Webinars: Ease of use and Usefulness for Disadvantaged Students in a low Bandwidth ODL Environment Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa vdmertm@unisa.ac.za vheerme1@unisa.ac.za Abstract: As an Open Distance Learning (ODL) institution, the University of South Africa (Unisa) has invested heavily in a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in an effort to overcome the challenges of providing innovative learning and support programs to a diverse student body that currently numbers close to 400 000. The majority of students are located within the borders of South Africa, where many historical, technological and infrastructural impediments not obvious to a first economy exist. As such, the roll-out and adoption of cutting-edge and innovative VLE tools are not easily accomplished. The focus of the paper was to answer a variety of questions related to the ease of use and usefulness of a webinar tool for disadvantaged students in a low-bandwidth ODL environment. Introducing the webinar tool in two information technology courses, we determined the take-up profile of users as it relates to the context of their disadvantageousness, which may impact on the point, method and cost of access; the student user experiences as it relates to familiarity, problems experienced; the scope/potential, collaborative value, and presentation experience of the webinar tool; and the facilitator’s experiences in setting up and presenting the webinar. Adopting an interpretive perspective, we present both qualitative and quantitative data collected from student surveys and the facilitator’s research diary. Our results support elements of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis, 2003) which posit that ease of use of the system influences the perceived usefulness thereof. Antecedents and moderators of perceived ease of use as identified in the current study were directly related to the level of disadvantageousness of Webinar users, which not only determined the type of connection that they used and resultant ease of use, but which impacted on the perceived usefulness of a Webinar. Keywords: open distance learning, webinar, low bandwidth, disadvantaged students, ease of use, usefulness

1. Introduction Web-based teaching and learning technologies are changing the concept of education, but is not free of problems and challenges (Ahn, Han and Han, 2005). Whereas the primary purpose of web-conferencing tools originated in business in an effort to save travel time and cost, they are increasingly employed as a means of synchronous discussion and collaboration between teacher and students (Henry, 2011). Because new technologies introduce new complexities at various levels, be it institutional, social, pedagogical and/or technological, there is a need for ongoing, dedicated research. This paper reports on the context of our experiences gained with the implementation of a Webinar (WEB-based semINAR) synchronous conferencing tool in an Open Distance Learning (ODL) environment were many historical, technological and infrastructural impediments not obvious to a first economy combine to challenge the use and usefulness thereof for both facilitator and student. It is not this paper’s intention to generalize the results, but to provide other educators and researchers with the context of our experiences so they can make decisions on the extent to which they should apply our findings to other settings (Merriam, 1995).

2. Background ODL is increasingly recognized as an accepted and indispensable educational system, its growth partly stimulated by the use and availability of new, web-based and multimedia technologies. A comprehensive ODL institution, the University of South Africa (Unisa) has invested heavily in web-based technologies in an effort to overcome the challenges of providing innovative learning and support programs to a diverse student body that currently numbers close to 400 000 students in over 150 countries (DISA, 2011). Like most other distance education institutions, Unisa makes use of a web-based Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). Hosted on the open-sourced SAKAI-platform (Sakai, 2011), and named myUnisa, it offers several teaching, learning, administrative and grading tools. There are, however, several factors that affect the use and usefulness of the VLE for teachers and students alike.

