Factors Influencing the Uptake of
Technology for Teaching, Learning and
Assessment at Five African Universities
Monica Mawoyo
January, 2014
South African Institute for Distance Education
1
Contents
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Abbreviations and acronyms .................................................................................................................. 5
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. 6
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 7
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10
2. Background................................................................................................................................... 10
3. Research design............................................................................................................................ 12
3.1
Rationale for the study ......................................................................................................... 12
3.2
Research questions ............................................................................................................... 12
3.3
Methodology......................................................................................................................... 13
3.4
Conceptual framework ......................................................................................................... 15
3.5
Operationalization of the study ............................................................................................ 15
3.6
Sample description ............................................................................................................... 16
3.7
Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.8
Validity and reliability ........................................................................................................... 19
3.9
Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................ 20
4. Overview of ICT and educational technology in countries of study ............................................ 20
5. Overview of educational technology context at the universities ................................................ 22
6. Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 25
6.1
Access to educational technologies ...................................................................................... 25
6.2
Use of educational technology for teaching and learning .................................................... 29
6.3
Enablers of educational technology uptake ......................................................................... 30
6.4
Constraints on educational technology uptake .................................................................... 31
7. Conclusions and discussion .......................................................................................................... 33
7.1
Possible interventions ........................................................................................................... 36
References ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Annexure A: Staff questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 38
Annexure B: Student questionnaire...................................................................................................... 45
Annexure C: Staff focus group/interview questions ............................................................................. 53
Annexure D: Student focus group/interview questions ....................................................................... 54
2
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Overview of age of students ............................................................................................. 17
Overview of age of lecturers ............................................................................................. 17
Distribution of student respondents, by gender .............................................................. 18
Distribution of lecturer sample by gender ........................................................................ 18
Overview of year of study of respondents........................................................................ 18
Technologies that lecturers want to use but do not have access to ................................ 26
Technologies that students want to use but do not have access to ................................ 28
3
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Principal investigators for the multi-site research project ................................................... 11
Research questions for UEW ................................................................................................ 12
Research questions for the UDSM Moodle study ................................................................. 13
PHEA ETI conceptual framework .......................................................................................... 15
Summary of data collected by institutions ........................................................................... 16
Overview of country ICT context .......................................................................................... 20
Educational technology institutional contexts ..................................................................... 22
Technologies available to lecturers ...................................................................................... 25
Technologies owned by lecturers ......................................................................................... 26
Technologies available to students in their departments ................................................ 27
Personal ownership of technologies by students ............................................................. 28
Examples of uses of educational technology .................................................................... 29
Technology enabler statements lecturers agreed with .................................................... 30
Technology enabler statements students agreed with .................................................... 31
Statements on constraints on technology use that students and lecturers agreed with 32
Summary of factors and levels influencing technology uptake in the study .................... 34
4
Abbreviations and acronyms
CET
ETI
ICT
ITRU
kbps
Lab
LMS
KU
MAK
Mbps
NGO
PC
PHEA
PI
RA
Saide
SPSS
TEIL
UCM
UDSM
UEW
UI
UJ
Centre for Educational Technology
Educational Technology Initiative
Information and Communication Technology
Instructional Technology Resource Unit
kilobits per second
Laboratory
Learning Management System
Kenyatta University
Makerere University
Megabits per second
Non-governmental Organization
Personal Computer
Partnership for Higher Education in Africa
Principal Investigator
Research Assistant
South African Institute for Distance Education
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Technology Education Independent Learning
Catholic University of Mozambique (Universidade Católica de Moçambique)
University of Dar es Salaam
University of Education, Winneba
University of Ibadan
University of Jos
5
Acknowledgements
Saide and CET would like to thank the principal investigators and assistant researchers from Catholic
University of Mozambique, Makerere University, Kenyatta University, University of Dar es Salaam,
University of Education, Winneba, University of Ibadan and University of Jos for their participation in
the study. Their inputs and insights made the research experience a rich and valuable one. We also
thank the Partnership for Higher Education in Africa for funding towards this study. The ideas and
perceptions in this report cannot be attributed to PHEA but to the authors.
6
Executive Summary
The multi-site research initiative was a study exploring factors influencing the uptake of technology
for teaching, learning and assessment. Seven African higher education institutions participated in the
study, and five completed their research projects. Four of the institutions embarked on their
research from scratch, while three of the institutions were incorporated into the multi-site research
team because their research projects explored similar issues to those of the multi-site research study
– that is, access, use, enablers of access, and constraints on access.
The broad research questions the multi-site study attempted to answer are:
1) What technologies are being used for teaching, learning and assessment in the institutions?
2) How are these technologies being used?
3) What is the context within which technologies are used?
4) Who is using the technologies?
5) What are the reasons proffered for the uptake of technology?
6) What are the enablers of technology uptake for teaching, learning and assessment?
7) What are the constraints on technology uptake?
Mixed method research design, combining quantitative and qualitative methodology, was used for
the research, which took place from March 2011 to December 2013. The conceptual framework
developed as part of the Educational Technology Initiative (ETI), which explores technology adoption
in relation to levels and factors, was used to inform the data collection instruments and the
interpretation of data. Data was collected through questionnaires, focus group discussions and
interviews, and document review.
The institutional research was managed by principal investigators with the help of research
assistants. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS, and qualitative data was analysed through
thematic codes, which were developed by the whole multi-site research team.
National and institutional contexts
All of the countries of the higher education institutions that participated in this study have ICT
policies, and several strategies and initiatives have been implemented to support ICTs in education.
At institutional level, several measures are in place to support ICT implementation. For example:
 There are ICT policies;
 There has been investment in bandwidth and infrastructure. For example, the University of
Dar es Salaam (UDSM) has improved bandwidth by increasing it from 256kbps/512kbps to
1Mbps/2Mbps, then 155Mbps. Kenyatta University (KU) has constructed a building that
houses 600 computers in six computers labs;
 Moodle has been deployed as the learning management system of choice;
 Some institutions are offering courses in blended mode; and
 There is capacity building of lecturers and students on how to use educational technologies
effectively.
Access to technologies
At all of the institutions, printers were the most cited available technologies, and Makerere
University (MAK) had the highest number of lecturers indicating that Internet connectivity was
available. Ownership of technology by lecturers was most prevalent at UI (compared to lecturers
7
from MAK and KU); most of the UI lecturers surveyed were in medical and science faculties that
required e-learning for teaching and learning – and given this requirement it probably suited them
and was more convenient for such lecturers to have their own technology. The most commonly
owned technology item at MAK, KU and University of Ibadan (UI), among lecturers, was the laptop.
Technologies at the different higher education institutions, particularly computers, are located in
different sites, which likely makes them easier to access. Lecturers were asked to identify
technologies that they could not access for teaching, but which they would like to use, and the most
cited technologies were the overhead projector, interactive white board, desktop computer and
laptop.
Students mostly cited different levels of availability of technology, with their cited prevalent
technologies being similar to those of their lecturers only in the case of visible technologies like the
interactive white board and overhead projector. Students indicated there was a low availability of
technologies that were less visible (and which they probably do not use) – for example, the radio and
printers. Although student ownership of technologies was lower than that of lecturers, a notable
finding was that most students owned a cell phone. Students indicated that they would like to access
overhead projectors, public address systems, scanners, iPads and the Internet for learning.
The technologies that were available in institutions were mainly used for teaching, and research.
There was an indication from the Moodle studies that Moodle was being used in a limited way to
upload and download learning resources, and that there was a neglect of the more dynamic features
of Moodle, including quizzes, assessment, chat and the discussion forum.
Enablers of educational technology uptake
When asked to reflect on statements on possible enablers of technology uptake, the majority of the
lecturers from KU and UI agreed on several aspects (and students largely concurred with them), as
follows:




A curriculum that provides opportunities for use of technology is facilitative of uptake;
Both the availability of technologies – which are currently in insufficient supply to meet the
demand – and technical support to support usage, are enablers of uptake;
Training of lecturers is critical, but is currently inadequate; and
Lecturers can motivate students to use technology by using a range of methods, including
awarding marks for students to participate online and do their work using technologies.
Constraints on educational technology uptake
Students and lecturers at KU mostly agreed that outdated hardware, inappropriate software, poor
Internet connection, lack of confidence to use technologies, and poor skills were constraints on
uptake. Students and lecturers from MAK and UI disagreed on the following issues:



Many more students than lecturers at MAK believed that the hardware available was
outdated, while many more lecturers at UI than students felt the same way. Students at
MAK cited the example of a computer lab with 40 computers, which only had 15 of these
working because the other computers were beyond repair, mainly because of poor routine
maintenance of these computers.
More students than lecturers at MAK also believed that some of the software was outdated.
More students than lecturers also seemed to be affected by poor Internet access at MAK.
Students indicated that slow Internet connectivity made completing assignments difficult as
8
they spent more time waiting for documents to download. As a result, they resorted to using
library books instead. More lecturers than students at UI agreed that there was poor
Internet access. Lecturers indicated that it was very frustrating when the Internet failed in
the middle of their teaching. As a result, lecturers had resorted to taking their modems to
class in case they needed them.
Lecturers at UI seemed to have more confidence in their students’ skills than students had in the
lecturers’ skills.
Other constraints on uptake that were highlighted were time and insecurity. Regarding time,
lecturers indicated that the initial investments in technology use for teaching required a lot of time,
and lecturers would rather invest this time in doing research, which was recognised for promotion
purposes within the university. In relation to insecurity, some lecturers worried that if they put their
teaching material online, it could be ‘stolen’ by others and they would lose their copyright over it.
Conclusion
Based on this study, there needs to be consideration of the improvement of technology uptake in
higher education in relation to the different levels and factors that inform implementation of
technology interventions. The following suggestions are put forward for deliberation:




