ha

ETS
4.9791
4.6265
.000
Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables


DEV
USE
PRB
STF
4.4094 5.1069 4.9897 4.6601
4.2321 4.5622 4.6936 4.2096
.001
.000
.000
.000
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha

OPR
5.4441
5.2153
.007
Ha

PRO
5.809
5.680
.182
H0

The Impacts are 7/8 = 87.5%

The researchers report that users from social sciences like Management, English, Economics etc.,
assign lower scores on the use of computers than their counterparts in natural sciences like
chemistry, physics, mathematics and computer science (Wims & Lawler, 2007). This research
project also comes up with the same type of results showing differences between the science and
non-science groups of respondents on all the variables excluding Prospects (p=.182). Both the
groups perceive similar prospects despite their differences about the current conditions of
eLearning in the HEIs of KPK. Thus, this is a global phenomenon, reflecting international
mindset.
The Impacts of the Age of Institute (AOI) (t-Test)
Variable
AOI
P-Val.
Accepted

Group
Pre2000
Post2000

N
191
163

PRC
4.8827
5.0135
.046
Ha

ETS
4.7197
4.8461
.040
Ha

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables


DEV
USE
PRB
STF
OPR
4.2728 4.7098 4.7789 4.3752 5.2853
4.3497 4.8972 4.8697 4.4356 5.3466
.168
.003
.076
.386
.472
H0
Ha
H0
H0
H0

PRO
5.7749
5.6902
.377
H0

The Impacts are 3/8 = 37.5%

Mostly, researchers hypothesize that old HEIs should have more positive attitudes towards
eLearning solutions than the new ones because older institutes are well established and face the
eLearning challenges with greater maturity (Gray et al., 2003; Mehra & Mital, 2007). In this
research however, no significant differences were unfolded by the tests except on two variables
PRC and ETS with higher scores of older institutes. Although older institutes place higher scores
on all the variables however, differences are not significant at .05 level of sigma therefore most
of the null hypotheses have been rejected (5/8) showing 38% of relationships between this
demographic attribute and the research variables.

178 /225

The Designation Impacts of Teachers (ANOVA)


Variable
DST

Groups
Professor
Asst. Prof.
Lecturer

N
16
33
88

P-Val.
Accepted

PRC
4.9375
5.3576
5.0136
.025
Ha

ETS
4.858
5.002
4.855
.482
H0

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables


DEV
USE
PRB
STF
OPR
4.5417 4.7031
4.883 4.6458
5.25
4.6061 4.9261
5.082 4.7172 5.5455
4.529 4.7431
4.925
4.553 5.4205
.770
.256
.233
.366
.430
H0
H0
H0
H0
H0

PRO
5.625
6.060
5.733
.195
H0

The Impacts are 1/8 = 12.5%

The impacts of designation are also not important as the ANOVA has identified no significant
variations in the responses. However, their differences of opinion between the groups on the
perceptions are surprising in the sense that assistant professors (the middle group) scores higher
than both eh upper and lower groups. This middle group also has higher scores on all the
variables. This trend suggests that in the HEIs of KPK, experience with job has no impact on the
eLearning theories and attitudes.
Furthermore, all the test applications on the ages of the respondents, ages of the institutes, job
experiences etc none has the impacts on the users responses. It is rather the experience with
the computers, which brings broader and deeper changes in the thinking and practical behavior
of the users showing that greater the familiarity with computers, greater are chances that users
will develop positive attitudes for the new technologies and get ready to change for better.
The Designation Impacts of Administrators (ANOVA)
Variable
DSA

P-Val.
Accepted

Group
Top
Middle
Bottom

N
11
14
60

PRC
4.8545
4.8429
4.8
.920
H0

ETS
4.595
4.3766
4.6394

.080
H0

Mean Scores of Groups on 8 Variables


DEV
USE
PRB
STF
4.1313
4.7708
4.5567 4.3636
3.8968
4.7083
4.4681 4.2381
3.987
4.7469
4.5248 4.2833
.279
.899
.721
.730
H0
H0
H0
H0

OPR
4.8182
4.8214
4.7083
.852
H0

PRO
5.363
5.571
5.3
.535
H0

The Impacts are 0/8 = 0%

Like the designation impacts of teachers, there are no designation impacts on the responses from
different groups of administrators as well. Some researchers report differences of opinion and
attitudes between the top, middle, and bottom management about the role of ICTs in HEIs
(Valcke, 2004). However, this is not substantiated in this research. There is no impact

179 /225

whatsoever on any of the 8 variables and the p-values on all applications are very significant and
as high as 0.9.

b. Combined Analysis
After looking at the impacts of each demographic impact on all the variables, let us now reduce
the analysis into manageable form with focus on the overall implications of all the demographics
and research variables at the research-project level.

Tables 5.28 Significance (p-Values) of Demographic Impacts


Dem.
Var.
PRC
ETS
DEV
USE
PRB
STF
OPR
PRO
8

RTP
.002
.001
.000
.441
.000
.000
.000
.000
7
88
%

CNC
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
8
100
%

PPR
.002
.000
.018
.000
.006
.219
.392
.445
5
62
%

p-Values of t-tests and ANOVA Applications


GDR AGE EXP ITQ SNS
CTY
.000
.114
.000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.937
.000 .000 .000
.000
.060
.206
.000 .000 .001
.488
.000
.236
.000 .000 .000
.085
.000
.124
.000 .000 .000
.000
.000
.003
.000 .000 .000
.397
.768
.000
.110 .000 .007
.001
.046
.003
.001 .001 .182
.009
6
3
7
8
7
5
75
38
88
100
88
62
%
%
%
%
%
%

AOI
.046
.040
.168
.003
.076
.386
.472
.377
3
38
%

DST
.025
.482
.770
.256
.233
.366
.430
.195
1
13
%

DSA
.920
.080
.279
.899
.721
.730
.852
.535
0
0
%

12
9
9
6
7
8
7
6
7

Avr.
75%
75%
50%
58%
67%
58%
50%
58%
61%

Note. When p-value is less than 0.05, H0 is Rejected (Meaning, there is Impact.).

Last column in the above table gives the following broad findings:
1. 75% of the Demographic dimensions bring changes in the Mean-Scores of respondents
on Perceptions and Educational Technologies.
2. Problems have differences of opinion among the groups on 67% of the demographic
groupings.
3. Use and Satisfaction are different among the groups based on 58% of the Demographics.
4. Development and Opportunities have the impacts of the 50% of Categorical Variables.
5. However, 61% of the demographic variables change the responses on all the 8 research
variables.

Last row of the table suggests that:


1. CNC and ITQ create groups which are 100% different from each other.

180 /225

2. RTP, EXP and SNS changing the 88% of Mean Scores of the groups.
3. GDR has modified the 75% of responses on all the variables.
4. PPR and CTY have brought variations in the 62% of responses on 8 variables.
5. 38% of research variables have been affected by Age and Age of the Institute.
6. However, DST and DSA have no impacts on the respondents response.

Tables 5.29 Decisions on Hypothesis about Demographic Impacts

Hypotheses
1
2
3
4
5
6

RTP has impacts.


CNC give different responses.
PPR changes the response.
GDR affects the responses.
AGE affects the respondents.
EXP with computer changes the
response.
7 ITQ has implications.
8 SNS changes the views of
respondents.
9 CTY can change the response.
10 AOI affects the respondents.
11 a. DST changes the teachers
behavior.
12 b. DSA affects the administrators
response.
8/12

Null Alternate

Results
Accepted
Impact %age
7/8
87.6%
Ha1
8/8
100%
Ha2
5/8
62.5%
Ha3
6/8
75%
Ha4
3/8
37.5%
H05
7/8
87.6%
Ha6

H01
H02
H03
H04
H05
H06

Ha1
Ha2
Ha3
Ha4
Ha5
Ha6

H07
H08

Ha7
Ha8

8/8
7/8

100%
87.6%

Ha7
Ha8

H09
H010
H011

Ha9
Ha10
Ha11

5/8
3/8
1/8

62.5%
37.5%
12.5%

Ha9
H010
H011

H012

Ha12

0/8

0%

H012

5/8

62.5%

Ha

Table 5.28 gives a summary of results achieved through the application of tests of significance
(t-Tests and ANOVA procedures) on the mean differences between different groups of the
respondents based on their demographic disparities. The major findings of this section of
analysis are:
1. 9 out of 12 hypotheses about the Demographic impacts have been substantiated as
confirmed by the results from tests of significance (see from Table 5.8 to 5.19).

