eReadiness2004

8/3/2019 eReadiness2004

1/167

Ministry of Energy, Waterand Communications,

Malaysia


2/167

Open University Malaysia

Project Director: Hairudin Harun, Ph.D.

Head, Research Project/Lead Researcher: Zoraini Wati Abas, Ed.D.

Editors: Zoraini Wati Abas, Kuldip Kaur, Hairuddin Harun

E-learning Readiness in Malaysia 2004 Study is a joint initiative of the Ministry of Energy, Water

and Communication, Malaysia and Open University Malaysia.

For more information, contact:

Zoraini Wati Abas, Ed.D.

Head, Research Project/Lead Researcher

E-learning Readiness in Malaysia 2004Centre for Quality Management and Research & Innovation


Jalan Tun Ismail

50480 Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia

Phone: +603 2773 2002

Fax: +603 2697 8824

Email: [email protected]

ISBN 983-3240-71-2


This study was jointly funded by the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication, Malaysia

(MEWC) and Open University Malaysia (OUM). Free use of the material is allowed for non-

profitable purposes provided that credit is given to MEWC and OUM.

Cover designed by Center for Instructional Design and Technology, OUM.


3/167

E-LEARNING READINESS

IN MALAYSIA 2004


4/167

E-learning Readiness in Malaysia 2004

Joint Study by MEWC and OUM i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis national study to serve E-learning Readiness in Malaysia was carried out

for the joint interest by the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication

Malaysia and the Open University Malaysia. Funded by both organisations,

this study was successfully completed following contributions by

academicians, researchers and practitioners of E-learning at the Open

University Malaysia as well as those from public and private higher

education institutions, research and training organisations. The editors

acknowledge the contributions made by the following individuals:-

Professor Dr Abd. Razak Habib, Open University Malaysia

Professor Dr Abu Talib Othman, UniKL

Professor Dr Kasiran Buang, Open University Malaysia

Professor Dr Khairuddin Hashim, University Tun Abdul Abdul Razak

Professor Dr Mohammed Yusoff, Open University Malaysia

Professor Dr Nuraihan Mat Daud, International Islamic University

Professor Dr Szarina Abdullah, Universiti Institut Technology MARA

Associate Professor Dr Abtar Kaur, Open University Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr Ahmad Hashem, Open University Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr Halimah Awang, University of Malaya

Associate Professor Dr Latifah Abdol Latif, Open University Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr Mardziah Hayati Abdullah, Universiti Putra Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr Rahmah Hashim, Open University Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr Raja Maznah Raja Hussain, University of MalayaAssociate Professor Dr Syed Abdullah Syed Othman, Open University

Malaysia

Dr Aini Ibrahim, Bank Negara Malaysia

Dr Norizan Abdul Razak, National University Malaysia

Dr Norrizan Razali, Malaysian Development Corporation

Dr Tina Lim Swee Kim, Ipoh Teachers Training College

Azizah Hamzah, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

Chng Loi Peng, Open University Malaysia

Fitri Suraya Mohamad, UNIMAS

Nik Azlina Nik Yaakob, Open University Malaysia

Norhaizan Mat Talha, MIMOS (Malaysian Institute of MicroelectronicsSystems)

Rohani Ismail, MIMOS (Malaysian Institute of Microelectronics Systems)

Rokiah Idris, Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications

Rubaiah Hashim, Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications

Santhi Raghavan, Open University Malaysia

Sukor Ain, UniKL


5/167


Joint Study by MEWC and OUM ii

Sulaiman Sarkawi, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Tengku Putri Norishah Tengku Shariman, Multimedia University

Turidi Mat, Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications

We are also indebted and thankful to those who supported and helped

administer the survey forms in their respective organisations. Without their

kind help and coorporation, the study would not have been completed. We

thank all respondents of the study for having taken the time to answer the

survey questions and for giving the valuable feedback.

Last but not least, we thank our meticulous editorial assistants Hazliza

Hazlan and Iryanty Mohd Omar as weel as our valuable research assistants

Ina Masniza Isa, Lily Suriyani Zahari, Siti Haslinah Abdul Rahman and Novel

a/l Lydon.


6/167


Joint Study by MEWC and OUM iii

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. In November 2003, Open University Malaysia (OUM) was given the

task of putting together a steering a committee for the study of E-

learning Readiness among Malaysians by the Ministry of Energy,

Water and Communications (MEWC), Malaysia.

2. The focus of the study was E-learning Readiness of individuals

enrolled in or connected with the provision of E-learning solutions in

Malaysian tertiary institutions. For the purpose of data collection,

online and printed questionnaires were administrated among fourgroups of respondents: policy makers, E-learning providers, enablers

(lecturers or trainers), and receivers (students or trainees).

3. The instruments used in the study were developed by a group of

academics and researchers from several research, training and

tertiary institutions, under the purview of Open University Malaysia.

4. The study was aimed at providing empirical data on E-learning

Readiness among Malaysians, and outlining recommendations

related to the following areas of capacity building:

a. Human Resource Development

b. Research and Development

c. Infrastructure

d. Infostructure

e. Institutional Framework

f. Policy Initiatives

g. Benchmarking

5. It was determined that the Centre for Quality Management and

Research & Innovation (CQMRI), OUM, and MEWC will have joint

ownership of the results of the research and related products.


7/167


Joint Study by MEWC and OUM iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. i

Terms of Reference.................................................................................................. iii

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................iv

List of Tables.............................................................................................................v

List of Figures .........................................................................................................vii

List of Appendixes................................................................................................viii

Chapter

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Study ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Literature Review................................................................................... 4

1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................ 61.4 Methodology........................................................................................... 7

2 Policy Makers and Organisations................................................................. 14

2.1 Demographic Profile............................................................................ 14

2.2 Patterns of Readiness........................................................................... 16

2.3 Overall Perceptions.............................................................................. 21

2.4 Summary ............................................................................................... 22

3 Providers .......................................................................................................... 28



3.3 Perception of Overall Perceptions...................................................... 41

3.4 Summary ............................................................................................... 494 Enablers ............................................................................................................ 50



4.3 Perception of Readiness....................................................................... 62

4.4 Summary ............................................................................................... 69

5 Receivers .......................................................................................................... 70



5.3 Perception of Readiness....................................................................... 85

5.4 Summary ............................................................................................... 91

6 Summary and Recommendations................................................................. 92

6.1 Summary ............................................................................................... 92

6.2 Recommendation ............................................................................... 103

References ............................................................................................................. 109

Appendixes........................................................................................................... 110


8/167


Joint Study by MEWC and OUM v

LIST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE 1. Areas of Readiness Measured for the Respective Target.................8

TABLE 2. Demographic Profile of Policy Makers.............................................15

TABLE 3. Policy Makers Perceptions of Management Readiness.................17

TABLE 4. Policy Makers Perceptions of Personnel Readiness.......................18

TABLE 5. Policy Makers Perceptions of Technical Readiness .......................18

TABLE 6. Policy Makers Perceptions of Environmental Readiness..............19

TABLE 7. Policy Makers Perceptions of Cultural Readiness .........................19

TABLE 8. Policy Makers Perceptions of Financial Readiness........................20

TABLE 9. Factors Hindering Organisations from Expanding E-learning

Efforts ...................................................................................................21

TABLE 10. Mean Score of Overall Readiness among Policy Makers...............22

TABLE 11. Level of Overall Readiness among Policy Makers........................233

TABLE 12. Demographic Profile of Providers ....................................................29

TABLE 13. Number of Students Enrolled............................................................30

TABLE 14. Ideal Bandwidth to Deliver E-learning ............................................30

TABLE 15. Standards in E-learning ......................................................................31

TABLE 16. LMS/LCMS used/to be used ..............................................................31

TABLE 17. Provision of Applications and Services to Support E-learning.....32

TABLE 18. Security Features Employed in Networks and Resource Servers.33

TABLE 19. Connection to the Internet..................................................................33

