Online Courseware Development in Public Universities in Uganda: The Precepts of Active, Passive and Exclusive Participation
Irrespective of the maturity or infancy of e-learning adoption in a university, the academic staff always have varying levels of commitment to online courseware development and delivery. Some will be actively engaged, some will be passively involved while others will remain ignorant about online courses’ issues. This paper investigates trends in online courseware development in Uganda and classifies emerging participation levels into three, namely active, passive and exclusive engagement. The latter clustering followed a survey of 120 academic staff from six public universities in Uganda, with general findings indicating low participation of instructors in courseware development. For instance, whereas 60% of the respondents had been trained in the use of authoring tools, only about a half of them had continued to use these tools for courseware development. Essentially, the survey revealed that the variation in courseware development engagement is caused by both the individual and institutional strengths (active case) and weaknesses (passive and exclusive scenarios). As such, institutional support strategies for improvement in courseware development for each of these three categories are explored and discussed. Future researchers are encouraged to test the developed institutional support strategies in their e-learning or blended learning practice.
KeywordsE-learning Blended learning Courseware development University education
The authors wish to acknowledge full funding for this research under Makerere University and Sweden Bi-lateral Programme (Mak-Sida) Grant No. 321.
- 1.Chang, C., Shen, H., Liu, E.Z.: University faculty’s perspectives on the roles of e-instructors and their online instruction practice. Int. Rev. Res. Distrib. Learn. 15(3), 72–92 (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.Kasse, J.P., Balunywa, W.: An assessment of e-learning utilization by a section of Ugandan universities: challenges, success factors and way forward. In: 5th Annual Conference on ICT for Africa 2013, Harare, Zimbabwe (2013)Google Scholar
- 6.Kahiigi, E.K.: A collaborative e-learning approach: exploring a peer assignment review process at the university level in Uganda (Doctoral thesis). Stockholm University (2013)Google Scholar
- 8.Makokha, G.L., Mutisya, D.N.: Status of e-learning in public universities in Kenya. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn 17(3), 341–359 (2016)Google Scholar
- 9.Maqableh, M.M., Mohammed, A.B., Masa’deh, R.: Modeling teachers influence on learners self-directed use of electronic commerce technologies outside the classroom. Sci. Res. Essays 11(3), 29–41 (2016)Google Scholar
- 12.Oyo, B., Kalema, B.M.: A preliminary speech learning tool for improvement of African English Accents. In: International Conference on Education Technologies and Computers. IEEE Explore Digital Library, Lods, Poland (2014)Google Scholar
- 13.Oyo, B., Kalema, B.M., Byabazaire, J.: The MOOC for in-service teachers: the Uganda case and lessons for Africa. Span. J. Pedagog. (Rev. Esp. Pedagog.) 75(266), 121–141 (2017)Google Scholar
- 15.Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X.: Factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing countries: a structural equation modeling approach. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 3(1), 54–59 (2013)Google Scholar
- 16.Tarus, J., Gichoya, D., Muumbo, A.: Challenges of implementing e-learning in Kenya: a case of Kenyan public universities. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 16(1), 120–141 (2015)Google Scholar
- 20.Gillett-Swan, J.: The challenges of online learning: supporting and engaging the isolated learner. J. Learn. Des. 10(1), 20–30 (2017)Google Scholar