181 /225

2. The table shows that the differences of big and small cities, age of the institutes and the
designation of both teachers and administrators have no impacts on the responses of
teachers and administrators.

182 /225

5.4.3 The Impacts of Predictors (Research Variables)


Tables 5.30 Significance (p-values) of the Impacts of Predictors on Criterion Variables
Independent
Variables
PRC

PRC
-

ETS
.047

ETS

.047

DEV

.000

.137

USE

.094

.002

PRB

.000

STF

p-Values
Dependent Variables
DEV
USE PRB
STF
.000
.094
.000
.000
.137

OPR
.000

PRO
.080

.002

.000

.122

.000

.000

.004

.000

.055

.000

.686

.004

.000

.000

.000

.680

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.531

.000

.122

.055

.000

.000

.000

.000

OPR

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.914

PRO

.080

.000

.686

.680

.531

.000

.914

Total

71%

71%

57%

71%

86%

71%

86%

29%

1. Problems (PRB) and Opportunities (OPR) are explained by 6 out of 7 predictors thereby
shwing that 86% of variation in the Criterion comes from the predictors.
2. 71% of the Four Criterion variables: Perceptions (PRC), Educational technologies (ETS),
Use practices (USE, and STF are explained by the dependent variables.
3. 57% of the independent variables are explaining the DEV variable.
Tables 5.31 Decisions on the Hypotheses about Regression Analysis
Alternate Hypothesis
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

All the Research Variables are Highly


Correlated.
Perceptions are explained by all variables.
All variables explain Educational Technologies.
Development is determined by all the variables.
Use depends on all other variables.
Problems are explained by all the variables.
Satisfaction depends on all the variables.
Opportunities are depend on all the variables.
Prospects are determined by all the variables.

Null Alternate
H013

Ha13

H014
H015
H016
H017
H018
H019
H020
H021

Ha14
Ha15
Ha16
Ha17
Ha18
Ha19
Ha20
Ha21

Results
Impacts

Accepted
R2

Average r =
0.526857
5/7
71%
5/7
84%
4/7
72%
5/7
67%
6/7
97%
5/7
72%
6/7
86%
2/7
28%
4.75/7
72.13%

Ha13
Ha14
Ha15
Ha16
Ha17
Ha18
Ha19
Ha20
H021
Ha

183 /225

1. Ha13 has been accepted because the correlations between the research variables are highly
significant on all variables except the relationship of Opportunities and Prospects with
rest of the variables (see Section 5.3.2(a) for details).
2. 8 out of 9 Alternative hypotheses (Ha14 to Ha20) have been accepted because Multiple
Regression is highly significant on eight of the applications.
3. However, Prospects have not been significantly explained by the independent variables
therefore, in this case Null hypothesis (H021) stands correct.

5.4.4 Collective Impacts of Demographic and Research Variables


Figure 5.1 Collective Impacts of Demographics and Research Variables

In Figure 5.5, the bars and data-table show that 16 out of 21 hypothesis testing has rejected the
null hypotheses, while only 5 have been substantiated. Thus, the main hypothesis of
demographic and contextual impacts on the attitude of the users is substantiated in the sense that
most of the demographic differences and differences on research variables all demand a
contextualized model of eLearning, which best suits the on-the-spot requirements of any HEI
working in public or private sector.

184 /225

Chapter 6 General Discussions


6.1 Contextual Disparities
The literature review (Chapter 2) deals with the contents and role of contextual factors in the
development and use of eLearning facilities in HEIs of the world. Several researchers have
underlined the challenges associated with the context of eLearning (see for example, Oliver,
2002; Nyvang, 2003; Aaron et al., 2004; Loing, 2005; Cawson, 2005; Macleod, 2005; Ehlers,
2005; Baumeister, 2006; Stephenson, 2006; Hameed, 2007). The central theme of all these
contextual contents is that eLearning tools and techniques can only be used effectively if their
development and use is compatible with the all the contextual elements of the workplace where
users practically use the technologies. This concern is very well supported by this research as
almost all the statistical analysis on the relationships between different factors of eLearning
development and use reveal that the interdependencies are networked. 8 out of 12 tests of
significance reject the null hypotheses thereby indicating the role of contextual factors.

The contextual differences create several problems for the developers and users of eLearning.
Most importantly, these disparities bring significant variations in the theories and attitudes of
government, ICT-professionals, users and the society as a whole. For example, availability of
digital gadgets has little impact on learning if the education system of a country is founded on
weaker policies, limited resource allocation and lesser priorities for education. The most
implicative side of contextual differences is that the perceptions (beliefs) and attitudes (practices)
of those involved in the development and use of eLearning environments are terribly changed
both in positive and negative directions thereby creating problems for the integration of new
technologies into teaching, learning and administrative functions of HEIs.

185 /225

6.2 The Role of User-Perceptions and Attitudes


Due to the demographic disparities, users hold different conceptions of ICTs and eLearning
therefore express varying attitudes in the development and use of these tools. Given that the
perceptions of every developer and user of ICTs vary (Sasseville, 2004), there is a multiplicity of
user-theories forming a continuum of approaches about the nature and role of ICTs and attitudes
about the extent of change required (Kopyc, 2007; Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c).

Literature review suggests that at the broader level of perceptions, individual-users are dispersed
across the continuum of Instrumental vs. Substantive/Liberal views of ICTs. One group of
users considers ICTs as simply the tools for doing teaching, learning and administration more
efficiently and effectively with high speed, big volume, increased accuracy, greater confidence
and least dependence on the human beings. While a contrary group gives greater role to the ICTs
in all the aspects of HEIs and expects the digital impacts through and across the policies and
objectives, structures, operations and culture of the institution and communities. However,
within these two extremes there are moderate users and who actually outnumber the extremists
who accept both the instrumental and liberal roles of ICTs but within conditions. Both the uses
are beneficial if the situation requires. For example, digitization can not be started from
substantive role at the practical level however, at theoretical and policy level this is possible and
visible in most of the policies of states and institutes. Substantive implementation is possible
when basic infrastructure and user-understanding and command is there (Nawaz & Kundi,
2010a; Kundi & Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz, 2011).

In our empirical study the Instrumental use is more preferred (mean = 5.3) however, the scores
on the academic and social role of ICTs are not discouraging (means = 4.8 and 4.2 respectively).
Similarly higher scores on opportunities (mean = 5.3) and prospects (5.7) also support the
premise that teachers, students and administrators are positive about the ICTs but it is the lack of
training and provision of proper technical and working environment, which is supporting only
the instrumental use of ICTs.

186 /225

Thus, substantive use is gaining currency because existing technologies are making this possible
however; it does not eliminate the instrumental use of ICTs rather an add-on to the traditional
instrumental uses of these technologies. Furthermore, the start of eLearning is always
instrumental as hi-tech gadgets can neither be made available nor adequate to do so because
beginning with old and tested technologies is better before logging onto the leading-edge ICTs.

When viewed from organizational/institutional level, the theories or paradigms are similar to the
individual theories with technocrats (instrumental) and holists (substantive) on the two extremes
and reformist are those who believe in behaving moderately and according to the situation. They
emphasize research and constructivist approaches to integrate technologies in the business of
education. Those technocrats who are extremely instrumental with ICTs are also highly
conservative in adopting the technologies and changing individual and group practices. The
extreme liberals may however, support extreme radical changes in the individual, group and
organizational practices.