National level intervention in relation to power supply issues should consider the role of the
state in facilitating an increase in power supply, as well as the enablement of universities to
limit their reliance on the national grid through incentives for them to use alternative energy
sources. Furthermore, there is a need to keep track of, and consolidate, the multiple and
discrete ICT interventions that have low impact and are unsustainable.
At institutional level, lecturers need acknowledgement for using technology for teaching,
and this could include awarding promotion points to lecturers for innovative teaching.
Within institutions, poor maintenance of hardware is leading to wastage of this hardware,
and institutions need to have a service plan for hardware to make sure they get longer usage
from their hardware. Investments also need to be made in acquiring hardware, and
possibilities with regard to using a mobile interface should be explored because of the
ubiquity of this technology among students and lecturers alike. To make technology uptake
more attractive, updated software, which makes teaching and learning more pleasurable,
improving educational outcomes at the same time, is needed. Investments also need to be
made in improving bandwidth and connectivity. Providing lecturers and students with
technical support will make them feel more confident with using technologies.
At a disciplinary level, systemic adoption of technology for the discipline will enable much
more holistic development of technology-related support structures within that discipline.
Although there are still some problems, this seems to be the case at UI, which seems to be
better resourced than the other institutions because of the systematic e-learning initiatives
in the Faculties of Medicine and Science.
At a personal level, the technologies that lecturers and students learn can easily be
successfully leveraged for teaching and learning. This is especially the case with cell phones.
Lecturers and students need training support to develop enough confidence to take up
technology for teaching and learning.
9
1. Introduction
This report highlights the findings of the multi-site research that was conducted from March, 2011 to
December, 2013. The research explored factors that influence the uptake of educational technology
in five African universities that were part of the Partnership for Higher Education in Africa (PHEA)
Educational Technology Initiative (ETI). The report outlines the conceptualization of the project and
the research design, as well as the operationalization of the project. Key findings from the research
are highlighted using the conceptual framework matrix, and the implications of these findings for
educational technology in African countries are highlighted.
2. Background
When the PHEA ETI began in 2008, one of its objectives was to ‘Research and report on educational
technology activity in African universities by means of a long-term project.’1 The specific objectives
for research were:
• To establish a research agenda for the project in collaboration with the partner universities;
• To support the development of at least one research proposal for the projects planned for
Part B of the project;
• To build research capacity where necessary; and
• To support the development of a community of practice between the partner institutions
and the team from the South African Institute for Distance Education (Saide) and the
University of Cape Town’s Centre for Educational Technology (CET).2
CET and Saide accomplished these objectives in several ways:




A Research Design Toolkit (Wickham & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008) was developed and
shared with all the participating institutions. This toolkit is a guide that includes research
approaches, principles, processes, and a conceptual framework, and can be used for
conducting research on educational technology. The toolkit is a reference resource
structured around theory, activities and questions on how to do research.
Institutions interested in pursuing research were supported with the development of their
research proposals in Part A of the ETI. These institutions were Catholic University of
Mozambique (UCM), Makerere University (MAK), the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM),
the University of Education, Winneba (UEW) and the University of Ibadan (UI).
During the conducting of research projects by these universities, CET provided research
support through visits to the institutions and facilitated workshops on various research
aspects such as instrument design, action research, managing a research project, and writing
up research. All these workshops were demand driven and were only provided at the
request of the institutions. Usually, these workshops and support visits managed to get
institutions out of their impasses with their research projects.
In March, 2011, at the PHEA ETI inter-institutional workshop held in Johannesburg, the initial
step was taken towards achieving the objective of researching and reporting on educational
1
Effective Technology Use in African Higher Education Institutions: A proposal for Phase Two of the PHEA Educational
Technology Initiative. Saide and CET at UCT, April 2008.
2 Saide and CET, 2008, The PHEA Educational Technology Initiative (PowerPoint Presentation).
10
technology activities in African universities by means of a long-term project: the multi-site
research project was born.
At the workshop, interested colleagues from all seven participating institutions discussed and agreed
on the area and scope of a collaborative research project on factors influencing the uptake of
technology for teaching, learning and assessment. The project was intended, through empirical
research, to build on the dearth of knowledge on educational technology use in African universities.
The team members who volunteered to lead the project as principal investigators (PIs) in their
institutions are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Principal investigators for the multi-site research project
Name
Ruth Nsibirano
Ayotola Aremu
Jerome Dooga
Michael Wainana
Isaac Tete
Mensah
Ngoni Murimba
Mulembwa
Munaku
Institution
Makerere University (MAK)
University of Ibadan (UI)
University of Jos (UJ)
Kenyatta University (KU)
University of Education, Winneba
(UEW)
Catholic University of Mozambique
(UCM)
University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM)
Country
Uganda
Nigeria
Nigeria
Kenya
Ghana
Mozambique
Tanzania
The project was under the management of CET and Saide through their nominated coordinator. It
was envisaged to last for 18 months, and had seven outputs articulating closely with the
aforementioned broad research objectives:
1) Capacitating of lecturers from seven institutions in advanced research methods: research design,
data collection and analysis, critical review of literature, using technologies for collaborative
research, and writing up research results;
2) A data bank, with data from the seven institutions, that can be accessed for secondary research;
3) Seven institutional reports on factors influencing the uptake of educational technology. These
reports would be presented as seven case studies and would constitute appendices to the
overview report;
4) A research report on factors influencing the uptake of educational technology at the seven
institutions;
5) At least three publications/conference proceedings from the research;
6) Sustainable cross-institutional networking; and
7) A data collection tool.
Initially, as highlighted in Table 1, all institutions showed an interest and the PIs all initiated the
research project in their institutions. However, because of capacity constraints, two institutions
were unable to complete their projects. This report is therefore based on results from five
universities: KU, MAK, UDSM, UEW and UI.
11
3. Research design
3.1
Rationale for the study
In 2010, an environmental scan on technology use for pedagogy and administration was conducted
as part of the PHEA ETI research support to institutions. This scan concluded that there was a dearth
of research on technology in education by African academics. Out of the 53 studies reviewed for this
scan, only eight reported on interventions in African universities, with half of these studies coming
from South Africa. This was an indication of the importance of research in this area especially by
African scholars who are not based in South Africa. The multi-site research initiative gave a real
opportunity for contribution to knowledge about educational technology uptake and use at multiple
African universities. Such a study would likely generate some regional interest.
At institutional level, the studies provided an opportunity for a sharp examination of educational
technology practice in a manner that would enable decision makers in institutions to make informed
decisions about technology deployment. However, for this to take place, the researchers have to
exert influence and disseminate their research findings to the correct platforms. The research
projects should not constitute research for research’s sake.
3.2
Research questions
The study had two strands to it, which are elaborated in this section on research design.
The first strand, referred to as full research, was aimed at answering the following questions:
1) What technologies are being used for teaching, learning and assessment in the institutions?
2) How are these technologies being used?
3) What is the context within which technologies are used?
4) Who is using the technologies?
5) What are the reasons proffered for the uptake of technology?
6) What are the enablers of technology uptake for teaching, learning and assessment?
7) What are the constraints on technology uptake?
Four institutions – KU, MAK, UI and UJ – were originally involved in the full research project. Three
institutions – UCM, UDSM and UEW – were involved in the second strand of the research, which we
called the partial research. UEW had two separate research projects, and the questions for each are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Research questions for UEW
Baseline study
Key question
What is the current state of ICT/educational
technology in terms of access, usage and
enablers at the University of Education,
Winneba?
Moodle study
Key question
How does the use of Moodle impact academics’
pedagogical practices and students’ experiences
of learning and assessment?
Sub-questions
Sub-questions
1) What are the educational technologies
1) What processes were followed in the
12
accessible to UEW students and faculty?
2) How do students and faculty use available
educational technology resources?
3) What are the enablers for the uptake of
educational technologies among students
and faculty?
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
planning for the deployment of Moodle?
What processes were followed in the
implementation of the hybrid online
courses?
What processes were followed in the
evaluation of the hybrid online courses?
How do academics and learners use Moodle
for teaching and learning?
What lessons can be learned from course
delivery through Moodle?
What challenges and barriers impede
effective educational technology use at
UEW?
These questions highlight that although UEW had begun their research projects before the multi-site
study was conceptualized, the interest of these studies was similar to that of the full research strand
– that is, broadly, access, use, enablers, and constraints. The questions for the UDSM Moodle study
also speak to these concerns. The UDSM research questions are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Research questions for the UDSM Moodle study
1) What is the level of uptake of Moodle at UDSM?
2) What factors have affected the deployment and use of Moodle?
3) What is the nature of the use of Moodle?
4) What has been the impact of Moodle on teaching and learning in the university?
5) What factors could improve the use and impact of Moodle for teaching and learning?
6) If lecturers could do things differently, what would these be and how would it be done
differently?
7) What would students like to see more of and less of in their programmes?
3.3
Methodology
This project is called the multi-site research initiative because it relied on researchers from several
universities to work with a common research topic to answer the same research questions. The
research was conducted in these multiple sites using collaboratively developed generic instruments.
The core research team, constituting PIs and the research coordinator, relied on one another to
solve challenges or share insights on what was working in each of the universities that could assist
others who had not yet reached certain parts of that research process.
Although institutions had autonomy on what research methodology they could use to conduct the
research, all five studies that were completed were based on a mixed method design combining
qualitative and quantitative methods. As highlighted in Section 3.2, the study had two strands:
13
1) Full research: Four institutions (KU, MAK, UI and UJ) engaged in full research activities. These
institutions initiated their research projects from scratch, starting with research proposal
development, collecting and capturing data, analysing it and writing it up.
2) Partial research: The other three institutions – UCM, UDSM and UEW – conducted research
projects as part of their Part B PHEA ETI projects, and the intention was to use findings from this
research as secondary data to feed into the multi-site research.
For the full research, there was collaboration among PIs from the four institutions in the
development of instruments. PIs from the institutions that were engaged in partial research also
gave their input. Once generic instruments had been agreed, each PI then customized these for their
own institution. The PIs for the partial research, in the main, received support during the process of
instrument design and research operationalization from the CET coordinator. Instrument design was
therefore achieved through an iterative process of consultation and refinement among research
team members.
Specifically, the following methods of data gathering were employed.
Survey
All studies except the UEW Moodle study made use of self-administered questionnaires to collect
survey data. Two questionnaires were completed by staff and students. The generic questionnaires
for the full research strand are presented as Annexures A and B. Customised questionnaires are
presented as Annexures to institutional reports. Questionnaires were selected because they are a
cost-effective method of gathering data. They are quick to administer and enable large amounts of
data to be collected within a short space of time. However, there can be data fidelity issues if the
questionnaire items are ambiguous and respondents do not all get a common understanding of
questions. Furthermore, if there are questions that have not been completed, the data becomes
incomplete for analysis purposes.
Focus group interviews
All of the studies made use of focus group interviews for collecting qualitative data. Where focus
groups were difficult to set up, individual interviews were conducted. Focus group discussions and
interviews were intended to substantiate the quantitative data and triangulate it. They also provided
an opportunity to probe more deeply into issues that emanated from the survey. Interviews are
more resource intensive, both financially and temporally, than questionnaires. As a result, not many
interviews can be conducted. Difficulty with interviews include scheduling, particularly in universities
where teaching and learning are taking place. There are also power issues, where respondents may
feel constrained with regard to expressing their honest opinion because of the relative position they
occupy in relation to the interviewer. Researchers have to be careful to select interview respondents
who do not have any inhibitions because of their position. In this research, use of postgraduate
students to assist with interviews ensured that PIs would be selective about who they interviewed,
depending on their relationships with their colleagues.
Document and platform review
The researchers participating in the UEW Moodle study reviewed the various components of Moodle
including the course content outline to evaluate what features were being used for teaching and
learning, and in what way. This was done with a view to finding ways to improve the use of Moodle
by lecturers and students. The researchers also constituted a team of internal reviewers to evaluate
the courses, using specific criteria developed for the quality assurance exercise. Feedback was given
to course developers so that they could improve their courses. Moodle user logs were also analysed
to discern information about interactions between lecturers and students and the extent of usage of
various components of the learning management system (LMS). Workshop reports were reviewed to
14
gain insights into capacity development of lecturers and the difference the use of Moodle made to
lecturer course development. The PI for the UEW Moodle project kept a reflective journal of all the
processes in the implementation of Moodle, and lecturers’ experiences of the processes. This
provided an important source of data for the report writing.
3.4
Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework developed in 2008, based on levels and factors, and represented in Table
4, was used to inform the questions presented in the research instruments. The questions covered
aspects such as the national context, institutional context, course context, and personal issues.
Factors that were explored through the questions included personal characteristics, beliefs about
teaching and learning, infrastructure, and organizational issues including access to technology and
policy.
Table 4
PHEA ETI conceptual framework
Factors
Levels
Socio-economic
Organisational
Pedagogical &
epistemological
Technological
Global
Regional
National
Institutional
Disciplinary
Course
Personal3
The conceptual framework provides a carefully thought out language of description encompassing
what other scholars on technology uptake and adoption have used to analyse this phenomenon.
Most scholars have discussed factors influencing uptake, but have not distinguished the differences
between levels and factors, nor have they established the relationship between different factors and
the levels at which these play out (see, for example, Zayim, Yildirim & Saka, 2006; Balash, Yong & bin
Abu, 2011; Brzycki & Dudt, 2005; Dreher, Reiners & Dreher, 2011. The factor/level distinction that is
made in this conceptual framework is useful for determining where the focus of attention should be
on improving deployment of technology and whose responsibility it is to improve conditions to
encourage uptake.
Most of the institutions used the conceptual framework implicitly for data analysis and presentation.
Only MAK used it explicitly as part of the framework for the presentation and discussion of its
findings.
3.5
Operationalization of the study
An output of the research, as highlighted in Section 2, was to capacitate lecturers in the universities
with advanced research skills. To this end, one of the skills developed was project management of a
research project. To manage both the research and their teaching workloads, PIs were encouraged
The conceptual framework developed in 2008 does not include the personal level. It was added by the multi-site
research team, who felt that it was an important level for technology uptake.
3
15
to enlist the services of postgraduate students to act as research assistants (RAs) to help with data
collection. Each PI employed at least five RAs, whose primary responsibility was assisting with survey
dissemination and collection of questionnaires from respondents. In all institutions, RAs were
carefully trained before they went into the field. The contribution of RAs to the research process
resulted in a successful return rate of questionnaires. A summary of the data collected in the various
institutions is provided in Table 5.
Table 5
Summary of data collected by institutions
Staff
questionnaires
KU
UI
MAK
UJ4
UEW (baseline
study)
UEW (Moodle
study)
UDSM
UCM
Total
Student
questionnaires
Staff focus group
discussions/interviews
Student focus group
discussions/interviews
97
119
39
10
97
1,304
1,915
240
237
1,434
5
4
9
10
7
10
10
10
10
16
-
-
7
12
98
194
654
230
1,217
6,577
15
57
30
98
The variations in the number of questionnaires returned reflects the differentiated approaches to
project management as well as the level of research experience of the PIs. At KU, the PI negotiated a
lower rate for the RAs and managed to hire double the number of RAs than the original budget
allowed for. At UI, the PI attached a pen to the questionnaires and RAs went to lecture halls to
administer the questionnaires and collected them after the lecture. At UEW, RAs were appointed to
collect data at all the campuses, and at UCM, RAs were also dispatched to all the campuses across
Mozambique. The PIs with less research experience got the least returns, but also good enough for
beginners. So, besides imparting research management skills to the PIs, the project also enabled the
development and induction of postgraduate students into research.
3.6
Sample description
All institutions conducted their research in departments and units where educational technologies
were being used. Variables that were considered for the sample include, for example, gender, age,
level of study, terms of contract for the lecturers, and years in service for the lecturers. These
variables pertain to the personal level. A few of them, with particular implications for the study, are
discussed here in the conclusions and discussion section.
Age of respondents
At all institutions, the majority of the student respondents were in the age category under 20–40
years, with those in the under 20–30 years constituting the biggest sample, as reflected in Figure 1.
Although UJ concluded data collection successfully, the institution was unable to complete the research write up.
For this reason, the UJ findings are not included in the current report.
4
16
Overview of age5 of students
Figure 1:
Student age profiles
100%
86%
80%
58%
60%
40%
20%
77%
30%
21%
11%
56%
27%
5%
1%
8%
2%
2% 1%
9%
1%
2% 2%
2%
0%
<20 Years
21-30 Years
31-40 Years
41-50 Years
> 51 Years
Makerere University
University of Ibadan
Kenyatta University
University of Education, Winneba
Unspecified
A similar trend was observed with the sample for lecturers, which was also dominated by younger
lecturers, as highlighted in Figure 2.
Overview of age of lecturers6
Figure 2:
Lecturer age profiles
100%
61%
50%
18%
34% 41%
41% 45%
22%
3%
26%
35%
10%
14% 15% 7% 16%
5%
5%
0%
<30 Years
31-40 Years
41-50 Years
51-60 Years
Makerere University
Kenyatta University
University of Education, Winneba
University of Dar es Salaam
>60
The majority of the lecturers were under 50 years old, with those under 40 constituting the biggest
group.
Gender of respondents
Except at UI, at all the other universities there were more male respondents than females among the
students, as reflected in Figure 3.
The student questionnaire for UDSM did not include any item on students’ age, hence the age profile for UDSM
students is missing.
6 There was no data available for UI lecturer ages.
5
17
Figure 3:
Distribution of student respondents, by gender
Gender profile of students
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
59%
52% 46%
38%
3%
2%
Makerere
University
University of
Ibadan
Male
66%
61%
52% 45%
38%
3%
Kenyatta University
Female
34%
2%
University of
Education,
Winneba
University of Dar es
Salaam
Unspecified
However, at all institutions, male respondents were more dominant among the lecturer sample, as
shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4:
Distribution of lecturer sample by gender
Students’ level of study
As indicated in Figure 5, most of the student respondents were in their first to fourth year of study,
with second and third years constituting the biggest of this group.
Overview of year of study of respondents7
Figure 5:
Students' level of study
50%
45%
39% 39%
40%
33%
28% 27%
30%
20%
10%
46%
21%
25%
20%
18%
10%
14%
8%
4%
2%
4% 3% 2%
0%
First Year
Second Year
Makerere University
Third Year
Fourth Year
University of Ibadan
Kenyatta University
7
University of Education, Winneba
There was no data available for UDSM for level of study of students.
18
Fifth Year
3.7
Data analysis
All institutions used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyse quantitative
data. The SPSS analysis also determined correlations between various categories of data. UI and KU
used ANOVA and T-tests where appropriate to explore significant differences in responses based on
specific variables. The analysis of quantitative data led to collaborations between the PIs and
statistical analysis experts in their institutions.
Focus group discussions and interviews were transcribed and thematic coding was employed for
analysis, using codes developed collaboratively by the research team as part of the study. MAK used
the qualitative analysis software ATLAS.ti for analysis of qualitative data. Coding was also conducted
collaboratively between the institutional teams to determine, debate and reach consensus on any
new codes that came up but did not exist in the original codes developed.
Each institution wrote its research report, and the content of these reports was used for compiling
the overview report presented here.
3.8
Validity and reliability
From the beginning of the multi-site research project, validity and reliability were emphasized as
critical elements for ensuring the credibility of the research, particularly because the research was
being conducted at various sites by different researchers, and the potential for public dissemination
was high. Although there was limited control of how the research would be quality managed in each
institution, there were specific measures put in place in the preparatory stages of the project to
ensure the validity and reliability of qualitative research processes and reports.
Within their own institutions, the PIs ensured validity and reliability through multiple methods. To
ensure validity, the following processes were followed:





The instruments to be used in the full research were developed collaboratively by the whole
team. Once these had been agreed, some ‘tweaking’ was done internally to ensure articulation
with the context; for example, changes would be made to reflect the nomenclature of the
institutions regarding how they name lecturer designations or departments. So, the changes
were minor and did not affect the structure of the questionnaire or the items in the
questionnaires.
The questionnaires developed for the partial research were also developed by teams of
researchers in the institutions and quality assured by the research coordinator from CET.
Institutions piloted instruments and revised them accordingly before using them for the larger
research populations.
For the analysis of qualitative data, initial thematic codes were developed by the whole research
team, and any additional codes were developed by each PI and their team as they analysed their
data.
Within institutions, letters of introduction to the research, requesting voluntary participation,
were circulated to respondents to ensure ethical practice was observed. Where interviews and
focus group discussions were conducted, the purpose of the research was reiterated to
participants, as well as the provision that participation was voluntary.
19
To achieve reliability, all RAs were trained, and during training they were taken through the
instruments to make sure they understood the questions. They were also briefed on how to conduct
the research activities. In this regard, RAs had a common understanding of how to conduct the
research. Further, focus group discussions and interviews were tape recorded and transcribed fully
to achieve an accurate and complete record of the discussions.
3.9
Limitations of the study
Several limitations can be noted about the study. While having several RAs assisting the PIs may
have resulted in a reasonably high questionnaire return rate, where RAs were used for interviews
and focus groups, the quality of the probing was not always of a high and acceptable standard. For
example, the PI at UI realized at the time of data analysis – by which time it was a bit too late for
follow up – that some areas could have done with more probing and had been insufficiently
explored.
Some PIs relied on their knowledge as well as word of mouth in identifying study participants who
were making use of technology for teaching. It is likely that this method may have not identified all
lecturers using technology – however, based on the amount of data collected, this was not a serious
problem.
At UDSM, the study was conducted only at the main campus, which is likely to be better resourced
that the remotely located campuses. Consequently, the research missed an opportunity to explore
variations on Moodle uptake that might result from geographical location.
4. Overview of ICT and educational technology in countries of
study
Based on the national level of technology adoption specified in the conceptual framework, the study
started on the premise that several aspects at national level, including policy and ICT strategies,
partly influence uptake of technology in schools and universities. Table 6 provides an overview of the
ICT context in the countries of study.
Table 6
Overview of country ICT context
Country
Policy
Uganda
Nigeria
Examples of other strategies and initiatives supporting ICTs in
education
National eUganda has implemented several ICT-related projects focusing on
schooling policy – different areas including professional development, providing
2006. Aligned
infrastructure, designing multimedia-based learning materials and
with National ICT facilitating tele-collaborative projects between countries. These have
policy of 2003.
being driven by: Uconnect, World Bank Links, the New Partnership
for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), SchoolNet Uganda, Boston
Companies, Dot-Edu, Computers for the World, Connect Ed, IICD, the
British Council, CurriculumNet, Microsoft PiL, Computers for Schools
Uganda and Cisco Networking Academy (NEPAD, 2006b).
Draft national
Several initiatives exist, including the following:
policy – 2011
1) Nigerian Universities Network (NUNet) project;
2) The Polytechnics Network (PolyNet) project;
20
Country
Policy
Kenya
National ICT
policy – 2006
Ghana
Education sector
ICT policy – 2006
Tanzania National ICT
policy – 2003
Examples of other strategies and initiatives supporting ICTs in
education
3) The Nigerian Education, Academic and Research Network
(NEARNet);
4) The Teachers Network (TeachNet) project;
5) National Open University;
6) National Virtual (Digital) Library (Ministry of
Education/National Universities Commission);
7) National Virtual Library (Ministry of Science and
Technology/National Information Technology Development
Agency);
8) National Information, Communication and Education
Programme of the Presidency;
9) The US$100 XO laptop computer project for Nigeria’s 24
million public primary school children; and
10) SchoolNet, an NGO, has created learning communities of
educators and learners who can use ICTs to improve
educational outcomes.
In June 2006, a National ICT Strategy for Education and Training was
introduced. The Kenya Education Sector Support Program (KESSP) of
2005 has ICT as one of the priority areas, the objective being to
mainstream ICTs into teaching and learning on a countrywide basis.
There is a ministerial ICT committee that is chaired by the permanent
secretary and supported by the ministry’s ICT Unit. There is also the
Kenya Education Network (KENET), whose member benefits include
substantially reduced connectivity costs, and access to technical
support and staff training. The ICT Trust Fund facilitates public–
private partnerships (PPPs) to mobilize and provide ICT resources to
Kenyan public education institutions such as universities, colleges,
schools, and community resource and learning centres. Since 2006,
Etisalat has been laying undersea fibre optic cable.
Ghana has implemented several ICT in education projects: the
science resource centres project; the World Links for Development
programme; INTEL initiatives to support education; Microsoft
Partners in Learning; the NEPAD e-Schools Initiative; the Global
Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE)
programme; CISCO Academies; Global Technology Academy; Global
Teenager Project; Camp Amelia Technology Literacy Group;
ICT3o/IESA Foundation; computers for schools; community
information centres; Oracle Academic Initiative; Infodev; IT
enhancement for Ghanaian schools; the ICTE project in teacher
training colleges; Science, Technology and Mathematics (SMT)
Education Clinic; Presidential Special Initiative on Distance Learning;
the Sankofa project; the Star basic JSS project; and ASPnet schools
(NEPAD, 2006a).
Several strategies and master plans have been in existence since
1999. The Ministry of Education and Vocational Training is installing
Moodle at 34 teacher training colleges. More than 15 universities
and colleges are using Moodle.
21
5. Overview of educational technology context at the universities
Also significant in determining educational technology uptake are factors at institutional level. Table
7 provides an overview of the institutional context of relevance to uptake of educational
technology.8
Table 7
Institution
Makerere
University
Educational technology institutional contexts
Snapshot of educational technology context


University of

Ibadan




Kenyatta
University







The university has an ICT policy and a strategic plan as well as an educational
technology strategy aimed at promoting and supporting the use of educational
technologies to provide innovative teaching and learning experiences, in order to
produce 21st century students (Nsibirano, Madanda, Kasozi, Okumu & Kabonesa,
2013).
There are challenges of infrastructure at the university, in particular a high ratio
of users to computers (Nsibirano et al., 2013).
A partnership with the MacArthur Foundation has resulted in more than US$1.5
million of investment in ICT infrastructure and initiatives in the past eight years
(University of Ibadan, 2009).
An e-learning platform has been developed and supported by the PHEA ETI since
2010.
Internet service provision has become steadier especially because it has been
supported by solar electric hybrid inverters since 2009.
Functional units of the university have individual local area networks (LANs),
which are connected to the university network via fibre optic and wireless radio
antennas.
The library now has digital systems for efficient literature searches and providing
campus-wide and external access to online library resources (Aremu, 2013).
KU has an ICT policy framework and implementation strategy.
The university has installed a fibre optic support structure at its main campus,
connecting all major buildings via single mode fibre cabling and supporting a
speed of 1,000 Mbps. The network handles data, voice and video formats.
The university is implementing voice over Internet protocol (VOIP).
The university has implemented the KU Butterfly Lifestyle Service, which makes
available wireless Internet at the hot spots.
The university has constructed a three-storey building consisting of six computer
laboratories holding 600 PCs.
There are more than 3,000 PCs on campus, the aim being to increase this
number to 5,000 PCs to create a 1:1 ratio of computers to staff and 1:5 ratio of
computers to students.
The university has also dedicated resources to training staff and students on e-
The variation in the level of detail can be attributed to the detail provided in institutional reports and other
institutional documents providing information on the institutional contexts.
8
22
Institution
Snapshot of educational technology context
technology.
 The university has invested in video conferencing facilities.
 Moodle is being used as the preferred LMS, with 530 lecturers trained on how to
use Moodle.
 KU is implementing its first open source Integrated Library System (ILS), KOHA,
which will support acquisition, cataloguing, circulations, the Online Public Access
Catalogue (OPAC), and the hosting of electronic academic content.
 The university has also subscribed to numerous journals through the Kenya
Library and Information Service Consortium (KLISC) Programmes for
Enhancement of Research Information (PERI) (Wainaina & Wanderi, 2014).
University of