TABLE 20. Preference for Single point of Access for Local E-learning Content...............................................................................................................33

TABLE 21. Providers Perceptions of Personnel Readiness ..............................35

TABLE 22. Providers Perceptions of Content Readiness..................................36

TABLE 23. Providers Perceptions of Technical Readiness ...............................37

TABLE 24. Providers Perceptions of Environmental Readiness .....................39

TABLE 25. Providers Perceptions of Financial Readiness................................40

TABLE 26. Factors Hindering Organisations from Expending E-learning

Efforts ...................................................................................................41

TABLE 27. Mean Score of Overall Readiness among Providers.......................42

TABLE 28. Level of Overall Readiness among Providers..................................44

TABLE 29. Demographic Profile of Enablers ......................................................50TABLE 30. Computer Use among Enablers.........................................................52

TABLE 31. Popular Uses of Computer among Enablers ...................................52

TABLE 32. Internet Use among Enablers.............................................................53

TABLE 33. Preferred Channels of Communication among Enablers ..............54

TABLE 34. Preferred Mode/Media of Learning among Enablers.....................54

TABLE 35. Enablers Perceptions of Learner Readiness ....................................55

TABLE 36. Enablers Perceptions of Management Readiness...........................56

TABLE 37. Enablers Perceptions of Personnel Readiness ................................57

TABLE 38. Enablers Perceptions of Content Readiness....................................58

TABLE 39. Enablers Perceptions of Technical Readiness.................................59


9/167


10/167


Joint Study by MEWC and OUM vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

FIGURE 1. Level of Overall Readiness among Policy Makers........................24

FIGURE 2. Overall Management Readiness for Policy Makers......................25

FIGURE 3. Overall Personnel Readiness for Policy Makers............................25

FIGURE 4. Overall Technical Readiness for Policy Makers ............................26

FIGURE 5. Overall Environmental Readiness for Policy Makers...................26

FIGURE 6. Overall Cultural Readiness for Policy Makers ..............................27

FIGURE 7. Overall Financial Readiness for Policy Makers.............................27

FIGURE 8. Level of Overall Readiness among Provivers................................45

FIGURE 9. Overall Personnel Readiness for Providers ...................................46

FIGURE 10. Overall Content Readiness for Providers.......................................46

FIGURE 11. Overall Technical Readiness for Providers....................................47

FIGURE 12. Overall Environmental Readiness for Providers ..........................47

FIGURE 13. Overall Financial Readiness for Providers.....................................48

FIGURE 14. Level of Overall Readiness among Enablers .................................64

FIGURE 15. Overall Learner Readiness for Enablers.........................................65

FIGURE 16. Overall Management Readiness For Enablers...............................65

FIGURE 17. Overall Personnel Readiness for Enablers .....................................66

FIGURE 18. Overall Content Readiness for Enablers.........................................66

FIGURE 19. Overall Technical Readiness for Enablers......................................67

FIGURE 20. Overall Environmental Readiness for Enablers ............................67

FIGURE 21. Overall Cultural Readiness for Enablers ........................................68

FIGURE 22. Overall Financial Readiness for Enablers.......................................68FIGURE 23. Level of Overall Readiness among Receivers................................87

FIGURE 24. Overall Learner Readiness for Receivers .......................................88

FIGURE 25. Overall Content Readiness for Receivers .......................................88

FIGURE 26. Overall Technical Readiness for Receivers ....................................89

FIGURE 27. Overall Environment Readiness for Receivers..............................89

FIGURE 28. Overall Cultural Readiness for Receivers ......................................90

FIGURE 29. Overall Financial Readiness for Receivers .....................................90

FIGURE 30. Level of Overall Means for E-learning Readiness among Policy

Makers, Providers, Enablers and Receivers...................................93


11/167


Joint Study by MEWC and OUM viii

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Page

Appendix A. National Consultative Committee on E-learning.....................111

Appendix B. OUM Committee on E-learning Readiness in Malaysia..........113

Appendix C. Working Group (Phase I)..............................................................115

Appendix D. Working Group (Phase III)...........................................................119

Appendix E. List of Major Respondents...........................................................122

Appendix F. Survey Instrument for Policy Makers.........................................125

Appendix G. Survey Instrument for Providers.................................................129

Appendix H. Survey Instrument for Enablers..................................................134

Appendix I. Survey Instrument for Receivers.................................................140

Appendix J. Biodata of the Working Group Members ..................................148


12/167

Joint Study by MEWC and OUM 1

1INTRODUCTION1.1 The StudyThis report presents the findings of a nation-wide study on E-learning

readiness (ELR) among Malaysians. There were four target groups of

respondents: policy-makers, providers, enablers and receivers (see

Section 1.4.1). The primary aim of the investigation was to assess the

current state of E-learning readiness in the country. The respondents of

the study were policy-makers, enablers and receivers in higher education,

participants of in-service training in government agencies as well as

among E-learning providers in the education as well as corporate sector.

It is expected that the study will help address issues pertaining to thedigital divide and facilitate the implementation of programmes based on

national goals. The study also provides the government, through the

National Consultative Committee on E-Learning (Appendix A), a baseline

set of recommendations aimed at elevating the current level of ELR in

Malaysia. Four instruments were developed for the study and these were

administered online via the Internet as well as face-to-face using printed

copies.

As nations place greater emphasis on the global impact of e-education,

most countries focus on cost effective solutions that may be implemented

quickly. Needless to say, such programmes are facilitated by theavailability of and access to ICT applications. It is therefore important to

calibrate the ELR level of Malaysian ICT users so that, where the need be,

human capacity development programmes may be implemented. In time

to come, ICT education, knowledge and application will be more

meaningful to Malaysians, and there will be a greater chance of producing

quality local content.

The impact of E-learning has been felt in both education and industry,

particularly in more developed countries. In recent years, ICT

development has spurred the growth of the Internet and networked

technologies, influencing lifestyles, businesses, training and workprocesses. In Malaysia, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the


13/167


application of ICT to pave the way for the country to move into the digital

age. The MSC (Multimedia Super Corridor) launched in 1996 is testimony

to the governments national ICT agenda. Thus, this study on ELR is

important as it will help formulate new policies or develop initiatives to

elevate the nations readiness for E-learning.

The integration of ICT in educational institutions has also encouraged the

use of ICT to respond to individuals learning and training needs. In the

case of distance education or open and distance learning institutions, ICT

has been used to deliver either parts of the curriculum or the total

curriculum. In addition, ICT plays an important role in informal learning

and provides a channel for harnessing the usefulness of informal content

knowledge. The use of ICT in this manner has generally been referred to

as e-Learning.

E-learning has been defined in many ways, but it generally refers to

learning that depends on or is enhanced by electronic or onlinecommunication using the latest information and communication

technologies (Nagy, 2004). As defined by the Development Gateway, E-

learning is the application of information and communication

technologies (ICT) in support of distance learning, self-guided learning,

and the traditional classroom (Development Gateway, 2003).

For this study, the proposed working definition for E-learning by the E-

learning Readiness Working Group is the use of network and multimedia

technologies to improve the quality of learning by enabling access to

knowledge and remote resources for the development of a K-society.

Across the globe, E-learning is growing at a phenomenal rate. It has had atremendous impact on education at all levels of society and is a significant

feature in knowledge-based economies. The use of ICT is increasingly

being recognized as a building block of development in the knowledge

economy. In many ways, expansion in E-learning is precipitated by

sound ICT policy and programming. In the Malaysian scenario, E-

learning is not only a growing industry but is, potentially, an important

vehicle for the provision of education, knowledge and information to the

public. Further, E-learning has been used to support formal learning,

non-formal learning and informal learning. It has been noted that E-

learning has succeeded when it is well-planned and implemented.