445

Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden

Firstly, in a rapid-changing technological environment, the user support, technical overheads and financial burdens required to develop, deploy, maintain or upgrade tools must be strategically managed. The result is that adoption decisions are often made at a higher level, and flexible options that suit the independent culture of academics do not exist. Secondly, the majority of Unisa students are located within the borders of South Africa where many historical, technological and infrastructural impediments not obvious to a first economy exist. For example, from a socio-historical perspective, 81% of Unisa students are classified as being previously disadvantaged (DISA, 2011). While recent research has indicated that 47% of previously disadvantaged people in South Africa are Internet users, only 8% has regular access. In addition, only 17% has access to a personal computer/laptop at home (APMS, 2011). From a technological and infrastructural perspective, the cost and availability of bandwidth is prohibitive. Where fixed broadband bandwidth cost in Macao, China, for example, was measured in 2010 at 0.3 (expressed as a percentage of average monthly Gross National Income per Capita), it was 5.7 in South Africa! Likewise, the international Internet bandwidth available to South Africa in 2010 was 1714 bit/s per user compared to China's 2389, the USA's 36704 and Luxemburg’s 86988! (MIS, 2011). Such impediments have the consequence that roll-outs and adoption of cutting-edge and innovative tools are not easily accomplished. Hence, in 2011, only 43.8% of Unisa students have registered on myUnisa as users (DISA, 2011). Lecturer take-up of myUnisa tools has also been slow, partly because their requirement for individualized and module-specific tools is difficult to meet. In this nebulous environment, some lecturers in School of Computing (SOC) at Unisa has adopted an active experimental agenda in early technology adoption research that seeks to implement and evaluate innovative web-based tools that have not been rolled out in the myUnisa VLE. In the research this paper reports on, we implemented and evaluated a Webinar tool at faculty level. A Webinar involves hosting a presentation on a web server that is controlled by a vendor, who offers the service to customers. Attendees log on to an Internet site to become part of the presentation via audio, video, text and other forms of live interaction (Verma and Singh, 2009). On face value, it appears to be a valuable tool for supporting collaborative learning in an ODL environment. However, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (or UTAUT, Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis, 2003) proposes that usage behavior is determined by the intention to use a system, which is dependent on the perceived ease of use of the system, which influences the perceived usefulness thereof. Their model motivated our research.

3. Research statement The focus of our research was to answer a variety of informal questions related to the potential ease of use and usefulness of a Webinar tool in a largely disadvantaged and low-bandwidth ODL environment. Specifically, we wanted to determine: the profile of users as it relates to the context of their disadvantageousness, which may impact on

the point, method and cost of access; the student user experiences as it relates to familiarity, technical/connection problems

experienced, scope/potential, collaborative value, and presentation experience with a Webinar tool;

the facilitator’s experiences in setting up and presenting the Webinar. Understanding the ease of use and usefulness of the tool will assist us in making informed decisions as to the potential value thereof and its continued employment.

4. Research design Whereas a Webinar tool can be classified as an Information System (IS), the primary focus of the study was on discovering the potential value and usefulness of the tool in an educational process, which is synchronous discussion. This study therefore positioned itself primarily in the field of Technology Education. A research design, according to Creswell (2009), has three components: a philosophical world view, strategies of inquiry and research methods.

446

Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden

4.1 Philosophy Since the current study was aimed at producing an understanding of the context of implementation of an information system and the process whereby the use and value thereof is influenced by the context (Myers, 2007), we adopted an interpretive perspective as our philosophical base.

4.2 Strategy of inquiry The selected strategy was a revelatory case study of an implementation of the Webinar, in which the researchers explore events, activities, processes and individuals in depth (Yin, 2003). Here case refers to the selection and presentation of detailed information about a distinct groups’ experiences, frequently including the accounts of the subject themselves (Becker, Dawson, Devine, Hannum, Hill, Leydens, Matuskevich, Traver and Palmquist, 2005).

4.3 Research methods The focus of the research questions are on human actions that takes place in the context-specific settings of disadvantaged communities, and how their actions are influenced by their setting. Human activity should be studied in their real-life situation (Marshall and Rossman, 2006), and this study therefore adopted the qualitative research paradigm. Qualitative methods, as proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994), offers a source for well-grounded, rich and thick descriptions and explanations of the processes occurring in local contexts, and was particularly suited to this research . The adoption of the qualitative research paradigm also maximized our understanding of each participant's background, expertise, technology skills, and experiences which helped us answer the research questions. However, to expand our understanding even more, the study employed mixed methods to investigate the research questions. Data collection methods therefore included: Qualitative data incorporated secondary data from research literature, discussions between the

authors and colleagues, as well as primary data collection from students’ responses to open-ended survey questions and interpretation thereof.

Quantitative data retrieved from university databases: from the survey database using structured query language; and responses to closed-ended survey questions.

Since it is not our intention to generalize the results, we employed simple, descriptive statistical analysis techniques that attempted to count how many times certain behaviours occurred (quantitative methods), coupled with observer narratives (qualitative methods).

5. Researchers’ roles Two researchers were involved in this study. The second author was the Webinar facilitator, her role to pre-test the software, prepare and present the Webinar. This allowed her an intimate understanding and experience of the processes and events, which she recorded in a research diary. The first author fulfilled the roles of participant observer (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2001; Savenye & Robinson, 2004) and data analyzer.

6. Setting and procedures Earlier in 2011, the facilitator attended a Change 11 MOOC Webinar meeting hosted on the Fuze Meeting (FM) platform. Connection through an iPad and participation was seamless, and she decided to integrate Webinars into her teaching. In order to present a Fuze Meeting-driven Webinar, a payment of $69US had to be made to the developers. A few trial FMs between the authors and a colleague uncovered a problem of no sound, which necessitated a support call to the FM Help Desk. Besides this feature not being automatically available when entering into a meeting and some difficulty in installing the plug-in, the Unisa firewall blocked both the Skype and VOIP options available. Further trial runs using the VOIP-option outside the Unisa firewall proved successful. We proceeded to implement the Webinar in a graduate-level Information Technology course at Unisa. Students from two first-year level modules (ICT1512 – Introduction to Interactive Programming with

447

Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden

425 students, and ICT1513 – Introduction to Web Design with 387 students) were invited via SMS and email to attend two separate FMs held a week apart in early November 2011. Since the decision to employ a Webinar tool was made late in the semester, the focus of both FMs was on examination preparation. Because of the firewall issue both FMs were scheduled after-hours, from 19h30-21h00. This timeslot initially appeared inconvenient, but was reinforced by a cursory review of the Unisa student database which revealed that many students are employed and would find it difficult to attend a FM during office hours. Technical difficulties (discussed later) resulted in a 3rd FM being scheduled with the ICT1513-group.

7. Data collection

7.1 Online surveys We only surveyed FM participants as our focus is on the use and usefulness of a Webinar tool and not on reasons students did not participate. The survey questions administered post-FM firstly measured the profile of the users as it relates to the context of students' disadvantageousness, which may impact on the point, method and cost of access. It secondly captured users' feedback as it relates to familiarity, usefulness and problems experienced with the software and the scope/potential, collaborative value and presentation experiences of a FM.

7.2 Research diary In order to contribute to the reliability and objectivity of the current study and as recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Erlandson, Harris, Skipper and Allen (1993), the FM facilitator kept a reflexive research diary throughout the study, which presented us with her experiences.

8. Results and discussion of findings A total of 68 students attended the three FMS (18, 14 and 36 attendances respectively), of which 52 students completed the online survey for a response rate of 76.93%. The following sections details the general themes that emerged from the data collected.

8.1 User profile In this section we report on the profile of users as it relates to the context of students' disadvantageousness, which may impact on the point, method and cost of access to the FM. Forty-two (81%) of respondents were previously disadvantaged students (PDs) and 10 (19%) previously advantaged students (PAs). These figures are reflective of the broader Unisa student profile, where 81% of the student body is classified as PDs (DISA, 2011). Table 1 (a) present the method and Table 1 (b) the type of connection used by PDs and PAs students. Table 1 (a): Type of device used by Previously Disadvantaged students (PDs) and Previously

Advantaged students(PAs) to connect to the Webinar

Device PDs PAs Totals

Laptop/PC 34 (81%) 9 (90%) 43 (83%)

Blackberry 8 (19%) 0 8 (15%)

iPhone 0 0 0

iPad 0 1 (10%) 1 (2%)

Android 0 0 0

TOTALS 42 10 52

Table 1 (a) shows a laptop/ PC to be the most popular connection device, with 83% of total use. Eighty-one percent (81%) of PDs and 90% of PAs used these devices. Other mobile devices used were a Blackberry phone (15% total and 19% PD) and a single iPad tablet (PAs).

448

Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden

With regards to the connection method, Table 1 (b) shows a clear overall preference (60%) for mobile wireless connections, with ADSL connections second most popular at 29%. Since the FM was presented after hours, local area network (LAN) connections, which typically exist in the workplace, had a low take-up. Table 1 (b): Type of connection used by Previously Disadvantaged students (PDs) and Previously

Advantaged students (PAs)

Type of Connection PDs PAs Totals

Wireless: 3G, HSDPA, GPRS etc.) 29 (69%) 2 (20%) 31 (60%)

ADSL 8 (19%) 7 (70%) 15 (29%)

Local Area Network 3 (7%) 1 (10%) 4 (8%)