Education,

Winneba














All of the university campuses have Internet connectivity.
The university has central computing facilities (laboratories), for students and
staff, dedicated to ICT literacy training.
Some departments have computer laboratories, which are used for subjectbased applications and curriculum integration.
The university has an ICT department, whose staff report directly to the Pro-vice
chancellor.
There are fibre connections between buildings on all campuses and a virtual
private network (VPN) linking campuses at all three geographical locations.
The university’s Internet connectivity is via VSAT, with funding support from the
PHEA Bandwidth Consortium. The university maintains an uplink bandwidth of
1.7 Mbps and 3.5 Mbps downlink.
The university has 847 computers, with computer laboratories equipped with
356 computers for student use, 46 computers for public use at the universityoperated Internet café and 445 computers used by faculty and support staff.
The library on UEW’s South Campus has a faculty lounge equipped with 15
networked PCs for faculty and postgraduate students’ use.
All academic departments have scanners, printers, LCD (liquid crystal display)
projectors, screens and other audio-visual equipment.
The university maintains a database using open source software (OSS) for
administration of student information and record keeping.
The Topaz accounting software is used for financial management.
A pilot Moodle server and FM radio stations are used to support academic
instruction.
A multimedia studio has been established with financial support from the
Carnegie Corporation, and is used to record and produce digital instructional
materials to support distance education delivery.
The library provides access to numerous e-resources and databases.
The university is currently developing a Video Conferencing Unit funded by the
World Bank Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund (TALIF) programme. This will
support the distance education programme.
The university sponsors lecturers to pursue postgraduate studies in educational
technology and systems management (Yidana, Sarfo, Edwards, Boison & Wilson
23
Institution
Snapshot of educational technology context
2013; Edwards, Tete-Mensah, Kusi, Bentum-Wilson & Mazure, 2013).
University of
Dar es
Salaam












From 1994, UDSM has promulgated the Corporate Strategic Plan to guide the
Institutional Transformation Plan (ITP).
The university has a university-wide ICT master plan and ICT policy.
E-learning activities were implemented in 1998, through embarking on a
Technology Education Independent Learning (TEIL) programme.
TEIL resulted in the institutionalization of the Blackboard LMS, and the creation
of student ICT laboratories in several faculties and students’ halls of residence
and hostels to increase access to the learning platform.
In 2001, UDSM established the Instructional Technology Resource Unit (ITRU), as
a continuation of the TEIL programme, to incorporate pedagogical aspects in elearning.
About 35% of all UDSM instructors have received training in using Blackboard
through various workshops conducted under the end-user upgrading projects
TEIL and ITRU.
UDSM introduced two blended learning programmes based on a market survey
that was done in 2004. These postgraduate programmes – in computer science
and in engineering management – were offered from 2005/06, with 136 students
benefiting from the pilot delivery.
UDSM has improved bandwidth by increasing it from 256kbps/512kbps to
1Mbps/2Mbps, then 155 Mbps (Synchronous Transport Module 1 capacity).
A digital library is available through the university main library and is accessible
outside the university network.
UDSM has e-learning collaboration agreements with international universities for
delivery of online degree and diploma programmes.
In May, 2008, Moodle was deployed at the university as the preferred LMS to
replace the Blackboard LMS. Several training programmes have been conducted
for staff and students alike. UDSM has now upgraded Moodle to version 2.3 from
the former version 1.9 that was installed when Moodle was deployed. The newer
version has improved features as well as enriched tools that can be integrated
from external repositories.
In 2010, a course migration project was initiated for the purpose of migrating
courses from Blackboard to Moodle (Munaku, Hawasi & Mtebe, 2013).
Table 7 highlights that the institutions under study have to various degrees implemented measures
to improve their ICT infrastructures, creating conducive environments for uptake of educational
technology by students and lecturers.
24
6. Findings
The presentation of data in this section follows two distinct approaches. Firstly, comparative data is
presented for the three institutions that engaged in full research and, where possible, data from the
other two institutions is incorporated. This is because the instruments used by the two groups,
though pursuing similar ends, were structured differently; thus, the instruments for the two
institutions (partial research) are not in sync with those for the full research, and consequently a full
comparison is impossible. Secondly, data from the ‘partial research institutions’ is presented mostly
to augment the findings from the full research, where appropriate.
6.1
Access to educational technologies
In UEW’s baseline study, meant to determine the extent of technology penetration and use within
the institution, it emerged that 31 out of the 33 departments at the university were connected to
the Internet. Furthermore, seven departments had ICT laboratories, and 18 had an ICT policy. The
distribution of computer labs and computers across various sites within a university enables
different student user groups to access technology for learning.
The questionnaires for the full research component, as well as the UEW baseline study, required
respondents to indicate which educational technologies were available in their departments. Table 8
highlights the technologies cited by most lecturers.
Table 8
Technologies available to lecturers
KU
(%)
Overhead projector
Interactive whiteboard
Desktop computer
Laptop
Radio
Printer
Photocopier
Internet
MAK
(%)
61
52
63
43
79
70
-
62
39
77
68
74
90
UI
(%)
44
54
77
81
79
87
UEW
(%)
33
779
83
71
-
At all institutions, printers were consistently the most cited available technologies, with
differentiated availability for the other technologies across institutions. The highest number of
lecturers attested to availability of Internet connectivity at MAK.
Lecturers were also asked to indicate which technologies they own, and the ownership of laptops
was consistently high across all institutions, as reflected in Table 9.
9
The UEW baseline questionnaire combined laptop and desktop computers as one item.
25
Table 9
Technologies owned by lecturers
KU
(%)
Desktop computer
Laptop
Radio
Printer
Digital camera
Scanner
Internet
Smart phones
37
87
51
47
44
23
59
-
MAK
(%)
13
85
33
41
21
26
UI
(%)
58
98
51
87
83
81
92
42
Notably, most respondents from UI owned technologies, compared to lecturers from KU and MAK,
except for the radio. The high level of ownership can be explained by the fact that the lecturers who
were surveyed were mostly in medical and science faculties that required e-learning as part of the
teaching and learning regime. In this regard, it may have been convenient for lecturers to own their
own technologies, and not have to be limited by waiting for departmental technology, which was in
demand by all the lecturers.
Lecturers were asked to identify educational technologies that they wished to use but could not
have access to. Findings for this question are specified in Figure 6, for KU and UI, whose data was
available.
Figure 6:
Technologies that lecturers want to use but do not have access to10
Technologies lecturers wish to have
80%
66%
70%
60%
50%
35%
40%
23% 21%
30%
15%
20% 12%
7% 5%
5% 7% 2% 7%
4%
10%
1%
0%
Kenyatta
68%
26%
20%
11%
10%
3% 5% 4%
10%
12%12%
UI
Interestingly, the results show that at UI, where lecturers highlighted significant availability and
ownership of technology, there was a high indication of need for the overhead projector, multimedia
projector, interactive white boards, digital cameras, and the Internet. An explanation was provided
10
No data was available for UDSM, UEW and MAK.
26
for this trend, based on the accessibility of the available technologies. It was reported that accessing
technologies for teaching can be a highly bureaucratic process requiring written requests to specific
officers. When these officers are absent, this makes the request system a hindrance to the use of
technology.
Regarding the Internet, it was revealed that although there is Internet access in many departments,
access to this is differentiated within the same department based on location. Internet access is
reportedly poor in some sections of the same building, and good in others. This forces lecturers to
migrate to other areas to access the Internet even in cases where they have their own modems.
Students were also asked to indicate technologies that were in their departments, which
technologies they owned, and which they wished they could gain access to and make use of. Table
10 shows the technologies most cited by students as being available.
Table 10
Technologies available to students in their departments
KU
(%)
Overhead projector
Interactive white board
Desktop computer
Laptop
Radio
Printer
Internet
Public address system
62
64
52
46
20
35
55
45
UI
(%)
51
51
43
47
14
37
35
44
UEW
(%)
40
49
15
-
Notably, the proportion of students citing a similar awareness of available technologies as lecturers
was very small. Almost the same percentage of students as lecturers cited availability of overheard
projectors at KU, and the interactive white board at UI. The huge differences in the proportion of
indication of availability of all the other resources could be explained in relation to visibility and use;
for example, the fact that interactive white boards and overhead projectors at KU and UI have
almost the same frequencies, can be attributed to the visibility of such technologies in lecture
rooms. Large differences would exist with the printer due to usage, where lecturers may be the ones
who use printers more than students. The differences in citing the availability of radios, for example,
may also be about use and visibility. Lecturers may be more aware than students that there are
radios because of their access to knowledge on what is available, whereas students may not have
this information if they have no reason to use radios, and also depending on the universities’ use
policies.
Considering ownership of technologies, most students owned cell phones and laptops, as shown in
Table 11.
27
Table 11
Personal ownership of technologies by students
KU
(%)
Overhead projector
8
Interactive white board
8
Desktop computer
21
Laptop
49
Radio
48
Printer
14
iPad
18
Scanner
10
Cell phones
84
UI
(%)
12
6
9
69
33
10
10
16
76
That fewer students than lecturers own technologies is unsurprising, and is a reflection of the
differentiated financial status of lecturers and students. Lecturers are more likely than students to
gain access to income to purchase their own personal technologies. The high prevalence of
ownership of cell phones by students is, however, important for the future of technology use in
education.
Like their lecturers, students were asked to indicate which technologies they would like to have
access to and use that they currently did not have access to. Figure 7 highlights the results.
Figure 7:
Technologies that students want to use but do not have access to 11
Technologies students wish to have
55%
52%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
44%
47%
41%
38% 36%39%
32%32%
18% 17%
14%
21%
25%
24%
18%
29%
26%
33%
29%
38%
26%
9%
10%
0%
Kenyatta
UI
The highest need among students at both institutions (KU and UI) was for overhead projectors,
public address systems, printers, scanners, iPads and the Internet. The reasons cited by students and
lecturers why they were not able to access and use the technologies they were keen on was that the
technologies were damaged, the respondents lacked skills to use them, and there was too high a
demand for these technologies, with their availability being inadequate to meet this demand.
11
No data was available for UDSM, UEW and MAK
28
6.2
Use of educational technology for teaching and learning
Having established what technologies are available, it was useful to understand how these are used
for teaching and learning. Table 12 provides an overview of the uses of educational technology that
respondents have access to.
Table 12
Examples of uses of educational technology
Educational technology
Multimedia projector
Use by lecturers
 Displaying visuals during
teaching
Use by students
 Displaying visuals during
teaching and group study
Moodle