Two of the countrys universities, Unitar (http://www.unitar.edu.my/)

and Open University Malaysia (OUM) (http://www.oum.edu.my/) are

currently offering their academic programmes via the hybrid and blended

learning modes, respectively. Each incorporates the use of E-learning for

teaching and learning. Combined, these two universities currently serve

almost 33,000 students, 75 percent of whom are registered at OUM. In

addition, a growing number of public and private universities throughout

the nation are employing E-learning methodologies either to offer

academic programmes via distance learning, or to support their full-time

on-campus learners.


14/167


Meanwhile, the Internet has been employed to successfully impart new

knowledge and information (informal learning) via community-based

projects. As of December 2003, there were 73 projects under the

Demonstrator Applications Grant Scheme (DAGS) in Malaysia. Examples

are e-Bario (http://www.unimas.my/ebario/), Nutriweb

(http://nutriweb.org.my/) , e-Pekak (http://www.epekak.net.my), TheMalaysian Monarchy (http://www.malaysianmonarchy.org.my/),

Reproductive Health of Adolescents (http://www.e-rham.com/), ARBEC

Biodiversity (http://www.arbec.com.my/), Cybercare

(http://www.cybercare.org.my) and Agritani

(http://www.taninet.com.my).

Other more recent developments include the preparation and

implementation of an ICT roadmap. The roadmap is expected to be ready

in 2005 and will be tabled at the meeting of the National Information

Technology Council (NITC), chaired by Prime Minister Datuk Seri

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Key to the implementation of the roadmap isthe inclusion of all communities, thus minimizing their chances of being

marginalized in the digital age (Kasim, 2004).

The much-anticipated National Broadband Plan is also expected to kick

off in late 2004. The plan was initiated by the Energy, Water and

Communications Ministry and it aims to achieve a critical mass of 1.2

million broadband subscribers through national projects such as

SchoolNet, eGovernment, Malaysia Research and Education Network

(MyREN) and telemedicine. The SchoolNet project will provide a high-

speed, always-on networking infrastructure to enable students and

teachers to conduct online collaboration, prepare teaching materials andshare documents. The project will link about 10,000 schools by the first

quarter of 2005. Minister Datuk Sri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik was reported to

have said that broadband penetration should be at 50 percent of the

population if Malaysia is to be a developed country by 2020. The

governments immediate target is to increase the countrys broadband

penetration rate from two percent of the population to five percent in 2006

and 10 percent in 2008, that is, when industry players are expected to roll

out infrastructure at the last mile (Sani, 2004).

According to a report by Foo (2004) more will be invested in setting up

Rural Internet Centres (RICs) throughout the nation as a result of another bridging effort by the Malaysia govenment. It is expected that the

number of RICs will grow from the existing 42 centres to over 200 by 2008.

The secretary general to Energy, Water and Communications Ministry,

Datuk Halim Shafie reported that the RIC project has trained more than

45,000 rural folks (farmers, housewives and students) in the year of its

inception.

The above are some of the key projects and plans by the Government.

Among institutions of higher learning, various efforts and initiatives

include providing not just physically wired networks but wireless

networks, in the hope that students will benefit from course materialsmade available online. In some institutions such as Unimas and HELP


15/167


University College, lecturers are encouraged to set up online forums for

group discussions as part of the teaching-learning experience. Hence, E-

learning is currently believed to be a potentially significant area of

development in Malaysia. This study on E-learning readiness is therefore

timely and will shed light on the current state of E-learning, E-readiness

and E-learning readiness in Malaysia.

1.2 Literature ReviewWith respect to E-learning readiness in the Malaysian context, the

following reports represent some of the seminal works on E-learning, E-

learning readiness and E-readiness in the Malaysian context:

1. Report of the National Information Technology Council (NITC)

Working Group on Electronic Learning, May 1999 (UNIMAS,

1999).

2. E-ASEAN Readiness Assessment by ASEAN and IBM Global

Services, October 2001.

3. National ICT Approaches: Selected Case Studies (Malaysia) by

Accenture, the Markle Foundation and UNDP. www.opt-

init.org/framework/pages/2.3.html

4. Report on 2004 E-readiness Ranking- A white paper from the

Economist Intelligence Unit , written in cooperation with IBM

Corporation.

5. Report of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue on E-learning by Open

University Malaysia (2004).

The above-mentioned reports have outlined several predictors of a

countrys E-learning readiness. Some of these are per capita income,

telecommunication networks, urbanization, pro-competitive macro

policies and an emphasis on privatization. Research has also utilized a

continuum-based approach to calibrating E-learning readiness for the

purpose of cross-nation comparison and inter-oranizational

benchmarking. For example, a report by ASEAN (ASEANSecretariat/IBM, 2001) has indicated that ELR may be determined along a

four point scale containing descriptors such as emerging, evolving,

embedding and extending to describe the extent of readiness or a

countrys level of E-learning programme implementation.

A significant finding of the review of this literature is that there appears to

be affirmation of a high amount of e-readiness among Malaysians, a point

that puts us in good standing internationally. In an E-ASEAN Readiness

Assessment Report (ASEAN Secretariat/ IBM, 2001) it was found that

Malaysia ranked second on all assessment measures pertaining to

infrastructure, E-society, E-commerce and E-Government. In terms of E-readiness rankings among countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Malaysia


16/167


has been ranked 8 in the years 2003 and 2004 (Economist Intelligence Unit,

2004). Among 64 countries from all over the world, Malaysia was ranked

33 in 2003 and 2004 for e-readiness. The study also found that Malaysia

has been able to transform its technology manufacturing industry into one

of IT and Internet-friendly support service.

However, in the recent Global Competitiveness Report 2004 by the World

Economic Forum, Malaysia was ranked 27th in the technology index,

down from 20th in 2003. Minister Datuk Dr. Jamaludin Jarjis response to

this was that his ministry has embarked on or will undertake a series of

programmes to boost Malaysias ranking (Chow, 2004). One example is

the plan to increase the broadband penetration rate through the National

Broadband Plan.

Other studies have also found positive indicators of Malaysias E-learning

readiness. In one case study (http://www.optinit.org, 2004), it is reported

that Malaysias Vision 2020 programmes include development of theICT sector to improve its competitiveness at a global level. Some of the

initiatives cited for improving ELR are increasing ICT literacy, developing

portals for cooperation among work communities and e-commerce

initiatives.

Past research has also provided an understanding of a number of

constructs that may be used to calibrate the E-learning readiness of a

people or a region. For example, a report on E-learning readiness in

ASEAN countries, examined ELR using constructs such as infrastructure,

political will, integration of business requirements into a countrys

policies, legislation and regulation with regards to E-learning, as well asinnovations that improve productivity and standard of living. On

another front, the Economic Intelligent Unit used E- readiness criteria that

assessed six categories: technology infrastructure, their general business

environment, the degree to which E-business is being adopted by

consumers and companies, social and cultural conditions that influence

Internet usage, and the availability of services to support E-businesses. In

comparison to the above list of ELR criteria, a study by McConnell

International (2000), examined E-readiness using the following:

connectivity, E-leadership, informal security, human capital, and the E-

business climate.

Although operational definitions and assessment criteria for readiness are

varied, it may be concluded that most measures of E-learning readiness

examine the following dimensions: the learner, the management, the

personnel, the culture, the provision of relevant content, as well as

technical, financial, and environmental resources.

In addition to measures of E-learning readiness is the issue of

implementing sustainable and far-reaching imperatives for creating an E-

savvy citizenry. In 1999, the National Information Technology Council

(NITC) recommended three broad imperatives for the implementation of

innovative and indigenous E-learning imperatives. These were:


17/167


1. The promotion of information fluency toward the right of

access to E- learning for all Malaysians (p.27).

2. The creation of windows of opportunity to develop new

modes of learning and innovative learning strategies based on

the new information and communication technologies (p.29).

3. The development of indigenous content so that E-learning

shall be imbued by Malaysian values, as it further infuses

them into Malaysian Society. E- Learning will be driven by

indigenous technology derived from national R&D (p.30).