Wi-Fi 2 (5%) 0 2 (4%)

TOTALS 42 10 52

PDs are more reliant on wireless use (69%), whereas PAs, with three exceptions, use ADSL connections (70%). More in depth-analysis (not shown in table) revealed the overall laptop/PC with wireless combinations to be equally as popular as the total laptop/PC with ADSL line combinations (16 versus 14 users’ connections for a total of 30, or 58%, out of a possible 52 connection configurations). While these figures underscore a growing world-wide trend for wireless over fixed-line connections, the results show PDs to be more reliant on wireless connections, whereas PAs has a preference for ADSL connections. This figure is supported by recent statistics which shows only 1% of previously disadvantaged South Africans to have ADSL access, as opposed to 5.7% who has wireless access. For previously advantaged South Africans the figure is 13.1% and 10.4% respectively (APMS, 2011). High wireless use by PDs are largely explained by the fact that ADSL requires a landline installation, which only 11% of previously disadvantaged South Africans have access to, compared to 43% of previously advantaged South Africans (APMS, 2011). Wireless connections therefore present PDs with a forced, yet convenient, alternative. There is a cost and reliability trade-off between wireless and ADSL connections, which is partly dependent on the choice of service provider and subscription plan. In general terms, ADSL-bandwidth is cheaper than wireless, the latter more convenient. Hence students were asked to rate cost of connection on a scale of 1-10, with 10 very expensive. The mean for PDs was 4.9 (n=35, SD=3.8, median=4) and for PAs 1.2 (n=9, SD=2.0, median=1). Although PDs reported cost in the mid-range, they find it noticeably more expensive than PAs, the cost potentially exacerbated by their economic disadvantageousness. Reliability of connections is dealt within the next section under technical/connection problems experienced. Having established the student user profile as largely disadvantaged and reflective of the broader Unisa student profile, we next examine learner experiences of the FM.

8.2 Student-user experiences In this section we report on the student experiences as it relates to familiarity, technical/connection problems experienced, scope/potential, collaborative value, and presentation experience.

8.2.1 Familiarity

Forty-one percent (41%) of students knew what a Webinar was before attending the FM, 32% being PDs and 66% PAs. Of these students, only five PDs and one PA have attended a Webinar before. For the majority of students then, this was their first participation in a Webinar.

8.2.2 Technical/connection problems experienced

In terms of technical/connection difficulties experienced, students were asked to rate the problems experienced on a scale of 1-10, with 10 no problems experienced. The mean for PDs was 5.8 (n=36, SD=3.3, median=6) and for PAs 8.0 (n=9, SD=2.7, median=10). PDs thus experienced more technical/connection problems than PAs.

449

Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden

The most prevalent problem experienced was a lack of sound. In the first FM, only 12 out of 18 students managed to load sound, in the 2nd FM 11 out of 13, and in the 3rd FM 19 out of 36. Students, however, had access to a built-in text-based chat facility, which most found easy to use, and which led to comments like:

Quick, fun and easy; easy communication; the chat room is fairly easy to use. It was like an IM-app for me, meaning it was easy. It is like being face to face with a person. It was easy to get an instant answer from other students and lecturer.

A specific reply from one student points at a possible overlooked advantage of a text-driven Webinar: To send messages while you are listening and watching the Webinar and the lecturer could … (instantly) reply to your message with no hassle. In the lecture room it's a bit of a hassle and noisy, (as it is with) a video conference I (recently) attended.

Motivating responses revealed many other problems (all problems listed below were provided by PDs using a laptop/PC with a wireless connection, except where indicated otherwise): Installation: Because I install it but I can't run it; I use Blackberry and it was asking me to enable

JavaScript, honestly I am very disappointed; I was unable to connect to the site due to Flash Player 11.0 not installed and when I tried again I still could not log on.

FM use: The form field for typing was not active; I kept waiting for the host to approve my invite with no luck at all; We were not able to see each other’s comments; There was no interaction I could only see the meeting organizer; I could not see all the people that were online;

Connection: I was struggling to connect (ADSL); I was unable to stay connected due to 3G network problems (PAs).

In summary, there appears to be a relationship between wireless connections and technical problems experienced.