6.3 Demanding Nature of Educational Technologies (ETS)


Given the global availability of educational technologies, researchers are reporting that
instructional technologies have staged a platform of opportunities for all the HEIs in the world
and these are more profitable for the developing countries in terms of solving their long standing
education issues along with other economic and political problems. For example, online
education facilities are helping the developing nations to solve their problems of accessing
masses for execution, which has not been possible through providing physical education
facilities at that large scale. Similarly, ICTs are helping less advanced countries to reduce their
sense of isolation in the world by connecting the world community online through internet
facilities to learn, enjoy and do business and politics (Nawaz, 2010).

However, educational technologies do not start working just as they are purchased and possessed
by the users or organizations. They have to be harnessed and tamed in accordance with the
requirements of the user and environment where they are supposed to work (Nawaz & Kundi,
2010b, 2010c). There is along array of such technologies and all are not good for every

187 /225

institution rather there needs to be a rational choice of relevant hardware, software and
networking facilities.

Furthermore, there is the problem of learning-edge-syndrome around the world. It refers to the
selection of learning-edge technologies for eLearning projects. Although research suggests again
and again that tested technologies are better than the new and untested options, most of the
institutions are opting for latest technologies, which are not only sophisticated, complicated but
also expensive. The research suggests that most of the time these leading-edge technologies turn
into bleeding-edge technologies because of over costs, problems of learning and issues of their
integration with the existing traditional systems effectively. However, this is a big problem for
the developed states and not the developing countries (Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz, 2011).

In the developing states, educational technologies are not the problem in themselves rather their
availability and then their taming for the individual and organizational requirements is a
challenge for both the developers and users. The biggest technological issue for the countries like
Pakistan is the creation of country wide digital infrastructure, facilities and services at every HEI
level. At the institutional level, the widely reported technological problems relate to the existence
and support of technical unit in the institute. Users need continuous and timely help from the
technical department, which is reportedly mostly unavailable. Thus the dependence on the
technical department and staff is a big issue for the eLearning users (Nawaz, 2011; Nawaz &
Kundi, 2011).

6.4 Complexity of Development and Use Practices


Literature review and the empirical study both give a very challenging nature of developing and
using eLearning solutions in the HEIs of both the developed and developing countries.
Theoretically, collaborative development is preferred however, pragmatically; there is a
multiplicity of complaints about the technically deterministic nature of eProjects (Qureshi et al.,
2009b). Again in theory, development has to be based on the user and organizational
requirements of teachers, students and administrators and HEIs, but in reality, developers
theories prevail. Users are rarely involved in the development activities rather they are given

188 /225

developed systems, which are then leaned to be used by the users. Thus, overall there is lack of
user-participation in the development (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b; Nawaz et al., 2011).

Similarly, use depends on the willingness of users and user training of technology. If users are
involved in the development process they are naturally alienated to the new system. Then adding
fuel to the fire is widely reported weaknesses in the user-training. Teachers are the leading
complainers about the inadequacy of technology-related training (Nawaz, 2011). The contents
and methods of ICT-related training are heavily criticized by the users and mostly termed as
irrelevant (See section 2.2 for details on development and use practices).

In the developing countries, like Pakistan, the universities are still engaged in the traditional
functions of teaching and teaching only. Recently, the trend is changing and research-culture is
underway due to the availability of internet and particularly the Free and Open Source Systems
which has made the world knowledge resources available to the poorest countries of the world.
The data sources like research journals have remained beyond the access of masses from the
developing world. But now internet is shifting from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, which is actually an
opening of a new era for learning from anywhere and anytime with the objectives of education
for all and life long learning (Nawaz, 2010).

6.5 Leading Challenges for eLearning in HEIs


There are both internal and external challenges and problems for the development and use of
eLearning options in HEIs. The research studies are constantly identifying problems relating to
ICTs, approaches and methods for their uses, design and development methods, and the changing
trends in these areas. Teachers, students and administrators are facing common as well as
different challenges as are the developing and developed countries. it is however, widely
reported and broadly accepted that it is not the technology, which is a problem rather the human,
social and political problems make or break the digital opportunity initiatives in any organization
including the HEIs. Asian Development Bank (2005) in its Evaluation of SAP:PAK 2005-08 for
the Social Sectors in Pakistan reports that there has been no shortage of well-intentioned

189 /225

policies, strategies, and targets for improving social sector performance in Pakistan, but the level
of policy implementation and attainment has been extremely limited.

The user characteristics, learning styles, perceptions and theories all determine the behavior of
users towards eLearning. The project managers have to understand these user differences and
accommodate them into the new system with the expectation that the new system will be
accepted by the users. However, understanding and appreciating human dimensions is neither
straightforward to understand nor easy to address (Qureshi et al., 2009b).

Furthermore, eLearning has to be compatible with the context or environment wherein it is to


operate. Externally, government ICT policies and broader social acceptability matters while,
internal context is made of worker characteristics and the organizational problems. Government
ICT policies appear to be more as problems than facilities in the developing countries. Similarly,
inside the organization, top management support and consistent technical support are big issues
which affect both the development and use practices (Kundi et al., 2010). Individual cooperation
and Organizational support make the eProject a success but they are not easy to make available.

6.6 Opportunities and Prospects


Opportunities are the user-perceived benefits in ICTs while Prospects refer to the perceived
future of ICTs or eLearning tools. The opportunities and particularly, prospects are very highly
scored around the world. Teachers, students and administrators are very positive about the
existing opportunities provided by the ICTs and the future of these technologies in higher
education. Even when many problems are reported by the respondents with regard to the
installation and use of eLearning systems, they score high the opportunities and prospects
showing that despite the problems, ICTs have the future. It also shows that users believe in the
opportunities conceived in these technologies but there are problems in their management and
use (Qureshi et al., 2011).

The current trend in eLearning ventures is collaborative development and operation. The
researchers have documented volumes of research suggesting that if eLearning is build more

190 /225

according to the contextual demands, there are brighter chances of a successful effort.
Traditionally, one-for-all model has prevailed, which did not appear as a good option in many
situations thereby opening research about the contextual determinants of eLearning projects.
Researcher over research has confirmed that compatibility of new tools with user-demographics
and environmental dimensions are the only criteria for future eProjects of eLearning in HEIs
(Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c; Nawaz et al., 2011).

6.7 The Implications of Research


Effective and efficient implementation of eLearning technologies represents new, and difficult,
challenges to practitioners, researchers, and policymakers (Abrami et al., 2006). Due to the
growing use of new ICTs, the existing methods of knowledge processing need to be revised to
take into account the present market situation and the increasing global competitiveness for
higher education (Baumeister, 2006). Within the university, the challenge is to link the teaching,
research and community service roles by internal mechanisms of funding, staff development,
incentives and communications) and, within the region to engage the university with
technological development and innovation, cultural awareness. There can be no doubt that
effective use of ICTs is critical to this process (Goddard & Cornford, 2007; Nawaz, 2010)

6.7.1 For Individual Users and Developers


The findings of this research have several implications for the individual developers and users of
eLearning environments in KPK. As indicated by different statistical analysis, the perceptions of
the respondents are creating a mess about the role of ICTs in their respective function. Since
practical attitude of a human being squarely depends on their perceptions and beliefs about the
nature and role of ICTs therefore, their attitude is framed within these perceptions. So naturally,
if the perceptions are not based on real understanding, the attitude will atomically be unwanted
without the intentions of the person (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c).
It is therefore, incumbent on all the developers and users of eLearning to be careful about their
perceptions. A very well-known researcher on the Organizational-Behavior Fred Luthans
(1995:121) notes that one of the major characteristics of Attitude is that they tend to persist

191 /225

unless something is done to change them. Given this it is the responsibility of every individual
user to do something for their changing his/her behavior. Obviously, this something is about
learning more about the nature and role of ICTs so that user perceptions become reality based,
which then configure the positive user-behavior.