The systematic implementation of the above imperatives is deemed

crucial as there appears to be a short supply of Malaysian professionals

with ICT skills (http://www.opt-init.org/framework/pages/2.3.html).

Further, there is a need to cultivate and train more specialists in E-

learning, particularly instructional designers and E-learning contentproviders. Further, there is a need to develop more adequate

infrastructure and to ensure the availability of broadband access to a

wider spectrum of the society. Bearing this in view, this study on E-

learning readiness in Malaysia has been carried out to provide input on

Malaysian readiness in a number of pertinent areas.

1.3 Research QuestionsThe study focused on four groups of individuals: policy makers,

providers, enablers and receivers of E-learning who were directly orindirectly involved in E-learning at the tertiary level of education as well

as in training at the workplace. In particular, the study aimed to answer

the following questions:

1. To what extent are policy makers enabling or ready to

enable E-learning programmes within their respective

organisations?

2. To what extent are providers (private corporations,

organisations, tertiary educational institutions and major

technology providers) ready to embark or have embarkedon E-Learning programmes?

3. To what extent are enablers (tutors, lecturers and trainers)

ready to deliver E-learning programmes?

4. To what extent are receivers (learners and trainees) ready

for E-Learning?

The section below describes the methodology used in the study.

Operational definitions of terms associated with the study are also

included.


18/167


1.4 MethodologyPrior to the appointment of the Lead Researcher for the study, in-house

discussions by members of the management team at Open UniversityMalaysia (see Appendix B) were held to conceptualize the study, discuss

the research framework and develop the terms of reference for the study.

A Lead Researcher was later appointed and provided the minutes of the

in-house meetings and based on these, prepared the Concept Paper. The

latter was sent to the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication

(MEWC) in early February 2004. The first meeting to discuss the Concept

Paper was held on February 9, 2004 with appointed members of the

Working Group (Phase I, see Appendix C). The Concept Paper had

outlined that the Working Group members will contribute from the point

of fine-tuning of research objectives to the analysis of findings. This washowever, not feasible as not all Working Group members were able or

could contribute their time to the various phases of the study. A Working

Group for Phase III (see Appendix D) of the study was formed comprising

of some members from Phase I together newly incorporated academicians

and researchers.

Members of the Working Group were selected from amongst various

organisations such as universities, research organisations and training

corporations. They assisted with the following tasks:

1. Providing input on research design and methodology2. Identifying the target population

3. Developing the instrument

4. Eliciting responses from the target group

5. Reporting findings of the study

6. Writing the final report

7. Recommending future measures based on eight areas

related to capacity building:

a. Human Resource Development

b. Research and Development

c. Infrastructure

d. Infostructuree. Institutional Framework

f. Policy Initiatives

g. Benchmarking

The study employed a survey methodology using four instruments, one

for each of the identified target groups, namely:

1. Policy makers

2. Providers

3. Enablers

4. Receivers


19/167


1.4.1 The ELR Instrument

Four instruments were developed for the study by members of the WG

during Phase I. A customized instrument was developed for each target

group with each instrument comprising of two sections (Section A & B).Section A contains items related to demographic variables and section B

contains items asking for perceptions of readiness in eight areas via

learner, management, personnel, content, technical, environmental,

cultural and financial. The means of the readiness scores in the eight

areas will be tabulated as in Table 1:

1. Learner readiness

2. Management readiness

3. Content readiness

4. Personnel readiness

5. Technical readiness6. Financial readiness

7. Environmental readiness

8. Cultural readiness.

The instruments for providers, policy-makers and enablers were prepared

in the English language (see Appendices F, G and H). The E-learning

readiness instrument for receivers (see Appendix I) was presented in

bilingual form (English Language and Bahasa Melayu).

TABLE 1. Areas of Readiness Measured forGroups of Respondents

Areas of Readiness Policy Maker Provider Enabler Receiver

Learner

Management

Personnel

Content

Technical

Environmental

Cultural

Financial

1.4.2 Phases of the Study

The study was carried out in three phases. The activities in each of the

three phases of the study are described below:

Phase I (January April 2004) Preparation of Concept Paper (January 2004)


20/167


Submission of Concept Paper to Ministry of Energy,

Water and Communications (early February 2004)

First Working Group Meeting (9 February 2004)

Second Working Group Meeting (26 February 2004)

Third Working Group Meeting (3 March 2004)

Fourth Working Group Meeting (8 March 2004) Fifth WG Meeting (24 March 2004)

Development of E-learning Research Tools

Pilot Testing (February-April 2004)

Phase I involved the preparation of the concept paper outlining the

necessary research activities and methodology. The research design,

methodology and development of the instruments of the study were then

refined and respondents were identified.

The four E-learning Readiness Research tools for the target group of

respondents, respectively, were developed, piloted and modified beforethey were finalized. Members of the Working Group (Phase I) met and

discussed the E-learning Readiness Research tool, with most face-to-face

meetings held at the OUM main campus.

Both the printed and on-line versions of the tools were pilot-tested with

ten individuals from each of the four groups of target respondents.

Phase II (May-August 2004)

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Tabulation/Graphing/Charting of Findings

The data were collected via the four E-learning readiness tools. These

four tools were made available online through the OUM Website at

http://www.oum.edu.my/ between May and August 2004 and in printed

form. For the latter, organisations representative of the four target groups

throughout the country were approached for their participation in the

study.

In addition, ongoing reports of the research were published in the

newspapers and the OUM Web site. The electronic version of the

instruments was available for a period of five months, and responses weresought among all members of the academic community and among the

corporate workforce. In addition, 9,950 printed questionnaires were

distributed and administrated face-to-face by several members of the

Working Group and colleagues identified as key contacts in higher

education and training institutions. The privacy of the respondents was

maintained.


21/167


1.4.3 The Respondents

The respondents for the study comprised the following:

102 policy makers in leadership positions (top and middle

management) in both private and government

organisations

75 providers from organisations involved in education,

training, R&D, ICT and others

977 enablers who are primarily part of the faculty in

private and government higher educational institutions,

participants attending in-service training programmes

and DAGS (Demonstrator Applications Grant Scheme)

recipients.

4,625 learners and trainees from private and governmenthigher education institutions and participants attending

in-service training programmes.

A list of the major education institutions that participated in the research

is in Appendix D. Major institutions are defined as institutions with at

least 50 respondents in the receiver category.

1.4.4 Data Collection and AnalysisThe data for the study were collected between April and August 2004. All

four instruments were administered nationwide simultaneously. Inseeking respondents online, several batches of e-mail were sent out to

identify respondents for higher educational institutions, MSC companies,

and government agencies. E-mails were sent out to about 3,500 target

respondents. A first reminder was e-mailed a week after the first e-mail

was sent followed by a second reminder e-mailed ten days after the first

reminder. In addition, a link to the survey was made available on the

homepage of the OUM portal. Further, the study was publicised in the

New Straits Times to invite respondents to the online survey. Target

respondents were invited to respond online through e-discussion groups,

email and during classes or training sessions held in computer labs.

Altogether, these efforts brought in 836 completed online forms in all fourcategories.

A total of about 9,950 printed copies of the four ELR instruments were

distributed to the four target groups of respondents in as many

educational institutions, agencies and individuals as possible. A total of

5,779 forms for all target groups of respondents were received by August

2004. The data were treated to descriptive and inferential analysis. It was

at this time that Phase III of the study commenced.

Phase III (August-November 2004)

Workshop to report the findings and makerecommendations (26 30 August 2004)


22/167


Sixth WG meeting to discuss policy implications

(9 September 2004)

Preparation for the submission of the final report on the

MEWC-OUM E-learning Readiness Study to MEWC

(September-November 2004)

Several members of the WG from Phase I were invited to view the

findings, provide recommendations and suggest policy initiatives during

a three and a half day workshop between 26th and 30th August 2004. The

recommendations by the Working Group were incorporated into the final

report submitted to MEWC.

The findings and recommendations of the study were presented to

members of the National Consultative Committee on E-learning (see

Appendix A).