Uploading learning resources
Posting announcements
Overhead projector








Classroom presentations
PowerPoint presentations
Displaying notes
Typing lecture notes
Accessing the Internet
Presentations
Communication
Research





Reading announcements
Downloading notes
Sharing ideas through chat
Doing quizzes
Displaying information during
presentation and group study







Teaching large classes
Typing lecture notes
Accessing the Internet
Presentations
Communication
Research
Doing experiments using
simulations
For improved teacher voice
projection during lectures
For students to be heard in
front when they ask questions
Laptop/desktop
Public address system


Internet




Research
Online teaching
Collaborating with colleagues
outside the institution
E-mail communication



Research
Online learning
Communication
While Table 12 suggests diverse use of educational technologies for teaching and learning, the
Moodle studies suggested that Moodle is being used in a limited manner to upload and access
information. Lecturers and students seem to be prevented, by lack of skills, from using other
dynamic teaching and learning features of Moodle such as assessment, quizzes, chat, and discussion
forums.
29
6.3
Enablers of educational technology uptake
To discern what were considered as enablers to technology uptake, some statements related to
technology use were provided, and lectures and students were asked to make judgment on these
statements to reflect their experience of technology adoption in their own institutions. Respondents
were expected to agree or disagree, or to indicate if they were not sure about the statement. Table
13 highlights what lecturers at KU and UI agreed with in the provided statements.
Table 13
Technology enabler statements lecturers agreed with
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of technology in the classroom for
my course
I will make better use of technologies for teaching if I have easy access to these
technologies
It will be easy for me to use these technologies if I have technical support
The number of technologies available to the number of students is not adequate
In my institution there is ICT capacity development training regularly
There are incentive/schemes in place to encourage teachers who use technologies
Power supply within the institution is reliable
The available supply of power enables me to use technology for teaching without
interruption
KU UI
(%) (%)
61 61
93
87
86
62
23
13
64
48
84
68
27
13
14
14
The majority of respondents from both KU and UI were in agreement that the curriculum can enable
technology uptake, particularly if technologies are easily accessible. Lecturers also agreed that
technical support was an enabler, emphasizing that a reasonable computer: student ratio would also
make it easy to use technology for teaching. The current state was that there was inadequate
technological supply to meet the demand. In both institutions, lecturers believe that there is
inadequate training of lecturers, and that there are limited incentives for technology use. At KU,
more lecturers agreed that the power supply is adequate, while at UI, power supply seems to be an
issue that is impeding the uptake of technology.
Students at KU and UI, to varying degrees, seemed to concur with the lecturers in their assessment
of most of the statements on enabling factors at their institutions, as evidenced in Table 14.
30
Table 14
Technology enabler statements students agreed with
KU MAK UI
(%) (%) (%)
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of technology in the
classroom for my course
I will make better use of technologies for learning if I have easy access to these
technologies
It will be easy for me to use these technologies if I have technical support
The number of technologies available to the number of students is not adequate
In my institution there is ICT capacity development training regularly
There are incentive/schemes in place to encourage teachers who use
technologies
Power supply within the institution is reliable
The available supply of power enables me to use technology for learning
I am free to use technologies for my learning even though my lecturers are not
using technology
61
79
24
90
88
19
24
94
91
72
30
52
48
46
9
21
78
76
22
47
73
10
11
21
71
-
22
A notable difference is that between students and lecturers at UI on the matter of whether the
curriculum is encouraging of the use of technology. Very few students compared to lecturers agreed
with this statement. A similar difference is noted between lecturers and students at KU, on whether
the number of technologies available for the number of students is adequate or not. Fewer students
agreed to this (i.e. agreed the number is not adequate) compared to lecturers, which seems to
suggest that students somehow believe the available technologies are adequate. Given the mostly
low percentages of students who indicate the technologies that they would like to use that are not
available, this seems like a valid assessment.
Other enablers were cited in the Moodle research as well as the baseline research at UEW. These
include:







Reliable Internet connection;
Lecturers have to be confident in the use of technology. Students who are skilled in ICT will also
not find it daunting to adopt technology;
Lecturers have to encourage their students to use technology for learning;
If Moodle or technology improves teaching and learning experiences, users will adopt it;
If lecturers award marks for use of technology, students will be motivated to use it;
Having champions who have used technology successfully will motivate others to also use
technology; and
Interest in technology can also encourage uptake by lecturers and students alike.
6.4
Constraints on educational technology uptake
As with the determination of enablers of educational technology use, lecturers and students were
provided with a few statements to reflect on what they considered constraints on technology use
and asked to agree, disagree, or indicate if they were unsure about the statement. Table 15
highlights the results from lecturer and student data respectively.
31
Table 15
Statements on constraints on technology use that students and lecturers agreed with
KU
(%)
Students
The hardware available is
outdated
Some of the software
available is inappropriate
There is poor Internet
access in the school
I am not a confident user
of some of these
technologies
I do not think my teachers
are competent enough to
use technology for
teaching/I do not think my
students are competent
enough to use technology
for learning
MAK
(%)
Lecturers
Students
UI
(%)
Lecturers
Students
Lecturers
37
40
32
19
20
68
50
51
47
20
21
15
58
73
46
14
29
84
43
35
50
4
19
13
24
31
20
21
18
9
These results show that there was mostly agreement between lecturers and students at KU, and
some significant dissonance at MAK and UI in the following areas:




Many more students than lecturers at MAK believe that the hardware available is outdated,
while many more lecturers at UI than students feel the same way. Students at MAK cited a
computer lab with 40 computers that only has 15 of these working because the other computers
are beyond repair, mainly because of poor routine maintenance of these computers during their
life span.
More students than lecturers at MAK also believe that some of the software is outdated.
More students than lecturers also seem to be affected by poor Internet access at MAK. Students
indicated that slow Internet connectivity makes completing assignments difficult as they spend
more time waiting for documents to download. As a result, they resort to using library books
instead. More lecturers than students at UI agreed that there is poor Internet access. Lecturers
indicated that it is very frustrating when the Internet fails during the middle of teaching. As a
result, lecturers have resorted to taking their modems to class in case they need them.
Lecturers at UI seem to have more confidence in their students’ skills than students have in the
lecturers’ skills.
The Moodle studies and the UEW baseline study raised similar concerns about hardware, software,
connectivity and skills being constraints on technology uptake. Other constraints that were
highlighted were time and insecurity. Regarding time, lecturers indicated that the initial investments
in technology use for teaching require a lot of time, and lecturers would rather invest this time in
doing research, which is recognized for promotion within the university. In relation to insecurity,
some lecturers are worried that if they put out their teaching material online, it could be ‘stolen’ by
others and they would lose their copyright over it.
32
7. Conclusions and discussion
The presentation of findings from the multi-site research shows that technology uptake is influenced
by a number of factors at various levels. In summary, these factors and levels are mapped onto the
conceptual framework matrix, in Table 16.
33
Table 16
Summary of factors and levels influencing technology uptake in the study
Factors
Levels
National
Institutional
Socio-economic

The countries under consideration
have power supply issues, which
can act as a constraint, but this
has been turned into an enabler
as mitigating measures, including
using generators for power, have
been employed.
Organizational

The regulatory environment is
supportive of ICT uptake; and

Several strategies and initiatives exist
to support uptake. Useful lessons can
be learned from these.
Pedagogical and epistemological

ICT integration is being promoted for the
development of students who are 21st
century learners who will leave university
with ICT skills to participate effectively in
the global economy.
Technological

The lack of incentives for using
technology discourages technology
uptake. Research still has better value
attached to it than improving student
learning outcomes; and
Institutions are addressing power
challenges in their countries through
using other power sources.


The roll out of Moodle has been
focused on specific disciplines where
blended learning and online learning
are offered. Students in these
disciplines take up technology as it
becomes a requirement for their
learning; and
The study at UI found that students
and lecturers take up technology
better when it is being systematically
rolled out at disciplinary level.

Some disciplines are adopting a systemic
adoption of technology e.g. Faculties of
Science, Medicine, and Education at the
surveyed university.

Teachers who are motivated to improve
their teaching and enhance the learning

Disciplinary


Course
34

The rewarding of research over
innovative teaching demotivates lecturers
with regard to using technology for
teaching; and
Some lecturers worry that if they put
their work online they may have their
ideas ‘stolen’, hence they stay away from
online instruction.





Hardware is mostly
inadequate for the demand;
Connectivity is mostly poor;
Software is inadequate;
There is a poor culture of
maintenance of hardware;
and
Availability of technical
support promotes usage.
Lack of hardware, software,
and technical support
Factors
Levels
Socio-economic
Personal



Organizational
Lack of finances limits ownership
of technologies by students;
There is a high prevalence of
ownership of cell phones by
students; and
Some lecturers prefer to own their
own technology, and prevalence
of ownership of cell phones and
laptops by lecturers is high.
Pedagogical and epistemological
experience of students take up
technology.
Technological
discourages uptake of
technology; and

There is limited use of
technologies e.g. Moodle
features are not being used
in a complex way.



Lecturers’ heavy workloads prevent them
from investing time in technologies,
which are time intensive at the beginning;
and
Personal ownership of technologies
provides good scope for expansion of
technology use.