6.7.2 For Higher Education Institutes


In the literature review, the section of eProject for eLearning provides a view of the roles played
by the authorities and functionaries of HEIs in the development and use of ICTs for teaching,
learning and management purposes. Both bottom up and top down approaches are used to
develop eLearning systems. The research reports that both approaches can face problems if the
situation disallows its use. For example, bottom-up approaches may get no or little support from
the top management in terms of resources and moral encouragement. Similarly, top-down
method of development may fail to get the support of users thereby leading the project nowhere
(Nawaz & Kundi, 2011).
It is thus; very critical for the HEIs to understand the issues of any approach and be careful when
implementing any option. At the broader level however, the most frequently cited organizational
problem is the Lack of Top Management Support. This hurdle has been identified across many
projects no matter, which of the approach was under use. There is need to create Collaboration
and Internal-Partnerships between all the stakeholders inside the organization. The faculty
members (particularly teachers) and administrators must be networked together so that
Collective-Intelligence could be capitalized upon. Furthermore, ICTs themselves support
Constructivist and Social Constructivist Environments thereby demanding from all the
university-constituents to come together, collaborate and apply collective understanding
otherwise, eLearning can not leverage its true potential (Kundi & Nawaz, 2010).

6.7.3 For Government


Pakistan government is making hectic efforts to digitize the society and this aim is consistently
reported on all government websites as well as expressed by the government officials at every
formal and informal forums. During the last decade government has invested huge amounts of

192 /225

money for the HEIs for creating Research-Culture through state-of-the-art use of ICTs. HEIs
have been provided with hardware/software facilities to computerized teaching, learning and
management of the HEIs. In Pakistan, the quality of education is on the decline in spite of the
fact that the present government has initiated drastic measures in uplifting the quality and
quantity of education (Memon, 2007; Qureshi et al., 2009b; Nawaz, 2010).
Despite these efforts, the respondents are broadly dissatisfied with the role of government
directly as well as indirectly through whatever is done by the HEI authorities. The biggest issue
reported was that there are irrelevant ICT policies for HEIs in the sense that the digital facilities
(i.e., computers, networks, internet) are not provided on the basis of User-Needs-Analysis
rather a One-for-All model is applied for all the public sector and other institutions. For
example, supply 10 computers to every department does not show that this provision is
addressing the departmental needs of teachers, students and administrators.
The government officers cannot appreciate this suggestion unless they themselves understand the
nature and aims of ICTS. A researcher notes that because of the innovative nature of ICTenabled projects, leaders must have a keen understanding of the innovation process, identify the
corresponding requirements for successful adoption, and harmonize plans and actions
accordingly (Tinio, 2002). At the same time, government must do intelligence about the user
requirements of teachers, students, administrators, institutions and society at large and then
develop any strategy about the development and use of ICTs in higher education (Hameed, 2007;
Nawaz et al., 2011).
For developing countries, it is not possible to create digital infrastructures according to their
requirements because this is expensive and high-tec. However, due to the creation of GlobalVillage the countries around the world are entering into Partnerships for different economic,
technological, and educational purposes. Thus, governments need to work on creating more
powerful Partnerships within the country (public-private) and outside (international partners) to
effectively use ICTs for development - ICT4D (Mujahid, 2002).

193 /225

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions
7.1.1 Gaps between Theory and Practice of eLearning
It is widely reported at the global level that there is a gap between the rhetoric about
information society and knowledge economy on the one hand, and the practical approach to ICT
and its implementation at institutional level on the other hand (Loing, 2005). There are several
gaps between whatever is presented in theory and what happens in reality and this is evident at
all levels of governments, institutions, groups and individuals in the eLearning environments of
developed and developing countries including the HEIs of KPK, Pakistan.

For example, when formulating policy, administrators tend to favor the reformist approach, but
in practice they are generally technocratic (Sahay, 2004). All government websites talk of
bringing digital revolution but practically, the impacts are not widespread due to many reasons.
HEIs speak of the state-of-the-art eLearning facilities at their campuses; however, one can find
many mismatches in real situations (Nawaz, 2010; Nawaz & Kundi, 2010b).

Likewise, students, teachers and administrators have positive attitudes towards eLearning and
see many opportunities and prospects in these technologies however, their practical attitudes are
different. Their scores on the Development (4.3082), Use (4.7961) and Satisfaction (4.4030), are
far lower than Opportunities (5.3136) and Prospects (5.7359). It also indicates that the existing
facilities are contradictory to whatever is expected by the user from ICT-enabled pedagogy,
learning and educational management.

This gap is indicative of the problems and obstacles which are holding back the university
constituents to fully integrate ICTs in their teaching, learning and administrative functions. These

194 /225

barriers come from the user-demographics and the factors concerning eLearning-environments in
HEIs, such as, ETS, Development and Use practices, and User Training and Satisfaction etc,
meaning that the gap is between the user and environmental-requirements and whatever is
available to the users in practice the contextual mismatch (Nawaz & Kundi, 2011).

Having said that, these gaps can be attributed to many factors, however, some universally
documented and locally identified problems are: borrowed models of eLearning, lack of userparticipation in the development process, lack of user-training and the problems of sustained
technical facilities and support to the users in virtual learning environment (Nawaz, 2011).

7.1.2 Lack of Local Research


The main reason for the gap between theory and practice is the Lack of Research about the
domestic environment to record the local context, user views and requirements and thereby plan
accordingly. Ghulam Rasool Memon (2007) notes that the issue of lack of research in Pakistan is
frequently discussed in academic institutions with lack of funding and facilities are presented as
the major reasons for the problem. Whatever the reason, it is not possible to harness new ICTs
without first measuring the pulse of local context. The researchers report over and over that
technology integration in any context depends on how the technology fits into the existing social
purposes and practices of a community (Koo, 2008). Similarly, HECs website asserts that The
leveraging of ICT to support higher education reform and the development of a research culture
in Pakistani universities is essential (HEC, 2008).

Tahir Hameed (2007) places Lack of local research and content as one of the most significant
hurdles for Pakistan in creating national and international partnerships for economic,
technological and educational purposes. However, it is encouraging that government is funding
for research in the public-sector universities and it is now up to the universities to produce the
desired results (Memon, 2007).

195 /225

7.1.3 Borrowed Models of eLearning


When we have not research we dont have domestic models, we naturally look around for an off
the shelf solution we borrow the models. The research shows that de-contextualized eLearning
projects have always underperformed and ultimately failed to produce any added value for the
teaching, learning and administrative purposes in HEIs. In developing countries, there is a
common trend to follow the tracks of development in the developed world. This is great and
must be practiced. However, copying also requires some intellectual considerations relating to
what should be copied, what should be modified and what should be self-generated? Geoff
Walsham (2000:105), a noted researcher in information systems, argues that the approaches
taken from the industrialized countries may not transfer effectively to the different environments
of the developing countries.

The research confirms that an eLearning model in US can be implemented in some Asian
country with the expectations of same results (Crichton & Kopp, 2006; Mokhtar et al., 2007;
Koo, 2008). There are several differences in the context of both the countries. The demographic,
institutional and technological aspects of every country are different from the other. The
developing countries are borrowing foreign models which are also foreign to their environment
therefore; the wanted results are emerging neither in volume nor in quality unless a contextual
rethinking is accelerated. For example, if a Pakistani HEI uses computing-curricula from USA
for a degree or course, it cannot be helpful to our graduates because Pakistan still needs a large
body of computer-users or instrumental use of ICTs, while the HEIs in USA have mostly shifted
from the instrumental to substantive use of eLearning tools.

7.1.4 Lack of User-Participation


As research suggests, the biggest hurdle in contextualizing the eLearning environments is the
lack of participation in the development trajectory of eProjects. The projects mismatch the
context because the users are not contacted thoroughly to explain different aspects of their

196 /225

context before the developers who can then embed these user requirements into the new digital
systems. Lack of user is reported around the world. Users lodge complaints about their
deprivation from having a say in the eLearning systems which are supposed to be used by them
(Qureshi et al., 2009b). The problem is more sensitive and touchy in developing countries where
demographic differences are far more tense and implicative. There are many problems for this
lack of user participation including demographic differences and diversities in perceptions and
attitudes about ICTs, their development and uses.