1.4.5 Operational Definitions

The definitions of the terms used to describe the (a) target respondents

and (b) the areas of readiness surveyed are given below. It is to be noted

that the definition of E-Learning had been operationalised by the Working

Group as follows: as the use of network and multimedia technologies to

improve the quality of learning by enabling access to knowledge and

remote resources for the development of a K-society.

(a) Target Respondents

Enabler

An individual who enables/facilitates the delivery and implementation of

E-learning programmes e.g. lecturers, tutors, facilitators in public and

private higher education institutions (IPTA/IPTS).

Policy Maker

An individual in higher management in charge of formulating or

implementing policies related to training and instruction e.g. CEO,

President, Executive Director, Managing Director, General Manager of a

company; Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Director, Head of adepartment or educational institution at the tertiary level.

Provider

An individual or an organisation that provides or sells E-learning content

and/or technology services to target institutions/learners.

Receiver

An individual who is a learner/trainee enrolled in an educational/training

institution for tertiary education or attending an in-service course.


23/167


(b) Area of Readiness:

Content Readiness

This refers to the variety and availability of appropriate E-learning

materials. Basically it is how ready the institution/organisation is in terms

of providing content for E-learning as perceived by the providers,

enablers and learners/trainees.

Cultural Readiness

The enculturation of E-learning in terms of Internet use and networked

technologies to disseminate information, communication, interaction and

teaching. Basically it is how the institution/organisation is ready to

enculturate E-learning as a mode for teaching and learning as perceivedby the policy makers, enablers and learners/trainees.

Environmental Readiness

This refers to the readiness of the country as a whole in terms of the

presence of government policy, the role of mass media, intellectual

property regulations and proficiency in the English language. It refers to

a readiness of a society/nation for E-learning as perceived by the policy

makers, providers, enablers and learners/trainees.

Financial Readiness

This refers to learner/trainee and institutional/organisational readiness to

spend or allocate funds to develop and/or acquire E-learning. It generally

refers to whether a learner/trainee or institution/organisation is finacially

ready for E-learning programmes as perceived by policy makers, enablers,

and learners/trainees.

Learner Readiness

This refers to the readiness of the learner or trainee in terms of time

commitment to E-learning, discipline and interest in E-learning as well asperception of the status of qualifications obtained via E-learning.

Management Readiness

This refers to the institution/organisation having a vision/mission or

formulated policies related to the provision of E-learning and the

institutional/organisational recognition of qualifications obtained via E-

learning.


24/167


Personnel Readiness

This refers to the readiness of the institution/organisation in terms of

having a central unit dedicated to E-learning initiatives with a team of

dedicated instructional designers as well as staff development plan for E-learning.

Technical Readiness

This refers to the institution/organisation providing the necessary

infrastructure for E-learning in terms of technical help, E-learning content

delivery, broadband facilities as well as a Learning Management System

(LMS).

1.5 Organisation of the ReportThis report comprises six chapters. This chapter provides an overview of

the national study on E-learning Readiness in Malaysia. Chapters 2

through 5 present the findings of the respective target groups: Policy-

makers and Organisations, Providers, Enablers and Receivers. Each set of

findings is followed by a summary and a set of recommendations based

on the findings. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the research findings and

lists the recommendations for capacity building that the government, its

agencies and related organisations could consider for the future of E-

learning in Malaysia.


25/167


2POLICY MAKERS ANDORGANISATIONSThis chapter presents the findings on the extent to which policy makers

are enabling or are ready to enable E-learning within their organisation.

2.1 Demographic ProfileAs shown in Table 2, this study surveyed a total of 102 policy makers

consisting of 30 (21.4 percent) top-level executives (CEOs, Presidents, Vice

Chancellors, Vice Presidents, Deputy Vice Chancellors, Executive

Directors, Managing Directors and General Managers) and 47 (46.1

percent) middle-level management personnel (Directors, Deans,

Managers and Heads). The remaining 25 (24.5 percent) were in other

leadership positions.

Of the 102 organisations that participated in the study, 43 (41.7 percent)

were located in cities and 59 (57.3 percent) in areas outside the city. There

were more private than government organisations (55.3 percent and 43.7

percent respectively). The majority of the organisations (64 or 62.7

percent) were involved in education, training and research and

development, while 20 (19.6 percent) were ICT-based organisations.

Other organisations (18 of them) made up the remaining 17.7 percent of

the sample.

The number of employees in the organisations surveyed ranged from lessthan 100 to more than 10,000 per organisation. The majority (68.6 percent)

of the organisations had less than 500 employees while 25.5 percent had

between 500 and 10,000 employees. Only six organisations (5.9 percent)

had more than 10,000 employees each.

Sixty-nine organisations indicated that they had a student enrolment. Of

the 69, about one third (36.2 percent) had a student enrolment of less than

1,000. Another 33.4 percent had an enrolment between 1,000 and 5,000

students, while 28.9 percent had between 5,001 to 25,000 students. Only

one organisation reported a student enrolment of above 25,000 in its

institution.


26/167


In terms of Internet connectivity, 71 (69.2 percent) of the organisations

have broadband facilities (e.g. Streamyx and leased line), while only 6.9

percent still use dial-up facilities. A total of 20 (19.6 percent)

organisations, probably those requiring bandwidth capable of handling a

massive amount of data, depend on ISDN or other lines. These findings

indicate that the majority of organisations already do or are possiblyready to subscribe to higher bandwidths.

TABLE 2. Demographic Profile of Policy Makers

Description of Respondent Frequency

(N = 102)

Percentage

(%)

Position in the Organisation

CEO/President/Vice Chancellor/ Vice

President/Deputy Vice Chancellor

21 20.6

Executive Director, Managing Director,

General Manager

9 8.8

Director/Dean, 32 31.4

Manager/Head 15 14.7

Other 25 24.5

Total 102 100

Location of Organisation

Town 59 57.3City 43 41.7

Total 102 100

Type of Organisation

Government 45 43.7

Private 57 55.3

Total 102 100

Nature of Organisation

Education/Training/R&D 64 62.7

ICT 20 19.6

Others 18 17.7

Total 102 100

Number of Employees (full time, part

time, contract)

Under 100 51 50.0


27/167


TABLE 2. Demographic Profile of Policy Makers (continued)

Description of Respondent Frequency

(N = 102)

Percentage

(%)

101-500 19 18.6

501 to 2,500 15 14.72,501 to 10,000 11 10.8

More than 10,001 6 5.9

Total 102 100

Number of Students Enrolled (for

institutions with student enrolment

only)

Under 1000 25 36.2

1,001 to 2,500 12 17.4

2,501 to 5,000 11 16.0

5,001 to 10,000 5 7.2

10,001 to 25,000 15 21.7

Above 25,000 1 1.5

Total 69 100

Connection to the Internet

Dial up 7 6.9

Streamyx 40 38.8

ISDN 15 14.7

Leased Line 31 30.4

Other 5 4.9

Missing value 4 3.9

Total 102 100

2.2 Patterns of ReadinessSix dimensions of readiness were considered in the survey of policy-

makers: management, personnel, technical, environmental, cultural and

financial readiness. The data in Tables 3 to 11 indicate the extent to

which policy makers feel their organisations are ready for E-learning.

Table 3 indicates that about two-thirds of the management in

organisations are committed to E-learning. The figures in Table 3 show

that the majority of the organisations (72.5 percent) already have mission

statements on E-learning as opposed to 25.5 percent who do not. Almost

two-thirds (60.8 percent) of the organisations have E-learning policies inplace, compared to 37.2 percent that have not formulated such policies. In


28/167


addition, almost two-thirds of the organisations also claimed to recognise

qualifications obtained via E-learning.

