Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Novita Yulianti et al.
Several factors are seen as potential inhibitors in higher education. These include time related
matters. For most staff, using eLearning services in their courses means that they should allocate a
greater amount of time. Science culture in the higher education in Germany shows that research is
rewarded more than teaching. Providing good-quality teaching is important on one side, but on the
other, research carries greater prestige among the community. This situation makes the academic
staff allocate more time for research than for teaching. Moreover, the academic staff do not perceive a
clear added value or potential of eLearning services offered, either for themselves or in regard to the
didactical aspect. Additionally, it is the lack of knowledge on how to use eLearning in terms of
technical and didactical aspects that is mentioned as an inhibiting aspect of the integration. It seems
that there is a lack of awareness of the quality and potential that eLearning can achieve, which can be
caused by a strong allegiance to the face-to-face teaching model as well as skepticism about
eLearning particularly on issues of its potential and quality.
Based on the inhibitors discussed above, several potential solutions are proposed as follows:
Bringing support closer to the needs of users by providing a change facilitator or coordinator for
each faculty and establishing a network of change facilitators.
Developing media literacy of academic staff through a customized competence development.
Active information and communication.
Providing support and reward.
5. Summary and future works
It is important to know the real needs, concerns, interests and attitudes of academic staff in order to
be able to offer an appropriate solution. The teaching style of academic staff should be considered
when designing eLearning services so that the academic staff can choose appropriate services that
are suitable to their own style. In order to meet the requirement, the concept of the Participatory
Approach (Schuler and Namioka, 1993) will be adopted and combined with the Concern-Based
Adoption Model (CBAM) (Straub, 2009) and Roger’s diffusion of innovation (Roger, 2003) to formulate
a model of change in higher education which focuses on the needs and behavior of teaching staff.
This work will form a focus group of experts comprising of representatives from several departments
in order to analyze the suggested solution more closely.
References
Bargel, T., Ramm, M. and Multrus, F. (2008) Studiensituation und studentische Orientierungen 10.
Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
(BMBF) Referat Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs, wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung, Bonn, Berlin.
Brown, B. L. (2003) “Teaching Style vs. Learning Style”, [online], Educational Resources Information Center
Myths and Realities 26, www.calpro-online.org/eric/textonly/docgen.asp?tbl=mr&ID=117 (accessed on
10/01/2011).
Kerres, M. (2005) Lehrkompetenz für eLearning-Innovationen in der Hochschule Ergebnisse einer explorativen
Studie zu Massnahmen der Entwicklung von eLehrkompetenz. SCIL-Arbeitsbericht 6.
Kleimann, B., Özkilic, M. and Göcks, M. (2008) “Studieren im Web 2.0 Studienbezogene Web und
E Learning Dienste“, [online], HISBUS-Kurzinformation Nr. 21. HIS Hochschul-Informations-System
GmbH, https://hisbus.his.de/hisbus/docs/hisbus21.pdf (accessed on 05/10/2010).
Roger, E. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, Free Press, New York.
Rosenboom, S. (n.d) “Dozenten nutzen Chancen des digitalen Campus noch nicht aus“, [online],
http://www.microsoft.com/germany/presseservice/news/pressemitteilung.mspx?id=531914 (accessed on
11/02/2011).
Schmahl, J. (2008) ELearning an Hochschulen – Kompetenzentwicklungs-strategien für Hochschullehrende
Ergebnisse von zwei empirischen Untersuchungen zu Anreizen und Hemmnissen der Kompetenzentwicklung
von Hochschullehrenden im Bereich ELearning, Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
Schneckenberg, D. (2009) “Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhanced innovation in higher
education”, Educational Research, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp 411 – 424.
Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (1993) Participatory Design: Principles and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc., Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Straub, E. T. (2009) “Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning”,
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp 625 – 649.
Werner, B. (2006) “Status des ELearning an deutschen Hochschulen“, [online], http://www.eteaching.org/projekt/fallstudien/Status_des_ELearning.pdf
(accessed on 15/10/2010).
1017