7.1.5 Ineffective User-Training


The gap between user and ICTs is possible if user-training is not undertaken effectively. Almost
every research recording the perceptions and attitudes of eLearning-users reports the
dissatisfaction from the training facilities, contents and duration with regard to eLearning tools
for teaching, learning and administrative purposes (see for example, Gray et al., 2003; Loing,
2005; Johnson et al., 2006; Wells, 2007; Mehra & Mital, 2007). Peter R Albion (1999) noted this
some 18 years ago that as community expectations for integration of information technology
into the daily practices of teaching grow, it will become increasingly important that all teachers
are adequately prepared for this dimension of their professional practice.

User training includes the training of both the developers or ICT-professionals and Non-ICT
users. Both the groups need computer literacy of the levels of their requirements. 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
& LeAnna Bryant, 2006). Teachers need training for technology-integration in curriculum areas
that can be replicated in their own classrooms not training that focuses on software applications
and skill development (Schou, 2006). The developers need such computing-curriculum which
covers not only the technological aspects of computer hardware and software but also the human
and organizational dimensions of these tools when placed in use (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a;
Nawaz, 2011).

197 /225

On one hand the computing curricula of the developing countries is borrowed, which mismatches
the local market requirements and on the other hand, courses, contents and frequency of training
the non-ICT users are not taken up seriously. The respondents have disclosed problems with the
incompatibility of training practices with what they require to command the digital machines.
Similarly, most of the training is instrumental in nature, which creates no or little interest among
the users. If training is conceived of substantive contents to inspire users for the integration of
these new tools into the core functions of teaching, learning and administration instead of using
computers just like any other technology (Nawaz, 2011).

Change of perceptions and attitudes to eLearning depends on the type and quality of training
extended to the users. Most of the respondents in global experiences and empirical study of HEIs
in KPK complain about the poor training or even the existence of any quality training. Lack of
training is also evident from their low scores on their perceptions and attitudes about the
hardware and software, showing that they know little about the eLearning tools themselves then
use problems is indispensable (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010c).

7.1.6 Issues of Sustained Technical Support


It is widely argued that eLearning offers a complete information technology support to these
innovations (Dinevski & Kokol, 2005) in teaching and learning. Similarly, as explained across
the thesis that ICTs are different from all the so far introduced technologies in the sense that they
are integrative in their nature. For example, TV, Telephone, Fax technologies did not connect
with each other until the computer and networking sciences came out. Today one can telephone,
send a message in multimedia, fax or watch a movie all through a single PC on network.
However, the key element in all of this is not access to infrastructure (bridging the hardwaredivide) only rather the access should help users in getting knowledge, skills, and consistent
support of organizational structures to achieve social and community objectives (Macleod, 2005;
gerfalk et al., 2006).

Gray et al., (2003) report, after studying a group of universities running successful eLearning
projects that the success of the project was often dependent on the skills and quality of technical

198 /225

support provided to end-users. Similarly, researchers suggest that the university constituents
need to get technical and human resource support for continuous technology integration after
the training (Zhao & LeAnna Bryant, 2006). This support includes the technical-infrastructure
manned with technical talent such as network managers, web administrators, security specialists
etc., but universities are facing challenges in preparing IT-workers for new digital environments
(Ezziane, 2007; Kundi et al., 2010).

This research reports that technical support is defined only in terms of providing computers
(hardware and software) to the users and thats it. The mean scores of all the respondents about
technical support are low as compared to other questions (mean score on hardware support =
4.82 and software support = 4.21).

7.1.7 Multiplicity of Digital-Divides


The multiplicity of perceptions, theories, and attitudes of users towards ICTs creates digital
divides within the environment of higher education (Juniu, 2005). Those who support
technology, they seek for it and therefore reduce the impacts of digital divide for them. But the
users who are dont the support technology; they adopt ICTs passively thereby widening the
digital divide for them. The digital divide classifies the individuals, communities, cultures and
nations in terms of access to ICTs, Internet and online resources (Moolman & Blignaut, 2008).

The digital divide in higher education refers to the division of knowledge, expectations, and
needs that, in turn, influences the access to information about what technology works, what
technology is needed, and how such technology should be integrated in the classroom (Juniu,
2005). A commonsense approach to overcoming this gap is to develop sustaining partnerships
among students, faculty, academic computing staff, and administrators (Kopyc, 2007).

7.1.8 Failure to Catch-up with Paradigm-Shifts


Connected with the preceding point of digital divide, we are still stuck with the old methods of
teaching, learning and educational management. Our teaching is still teacher-centered and

199 /225

student-centric pedagogy is yet in the documents and theory or at the most in discussions. The
market is changing fast but our education system, particularly higher education is not catching up
with the emerging demands of information society. Nasir Afghan (2000) notes that in Pakistan
the distance between the new economy and the traditional education institutions is widening in
the sense that HEIs are not producing what is required by the market. A possible reason to this,
in the view of a researcher, is that the traditional institutions are obviously not in a position to
cope with this growing demand in any systematic way (Baumeister, 2006).

However, in the perspectives of Pakistan, the biggest challenge in catching up with the paradigm
shift, according to Dr. Rashid Amjad, Director Policy Planning, ILO, Geneva (2006) is to
change the mindset and develop institutions which recognize the value of investing in education
and skills. Although, MoST, HEC, EPP, and ICT Policy of Pakistan, all seem determined to
transform the society thorugh ICTs beyond its instrumental and supplementary use. However,
this requries mega steps particularly, in terms of providing sophisticated infrastrucrure to the
users, updating the computing-curricula, and continuously training the teachers, students and
adminisntrators not only in using the new tools, rather integrating into their lifestyle, cutlure and
way of life (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010a).

7.2 Recommendations
Despite an array of problems in the development and use of eLearning systems for HEIs (see
Chapter 2), the application of ICTs is gaining momentum not only in the developed and
developing countries but also in the poor states of Africa and Asia (for example, see Figure 4.1).
Developed states are researching on and experimenting with advanced ICTs and their eLearning
applications while developing and poor regions are very excited in testing the initial-levels (see
Section 2.1.2a) and most commonly the blended versions (see Section 2.1.2b) of educational
technologies.

Furthermore, after analyzing the eLearning experiences in developed, developing and poor states
(Chapter 4), several themes surface on the foreground. There are critical differences between the
developed and developing states however; several similarities are visible at the broader level. On

200 /225

the top, the research across the globe suggests that success-n-failure of an eProject for the
development, implementation and use of eLearning tools and techniques in any HEIs depends,
per se, on the top management support, robust ICTs infrastructure, collaborative development,
user-participation/empowerment, and contextualization of the development and use theories and
practices.

7.2.1 Top-Management Support


A Champion from the Top Management: Almost every researcher in the field of eLearning have
identified top-management-support as a critical factor in the success or failure of an eProject
for HEIs all over the globe. The support and facilitation from government is on the top but once
the government is taking interest then the commitment and involvement of the top management
within every institution makes the difference. Victoria L. Tinio (2002) asserts that the role of top
management is central in the integration of ICTs in education because many teacher or studentinitiated eLearning projects have failed due to the lack of support from above. Furthermore, for a
sustainable development, administrators must learn using technology as well as understand the
technical, curricular, administrative, financial, and social dimensions of ICT use in education.

While giving bad report on the Sector Assistance Program Evaluation for the Social Sectors in
Pakistan Asian Development Bank writes that the main reason for this underperformance is that
much of the time there was insufficient political or bureaucratic support for stated policies, at
least by those allocating financial resources and with the power to influence outcomes (ADB,
2005). Thus what ensures the successful implementation of a strategic plan for educational
technology is the assurance of support from the senior administrative level (Stockley, 2004)
such as, government from outside and top executives from within the HEIs.

