Development of Technological Efficacy via an E-learning Programme: South African Parliament Employees

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 3, 1 - 11, 01.10.2015

Fikile Mbuli Norma R. A. Romm

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.28.2.3

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In June 2011, the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) set up an 18-month pilot e-learning programme for staff working in its Language Services section. The curriculum for this programme included subjects such as general management, leadership, people management, public financial management, project management, and economics.At the end of 2012, Mbuli conceived and designed a questionnaire-based study (that is, a survey) to explore learners’ experiences of the programme. One of the findings that emerged from this study was that involvement in the programme helped employees to gain technical skills related to ICT. The vast majority of participants indicated that their participation in the programme increased their desire to improve their ICT skills, skills that they could apply in their work activities. That is, they became motivated to improve their technological efficacy, which was helpful to them for participation in the course and for work-related activities. This article discusses this outcome of the “academic” syllabus, and suggests that encouraging the development of technological efficacy should be given more attention in this, as in other, e-learning programmes. It is suggested that learners enrolling for e-learning programmes can benefit from more preparatory guidance to prepare them for an understanding of the e-learning context.  

Keywords

e-learning experiences, technological efficacy, learner preparedness, enskilling in ICT

References

• Aluko, R. (2009). The impact of an Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) programme on the professional practice of graduates. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(4), 2–25.
• Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emerging technologies in distance education, pp. 23–39. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
• Almala, A.H. (2006). Applying the principles of constructivism to a quality e-learning environment. Distance Learning, 3(1), 33–40.
• Baggaley, J. (2008). Where did distance education go wrong? Distance Education, 29(1), 39–51.
• Breen, R., Lindsay, R., Jenkins, A., & Smith, P. (2001). The role of information and communication technologies in a university learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 95–114.
• Cook, M., Dickerson, D.L., Annetta, L.A., & Minogue, J. (2011). In-service teachers’ perceptions of online learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 73–79. Craig, J. (2010). E-learning in politics. European Political Science, 9, 1–4.
• Daniels, D. (2010). Telling my story: Being a feminist researcher in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(1), 5–14.
• Department of Education (South Africa). (2003. White Paper on e-Education. Pretoria: Government Printer.
• Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Introduction. In N.K. Denzin &Y.S. Lincoln The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues, pp. 1–45. London: Sage.
• Duffy, T.M., &Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, pp. 170–198. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Duffy, T.M., & Kirkley, J.R. (2004a). Introduction: Theory and practice in distance education. In T.M. Duffy & J R. Kirkley (Eds.) Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education, pp. 3–13. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Duffy, T.M., & Kirkley, J.R. (2004b). Learning theory and pedagogy applied in distance learning: The case of Cardean University. In T.M. Duffy & J.R. Kirkley (Eds.) Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education, pp. 107–142. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gregory, W., Romm, N.R.A., & Walsh, M. (1994). The Trent quality initiative: A multi-agency evaluation of quality Standards in the National Health Service. University of Hull: Centre for Systems Studies Press.
• Hiralaal, A. (2012). Students’ experiences of blended learning in accounting education at the Durban University of Technology. South African Journal of Higher Education, 26(2), 316–328.
• Holzweiss, P.C., Joyner, S.A., Fuller, M.B., Henderson, S., & Young, R. (2014). Online graduate students’ perceptions of best learning experiences. Distance Education, 35(3), 311–323.
• Lemos, S., & Pedro, N. (2012). Improving the quality of e-learning courses in higher education through student satisfaction. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 66, 1108–1114.
• Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
• Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257–274.
• MacDonald, H.I. (2001). Catching up with e-learning: Implications for education and social policy. Media Asia, 28, 153–156.
• Matodzi, T., Herselman, M.E., & Hay, H.R. (2007). E-learning: An ally in the development of rural South African communities. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 5(1), 69–93.
• Mbuli, F. (2013). An evaluation of the influence of e-learning in adult education with special reference to the employees of Parliament RSA. Master’s dissertation. University of South Africa.
• McCombs, B.L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600.
• McIntyre-Mills, J., Mokwena G.K., Arko-Achemfuor A., Mabunda, P., & Njiro., E. (2014). Participatory approach to education: An action learning approach at the University of South Africa. Participatory Educational Research. 1(2), 106–132.
• Mostert, J.W. (2006). The challenges for an African distance education learner: A distance educator's perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(3), 137–149.
• Mugarura, C. (2010). Strategies for deploying e-learning in developing countries. Educational technology debate: Exploring ICT and learning in developing countries. Retrieved 10 November 2012 from http://edutechdebate.org/page/14/?s=EduTechDebate.
• Naidu, S. (2014a). Editorial: Looking back, looking forward: The invention and reinvention of distance education. Distance Education, 35(3), 263–270.
• Naidu, S. (2014b). Editorial: In search of “what works” in online and distance education. Distance Education, 35(1), 1‒3.
• Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 1–10.
• Romm, N.R.A. (1996). Systems methodologies and intervention: The issue of researcher responsibility. In R.L. Flood & N.R.A. Romm (Eds.) Critical Systems Thinking: Current research and practice, pp. 179-193. New York: Plenum.
• Romm, N.R.A. (2001). Accountability in social research: Issues and debates. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
• Romm, N.R.A. (2002a). Responsible knowing. Philosophy of Management, 2(1), 59–74.
• Romm, N.R.A. (2002b). A trusting constructivist approach to systemic inquiry: exploring accountability. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(5), 455-467.
• Romm, N.R.A. (2010). New racism: Revisiting researcher responsibilities. New York: Springer.
• Romm, N.R.A. (2013). Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: Reconsidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12, 652‒669.
• Romm, N.R.A. (2014). Active and accountable social inquiry: implications and examples. Participatory Educational Research, 1(2), 13‒20.
• Veletsianos, G. (2010). A definition of emerging technologies for education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emerging technologies in distance education, pp. 3–22. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
• Wang, C-H., Shannon, D.M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323.