8.2.3 Scope/potential

Table 2 shows student responses to questions about the academic activity scope of a Webinar. More specifically, students were asked which activities they think a Webinar will add value to. Table 2: Academic activity scope of a Webinar tool (agreement) for Previously Disadvantaged (PDs)

students and Previously Advantaged students (PAs) Academic Activity PDs PAs

Lectures 60% 90% Assignment feedback 45% 100%

Appointments with lecturer 50% 60% Open discussions with fellow students 76% 70%

No discernable pattern is evident, other than that PAs see more scope across academic activities than PDs, the latter expressing a clear preference for open discussion with fellow students. Since PDs find cost of access more expensive and experienced more technical/connection problems, there is a possibility that they weighted their responses towards the activity they perceive they will derive most benefit from. Student responses to the academic potential of a Webinar (given a range of potential uses) appear to support this contention where the mean score, on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 having most potential), was lower for PDs with 8.6 (SD=0.19, n=146) against 9.5 (SD=0.19, n=40) for PAs.

8.2.4 Collaborative value

Table 2 also provides an insight into the perceived collaborative value of a Webinar. Whereas a Webinar is by nature a collaborative activity (although it does not have to be), some activities provide more opportunities for collaboration than others. In the table, the level of collaboration increases from the top row (lectures) to the bottom row (open discussion with students). The results suggest that whereas PDs lean more towards collaborative activities, PAs are more exclusively inclined. As with scope/potential, the responses may be weighted by cost of access and technical/connection problems experienced. That is, fellow students provide a quicker source of information than more formal activities which requires more time online in order to extract required information.

450

Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden

8.2.5 Presentation experience

Presentation experience was derived from student ratings of five items, namely Webinar content, Webinar design, presenter effectiveness, planning & delivery and overall Webinar effectiveness. Table 3 shows the mean scores on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 presenting a very good experience. Table 3: Presentation experiences of Previously Disadvantaged students (PDs) and Previously

Advantaged students (PAs) Academic Activity PD PA Webinar Content 7.8 (n=38, SD=2.8) 9.7 (n=9, SD=0.7) Webinar Design 7.8 (n=37, SD=2.5) 9.4 (n=8, SD=0.9)

Presenter Effectiveness 8.3 (n=36, SD=2.3) 9.2 (n=9, SD=1.4) Planning & Delivery 8.0 (n=37, SD=2.4) 8.8 (n=9, SD=2.0)

Overall Webinar Effectiveness 8.1 (n=37, SD=2.4) 9.4 (n=9, SD=0.7)

The high scores reflected in Table 3 point towards a generally positive experience for all students, but PAs clearly had a better experience. It is evident that type of connection used and the cost thereof played an important role in all the themes identified so far.

8.3 Facilitator's experiences Despite best preparations, several lessons were learned when a FM is the platform of choice. Students who visited the FM before the first FM started tried to register on the site, which requires

payment and resulted in confusion from students. Registration is not required when attending a FM.

The VOIP option provides the best experience, and should only be used when connecting to a meeting via computer or laptop, and is best achieved via an ADSL connection outside a firewall.

A meeting can be booked as a Webinar, or as a normal meeting. In the case of the former, only the facilitator is able to view chat comments. The type of meeting cannot be changed during a meeting.

Students found it confusing having to connect via VoIP on their laptops/computers as this required specific FM software to be downloaded onto their machines, which in some instances took time. Some students also indicated that the sound was very soft, despite the fact that the facilitator was using a microphone. This required her to speak up.

On completion of the meeting the URL for the recorded meeting was copied and e-mailed to the students. Some students notified the facilitator that they were unable to access the URL, especially from behind a firewall. FM does not allow for alternative download options and/or editing of recorded meetings.

For the second FM, invitations were sent by SMS, email and via the FM website. The latter option creates a meeting request in the students' VLE mailbox that, if the request is accepted, is added to their calendar. However, this resulted in two concurrent meetings being run, which lead to some confusion on both the facilitator's part as well as that of the students. Again, connecting to the sound was quite an issue for the students.

For those that connected with sound, it became necessary to mute students' microphones as everybody could hear everybody making it difficult for the facilitator to manage the meeting effectively. The chat option restored much order to the FM.

For the repeat FM, invitations were sent only through the FM website, which resolved the problem of concurrent meetings. However, the process is tedious as participants can only be added one at a time.