7.2.2 Robust ICTs Infrastructure


As discussed in the section on Educational-technologies, it is not the provision of computers
only which creates an eLearning environment rather Networking lies at the core of modern

201 /225

digital learning systems. Everything happens through computers BUT on networks. Stand-alone
systems are no more common not in the sense that they are not usable or not used but now they
are playing back-office roles. The provision of a robust ICT-based infrastructure is challenging
in the sense that it is not a one-shot activity. It is not like that the technical resources are
purchased once for all. Computer-technologies are rapidly changing, which require Updates by
the institutions otherwise they will lag behind fellow and competitive institutes in technological
sophistication. So creation, maintenance and updating of technical infrastructure is a process
which continues for ever.

Furthermore, while developing and/or updating, most of the HEIs opt for cutting-edge
technologies however, experience shows that mostly these leading-edge technologies turn into
bleeding-edge technologies by eating up budgets and delivering nothing special. Therefore
researchers suggest that go with tried and tested systems (Tinio, 2002). At the same time latest
digital options are expensive while, the time is right for collaborative action because the time is
wrong for any approach other than cost-sensitive, resource-smart deployments (Klonoski,
2005). An effective technical support also means that users are not only trained in using
technologies but continuously updated about the user and possibilities created by these gadgets
(Kopyc, 2007).

7.2.3 Collaborative Development


The Oxford Dictionary defines collaboration as work together and cooperate with the enemy.
The second meaning is striking and demanding. Collaboration in the development of eLearning
environments refers to the cooperation between the developers and users during the user-needs
analysis, design, development, implementation and user training. Even though they hail from
different backgrounds with reference to ICTs, they have to collaborate by creating mutual
understanding in the development and execution practices of eLearning in HEIs. Furthermore,
there are many similarities in the ways of implementing, operating and using the ICT at different
universities therefore, there is a rationale for cooperation in the ICT issues among universities
(Vrana, 2007).

202 /225

ICTs can enable developing countries to expand access to and raise the quality of education but it
requires careful consideration of the interacting issues of policy and politics, infrastructure
development, human capacity, culture, curriculum and pedagogy (Tinio, 2002). Corporate
training model does not work and the university's model of past traditions does not easily and
effectively accommodate the integration of technology innovations. Certainly, a need to get
everyone talking to each otheracademic computing staff, faculty, and administratorsis the
first crucial step in the development of new education models (Kopyc, 2007). Similarly, unless
other simultaneous innovations in pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and institutes organization
are coupled to the usage of instructional technology, the time and effort expended on
implementing these devices produces few improvements in educational outcomes - and
reinforces many educators cynicism about fads based on magical machines (Mehra & Mital,
2007).

7.2.4 User-Participation
The significance of user participation in the development and use of eLearning is the main route
to contextualizing the new technologies. When users are not heard, the developers mostly embed
their self-conceived user-perceptions into the system, which then appear incompatible with the
real user-demands. Lack of user participation at the development level reduces the chances of
systems ownership by the users. System ownership requires user-empowerment in terms of
deciding about the structure and contents of new system, for example, if system matches with the
learners learning-style and teachers teaching mindset, the chances of success are obvious.

Thus, in the context of eLearning projects, user empowerment is the granting of unprecedented
decision-making powers to the primary agents in educationteachers and students
(Shimabukuro, 2005). For this purpose, Colleen Reilly (2005) suggests the appointment of a
Role Models from the User-groups who will work as disciplinary insiders or faculty peers in
their home departments and motivate their colleagues through discourse on the advantages of
ICTs for users. The researcher further argues that mostly ICT-training is extended by the
Technical experts of ICTs however, faculty members who use technologies may actually have a
better grasp of the best applications in their own disciplines.

203 /225

The new trends in technology-integration in education are to create such digital environments,
which are created to generate intellectual partnerships between the teachers and learners (Young,
2003). The sustainable partnerships within the universities help in overcoming the feelings of
digital divide among the university constituents including students, faculty, academic computing
staff, and administrators and to explore diverse and effective uses of ICTs (Kopyc, 2007).
Similarly, educational partnerships with foreign institutions for offering joint courses, adopting
joint curricula or any other joint educational arrangements can help create broader level
participation of users across the boarders in understanding and using new systems (Hussain,
2007).

7.2.5 Contextualizing the eLearning Initiatives


UNESCO proposes ICT-diffusion strategies to its member states, which are: a. create an
education system, which is based on your social and cultural realities; b. make it accessible to all;
c. replace the traditional rigid and culturally alienating education models with flexible and more
diversified and universally affordable systems based on ICTs (Sanyal, 2001). The research
reveals that those HEIs, which opted for leading-edge technologies hardly achieve long term
objectives from the system. It is better to experiment with tested digital gadgets (Tinio, 2002).
Similarly, Tran et al., (2005) have found that system costs scale-up during the development
process, which endangers the systems sustainability, therefore researchers suggest that there is
need to design a technology-based model within the context of the existing support and resource
infrastructures.

Furthermore, the eLearning projects should not be founded only on technical considerations
rather developed by taking into account the social, cultural, political and economic context
(Macleod, 2005). For example, teachers need that type of training, which enables them for
technology integration in their curriculum and replicated in the classrooms and not the training,
which simply trains them is using some software applications (Willis, 2006). There is need to
develop a contextualized model of training in which individual-differences are addressed
because corporate training model is no more workable as well as the existing traditional

204 /225

training models are incapable to effectively integrate the technology innovations into higher
education (Kopyc, 2007).

In nutshell, the development and implementation of an organizational strategy is a


comprehensive and ongoing management process and effective strategies are those that
promote a superior alignment between the organization and its environment and the achievement
of strategic goals (Griffin, 2002:200). So an eLearning project must be sustainable in technical,
economic, political and social terms. Sustainability is the acceptance (ownership) of the system
by users. Political sustainability is the issue of policy and leadership and it forms the biggest
threats to ICT- projects in the shape of resistance to change. If, for instance, teachers refuse to
use ICTs in their classrooms, then the even the instrumental use of ICTs is not possible, let alone
the substantive and integrative use. Economic sustainability is the ability to finance the project. It
is tied closely to social and political sustainability. Technological sustainability refers to the
selection of those technologies that will be effective over the long term (Tinio, 2002; Nawaz &
Kundi, 2006).

7.3 Researchers Observations (Recommendations)


The long-n-short of the thesis in this dissertation is that the teachers, students and administrators
mostly have positive perceptions and theories about the ICTs with even over-expectations by the
users with computer-related degrees. Similarly, they have some reservations or uncertainties
about the nature and role of these technologies. The variation in these reservations, change the
theories and attitudes of users towards eLearning tools. However, research suggests that
perceptions, approaches, theories and attitudes all are changeable, if appropriate steps are
undertaken by the management. Obviously, if management can mould the perceptions and
theories of users with a favorable tilt, the attitude of users will automatically change. Thus, the
challenge is to make the people think differently or positively about the nature and role of ICTs.

Naturally, this is squarely mounted on the training of users. However, training should not taken
in its narrow sense of short-term-course rather lifelong-training. The management of HEIs
should provide with such robust learning facilities that are accessible by the users at anytime and

205 /225

from anywhere. The most powerful, inexpensive and partially available facility for providing
lifelong education facilities is The Internet. It is the gateway to a galaxy of knowledge,
wherefrom users can access those caches of information which have so far been only for the elite
class. For example, since the inception of digital learning, proprietary hardware and software
have remained as big source of problems for users and main source of earning for the
technology-suppliers. But FOSS movement has turned the table around.

The availability of online facts and figures to the teaching and learning started documents,
notes, pictures, graphs, audio and video etc through the web-pages but in a static form unless
updated by the hosts of the websites. However, web-based technologies have so advanced that
now the users can have a stream of data that is transmitted to the users as and when created not
only by the hosts of the website rather mostly by the Users of the websites. For example,
personalization and adaptation technologies in the social software have transformed

the

International Internet into Personal-Web by empowering the users to upload/download


through a variety of interfaces and thus simultaneously teach-n-learn from the internet using
Web 2.0 working environments like, wikis, facebook, blogs and You-Tube.