TABLE 3. Policy Makers Perceptions of Management Readiness

DescriptionYesn

(%)

Non

(%)

Missingvalue

n

(%)

TotalN

(%)

Institution has a

vision/mission on E-

learning

74

(72.5)

26

(25.5)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

Institution has formulated

policies

62

(60.8)

38

(37.2)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

Institution recognises

qualifications obtained via

E-learning

65

(63.7)

31

(30.4)

6

(5.9)

102

(100)

Although most of the policy makers feel that their organisations are ready

at the management level, they were generally less optimistic about the

readiness of their personnel (see Table 4). Table 4 shows that almost 60

percent of the organisations already have teams set up to implement E-

learning, as opposed to 39.2 percent who do not. However, not all those

teams appear to be supported by expertise in instructional design, as less

than half (46.1 percent) of the institutions claimed to have teams ofdedicated instructional designers. Only about half (55.3 percent) the

institutions have central units specifically for developing E-learning

initiatives; 41.7 percent have no such units. A similar division can be

observed between organisations with staff development plans for E-

learning in place (56.9 percent) versus those without plans (41.2 percent)

for E-learning. Concern over the lack of support for personnel is

substantiated by qualitative data in the form of policy makers responses

to the open-ended questionnaire items, in which they noted the

unavailability of a central, focused source of support and the need for

someone to spearhead and direct E-learning efforts at the organisational

level.

In terms of technical readiness, the data in Table 5 show that a large

number of institutions are already using Intranet (85.3 percent) and

Internet (91.2 percent) to run their daily operations. These institutions

(77.5 percent) have also invested in broadband facilities. However, only

37.3 percent use a Learning Management System (LMS) to deliver E-

learning programmes.

The data in Table 6 indicate the extent of environmental readiness for E-

learning. According to two-thirds of the policy makers, government

policies and mass media play a role in stimulating their interest inexploring E-learning. The majority (85.3 percent) of policy makers


29/167


surveyed (including one policy maker who specified this his response to

the open-ended questions in the survey, felt that it is important to have a

central agency which plays an active role in regulating competency

development, research, intelligence gathering and E-learning initiatives in

the country. However, in terms of question on policy makers readiness

to develop E-learning content in their respective institutions that was amixed reaction. This may be due to the absence of legal provisions for the

protection of intellectual property. This concern was echoed in the

written responses to open-ended questions. Some organisations (43

percent) felt that certain government policies hinder the policy makers

plans to invest in E-learning. Additionally, over a third of the policy

makers (37.3 percent) attributed the lack of environmental readiness to

inadequate English language proficiency.

TABLE 4. Policy Makers Perceptions of Personnel Readiness

DescriptionYesn

(%)

Non

(%)

Missingvalue

n

(%)

TotalN

(%)

Institution has a central unit

dedicated to E-learning

initiatives

57

(55.3)

43

(41.7)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

Institution has a team to

implement E-learning

60

(58.8)

40

(39.2)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

Institution has a team of

dedicated instructional

designers

47

(46.1)

54

(52.9)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Has a staff development

plan for E-learning

58

(56.9)

42

(41.2)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

TABLE 5. Policy Makers Perceptions of Technical Readiness

Description

Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Missing

value

n

(%)

Total

N

(%)

Institution using intranet

technology to runs its daily

operations

87

(85.3)

14

(13.7)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Institution using internet

technology to run its daily

operations

93

(91.2)

8

(7.8)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Institution has broadband

facilities

79

(77.5)

21

(20.6)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

Institution has a Learning

Management System (LMS)to deliver E-learning

38

(37.3)

62

(60.8)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)


30/167


TABLE 6. Policy Makers Perceptions of Environmental Readiness

Description

Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Missing

value

n

(%)

Total

N

(%)

Important to have centralagency play an active role

87

(85.3)

14

(13.7)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Mass media made my

institution keen to explore

E-learning

67

(65.7)

34

(33.3)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Government Policy made

my institution keen to

explore E-learning

62

(60.8)

39

(38.2)

1

(1)

102

(100)

Lack of legal provisions on

intellectual property

52

(51.0)

49

(48.0)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Certain government

policies hindered our

plans to invest

44

(43.1)

56

(54.9)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

Lack of English language

proficiency

38

(37.3)

62

(60.8)

2

(2.0)

102

(100)

Total 350

(57.2)

254

(41.5)

8

(1.3)

612

(100)

On the issue of cultural readiness, it can be seen from the findings

reported in Table 7 that the majority of the policy makers felt that it is

likely for an E-learning culture to develop in their organisations. It was

found that 68.6 percent of the policy makers agreed that E-learning should

ultimately be the mode of learning in their institution, and the majority

(90.2 percent) of them felt that E-learning will help their organisation stay

competitive in the K-economy.

TABLE 7. Policy Makers Perceptions of Cultural Readiness

DescriptionYesn

(%)

Non

(%)

Missingvalue

n

(%)

TotalN

(%)

E-learning should

ultimately be the mode of

learning in my institution

70

(68.6)

32

(31.4)

0

(0)

102

(100)

E-learning will help my

organisation/institution

remain competitive

92

(90.2)

10

(9.8)

0

(0)

102

(100)


31/167


According to the data in Table 8 which indicate the extent of financial

readiness in implementing E-learning, almost half of the institutions (48

percent) have taken the initiative to provide computer loans which may

be an important factor in motivating employees to engage in E-learning.

The majority, that is, 68.6 percent of the organisations, provide funds for

training and conference participation related to E-learning. Although E-learning content plays a vital role in E-learning, only 50 percent of the

policy makers appear to have allocated a budget for developing E-

learning content, and even fewer (48 percent) have a budget for acquiring

E-learning content.

TABLE 8. Policy Makers Perceptions of Financial Readiness

Description

Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Missing

value

n

(%)

Total

N

(%)

Institution provides a

computer loan to the

employees

49

(48.0)

52

(51.0)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Institutions provides funds

for employees to attend

conferences and training

on E-learning

70

(68.6)

31

(30.4)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Institution has allocated a

budget to develop E-

learning content

51

(50.0)

50

(49.0)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Institution has allocated a

budget to acquire E-

learning content

49

(48.0)

52

(51.0)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

The survey also identified factors hindering organisations from

expanding their E-learning potential. The data in Table 9 indicate that

almost half of the policy makers attribute the low rate of expansion to

high initial investments (47.1 percent) and poor infrastructure (44.1

percent) while the rest of the policy makers apparently do not view these

factors to be hindrances. Although initial investment does not seem to bea major problem, more than half of the organisations find maintenance to

be more difficult, as 57.8 percent of them identify high operating costs as a

factor, thus making the heavy investment required in meeting operational

costs the biggest impeding factor. About the same number of policy

makers (56.8 percent) lament a lack of support in developing appropriate

pedagogical content. Similar views were noted in the policy makers

responses to the open-ended questionnaire items: they expressed a

concern over the lack of quality-regulated content, training and technical

support as well as the absence of clear guidelines and policies. It is

encouraging to note that the lack of belief in the necessity for E-learning is

not a hindrance, since as many as 80.4 percent of the policy makers do notfind it to be a factor.


32/167


TABLE 9. Factors Hindering Organisations from Expanding E-learning

Efforts

Factors

Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Missing

value

n(%)

Total

N

(%)

High Initial Investments 48

(47.1)

54

(52.9)

0

(0)

102

(100)

High Operating Costs 59

(57.8)

43

(42.2)

0

(0)

102

(100)

Poor Infrastructure 45

(44.1)

57

(55.9)

0

(0)

102

(100)

Lack of Content 43

(42.2)

58

(56.8)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

No Necessity for E learning 20

(19.6)

82

(80.4)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

Other 11

(10.8)

90

(88.2)

1

(1.0)

102

(100)

The open-ended responses also revealed an array of other factors that

respondents felt to be impediments to E-learning initiatives. Among the

reasons voiced were that E-learning is cold and impersonal, and that itshould only be used to complement, not replace, face-to-face classes.

Another respondent pointed out that students themselves do not possess

the financial means to purchase computers which would support E-

learning. Others voiced the need for communities to be more involved,

leading to a suggestion by a respondent that broadband access is made

more affordable to home users. There was also a call for greater

recognition of degrees obtained through E-learning.

