e-learning readiness - Asia Pacific Region - Open University Malaysia

E-learning Readiness in Malaysia 2004Enablers perceived that the highest level of readiness was in the culturalrealm, while Learners felt that their own preparedness was the area ofgreatest readiness. These observations are further illustrated in Table 71.In order to facilitate comparisons across groups of respondents as well asamong the eight constructs, the findings were subjected to a macroanalysis.The key features under each construct were consolidated andpresented in a summary table (Table 72). Thus, the key features for eachconstruct (Table 72), and the overall means for readiness (Table 71)provided a composite image of degree of readiness for each construct.The systematic analysis, combined with in-depth discussion amongparticipant researchers, provided an understanding of degree ofreadiness. Finally, a code (R meaning ‘low amount of readiness,’ RRmeaning ‘moderate amount of readiness,’ and RRR meaning ‘highamount of readiness’) was then assigned to each construct/group. Thisprocess facilitated the drawing up of conclusions in terms of degree ofreadiness for each construct and group of respondents.Based on the above process, a number of conclusions may be drawn aboutthe E-learning readiness of the nation’s Policy Makers, Providers,Enablers and Receivers. First, all four groups of people involved in E-learning were found to be of a low to moderate degree of E-learningreadiness. First, Policy Makers were found to be moderately ready interms of management, technical and cultural initiatives, and mildly readyfor personnel, environmental and financial initiatives. Second, Providerswere found to have a high amount of technical readiness, but moderateamounts of personnel and content readiness. Providers were also notvery advanced in terms of environmental and financial readiness as theywere accorded a ‘low’ grade for these areas.Among the four groups of respondents, Enablers were found to be lackingin terms of readiness for several constructs under study. When it came totheir conceptions about learner, personnel, content, technical andenvironmental readiness, Enablers were accorded only a low or mildamount of readiness. However, they were found to be moderately readywhen it came to management, cultural and financial readiness.Similarly, Receivers were found to be generally poor in terms of theirreadiness for most of the constructs that were examined. In terms of theirperspective on content, technical, environmental, and cultural readiness,Receivers were found to be mildly ready for E-learning. However, theywere more or moderately ready when it came to gauging themselves(learner readiness), as well as their financial readiness for E-learning.To conclude, the analysis shows that there is a greater amount ofreadiness on the part of Policy Makers and Organisations as well asProviders in comparison to Enablers and Receivers. On the other hand,while Policy Makers and Organisations as well as Providers present apicture of greater readiness where constructs such as management,technical and cultural initiatives are concerned, there appears to be alesser degree of readiness for other areas such as of environmental andJoint Study by MECW and OUM 95