Given that world-libraries and information-databases are available online to the masses, the users
are no more short of facts and figures rather facing the issues of information-overload and
information-security. All the HEIs are struggling hard to catch up with the digital divide within
the institutes, between the institutes and at the international level. They are succeeding but the
tempo is slow and unnoticeable. At the same time, all the users have high perceptions, and
expectations from the ICTs in teaching, learning and administration, which are indicative of the
fact that "good learners will learn, in spite of our bad learning environments (Wijekumar, 2005).

206 /225

References
1.

Aaron, M., Dicks, D., Ives, C., & Montgomery, B. (2004). Planning for Integrating
Teaching Technologies. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 30(2). Spring.

2.

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Wade, A., Schmid, R. F., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R.,
Surkes, M. A., Lowerison, G., Zhang, D., Nicolaidou, I., Newman, S., Wozney, L., &
Peretiatkowicz, A. (2006). A Review of e-Learning in Canada: A Rough Sketch of the
Evidence, Gaps and Promising Directions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,
32(3). Fall / Autumn.

3.

ADB (2005). Sector Assistance Program Evaluation for the Social Sectors in Pakistan
SAP:PAK 2005-08 (July). Operations Evaluation Department. Asian Development Bank.

4.

Afghan, N. (2000). Human resources development in Pakistan. Pakistan Economist.


Available at: pakistaneconomist.com/issue2000/issue36 /i8e3.htm. Accessed on April 14,
2007 at 11:35pm.

5.

gerfalk, P. J., Goldkuhl, G., Fitzgerald, B., & Bannon, L. (2006). Reflecting on action in
language, organisations and information systems. European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol 15, 48.

6.

Albion, P. R. (1999). Self-Efficacy Beliefs as an Indicator of Teachers' Preparedness for


Teaching with Technology. Available at: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/albion/papers
/site99/1345.html.

7.

Allan, M. K. (2007). Millennial teachers: Student teachers as users of Information and


Communication: A New Zealand case study. International Journal of Education and
Development using ICT. 3(2).

8.

Amjad, R. Dr. (2006). Why Pakistan Must Breakout into the Knowledge Economy. Annual
Conference on Pakistan Economy. Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan.
Available

at:

Blog

at

WordPress.com:

http://lahoreschool.wordpress.com/2006

/05/03/external-accounts-and-foreign-debt-management/. Accessed on 14 July, 2007 at


10:30pm.

207 /225

9.

Andriole, S. J. (2006). Business Technology Education in the Early 21st Century: The
Ongoing Quest for Relevance. Journal of Information Technology Education. Vol. 5.

10.

APP (2007). Pakistani Journals to be available for worldwide electronic access through
Online Portal. News from APP, Pakistan. Available at: http://www.app.com.pk/.

11.

Ara, J. (2008). Rethinking policy: Why should we care about the ICT policy? SPIDER Pakistan's Internet Magazine. Report. October.

12.

Arulchelvan, S. & Viswanathan, D. (2006). Pattern of usage of various electronic media by


higher education students. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT.
2(4).

13.

Aviram, A. & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a Theory of Digital Literacy: Three


Scenarios for the Next Steps. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

14.

Aviram, R. & Tami, D. (2004). The impact of ICT on education: the three opposed
paradigms,

the

lacking

discourse.

Available

at:

http://www.informatik.

uni-

bremen.de/~mueller/kr-004/ressources/ict_impact.pdf. Accessed on July 14, 2007.


15.

Bajwa, F. (2007). Towards an open information society in Pakistan. The International


Conference from March 21 22, 2007, at the National Secretariat of SAP-PK in Lahore.
Available at: http://www.asia-commons.net/blog/46. Accessed on April 7, 2007.

16.

Bajwa, F. R. (2006). Pakistan Gearing up for massive Rural ICT Telecentre Movement.
[At: http://ifossf.org/blog/fouad_bajwa/20061208/telecenters_ in_pakistan].

17.

Barnes, K., Marateo, R. C. & Ferris, S. P. (2007). Teaching and Learning with the Net
Generation. Innovate Journal of Online Educaiton, 3(4).

18.

Bataineh, R. F. & Bani-Abdel-Rahman, A. A. (2006). Jordanian EFL students' perceptions


of their computer literacy: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Education
and

Development

using

ICT.

2(2).

Available

at:

http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id= 169&layout=html].
19.

Baucus, D. & Baucus, M. (2005). The Changing Shape of Corporate Universities. Journal
of Online Education, June/July, 1(5).

20.

Baumeister, H. (2006). Networked learning in the knowledge economy: A systemic


challenge for Universities. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

21.

Beebe, M. A. (2004). Impact of ICT Revolution on the African Academic Landscape.


CODESRIA Conference on Electronic Publishing and Dissemination. Dakar, Senegal. 1 -2

208 /225

September 2004. Available at: http://www.codesria.org/ Links/conferences/el_publ


/beebe.pdf. Accessed on: April 5, 2007 at: 11:42am.
22.

Blzquez, F. E. & Daz, L. A. (2006). A Training Proposal for e-Learning Teachers.


European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

23.

Bondarouk, T. V. (2006). Action-oriented group learning in the implementation of


information technologies: results from three case studies. European Journal of Information
Systems. Vol. 15, 4253.

24.

Boyd, H. W., Westfall, R., & Stasch, S. F. (1977). Marketing research: Text and cases. 4th
ed. Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

25.

Buzhardt, J. & Heitzman-Powell, L. (2005). Stop blaming the teachers: The role of
usability testing in bridging the gap between educators and technology. Electronic Journal
for the Integration of Technology in Education. Vol. 4, p.13.

26.

Cagiltay, N. E., Yildirim, S., and Aksu, M. (2006). Students preferences on Web-based
instruction: Linear or non-linear. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (3):122-136.

27.

Carey, P. & Gleason, B. (2006). Vision 2010: The Future of Higher Education Business
and Learning Applications. Journal of Online Education. Oct/Nov. 3(1).

28.

Cawson, A. Professor. (2005). ICTs in Teacher Education: What do teachers need to learn?
International Conference on Teacher Education, Quality Teacher Education: The
Challenges of the 21st Century University of Cape Coast, Ghana, 17-20 August 2005.
Available at: http://www.fiankoma.org/pdf/ICTs%20in% 20Teacher%20Education.pdf.
Accessed on April 19, 2007 at 12:5pm.

29.

Chan, A., Mark, J., & Lee, W. (2007). We Want to be Teachers, Not Programmers: In
Pursuit of Relevance and Authenticity for Initial Teacher Education Students Studying an
Information Technology Subject at an Australian University. Electronic Journal for the
Integration of Technology in Education, Vol. 6, 79.

30.

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1991). Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley &
Sons.

31.

Cohn, E. & Hibbitts, B. (2005). Academic Public-Service Web-Sites and the Future of
Virtual Academic Public Service. Journal of Online Education. June/July. 1(5).

32.

COST Action 298 (2007). The good, the bad and the unexpected: The user and the future
of information and communication technologies. A transdisciplinary conference organised

209 /225

by COST Action 298. Moscow, Russian Federation. 23rd-25th May 2007. Available at:
http://www.nord-internet-solidaire.org/IMG/doc/Call_for_ papers_20071.doc. Accessed on
April 5, 2007 at 10:51am.
33.

Crichton, S. & Kopp, G. (2006). Multimedia Technologies, Multiple Intelligences, and


Teacher Professional Development in an International Education Project. Journal of Online
Education. February/March. 2(3).

34.

Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems.


European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

35.

Davey, B. & Tatnall, A. (2007). The lifelong learning iceberg of information systems
academics: A study of on-going formal and informal learning by academics. Journal of
Information Technology Education. Vol. 6.

36.