2.3 Overall PerceptionsAn overall picture of the readiness of policy makers and organisations is

reflected in Tables 10 and 11 and Figures 1 to 7. The readiness scale

ranges from 1 to 10, where 1 indicates a complete lack of readiness and 10

indicates total readiness (refer Table 10). The findings indicate a largely

moderate degree of organisational readiness for all six dimensions (see

Figure 1). The highest rating of a mean of 6.14 was received for technical

readiness and the lowest rating of 4.76 was attributed to environmental

readiness. However, a more in-depth analysis of the scenario provided by

the figures in Table 11 indicates that policy makers perceive organisations

to be at a moderate to high level of readiness for four dimensions:

management, personnel, technical and cultural readiness. The reversetrend is seen for environmental and financial readiness. The greater


33/167


difference, however, can be observed in the levels of environmental

readiness, where 27.5 percent of the organisations indicate a low level of

readiness, and only 8.7 percent are in the high-level category. This trend

was consistent with the views expressed by policy makers, who, in their

written responses, indicate that they are disconcerted by hindrances to the

implementation of E-learning. Hindrances were perceived to be in theform of of bureaucratic constraints and the lack of community awareness

about the benefits of E-learning.

TABLE 10. Mean Scores of Overall Readiness among Policy Makers

Area of Readiness

(N=102)

Mean Standard Deviation

1. Management Readiness 5.98 2.474

2. Personnel Readiness 5.87 2.307

3. Technical Readiness 6.14 2.321

4. Environmental Readiness 4.76 1.925

5. Cultural Readiness 6.02 2.111

6. Financial Readiness 5.26 2.552

2.4 SummaryThe findings indicate that in general, policy makers are financially ready

and willing to equip their institutions with the necessary facilities to

harness the potential of E-learning. They appeared to be most prepared

technically and felt ready to employ E-learning as the mode of learning

and instruction. Policy makers also feel that they are ready to put in place

policies and mission statements in support of E-learning initiatives.

However, at this point in time, these aspirations have not yet been

adequately translated into concrete action or implementation of E-

learning also initiatives. For example, organisations still need to establish

effective central units for developing high-quality content that would

materialise these aspirations. In addition, there is a lack of qualified

instructional designers who can dedicate their time, expertise and effort tohelp develop customised content for the organisation. The biggest

stumbling block at the moment seems to be a lack of environmental

readiness in that the organisations, despite their readiness to embark on

the route to E-learning, are not being sufficiently supported by sound E-

learning policies, an effective central E-learning agency, and properly

formulated intellectual property regulations appropriate for Malaysia.


34/167


TABLE 11. Degree of Overall Readiness among Policy Makers

Degree of

Overall

Readiness

Management

n

(%)

Personnel

n

(%)

Technical

n

(%)

Environmental

n

(%)

Cultural

n

(%)

Financial

n

(%)

Low

(1 to 3)

16

(15.8)

19

(18.6)

15

(14.7)

28

(27.5)

16

(15.7)

28

(28.0)

Moderate

(4 to 7)

52

(51.5)

55

(53.9)

54

(52.9)

65

(63.7)

58

(56.9)

51

(51.0)

High

(8 to 10)

33

(32.7)

28

(27.5)

33

(32.4)

9

(8.7)

28

(27.5)

21

(21.0)

N

(%)

101

(100.0)

102

(100.0)

102

(100.0)

102

(100.0)

102

(100.0)

100

(100.0)


35/167


15.8

51.5

32.7

18.6

53.9

27.5

14.7

52.9

32.4

27.5

63.7

8.7

15.7

56.9

27.5 28.0

51.0

21.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage

Management Personnel Technical Environment Cultural Financial

Level

Level of Overall Readiness among Policy Makers

Low Moderate High

FIGURE 1. Degree of Overall Readiness among Policy Makers


36/167


FIGURE 2. Overall Management Readiness for Policy Makers

FIGURE 3. Overall Personnel Readiness for Policy Makers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

5

10

15

20

Percent

2.9

7.8 7.8

6.9

16.7

13.7

16.7 16.7

5.9

4.9

10

Percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

5

10

15

20

25

4.9 4.9

5.8

6.9

20.0

10.9

12.9

16.8

8.9

6.9

Overall management readiness

Overall personnel readiness


37/167


FIGURE 4. Overall Technical Readiness for Policy Makers

FIGURE 5. Overall Environmental Readiness for Policy Makers

10

Percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

5

10

15

20

2.0

10.8

14.7

18.6

19.6

17.7

7.8

5.9

1.0

2.0

Overall environment readiness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

5

10

15

20

Percent

2.0

6.95.9

6.9

19.6

12.813.7

16.7

7.8 7.8

Overall technical readiness


38/167


FIGURE 6. Overall Cultural Readiness for Policy Makers

FIGURE 7. Overall Financial Readiness for Policy Makers

Overall cultural readiness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

5

10

15

20

25

Percent

2.0 2.0

11.8

7.8

13.7

20.6

14.7

18.6

2.9

5.9

Overall Financial Readiness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

5

10

15

Pe

rcent

8.0 8.0

12.0

6.0

13.0

16.0 16.0

13.0

4.0 4.0


39/167


3PROVIDERSThis chapter presents the findings on the extent to which providers

(private corporations, organisations, tertiary educational institutions andmajor technology providers) are ready to embark or have embarked on E-

learning programme in institutions of higher education.

3.1 Demographic ProfileThere were 75 E-learning providers who responded to the survey (see

Table 12). They came from MSC/E-learning companies, public institutions

of higher learning (IPTAs), private institutes of higher learning (IPTSs),

and training departments the country. Of from all over the total, 46 of

these E-learning providers (61.3 percent) are located in towns and theremaining 29 (38.7 percent) are located in cities in Malaysia. Among the

respondents were 54 providers (72 percent) from private organisations,

and 21 providers (28 percent) from government agencies in the country.

Of these, 43 (57.3 percent) were working in organisations that are

involved in education, training and/or Research and Development (R&D).

There were 24 (32 percent) respondents who represented the ICT

industry, and the remaining eight (10.7 percent) represented those who

were not in the other two previously mentioned categories. These E-

learning providers also revealed that the organisations they work in have

under 100 employees (32 out of 75 respondents, or 42.7 percent), between

101 and 500 employees (16 respondents, or 21.3 percent), between 501 and2500 employees (4 respondents, or 5.3 percent), between 2501 and 10000

employees (15 respondents, or 20 percent), and more than 10001

employees (8 respondents, or 10.7 percent).

Student Enrolment

The E-learning providers were also asked about student enrolment at

their respective organisations (see Table 13). Based on the responses to

the question on nature of organisation, 43 of the 75 providers were from

the educational/training/research and development fields. As shown in

Table 13 there were 11 providers (25.58 percent) who stated that theirstudent enrolment was between 10,001 and 25,000 students. The second


40/167


highest number of responses was recorded for 10 organisations (23.26

percent) that have less than 1,000 students. Two groups of respondents (7

respondents each, or representing 16.28 percent for each group) disclosed

that their student enrolments are between 1,001 and 2,500 (for one group),

and between 5,001 and 10,000 (for another group), respectively.

TABLE 12. Demographic Profile of Providers

Description

Frequency

(N = 75)

Percentage

(%)

Location of Organisation

Town 46 61.3

City 29 38.7

Total 75 100.0Type of Organisation

Government 21 28.0

Private 54 72.0

Total 75 100.0

Nature of Organisation

Education/Training/R&D 43 57.3

ICT 24 32.0

Others 8 10.7

Total 75 100.0

Number of Employees (full time, part

time, contract)

Under 100 32 42.7

101-500 16 21.3

501 to 2,500 4 5.3

2,501 to 10,000 15 20.0

More than 10,001 8 10.7

Total 75 100.0

Bandwidth for E-learning Delivery

When asked about the ideal bandwidth to deliver E-learning, only one

third of these E-learning providers (25 respondents, or 33.3 percent)

perceived that the ideal bandwidth is 2 Mbps or more (see Table 14).

There were 13 respondents (17.3 percent) who said that the ideal

bandwidth should be between 1 Mbps and 2 Mbps. Another group (22

respondents, or 29.3 percent) said that between 512 Kbps and 1 Mbps is


41/167


adequate for achieving the ideal bandwidth to deliver E-learning. The

remaining 15 E-learning providers (20 percent) said that 256 Kbps or less

is enough for delivering E-learning. This finding indicates that there may

be some degree of ambiguity among providers with regards to the

minimum bandwidth requirement to for delivery of E-learning

programmes.

TABLE 13. Number of Students Enrolled

Description Frequency

(N = 75)

Percentage

(%)

Under 1000 10 23.26

1,001 to 2,500 7 16.28

2,501 to 5,000 6 13.95

5,001 to 10,000 7 16.2810,001 to 25,000 11 25.58

Above 25,000 1 2.33

Missing value 1 2.33

Total 43 100.00

TABLE 14. Ideal Bandwidth to Deliver E-learning


(N = 75)

Percentage

(%)256 Kbps or less 15 20.0

512 Kbps to 1 Mbps 22 29.3

1 Mbps to 2 Mbps 13 17.3

2 Mbps or more 25 33.3

Total 75 100.0

Standards in E-learning

The 75 E-learning providers were also asked to respond to issues related

to standards in E-learning (see Table 15). Out of the total, 49 (65.3

percent) agreed that there should be an adoption of standards in E-

learning. The majority (62 respondents, or 82.7 percent) also agreed that

there is a need for Malaysian instititutions to establish E-learning

standards.

Utilization of LMS/LCMS

One of the modes of delivery for E-learning is the Learning Management

System (Learning Content Management System). When the respondentswere asked about the Learning Management System/Learning Content


42/167


Management System that were used or would be used, the responses

were mixed (see Table 16). There were 20 (26.7 percent) respondents who

stated that they are using or would be using an Open Source Solution for

their LMS/LCMS. Another 18 (24 percent) said that they are using, or

would be using, an in-house product. There were also a number of E-

learning providers who stated that they are using commercially availableproducts like WebCT (16 respondents, or 21.3 percent) and Blackboard (7

respondents, or 9.3 percent). The remaining 14 (18.7 percent) respondents

revealed that they are using other systems, such as TMS Seed and Lotus

Learning Space.

TABLE 15. Standards in E-learning

Description Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Total

N

(%)

Adoption of standards forE-learning

49(65.3)

26(43.7)

75(100.0)

Need for Malaysian E-

learning Standards

62

(82.7)

13

(17.3)

75

(100.0)

TABLE 16. LMS/LCMS used/to be used


(n)

Percentage

(%)

Open source solution 20 26.7

In-house product 18 24.0

WebCT 16 21.3Blackboard 7 9.3

Others 14 18.7

The E-learning providers were also asked about the applications and

provisions made available to support E-learning at their respective

institutions. Table 17 indicates that most, that is, 57 (76 percent) of the

respondents provide interactive modules/materials. The survey also

revealed that 74.7 percent of them (56 respondents) are already using an

LMS or LCMS. From the total group of respondents, 73.3 percent (55

respondents) have technical support personnel available. The majority ofthe group (65.3 percent) also indicated that they have provided sufficient

bandwidth for E-learning (49 respondents). Out of these 75 providers, 48

(64 percent) have acquired authoring tools to support E-learning at their

organisations. About 44 of them (58.7 percent) said that they have video

streaming capabilities, and 32 of them have server log analysers (42.7

percent). There were also six respondents (8 percent) who indicated that

they also provide other applications and services to support E-learning at

their organisations, but the actual applications and services are not

revealed by the respondents in this survey.


43/167


TABLE 17. Provision of Applications and Services to Support E-

learning

Description

Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Missing

value

n(%)

Total

N

(%)

Interactive

Modules/Materials

57

(76.0)

18

(24.0)

0

(0)

75

(100.0)

LMS/LCMS 56

(74.7)

19

(25.3)

0

(0)

75

(100.0)

Technical Support

Personnel

55

(73.3)

20

(26.7)

0

(0)

75

(100.0)

Sufficient

Bandwidth

49

(65.3)

26

(34.7)

0

(0)

75

(100.0)Authoring Tools 48

(64.0)

26

(34.7)

1

(1.3)

75

(100.0)

Video Streaming 44

(58.7)

30

(40.0)

1

(1.3)

75

(100.0)

Server Log Analyser 32

(42.7)

43

(57.3)

0

(0)

75

(100.0)

Others 6

(8.0)

69

(92.0)

0

(0)

75

(100.0)

Security Features in the Organisation

The E-learning providers were asked to give information (see Table 18) on

one of the most important features in E-learning infrastructure: security

features employed in networks and resource servers (web). A majority of

the providers, (63 respondents or 84.0 percent) said that they have virus

scanners in place. Another 60 respondents (80 percent) said that they

have firewalls, and according to 56 respondents (74.7 percent), their

organisations have installed network monitoring systems. There were 37

respondents from the group (49.3 percent) who revealed that they have

spam filtering in place.

Provision for Internet Connection

The survey also made inquiries about Internet connection that E-learning

providers have at their respective organisations/institutions. It was found

that, 34 respondents (45.3 percent) have provided leased lines at their

organisations. Another 26 (34.7 percent) said that they have subscribed to

a Malaysian broadband service, Streamyx. Another ten (13.3 percent) said

that they have ISDN lines in place, and two respondents (2.7 percent)

indicated that they are using dial-up services to gain access to the Internet.

Another three respondents (4.0 percent) affirmed they are using otherconnections to the Internet. These findings are presented in Table 19.


44/167


TABLE 18. Security Features Employed in Networks and Resource

Servers

Description

Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Missing

value

n

(%)

Total

N

(%)

Virus Scanner 63

(84.0)

8

(10.7)

4

(5.3)

75

(100.0)

Firewall 60

(80.0)

11

(14.7)

4

(5.3)

75

(100.0)

Network Monitoring

Systems

56

(74.7)

14

(18.7)

5

(6.7)

75

(100.0)

Spam Filtering 37

(49.3)

33

(44.0)

5

(6.7)

75

(100.0)

TABLE 19. Connection to the Internet


(N = 102)

Percentage

(%)

Dial-Up 2 2.7

Streamyx 26 34.7

ISDN 10 13.3

Leased Line 34 45.3

Other 3 4.0

Total 75 100.0

Preferences for Single Point of Access to Local E-learning Content

This E-learning providers were asked about their preference for a single

point of access to local E-learning content, as there are several MalaysianE-learning websites available currently (i.e. Utusan Education Portal,

Kakaktua.com, CikguNet). More than half of the group (40 respondents,

or 53.3 percent) indicated that they prefer to have one single point of

access to local E-learning content (see Table 20).


45/167


TABLE 20. Preference for Single point of Access for Local E-learning

Content

Description Yes

n

(%)

No

n

(%)

Missing value

n

(%)

Total

N

(%)

Single Point of Access 40(53.3)

34(45.3)

1(1.3)

75(100.0)

3.2 Patterns of ReadinessThe data in the following tables (Table 21 through Table 25)

illustrate/show the extent to which E-learning providers are ready to

embark or have already embarked on E-learning programme. The areas

investigated in this study were related to the personnel, content, technical,

environmental and financial dimensions.

Personnel Readiness

The majority of the group, 56 respondents, or 74.7 percent, stated that

their organisations have a central unit which is dedicated to E-learning

initiatives (see Table 21). There were 65 respondents (or 86.7 percent)

who revealed that their organisations have a team to implement E-

learning. There were 41 respondents from the g

eReadiness2004

Documents

Transcript of eReadiness2004