The low overall attendance rate was discouraging despite the fact that many students accepted the invitations to the meetings.

These problems highlight the groundwork required before a Webinar can be offered. Despite these problems, the facilitator was encouraged by the enthusiasm of students who attended, and their excitement at having being given the opportunity to have contact with their lecturer on the eve of their exam in their own space without the need to travel or make special arrangements.

451

Mc Donald van der Merwe and Dalize van Heerden

9. Conclusion Having investigated several themes around the use and usefulness of a webinar tool in under largely disadvantaged students in a low bandwidth country, we have to conclude that a Webinar does not appear to be a viable ODL tool. Since PDs do not have easy access to more robust ADSL installations, they are reliant on more expensive wireless connections, which the data suggest is more prone to technical problems. This fragility of wireless connections resulted in lower PDs scores on the scope/potential and presentation experience scales, and a preference for collaborative activities over lecturer-driven approaches. Our results thus support elements of the UTAUT in that ease of use of the system influenced the perceived usefulness thereof. Antecedents and moderators of perceived ease of use as identified in the current study are directly related to the level of disadvantageousness of Webinar users, which not only determines the type of connection that they use and resultant ease of use, but which impacts on the perceived usefulness of a Webinar. Yet the lessons learned and a general positiviness expressed by students can take us forward. It is plausible that other Webinar platforms such as Microsoft Office Live Meeting, Adobe Acrobat Connect, Meeting Bridge, ReadyTalk or Interwise Connect may yield different results. The suspicion remains, however, that challenges in the form of infrastructure dependency will persist until bandwidth availability increases and cost decreases. These dependencies have also been reported in a study by Verma and Singh (2009) on leveraging a Webinar for student learning in India. Other challenges reported by these authors which resonates with our initial experiences are limited participation of audience (here as a result of technical/connection problems) and the lack of post event facilities. We acknowledge that as early adopters we may well have invited these problems, and that further research, experience and familiarity is required before the true potential of Webinars can be judged.

References Ahn, J., Han, K. and Han, B. (2005) “Web-based education: characteristics, problems, and some solutions”,

International Journal of Innovation and Learning Vol 2, No. 3/2005, pp 274-282. AMPS. (2011) “Consumer Database for the South African Market: Individual (Jul'10 - Jun '11)”, [online],

http://www.eighty20.co.za (accessed on 12/12/2011). Becker, B., Dawson, P., Devine, K., Hannum, C., Hill,S., Leydens, J., Matuskevich, D., Traver, C. and Palmquist.

M. (2005) Case Studies, Writing@CSU, Colorado State University Department of English, http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/casestudy/ (accessed on 10 November 2011).

Creswell, J. (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd Ed., Sage Publications, Inc.

DISA. (2011) Department of Institutional Statistics and Analysis Yearly Report, University of South Africa. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. and Shaw, L. L. (2001) “Participant observation and Fieldnotes”, In P. Atkinson, A.

Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography, pp 352-368, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L. and Allen, S.D. (1993) Doing Naturalistic Enquiry, Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

Henry, M. (2011) Webinars: Interaction Strategies to Increase Social Presence, Paper read at the 27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, Wisconsin, August, http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/45243_2011.pdf (accessed on 05/12/2011).

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, Inc. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (2006) Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage. Merriam, S. B. (1995) “What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative

Research”, PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, Vol 4, pp 51-60. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousands Oaks, CA. Myers, M. D. (2007) "Qualitative Research in Information Systems", [online], Auckland University,

http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/ (accessed on 12/01/10). MIS. (2011) "International Telecommunications Union Report in Measuring the Information Society",

[online],http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/2011/ (accessed 18/12/2011). Sakai. (2011) "Sakai Foundation", [online], http://www.saikaiproject.org (accessed on 23/12/2011). Savenye, W.C. and Robinson, R.S. (2004) “Qualitative Research Issues and Methods: An Introduction for

Instructional Technologists”, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd ed., D. Jonassen (Ed.), Mahwah NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 1171-1189.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. and Davis, F. D. (2003) “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View”, MIS Quarterly Vol 27, No. 3, pp 425–478.

Verma, A. and Singh, A. (2009) Leveraging Webinar for Student Learning, Paper read at the 2009 International Workshop on Technology for Education, Bangalore

Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Third Edition, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol 5, Sage Publishing, Beverly Hills, CA.

452

xv 

Moshe Roth has been teaching EFL at the high-school and university level for 28 years and has been a lec-turer in the EFL Unit at Ben-Gurion University (Be’er Sheva, Israel) since 1993. He has an MA in applied lin-guistics and his research interests include second-language acquisition, testing and e-learning tools.

David Selokela Sebolai qualified for the BSc de gree in Statistics and Mathematics at the North West Uni-versity in 2000. I pursu ed my studies in BSc Honours and MSc in Statistics. A dditionally, I also completed Postgraduate Diploma in Monitoring and Evaluation programme with the University of Stellenbosch.

Ya-Chun Shih is currently Assistant Professor i n the Department of English at National Dong Hwa Univer-sity, Taiwan and one of t he computer-assisted language learning (CALL) practitioners. She has pursued a wide ra nge o f techn ology supported la nguage le arning issues, in cluding serving a s an i nstructor, in struc-tional designer, researcher, journal reviewer, and guest speaker on related issues. Professor Graham Stewart is Deputy Dean of Arts and Design at the Durban University of Technology, and lectures and supervises in various humanities programmes. His research is in Southern African literature and digital techno logies and he is a founder member of the Encyclopaedia of Sou th African Arts, Cultu re and Heritage. He holds a D.Litt degree. Iain Stewart has worked at Glasgow Caledonian University for more years than he cares to remember. He is primarily interested in the ways technology can be used to improve the learning experience of students. His other activities include working to improve FE to HE articulation and critical testing of the elasticity of de ad-lines. Professor Naoyoshi Tamura received his Ph.D. from Tok yo Institute of Technology in 1985. He worked in Tokyo Institute of Technology in 1985-1987 and is working at Yokohama National University from 1987. He is interested in natural language processing and intelligent informatics. Dalize van Heerden is a Junior Lecturer within the School of Computing at th e University of South Africa. Her main research interests include e-learning, m-learning and technology-enhanced learning. She obtained a BA Op en Distance Learning in 2011, has bee n teaching programming modules for 10 years, in does so through technology-enhanced learning. Widya Wardani graduated from Bandung Institute of Technology majoring in Informatics, and in 2009 joined Telkom, a company in Telecommunication and Information owned by the Governm ent of Indonesia. She is appointed to take respon sibility for han dling Tel kom e-Learning especially Le arning Man agement Syst em and occasionally she joins the team for e-Learning Content Improvement and Delivery. Karin Watson is an a rchitect with extensive o nline, bended and f ace-to-face t eaching experience at Th e University of New South Wales, Australia. Kari n also develops and co ordinates professional development programs i n onlin e tea ching, in cluding the re cent CO FA O nline ' Learning to T each Onlin e' Pro ject http://bit.ly/d18ac5 Mau-Tsuen Yang is currently an Associate Profe ssor in the Department of Computer Science and Informa-tion Engineering at the National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan. He received the Ph.D. d egree in Computer Science & Engine ering from the Penn sylvania State Unive rsity, U.S.A. in 2000. His research inte rests are computer vision, virtual reality, image processing, image-based rendering, & e-learning. Dr. Hon Keung Yau earned his PhD (Management) at the Universi ty of Qu eensland, Australia. Now he is working as an instructor in the Department of Sy stems Engineering and Eng ineering Management at City University of Hon g K ong. Hi s r esearch int erests include school mana gement, e-lea nring, orga nizational learning and quality management. Anda Zeidmane, Dr. Paed., Professor, Head of Department of Mathematics, Latvia University of Agriculture. Research int erests: Di dactics of t he Science E ducation, Edu cational Psychology, E-lea rning Ontology, Mathematical Competences and Learning Outcomes. The author has m ore than 50 scientific papers pub-lished in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Austria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Jordan, Island, Brazil, Colombia, Can-ada, South Korea.

Mitra Zolfaghari has a Bs in Nursing, Ms in Nursing education and PhD in planning in E-Learning. She is a faculty member of the Virtual School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences and also a member of the Nurs-ing & Midwifery Care Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. She has pub-lished 38 papers and 17 books on Nursing

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.