Lack of confidence in use of
ICTs militates against uptake;
and
Technical support
encourages confidence.
In order to improve uptake of technology for teaching and learning, intervention is needed at multiple levels of the system. These are discussed below in
the light of the findings.
35
7.1
Possible interventions

National level intervention in relation to power supply issues should consider the role of the
state in facilitating an increase in power supply, as well as the enablement of universities to limit
their reliance on the national grid through incentives for them to use alternative energy sources.
Furthermore, there is a need to keep track of, and consolidate, the multiple and discrete ICT
interventions that have low impact and are unsustainable.

At institutional level, lecturers need acknowledgement for using technology for teaching, and
this could include awarding promotion points to lecturers for innovative teaching. Within
institutions, poor maintenance of hardware is leading to wastage of this hardware, and
institutions need to have a service plan for hardware to make sure they get longer usage from
their hardware. Investments also need to be made in acquiring hardware, and possibilities with
regard to using a mobile interface should be explored because of the ubiquity of this technology
among students and lecturers alike. To make technology uptake more attractive, updated
software, which makes teaching and learning more pleasurable, improving educational
outcomes at the same time, is needed. Investments also need to be made in improving
bandwidth and connectivity. Providing lecturers and students with technical support will make
them feel more confident with using technologies.

At a disciplinary level, systemic adoption of technology for the discipline will enable much more
holistic development of technology-related support structures within that discipline. Although
there are still some problems, this seems to be the case at UI, which seems to be better
resourced than the other institutions because of the systematic e-learning initiatives in the
Faculties of Medicine and Science.