Deaudelin, C., Dussault, M., & Brodeur, M. (2003). Human-Computer Interaction: A


Review of the Research on its Affective and Social Aspects. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology, 29(1). Winter.

37.

DiCerbo, K. E. (2007). Knowledge Structures of Entering Computer Networking Students


and Their Instructors. Journal of Information Technology Education. Vol. 6.

38.

Digital Library (HEC, Pakistan) (2009). Available at: http://www.digitallibrary.edu.pk/.

39.

Dinevski, D. & Kokol, P. Dr. (2005). ICT and Lifelong Learning. European Journal of
Open, Distance and E-Learning. Available at: http://www.eurodl.org/.

40.

Drinkwater, P. M., Adeline, C. M., French, S. K., Papamichail, N. & Rickards, T. (2004).
Adopting a Web-based collaborative tool to support the Manchester Method Approach to
learning. Electronic Journal on e-Learning. 2(1).

41.

Drucker, M. J. (2006). Commentary: Crossing the digital divide: How race, class, and
culture matter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1).
Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss1/languagearts/article2.cfm. Accessed on
18.7.7 /11:00am.

42.

Ehlers, U. D. (2005). Quality in e-learning from a learner's perspective. European Journal


of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Available at: http://www.eurodl.org/

43.

Ekstrom, J. J., Gorka, S., Kamali, R., Lawson, E., Lunt, B., Miller, J. & Reichgelt, H.
(2006). The information technology model curriculum. Journal of Information Technology
Education. Vol. 5.

210 /225

44.

EPP (2008). Education Policy of Pakistan 1998-2010. Ministry of Education. Available at:
http://www.moe.gov.pk/.

45.

Ezer, J. (2006). India and the USA: A Comparison through the Lens of Model IT Curricula.
Journal of Information Technology Education. Vol. 5.

46.

Ezziane, Z. (2007) Information technology literacy: Implications on teaching and learning.


Educational Technology & Society, 10 (3):175-191.

47.

Garcia, P. & Qin, J. (2007). Identifying the generation gap in higher education: Where do
the differences really lie? Journal of Online Education. April/May. 3(4).

48.

Gay, G., Mahon, S., Devonish, D., Alleyne, P. & Alleyne, P. G. (2006). Perceptions of
information and communication technology among undergraduate management students in
Barbados. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT. 2(4).

49.

Glogoff, S. (2005). Instructional Blogging: Promoting Interactivity, Student-Centered


Learning, and Peer Input. Journal of Online Education. June/July. 1(5).

50.

Goddard, J. B. & Cornford, J. (2007). The university, ICTs and development in the
information

society.

Available

at:

http://www.lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/

goddard.pdf. Accessed on April 5, 2007 at 10:39am/.


51.

Goode, W. J. & Hatt, P. K. (1952). Methods in social research. McGraw-Hill.

52.

Graff, M. J. D. & McNorton, M. (2001). Cognitive style and cross cultural differences in
internet use and computer attitudes. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

53.

Gray, D. E., Ryan, M. & Coulon, A. (2003). The Training of Teachers and Trainers:
Innovative Practices, Skills and Competencies in the use of eLearning. European Journal
of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

54.

Griffin, R. W. (2002). Management. 5th ed. AITBS Publishers & Distributors New Delhi.

55.

Haddad, W. D. & Jurich, S. (2006). ICT for education: Potential and potency. UNESCO.
Avaialbe at: http://web2.iastate.edu/~ilet/reading_groups/ Pdf_files/ 03UNESCO.pdf.
accessed on 14 July, 2007.

56.

Hagan,

D.

(2003).

Employer

satisfaction

with

ICT

graduates.

Available

at:

http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV30Hagan.pdf. Accessed on 28 May, 2007 at 10:50am.


57.

Hameed, T. (2007). ICT as an enabler of socio-economic development. [Available at:


http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/digitalbridges/materials/hameed-paper.pdf]. Accessed on June
24, 2007 at 11pm.

211 /225

58.

Heinze, A. & Procter, C. (2006). Online communication and information technology


education. Journal of Information Technology Education. Vol. 5.

59.

HEC (2008). eReforms: PERN, PRR, eLearning, CMS & Digital Library. Higher
Education

Commission.

Available

at:

http://www.hec.gov.pk/new/eReforms/

eReforms.htm.
60.

Hussain, I. Dr. (2007). Transnatonal education: Concept and methods. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 8(1), January 2007, Article: 13

61.

Hvoreck, J., Manamentu, V. S. & Cesta, P. (2005). Can E-learning break the Digital
Divide? European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.

62.

Internet World Stats (2008). Available at www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm.

63.

Irons, L. R., Jung, D. J., & Keel, R. O. (2002). Interactivity in Distance Learning: The
Digital Divide and Student Satisfaction. Educational Technology & Society 5(3).

64.

Jager, A. K. & Lokman, A. K. (1999). Impacts of ICT in education. The role of the teacher
and teacher training. European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland 22 - 25
September. Stoas Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

65.

Jewels, T. & Ford, M. (2006). The development of a taxonomy of desired personal qualities
for IT project team members and its use in an educational setting. Journal of Information
Technology Education Volume 5.

66.

Johnson, D. W., Bartholomew, K. W. & Miller, D. (2006). Improving computer literacy of


business management majors: A Case Study. Journal of Information Technology Education
Vol. 5.

67.

Juniu, S. (2005). Digital democracy in higher education: Bridging the digital divide.
Journal of Online Education. October/November, 2(1).

68.

Kanuka, H. (2007). Instructional design and eLearning: A discussion of pedagogical


content knowledge as a missing construct. e-Journal of Instructional Science and
Technology (e-JIST). 9(2).

69.

Katsikas, S. K. (2006). Higher education and ICT industry.

Available at:

http://www.starbus.org/r_d_ws2/higher_education_ict.pdf. Accessed on June 24, 2007 at


11:20pm.

212 /225

70.

Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. H., Kravcik, M., Law,
E., Naeve, A., & Scott, P. (2007). Social software for life-long learning. Educational
Technology & Society, 10 (3), 72-83.

71.

Klonoski, E. (2005). Cost-saving collaboration: Purchasing and deploying a statewide


learning management system. Journal of Online Education. April/May. 1(4).

72.

Knight, C., Knight, B. A., & Teghe, D. (2006). Releasing the pedagogical power of
information and communication technology for learners: A case study. International
Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 2(2).

73.

Koo, A. C. (2008). Factors affecting teachers perceived readiness for online collaborative
learning: A case study in Malaysia. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (1):266-278.

74.

Kopyc, S. (2007). Enhancing Teaching with Technology: Are We There Yet? Journal of
Online Education. December 2006/January 2007. 3(2).

75.

Krishna, S. (2006). India: Globalisation and IT development. Sout Asian Journal.

76.

Kundi, G.M. & Nawaz, A. (2007). Politics in IT Projects. Gomal University Journal of
Research (GUJR), 23(2):54-58.

77.

Kundi, G.M. & Nawaz, A. (2010). From objectivism to social constructivism: The impacts
of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on higher education. Journal of
Science and Technology Education Research (JSTER), 1(2):30-36. Available at:
http://www.academicjournals.org/JSTER.

78.

Kundi, G.M. & Nawaz, A. Shah, B. (2007). De-Escalating the IT projects. Journal of
Information Systems and Technology Management (JISTM), 4(3), 325-332.

79.

Kundi, GM., Nawaz, A. & Khan, S. (2010) The predictors of success for eLearning in HEIs
in NWFP, Pakistan. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management (JISTM),
7(3):545-578.

80.

Kuriloff, P. (2005). Breaking the barriers of time and space more effective teaching using
e-Pedagogy. Journal of Online Education. Oct/Nov. 2(1).

81.

LaCour, S. (2005). The future of integration, personalization, and ePortfolio technologies.


Journal of Online Education. April/May 1(4).

82.

Laffey, J. M. & Musser, D. (2006). Shadow netWorkspace: An open source intranet for
learning communities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 32(1) Winter.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi