Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and examine the antecedents that enable or constrain the adoption and diffusion of eLearning in higher education (HE). The key focus of the study is on the examination of how the organisation's diffusion structures, systems or processes influence the individual adoption of eLearning. The findings from this literature review contribute to practice through providing a better understanding of the issues associated with institutional diffusion mechanisms that aid the adoption of learning technologies. Design/methodology/approach – An extensive search of the literature was conducted. The selected references were analysed into a number of categories; macro-level studies examining HE context of eLearning, micro-level studies focusing on individual and social factors and articles focusing on management issues of adoption and diffusion of technological innovations. Finally, over 300 articles were used to compile the findings of this paper. Findings – The paper argues that future research studies should not model the adoption and diffusion of eLearning based primarily on either an individualist (Micro) or structuralist (Macro) perspective, but by using a more interactive approach to examine the complexity and multiple levels and dimensions of social reality. Research limitations/implications – A significant exclusion and one which clearly calls for further research, is the aspect of institutional structures such as library systems, virtual learning environments, administrative support systems and other technical systems such as enrolment, registration, assessment and students, with respect to the adoption of eLearning. Future studies may want to explore the interplay between these structures and agency. Practical implications – The study findings contribute to practice through providing a better understanding of the issues associated with institutional diffusion mechanisms that aid the adoption of learning technologies. Considering the slow and often disappointing adoption of eLearning within higher education institutions (HEIs), the study reveals the nature of adoption that may inform the development of institutional eLearning diffusion structures. Social implications – The paper identifies that the importance of individual factors influencing the adoption of eLearning has been acknowledged by the above studies, and the underlying message has emerged that levels of eLearning adoption would be higher if strategic managers recognised the social dimensions of eLearning innovation and diffusion, such as: academic and professional goals, interests and needs; technology interests; patterns of work; sources of support; and social networks. The argument is that currently eLearning is geared towards technically “literate” and innovative staff, and this strategy reduces the likelihood of mainstream faculty actually adopting instructional technology for their own teaching. Originality/value – A review of the eLearning literature shows that there only a few substantive theoretical accounts which adequately integrate multiple levels of analysis and explain adoption and diffusion of eLearning in terms of the interplay between structural influences and individual action. The paper argues for future research to be integrated in a general analytical framework.

[1]  Dawn Birch,et al.  Bringing academics on board: encouraging institution-wide diffusion of e-learning environments , 2009 .

[2]  Ramzi Nasser,et al.  Problems and the Epistemology of Electronic Publishing in the Arab World: The Case of Lebanon , 2001, First Monday.

[3]  Sergio Bermejo,et al.  Cooperative electronic learning in virtual laboratories through forums , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[4]  Janet Buckenmeyer,et al.  Mentoring Professors: A Model for Developing Quality Online Instructors and Courses in Higher Education , 2010 .

[5]  Rebecca Eynon The use of the internet in higher education: Academics' experiences of using ICTs for teaching and learning , 2005, Aslib Proc..

[6]  S. Clegg,et al.  The Emperor's New Clothes: Globalisation and e-learning in Higher Education , 2003 .

[7]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  Using Information Technology in Learning: Case Studies in Business and Management Education Programs , 2003 .

[8]  Michael Corry,et al.  Factors That Deter Faculty from Participation in Distance Education , 2002 .

[9]  Joshua Guilar,et al.  Dialogue and Community in Online Learning: Lessons from Royal Roads University. , 2008 .

[10]  Steve Draper,et al.  Understanding the prospects for transformation , 2007 .

[11]  Peter Goodyear,et al.  Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice , 2005 .

[12]  Simone C. O. Conceição Faculty Lived Experiences in the Online Environment , 2006 .

[13]  Jennifer McLean,et al.  Addressing Faculty Concerns about Distance Learning , 2005 .

[14]  Donna Gibbs,et al.  The upside-down-world of e-learning , 2012 .

[15]  Judith V. Boettcher,et al.  The Online Teaching Survival Guide: Simple and Practical Pedagogical Tips , 2010 .

[16]  S. Yoon In Search of Meaningful Online Learning Experiences. , 2003 .

[17]  Siew Mee Barton Social Capital Framework in the Adoption of E-Learning. , 2013 .

[18]  Peggy A. Ertmer Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? , 2005 .

[19]  L. Maguire,et al.  Literature Review--Faculty Participation in Online Distance Education: Barriers and Motivators. , 2005 .

[20]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Usability and Instructional Design Heuristics for E-Learning Evaluation , 2002 .

[21]  Sarah J. Stein,et al.  Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand , 2011, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[22]  Philippus Uys,et al.  Implementing the LASO model: development of a pilot online course at the Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Botswana , 2004 .

[23]  Rhona Sharpe,et al.  Implementing a university e-learning strategy: levers for change within academic schools , 2006 .

[24]  Tony Becher Academic Tribes And Territories , 1989 .

[25]  Jennifer Yorke,et al.  Technology supported learning Tensions between innovation, and control and organisational and professional cultures , 2007 .

[26]  Angie Parker Motivation and Incentives for Distance Faculty , 2003 .

[27]  Robyn Benson,et al.  Introducing a New Learning Management System: An Institutional Case Study. , 2006 .

[28]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[29]  Shintaro Okazaki,et al.  Understanding e-learning adoption in Brazil: Major determinants and gender effects , 2012 .

[30]  S. Hung Explaining the process of innovation: The dynamic reconciliation of action and structure , 2004 .

[31]  B. Macfarlane The morphing of academic practice: unbundling and the rise of the para-academic , 2011 .

[32]  M. Oliver,et al.  Does E‐learning Policy Drive Change in Higher Education?: A case study relating models of organisational change to e‐learning implementation , 2005 .

[33]  Andrew T. Lumpe,et al.  Assessing Teachers’ Context Beliefs about Technology Use , 2001 .

[34]  Ian Roffe,et al.  E‐learning: engagement, enhancement and execution , 2002 .

[35]  Susan D. Myers,et al.  You Can Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: The Faculty's Role in Technology Implementation , 2001 .

[36]  Gilly Salmon,et al.  Flying Not Flapping: A Strategic Framework for E-Learning and Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education Institutions , 2005 .

[37]  Hsi-Peng Lu,et al.  Richness Versus Parsimony Antecedents of Technology Adoption Model for E-Learning Websites , 2008, ICWL.

[38]  Albert Sangrà,et al.  Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework , 2012 .

[39]  Stephen Marshall,et al.  Leading and Managing the Development of E-learning Environments: an Issue of Comfort or Discomfort? , 2004 .

[40]  J. Cooper,et al.  The digital divide: the special case of gender , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[41]  Jungjin Lee,et al.  Quality assurance of web based e-Learning for statistical education , 2006 .

[42]  Peggy A. Ertmer,et al.  Beyond the foundations: The role of vision and belief in teachers’ preparation for integration of technology , 2002 .

[43]  Bernard Lisewski Implementing a Learning Technology Strategy: Top-Down Strategy Meets Bottom-Up Culture. , 2004 .

[44]  Margaret Haughey Commentary on e-Learning Review , 2006 .

[45]  Rynson W. H. Lau,et al.  A Three-Tier Profiling Framework for Adaptive e-Learning , 2009, ICWL.

[46]  Joy V. Peluchette,et al.  Technology Use in the Classroom: Preferences of Management Faculty Members , 2005 .

[47]  Yasemin Gülbahar,et al.  Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[48]  Heng-Yu Ku,et al.  Mayes, R., Luebeck, J., Ku, H., Korkmaz, O., & Akarasriwom, C. (2011). Themes and Strategies for Transformative Online Instruction: A Review of Literature and Practice , 2011 .

[49]  Michelle Wallace Managing and Developing Online Education: Issues of Change and Identity. , 2002 .

[50]  Rena M. Palloff,et al.  Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching , 2001 .

[51]  Daniel W. Surry,et al.  A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[52]  T. Valente Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations , 1996 .

[53]  Elizabeth Reed Osika The Concentric Support Model: A Model for the Planning and Evaluation of Distance Learning Programs. , 2006 .