At a personal level, the technologies that lecturers and students learn can easily be successfully
leveraged for teaching and learning. This is especially the case with cell phones. Lecturers and
students need training support to develop enough confidence to take up technology for teaching
and learning.
36
References
Aremu, A. (2013). Factors affecting technology uptake for teaching, learning and assessment at
University of Ibadan. Research report.
Balash, F., Yong, Z., & bin Abu, B. (2011). Lecturers and educational technology: Factors affecting
educational technology adoption in teaching. 2nd International Conference on Education and
Management Technology IPCSIT Vol. 13 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore.
Brzycki, D. & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation
programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641.
Dreher, C., Reiners, T., & Dreher, H. (2011). Investigating factors affecting the uptake of automated
assessment technology. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 162–181.
Edwards, A., Tete-Mensah, I., Kusi, H., Bentum-Wilson, K., & Mazure, C. (2013). Baseline study on
current state of educational technology at University of Education, Winneba. Research report.
Munaku, M., Hawasi, H. & Mtebe, J. (2013). The use of Moodle to support teaching and learning at
UDSM. Research report.
NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development). (2006a). NEPAD e-schools Initiative: Ghana
country strategy. Ernst & Young, Johannesburg.
NEPAD. (2006b). NEPAD e-schools Initiative: Uganda country strategy. Ernst & Young, Johannesburg.
Nsibirano, R., Madanda, A., Kasozi, J., Okumu, T., & Kabonesa, C. (2013). Factors affecting technology
uptake for teaching, learning and assessment at Makerere University. Research report.
University of Ibadan. (2009). Submission for Part B of the PHEA Educational Technology Initiative.
Wainaina, M. & Wanderi, P. (2014). Factors affecting technology uptake for teaching, learning and
assessment at Kenyatta University. Research report.
Wickham, S. & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Research design toolkit: Resource for the Partnership
in Higher Education in Africa’s Educational Technology Initiative. Centre for Educational Technology,
Cape Town.
Yidana, I., Sarfo, F., Edwards, A., Boison, R., & Wilson, O. (2013). Using Moodle for teaching and
learning at University of Education, Winneba. Research report.
Zayim, N., Yildirim, S. & Saka, O. (2006). Technology adoption of medical faculty in teaching:
Differentiating factors in adopter categories. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 213–222.
37
Annexure A: Staff questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to generate data for a multi-site study that explores factors that
influence the use of educational technologies in seven PHEA partner universities to support the
integration of education technologies in higher education in Africa. Your responses will be treated in
confidence and used for the purposes of this study only.
SECTION A:
Demographic Information
This section contains questions that will help us understand the answers you provide better (Fill in
the appropriate response).
College
Sex
Male
Female
Department/School
Designation
Terms of Service
(tick)
Contract
Duration of service
in the University
(Years)
Age (Please tick)
How many courses First semester?
do you teach in:
Second semester?
SECTION B:
Part
time
Permanent
< 20________
21-30________
31-40________
41-50________
51-60________
>60________
Access to Educational Technologies (ETs)
1. What educational technologies are available in your unit (please tick as many as applicable)?
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Overhead projector
Radio
Multimedia projector
Internet
Interactive white board
Public Address system
Laptop Computers
Printer
Desktop Computers
Scanner
Television
Digital camera
iPad
Smart phones
Others not listed (Specify)
38
Tick
2. Which of the listed ETs can you use whenever you need to use it for personal reasons? Please
indicate the purpose.
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
Radio
Multimedia projector
Internet
Interactive white board
Public Address system
Laptop Computers
Printer
Desktop Computers
Scanner
Television
Digital camera
Smart Phones
iPad
Others not listed (Specify)
3. Which of the following technologies do you personally own?
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Overhead projector
Radio
Multimedia projector
Internet
Interactive white board
Public Address system
Laptop Computers
Printer
Desktop Computers
Scanner
Television
Digital camera
Smart Phones
iPad
Tick
Others not listed (Specify)
4. Which other ETs would you like to use for teaching, which you are not currently using? Please
tick
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
Radio
Multimedia projector
Internet
39
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Interactive white board
Public Address system
Laptop Computers
Printer
Desktop Computers
Scanner
Television
Digital camera
Smart Phones
iPad
Tick
Others not listed (Specify)
5. State how you wish to use these technologies for teaching
Technologies
How I wish to use them
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
6. Mention the ETs you need to enhance your teaching experiences but you cannot have access to.
Please indicate the reasons why you cannot access these ETs for teaching
Educational technologies I need for teaching Reasons why I cannot access these ETs for
but cannot access
teaching
40
7. What skills do you feel are needed to enable teaching staff to use ETs for teaching?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Which ETs does the University provide for use in teaching?
Technologies
Tick
Technologies
Tick
Overhead projector
Radio
Multimedia projector
Internet
Interactive white board
Public Address system
Laptop Computers
Printer
Desktop Computers
Scanner
Television
Digital camera
9. Where are the ETs used for teaching kept?
Educational Technology for Teaching
Places of
Storage
Person in
charge
Comments
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Section C: Use of Educational Technologies for Teaching
10. How many courses are you currently teaching? ( Please name them)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………
41
11. Mention which of these courses are using ETs and those that are not
Courses that I teach with some component of Courses that I teach without any component
Educational Technology use
of Educational Technology use
12. Mention reasons you are not able to use ETs in the courses you have mentioned.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Section D: Training and ET Competence
13. I have been trained in the use of ETs Yes
14. I use ETs for all my classes
No
Yes
No
15. My teaching experience has been improved with the use of ETs Yes
No
b) How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
16. My assessment skills has been improved with the use of ETs Yes
No
b) How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
17. My teaching experience is affected negatively by use of ETs. Yes
No
18. Please state how your teaching is affected negatively by using ETs
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………....
19. When I have a problem with technology in class, I can easily fix it on my own
Yes
No
20. When I have a problem with technology in class, I have someone I can call to fix it
Yes
No
42
21. I know how to design an online course. Yes
SECTION E:
No
Context within which technologies are used
22. Please tick as applicable
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I don’t know
Agree
My institution has adequate power supply
My institution has adequate Internet
connectivity
The lecture rooms and laboratories where
these technologies are used can adequately
accommodate students
The lecture rooms and laboratories are
properly lit
The lecture rooms and laboratories are well
ventilated
The sitting arrangement in the lecture
rooms/laboratories is fixed, it cannot be rearranged for group work
There is technical support in my faculty to
assist with difficulty I may have with technology
All the technologies available are functioning
I am aware of the ICT policy in my institution
I am confident to use technology for teaching
23. Enablers of technology uptake
Disagree
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of technology
in the classroom for my course
I will make better use of technologies for teaching if I have easy
access to these technologies
It will be easy for me to use these technologies if I have technical
support
The number of technologies available to the number of students is
not adequate
In my institution there is ICT capacity development training
regularly
There are incentive/schemes in place to encourage teachers who
use technologies
Power supply within the institution is reliable
The available supply of power enables me to use technology for
teaching without interruption
43
I don’t
know
Agree
24. Barriers to technology up take
Disagree
The hardware available is outdated
Some of the software available is inappropriate
There is poor Internet access in the school
I am not a confident user of some of these technologies
I do not think my students are competent enough to use
technology for learning
THANK YOU
44
I don’t
know
Agree
Annexure B: Student questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to generate data for a multi-site study that explores factors that
influence the use of educational technologies in seven PHEA partner universities to support the
integration of education technologies in higher education in Africa. Your responses will be treated in
confidence and used for the purposes of this study only.
SECTION A:
Demographic Information
1. Institute/College/Faculty: ...........................................................................................................
2. Department:................................................................................................................................
3. Which of the following best describes the course you are studying? (Please tick one)
a. Science
[
]
b. Applied Science [
]
c. Arts
[
]
d. Business
[
]
4. Your current level of Study in this course (Please tick one)
a. First
[
]
b. Second
[
]
c. Third
[
]
d. Fourth
[
]
e. Fifth
[
]
f. Sixth
[
]
g. Seventh
[
]
h. Eighth
[
]
5. Which programme have you enrolled in? (Please tick one)
a. Certificate
[
]
b. Diploma
[
]
c. Undergraduate
[
]
d. Postgraduate Diploma
[
]
e. Masters
[
]
f. PhD
[
]
6. Your attendance pattern (Please tick applicable)
a. Full time
[
]
b. Part time
[
]
c. Distance
[
]
d. Sandwich
[
]
7. Age (Please tick one)
a. < 20 years
b. 21-30 years
c. 31-40 years
d. 41-50 years
e. 51-60 years
f. >60 years
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
45
8. Sex
a. Male
b. Female
[
[
]
]
SECTION B:
Access to Educational Technologies
9. Which of the following technologies are available in your Unit/Faculty/Department? (Tick as
many as applicable)
Technologies
Tick
a. Overhead projector
[
]
b. Multimedia projector
[
]
c. Interactive white board
[
]
d. Laptop Computers
[
]
e. Desktop Computers
[
]
f. Television
[
]
g. Radio
[
]
h. Internet
[
]
i. Public Address system
[
]
j. Printer
[
]
k. Scanner
[
]
l. Digital camera
[
]
m.
Others not listed (Specify)
10. Which of the following technologies can you use in your Unit/Department/Faculty? (Tick as many
as applicable)
Technologies
a. Overhead projector
b. Multimedia projector
c. Interactive white board
d. Laptop Computers
e. Desktop Computers
f. Television
g. Radio
h. Internet
i. Public Address system
j. Printer
k. Scanner
l. Digital camera
m.
Others not listed (Specify)
Tick
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
11. Which of the following technologies do you personally own?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Technologies
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Tick
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
46
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
i. Public address system
j. Printer
k. Scanner
l. Cell Phone
m. iPad
n. Mp3
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
12. Which of the following technologies do you not have access to, but would be happy to use if you
had access to them?
Technologies
a. Overhead projector
b. Multimedia projector
c. Interactive white board
d. Laptop Computers
e. Desktop Computers
f. Television
g. Radio
h. Internet
i. Public address system
j. Printer
k. Scanner
l. Cell Phone
m. iPad
n. Mp3
Tick
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
SECTION C: Use of Educational Technologies for Learning
13. Which of these technologies do you use for learning purposes? (Tick as many as applicable)
Used for Learning purposes
a. Overhead projector
b. Multimedia projector
c. Interactive White Boards
d. Laptop Computers
e. Desktop Computers
f. Television
g. Radio
h. Internet
i. Public Address system
j. Printer
k. Scanner
l. Digital Camera
m. Cell Phone
n. Social Network
o. Skype
p. E-mail
q. iPad/iPod
r. Mp3
47
s. CD/DVD
t. Others (Specify)
14. What else do you use the technologies for? Tick as applicable.
Studying Research
Social
Interaction
Assignments
Tests
a. Overhead projector
b. Multimedia projector
c. Interactive White
Boards
d. Laptop Computers
e. Desktop Computers
f. Television
g. Radio
h. Internet
i. Public Address
system
j. Printer
k. Scanner
l. Digital Camera
m. Cell Phone
n. Social Network
o. Skype
p. E-mail
q. iPad/iPod
r. Mp3
s. CD/DVD
t. Others (Specify)
15. Do you use the following applications/features on the computers in your learning? (Tick as applicable)
Yes
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Word Processor (e.g. MS Word)
[
Presentation Software (e.g. MS PowerPoint)[
Spreadsheet software (e.g. MS Excel)
[
E-mail programme (e.g. MS Outlook)
[
Internet browser (e.g. Internet Explorer) [
Learning Management System
[
CD/DVD player
[
Others, please specify
No
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
16. If you use the above indicate where you often use it? (Tick as applicable)
My own
computer
Laboratory
a. Word Processing (e.g. MS
Word)
b. Presentation (e.g. MS
PowerPoint)
48
Lecture
room
Cyber
café
School
environment
Library
c. Spreadsheet software
(e.g. MS Excel)
d. E-mail programme (e.g.
MS Outlook)
e. Internet browser (e.g.
Internet Explorer)
f. Learning Management
Systems
g. CD/DVD player
h. Others, please specify
17. For what do you use the applications/tools? (Tick as applicable)
Studying Research
Social
interaction
Assignments
Word Processing (e.g. MS Word)
Presentation (e.g. MS PowerPoint)
Spreadsheet software (e.g. MS Excel)
E-mail programme (e.g. MS Outlook)
Internet browser (e.g. Internet Explorer)
Learning Management Systems
CD/DVD player
Others, please specify
18. Where do you use technologies for learning? Tick as many as applicable
Laboratory
Lecture
room
Cyber
café
Anywhere
in the
School
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive White Boards
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital Camera
Others (Specify)
19. Do you use these technologies for any of the following purposes?
Task/Purpose
Technologies
49
Library
Tests
Cell
Phone
iPod/
Ipad
Laptop/
PC
PDA
Others
(Specify)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Word processing
Calculations
Managing information in spreadsheets
Creating presentations (e.g. in
PowerPoint)
e. Communication
f. Using specialized data management and
analysis software (e.g. InVivo and SPSS)
g. Finding information on the
Internet/browsing on the Internet
h. Social networking (e.g. Facebook,
LinkedIn)
i. Online shopping (e.g. eBay)
j. Internet banking (e.g. BIM)
k. Other (Specify)
…………………………………
20. Who uses these technologies in your Faculty/Department? Tick as applicable
Lecturers
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Students
Admin
staff
Technologists
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive White Boards
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital Camera
Others not listed (Specify)
SECTION D:
Training and ET Competence
21. I have been trained in the use of ETs Yes
22. I use ETs in all my classes
Yes
No
No
23. My learning experience has been improved with the use of ETs Yes
No
b) How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
50
24. My assessment during learning has been improved with the use of ETs
Yes
No
b) How?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
25. My learning experience is affected negatively by use of ETs.
Yes
No
26. Please state how your learning is affected negatively by using ETs
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………..................................................................
27. When I have a problem with technology in class, I can easily fix it on my own
Yes
No
28. When I have a problem with technology in class, I have someone I can call to fix it
Yes
No
SECTION D: Context within which technologies are used
29. Please tick applicable option for each statement.
Disagree
I don’t know
Agree
My institution has adequate power supply
My institution has adequate Internet connectivity
The lecture rooms and laboratories where these
technologies are used can adequately
accommodate students
The lecture rooms and laboratories are properly lit
The lecture rooms and laboratories are well
ventilated
The sitting arrangement in the lecture
rooms/laboratories is fixed, it cannot be rearranged for group work
There is technical support in my faculty to assist
with student difficulty with use of technology
All the technologies available are functioning
properly
I am aware of the ICT policy in my institution
Lecturers are confident to use technologies
30. Enablers of technology uptake
Disagree I don’t
know
The curriculum of my institution encourages the use of
51
Agree
technology in the classroom for my course
I will make better use of technologies for learning if I have
easy access to these technologies
It will be easy for me to use these technologies if I have
technical support
The number of technologies available to the number of
students is not adequate
In my institution there is ICT capacity development
training regularly
There are incentive/schemes in place to encourage
teachers who use technologies
Power supply within the institution is reliable
The available supply of power enables me to use
technology for learning
I am free to use technologies for my learning even though
my lecturers are not using technology
31. Barriers to technology uptake
Disagree I don’t
know
The hardware available is outdated
Some of the software available is inappropriate
There is poor Internet access in the school
I am not a confident user of some of these technologies
I do not think my teachers are competent enough to use
technology for teaching
THANK YOU
52
Agree
Annexure C: Staff focus group/interview questions
1. Do academic staff members need to use Education Technologies( ETs)
a. For teaching? Why?
b. For assessment of the students? Why?
2. What technologies are being used for teaching and learning?
3. What technologies are being used for assessment?
4. How are ETS being used in teaching? (Take note of social demographic characteristics of who
is using or not using ETs in teaching, assessment)
5. How are ETS used in assessment of students?
6. Does your university have a policy on ET? What are its main focuses?
7. What challenges do you face in your quest to use ETs for teaching?
8. What challenges do you face in your quest to use ETs for assessment?
9. Are there any members that have been discouraged and stopped using ETs for teaching or
assessments?
10. Why were they discouraged?
11. What has interested members to start using ETs?
12. How has the university successfully promoted ET use in teaching?
13. What enables you to use ETs for teaching and learning?
14. Do you have adequate skills to use ETs?
53
Annexure D: Student focus group/interview questions
1. Do you use any technologies for learning?
2. Which technologies are you using and how?
Overhead projector
Multimedia projector
Interactive white board
Laptop Computers
Desktop Computers
Television
Radio
Internet
Public Address system
Printer
Scanner
Digital camera
Others
3. If you are not using the technologies: why not?
4. How do you use the technologies? (probe how technology is used for the other specific learning
areas as follows) For:
Studying
Research
Social Interaction
Assignments
Tests
5. Why would you use technology for learning? (Probe: Studying, research, social interaction,
assignments and tests)
6. What are some of the advantages of using technology for learning?
7. What are some of the disadvantages of using technology for learning?
8. What challenges do you face in your quest to use ETs for learning/ studying/research/social
interaction/tests/assessments?
9. Have you been discouraged in times past and stopped using technology for
learning/research/social interactions and assignments? Why?
10. Why did you start using ETs?
11. How has the university successfully promoted ETS use in learning?
54
12. Is it easy for you to access technology?
13. Where do you get access?
14. What are the barriers to access technology?
15. What are the barriers to use technology?
16. What would you consider to be enablers to technology use?
17. Do you think you are good with technology? Explain your answer.
18. Do you think your lecturers are good with technology? Explain your answer.
19. Is technology use for teaching by your lecturers adequate? Explain your answer.
55