Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries–Barriers and Adaptive Solutions Tanja Kohn, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann University of Innsbruck, Information Systems Universitaetsstrasse 15, A-6020 Innsbruck (Austria)
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected] Abstract: A broad variety of e-learning resources is available in developed countries. According to a number of case studies, the transfer of these resources to developing countries often fails. The paper gives a systematic overview of knowledge transfer barriers to developing countries identified on the basis of a review of selected case studies concerning e-learning initiatives in developing countries and shows adaptive solutions to overcome these barriers.
1 Introduction Generally, knowledge transfer is studied from multiple perspectives including the fields of e-learning and knowledge management. More recently, many papers specifically target the integration of findings from the two fields [Maier & Thalmann 2007, 1] in order to foster knowledge transfer between persons, organizational units or entire organizations or institutions respectively. The concept of knowledge transfer has been criticized as knowledge cannot be handed on like data, but has to be decontextualized on the source’s end and reconstructed at the recipient’s end involving learning processes, at least at the recipient’s end, if not also at the source’s end. These learning processes can be supported by information and communication technologies (ICT), typically called e-learning [Back et. al 2001, 35]. E-learning resources, i.e. resources documenting knowledge refined with the help of didactical methods (also section 3.1), can be prime instruments for knowledge transfer. Documented knowledge exists in differed forms, atomic as smallest unit of explicit documented knowledge, called knowledge chunks or as composed grouping of formatted information objects which can not be separated without substantial loss of meaning, called documents [Maier 2007, 286-287]. In the scope of e-learning,
2
documented knowledge that can be used for learning purposes is typically called a learning resource (LR) or learning object (LO) [IEEE 2002, 5]. A large number of initiatives have been deployed that specifically target knowledge transfer from developed to developing countries. Case studies have encountered significant barriers that have to be overcome, e.g., due to heterogeneous target groups for learning. Main differences are learning styles, motivation, age, previous knowledge, religion, cultural background and sex [Reiß & Dreher 2002]. A number of techniques have been developed for creating adaptable and adaptive e-learning systems [Brusilovski 2001] which could provide partial solutions to this challenge. Main goals of this paper are to systematize barriers to knowledge transfer identified on the basis of a review of selected case studies concerning e-learning initiatives in developing countries (section 2) and to give an overview of solutions in terms of adaptation of LRs or learning management systems that can cope with these barriers (section 3). Finally, section 4 concludes this paper with a summary and an outlook on future work.
2 Barriers to Knowledge Transfer Various institutions define the term developing countries. The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) classifies countries based on ‘per capita gross national income’ into three categories with thresholds of 825 US$ (least developed countries and other low income countries), 3,255 US$ (lower middle income countries) and 10,065 US$ (upper middle income countries) in 2004 [OECD 2006]. Knowledge transfer problems with the delivery of LRs from developed to developing countries can be the result of barriers between designers of LRs and receivers [Eberle & Childress 2006, 240]. Such barriers can be related to, e.g., the infrastructural context, the cultural context, and the transferred knowledge [Maier 2007, 136]. In the following, firstly twelve, partly national, international and cross-national case studies are analyzed regarding barriers and recommendations how to overcome them. Secondly, these barriers are categorized into the three dimensions technology, culture, and previous knowledge. Amongst others, these dimensions reflect learners’ characteristics for designing culturally-diverse learning systems [Eberle & Childress 2006, 246] which are adapted to the barriers we found. Case studies have been selected on the basis of keywords that refer to content and notable scientific publications. Keywords, amongst others, are: e-learning, developing country, education and ICT. The sources are published in international journals, conference proceedings, books, and re-
Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries
3
ports. Due to space limitations, this paper does not comprise the entire list considered which can be found on the Website www.uibk.ac.at/iwi/kt2dc and is still certainly not complete. In the following, the identified barriers are presented, structured according to the three dimensions mentioned above and examples of such barriers are given. Table 1 gives an overview and summarizes the results of the case study analysis. 2.1 Technology dimension Technology is a dimension which is mentioned in nearly all case studies. ICTs used in education are generally seen as a factor for national development and, therefore, a fundamental dimension. Regarding the case studies, barriers for knowledge transfer with LRs to developing countries can be distinguished in infrastructure, technology access, Internet access, maintenance of technology, and usability barrier [Haulmark 2002; Neo & Neo 2002; Dhanuka et al. 2003; Lee et al. 2005; Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert 2005; Giannini-Gachago & Seleka 2005; Naqvi 2006; Ali 2006; Lumande et al. 2006; Wells & Wells 2007; Muwanga-Zake 2007; Hodgkinson-Williams et al. 2007]. The infrastructure barrier comprises aged infrastructure such as old landlines and lack of electricity. For example, privatization of the power sector often led to a lack of power in 6 of 7 observed schools in Uganda [Wells & Wells 2007, 105]. Even if infrastructure is existent, services can be problematic, such as in South Africa where bills were not paid by schools and as a consequence they were disconnected from the Internet [Muwanga-Zake 2007, 41]. The technology access barrier results from limited, absent or insufficient access to hard- and software. The access to technology in developing countries is low, in schools as well as at home [Giannini-Gachago & Seleka 2005, 165]. Computer laboratories are not always open to students [Muwanga-Zake 2007, 39-41]. The Internet access barrier results from little access to Internet in general, e.g., the connectivity is low, lack of reliable Internet service provisions and slow network times. It is reported that Internet is nearly absent in an e-learning case in Botswana [Lee et al. 2005, 111-112]. In South Africa, just 7 out of 23 schools had working e-mail and Internet for the principal and suffered from shortage of e-mail and LAN expertise [Muwanga-Zake 2007, 41]. The maintenance barrier covers installation and maintenance of equipment, such as hard- and software. Maintenance is difficult due to the fact that the specialists who implemented the system had returned to their home countries and were not available anymore [Wells & Wells 2007, 104]. In one of the South African cases, computers were not used for teaching because of, e.g., lacking technical support because computer technicians
4
were too expensive [Muwanga-Zake 2007, 40]. The usability barrier results from lack of experience using computers in general or programs and interaction with specific interfaces in particular by both, teachers and students [Neo & Neo 2002]. Infrastructure and interface problems can result in less learning effect if learners concentrate more on the challenge of unknown interfaces [Haulmark 2002]. 2.2 Culture dimension Culture can be defined “as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.” [Hofstede 2001, 9] Therefore, people treat LRs and internalize content differently based on their backgrounds. In this paper, culture is seen as “an aggregate product of the process occurring at the social, organizational and individual levels. It includes beliefs, ideas, language, rules, procedures and norms.” [Kersten et al. 2000, 510] Accordingly, language, local context, social context, interaction, religious, and didactical barriers were found in the case studies [Haulmark 2002; Neo & Neo 2002; Dhanuka et al. 2003; Lee et al. 2005; Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert 2005; GianniniGachago & Seleka 2005; Naqvi 2006; Ali 2006; Lumande et al. 2006; Wells & Wells 2007; Muwanga-Zake 2007; Hodgkinson-Williams et al. 2007]. The language barrier is an important aspect of transforming LRs to developing countries. “Language is the most clearly recognizable part of culture” [Hofstede 2001, 21]. Besides LRs, software, and most Web contents are in English and fact is a low level of language skills in developing countries which can lead to misunderstandings. For example, the term ‘mouse’ which in ordinary English denotes an animal had to be translated to reflect a computer device [Muwanga-Zake 2007, 37]. Language hindered the communication process, but was partly solved by asynchronous instead of synchronous messages which gave students time for drafting and redrafting messages [Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert 2005, 96]. The local context barrier results from ignoring local procedures. If people are familiar with a certain way of acting, e.g., working, and have to change that for any reason, resistance can be a consequence. This barrier results from disregarding local customs with infrastructure such as operating systems. CFA (Computers for Africa), a U.S. initiative, wanted to use Linux as the operating system, but the locals were not comfortable with it, so they switched to a Microsoft operating system for the computer labs. Cultural understanding and avoidance of hegemonic behaviour is important to avoid this barrier which is essential to projects [Wells & Wells 2007, 105]. The social context barrier involves typical local opinions and traditions of a soci-
Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries
5
ety or group [Hofstede 2001]. Ubuntu, an African culture, has a specific value system and social conducts [Muwanga-Zake 2007, 30, 33] which have to be considered. For many Africans, the Internet is an entertainment and communication tool and e-learning is for those who failed in traditional schools or those who have sufficient money to pay for international education [Ali 2006, 335]. The interaction barrier can be seen as a mixture of ideas, rules, procedures and norms. They influence a certain reaction regarding interaction with others. Habits of interaction vary a lot between learners. In the case studies, interaction took place between students, students and teachers, students and assistants, teachers and assistants as well as teachers and developers. A South African case study [Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert 2005, 94] showed that even with a wide range of online communication tools, students often do not use them. The religious barrier matches with individuals’ belief. This barrier is supported in a case study where Islamic students sit separated by sex in classrooms [Naqvi 2006, 19]. Role constraints can cause difficulties when applying LRs and pre-defined interaction formats. The didactical barrier can be seen as a consequence of procedures defined in a curriculum conflicting with procedures that students and teachers were used to before the e-learning initiative and a lack of openness to new learning approaches. For example, students and teachers had no more or rare face to face contact which was new to Thai students [Haulmark 2002]. In many African countries, education is centralized and curricula are standardized, unlike, e.g., in the U.S. A curriculum of a study program also defines the didactical approaches needed to grant quality. “Several students, though a minority, were of the view that courses’ content and the curricula were designed for students in developed countries. Some administrators also shared this view.” [Ali 2006, 334] 2.3 Previous knowledge dimension This dimension concerns the individuals, refers to Brusilovski’s user characteristics [Brusilovski 2001, 96] and contains the two barriers computer literacy and competence barrier. These barriers are highly represented throughout all case studies [Haulmark 2002; Neo & Neo 2002; Dhanuka et al. 2003; Lee et al. 2005; Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert 2005; GianniniGachago & Seleka 2005; Naqvi 2006; Ali 2006; Lumande et al. 2006; Wells & Wells 2007; Muwanga-Zake 2007; Hodgkinson-Williams et al. 2007]. The computer literacy barrier covers the level of computer and information skills in developing countries, which is generally low. Special training is necessary to acquire these skills. Students and teachers had little or even
6
no experiences using a computer. Even basic computer skills, such as using a mouse were absent among most teachers [Muwanga-Zake 2007, 41]. The competence barrier results from little or no previous knowledge for handling and understanding LRs. Most teachers never had experiences in using computers to teach. Sometimes, instructors and assistants were not understood well by students and searching for materials on their own was new for some Thai students [Haulmark 2002]. A problem-solving competence deficit was recognized in the Malaysian case study [Neo & Neo 2002] which hindered also the learning process. Table 1: Dimension-Barrier-Case Study Table
x
x x x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
competence x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x x
x x
x
computer literacy
x x
x
x x x
didactical
religious
interaction
social context
x
local context
language
x x
x x x
x x x x x
previous knowledge
culture
usability
maintenance
Case Study [Haulmark 2002] [Neo and Neo 2002] [Dhanuka et al. 2003] [Lee et al. 2005] [Hodgkinson-Williams and Mostert 2005] [Giannini-Gachago and Seleka 2005] [Naqvi 2006] [Ali 2006] [Lumande et al. 2006] [Wells and Wells 2007] [Muwanga-Zake 2007] [Hodgkinson-Williams et al. 2007]
infrastructure
Barrier
internet access
technology technology access
dimension
x x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x
x
x
The analysis of the case studies shows that there are some main barriers that occur when LRs of developed countries are poorly or not transformed for the use in developing countries (see Table 1 for a summary of the barriers found in the case studies). In general, the access barrier to technology and Internet is highly rated which results from little investment in technology and Internet access of developing countries. As well, the usability barrier is highly rated characterizing poorly developed software and its interfaces. Realizing that education is a main factor of development, institutions of developing countries already act upon these barriers in a long-term orientated way, e.g., CFA, Dinaledi, a governmental project in
Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries
7
South Africa, iCLAP, an interactive child learning aid project in Nigeria, and educ.ar, the Argentinean education portal. Other main barriers especially important for adaptation of LRs are computer literacy and competence, as well as, didactical and language barriers. The barriers of the technology dimension entail computer literacy and competence barriers which also arise from generally little education in developing countries. The didactical barrier is expressed through persistence of teachers on outdated teaching habits and inflexible curricula. Language is key to communication and interaction. Limitations of this case study analysis can be seen in the different focus of each case study therefore, some barriers that actually exist might have not been identified and it was hard to find case studies carried out in, e.g., Islamic countries so that religious barriers were barely found. Barriers of the culture dimension have huge influences on using ICTs and thus need to be studied well to improve tools for effective learning. Considering culture in the design is essential for more diverse global solutions. Customized and localized solutions might be more suitable to overcome the identified barriers quickly and effectively than international or universal solutions [Marcus & Gould 2000].
3 Technical solutions for transfer barriers In this section, we introduce the general notion of adaptation of LRs (section 3.1) before we specifically address the barriers identified in section 2, structured into the three dimensions technology, culture and previous knowledge (sections 3.2-3.4). 3.1 Adaptation of learning resources From a technical point of view, transfer barriers can be overcome by adapting LRs to the requirements of content receivers. Thereby, the system can be adaptable, so the system provides the user with options to change its characteristics. Adaptive systems are able to change their own characteristics automatically according to the user’s needs [Oppermann 1994, 2]. Learners’ needs are identified by stored information from predefined models, e.g., user model or domain model, user input or evaluations of the user [Brusilovski 2001, 96]. Previously, media objects (MOs), LOs, application logic, and the interface must be prepared to ensure adaptive usage. Typically, different versions of LOs are assigned to user characteristics by rules. The content needs to be fragmented in order to ensure high flexibility of those assignments and therefore the adaptive learning support.
8
E-learning courses mostly are containers comprising resources, like text fragments, pictures, animations or videos, furthermore called MOs. Compositions of MOs enriched by the application of didactical methods or techniques are called LOs [Duval & Hodgins 2003, 3]. Wiley defines a LO openly as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning” [Wiley 2001, 7]. In addition to the link to learning, this definition focuses on reuse as a key characteristic of LOs. Modularization, a well known concept in computer science, explains fragmentation of resources in order to ensure reusability in different contexts. In analogy to Hodgins’ LEGO™ metaphor, these LOs can be used like LEGO™ blocks to compose more complex structures [Hodgins 2002, 8], in our case e-learning courses. Adaptation can be understood as selective influence of this process of composing LOs. LOs are composed such that the resulting course fits the learners’ requirements. Besides modularization, descriptions of LOs are necessary in order to create opportunities to (re)use LOs in an adaptive way. Those descriptions are typically realized as metadata, which can be defined as a detailed description of a data entity in dependence to the metadata receiver [Tannenbaum 2002, 93]. In the scope of e-learning, a broad variety of metadata standards and specifications exist. Thereby, three main application domains can be distinguished: (1) metadata for LOs, (2) metadata for learner descriptions and (3) metadata for content aggregation. Metadata for LOs primarily describe content and usage of LOs. The dominant standard in this field is IEEE Learning Object Metadata1 [Duval 2004, 40]. Metadata for learner descriptions describe the learner itself and are primarily used for adaptation and evaluation. Examples are IEEE Public and Private Information2 for Learner, IMS Learner Information Packaging3 or IMS Reusable Definition of Competency or Educational Objective4. Metadata for content aggregation describes the rules for composing LOs into courses. Examples are IMS Simple Sequencing and IMS Content Packaging. In principle, adaptation of LRs can be realized by adapting presentation or navigation. Adaptation of presentation or content-level adaptation can be distinguished in multimedia and text adaptation [Brusilovski 2001, 97]. Thus, the content itself has to be edited. By editing MOs and existing LOs, versions of LOs are created. Presentation can be adapted by rule-based selection of versions of LOs resulting in differently composed courses. Several techniques, like link hiding or sorting can be distinguished for adapt1
http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf http://edutool.com/papi/ 3 http://www.imsglobal.org/profiles/lipinfo01.html 4 http://www.imsglobal.org/competencies/index.html 2
Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries
9
ing navigation [Brusilovski 2001, 97-99]. Thereby, the (learning) path through the course is adapted to learners’ needs. Thus, opportunities to reach certain LOs in the next step are given or hidden. In that way, not different versions of LOs are selected, but different orders of how to join the LOs inside a course [Brusilovski 2001, 97-98]. The alternatives of adaptation on the different content levels are depicted in Figure 1. Provisions to enable adaptation of presentation, shown on the left-hand side of the figure, include modification of media as well as LOs, versioning of LOs and creation of rules to compose LOs. Provisions to enable adaptation of navigation are shown on the right- hand side of the figure. They target creation and modification of rules in order to influence the individual learning path. These alternatives of adaptation techniques will be discussed in the following as alternatives for overcoming transfer barriers. adaptation of presentation course
modify rules to select appropriate learning objects
learning objects
ed it lear n i n g o b jects versioning of learning objects
media objects
edit media objects
adaptation of navigation modify rules to change learning path
Figure 1: Alternatives for adaptation 3.2 Solutions for technological barriers Alternatives for adaptation cannot provide sufficient solutions for every technology transfer barrier. In many cases, it is primarily investments in technical equipment that is needed [Neo & Neo 2002; Giannini-Gachago & Seleka 2005; Ali 2006]. In order to successfully apply e-learning in general and consequently alternatives for adaptation, a minimal level of technical infrastructure must be available. Otherwise, non technical, paperbased solutions might be an appropriate solution to ensure minimal access to educational material [Lee et al. 2005, 110]. Adaptation solutions for the case that minimal infrastructure is available are discussed in the following.
10
In the case of infrastructure and technology access barrier we can consider the technical infrastructure is aged and cannot process LRs. In that case, MOs have to be modified so that the existing infrastructure can cope with it. For instance, resolutions of graphics and videos must be reduced or content has to be reformatted. Furthermore, MOs inside a LO that cannot be processed must be removed and if possible replaced by processible MOs. Versions of LOs according to existing infrastructures must be created and minimal requirements have to be described in the corresponding metadata. By considering the profile of the device in use, e.g., CC/PP – model5, rules can be generated in order to adapt the presented content to the used infrastructure. In case of an Internet access barrier, provisions similar to the ones mentioned in the case of infrastructure barrier can be used. In case no Internet connection is available, LRs should be provided on data carriers, like CD or DVD, as CBT or static WBT consisting of static HTML code. Therefore, SCORM containers including LRs and sequencing descriptions, e.g., simple sequencing information can be used. In case of very low bandwidth, hybrid methods can also be applied, i.e. voluminous and scarcely updated resources are delivered on the data carrier and small and frequently updated LRs are obtained via Internet. Mobile technologies might also help to overcome these barriers if costs for mobile Internet access will decline as it does in developed countries and even more people have access to it. The maintenance barrier does not target the learning process directly and thus cannot be removed by adaptation. But as mentioned in the Ugandan study, maintenance and repair workshops are offered to overcome this barrier [Wells & Wells 2007]. In some cases, installation and maintenance are outsourced to companies. Transfer problems resulting from insufficient interfaces, called usability barrier, can be overcome by redesigning the interfaces. Normally, the interface is provided by the Learning Management System rather than by the LR itself. Thus, the introduced adaptation alternatives cannot be applied. 3.3 Solutions for cultural barriers Transfer barriers occur from cultural differences referring directly to the LR and thus can be targeted by adaptation. With respect to the language barrier, a different language in the target country as used in the LRs requires translation of text components [Dhanuka et al. 2003]. By creating versions of LOs differing in languages labelled by the LOM metadata element language, multi-lingual courses can be composed. By defining a lan5
http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/
Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries
11
guage variable considering learner profile or language settings given by the learner herself, rules for adaptation can be defined. If the learner has several language skills, alternative versions can be provided as different navigation paths. In order to overcome the local context barrier, MOs regarding this context should be added. Therefore, existing MOs can be edited or new MOs, like pictures showing local persons or case examples considering local specifics, e.g., products, customs, or institutions can be added. By using those MOs, LOs aware of the local context can be generated and described in the LOM metadata element coverage. Considering entries from the learner profile or system variables, rules can be generated that help to provide LOs aware of the local context to the learner. Social context barriers can be handled similar to the local context barrier. LRs, e.g., MOs and LOs can be adjusted to the social context as also proposed by [Dhanuka et al. 2003] to consider the demographic backgrounds, e.g., retiree vs. young students. The interaction barrier is not primarily focused on the content itself. Instead, the way of how learners interact and discover the LR is critical. For problems not directly related to the LR, like interaction problems with online communication, reported in a South African case study, adaptation does not offer appropriate support. But organizational provisions, like role concepts or incentives to participate [Hodgkinson-Williams & Mostert 2005, 94-95] can help to overcome this barrier. For problems concerning the interaction with the LR, adapting navigation seems to be a promising solution. By defining rules to offer the learner only few or no choices, in the case of excessive demands with interaction to select the next LO or offer more choices in the opposite case, these problems could be handled. However, entries in the learner profile are required in order to be able to realize this rule-based approach. The religious barrier results from content or interaction formats that do not fit religious rules or norms. For that reason, a preparation of those problematic MOs and creating religion-specific LO versions could be a solution. By generating rules considering learner profile attributes, these versions can be adaptively provided. Didactical concepts are mainly considered in the creation of LOs, their composition and the design of learning paths. Provisions to overcome the didactical barrier should focus on editing LOs [Ali 2006, 334]. Versions regarding didactical strategies can be created and labelled in the LOM metadata element learning resource type. By defining rules based on didactical concepts, choice of the LO and the learning path can be adapted to the learner’s didactical preferences, stored in a learner profile. If learner profiles are not available, predefined or centrally managed learner profiles should be used. By adapting navigation paths, as mentioned for the interaction barrier, didactical concepts can also be realized.
12
3.4 Solutions for barriers concerning previous knowledge Barriers concerning previous knowledge can be coped with by providing the learner with additional information enabling her to absorb LRs. Concerning the computer literacy barrier, [Lee et al. 2005, 111; HodgkinsonWilliams & Mostert 2005, 96; Giannini-Gachago & Seleka 2005, 173] recommend to train learners in computer usage, such as frequenting orientation sessions or passing a prerequisite level of computer literacy. Besides those introductions, additional LOs providing help for inexperienced learners could be created. By creating rules to display links, those additional LOs could be available for learners. The competence barrier is not specific to developing countries, it also occurs in developed countries. Similar to the computer literacy barrier, additional LOs transferring required knowledge to understand the main LRs could be provided by displaying additional links. In case of general knowledge gaps, the LO itself could be edited and extended with additional explanations. By generating versions and rules for their provision, the LR can be transferred more effectively to the learner. For realization of most of the mentioned adaptation solutions, metadata are required. Therefore, LOs should be described by using at least the Dublin Core Metadata Set, better IEEE LOM, or application profiles based on them. Furthermore, editing LO contents should be easily realizable, e.g., changing text in Flash files requires special skills and specific software. Authoring software using proprietary formats should be avoided and instead international standards, like SCORM, should be used in order to support portability of the created solutions to different ICT contexts. Table 2 summarizes the alternatives for adaptation discussed above and links them to the barriers identified in section 2. Table 2: Overview of adaptation solutions barrier infrastructure
technology access Internet access maintenance
usability
description aged infrastructure and electricity problems limited and insufficient access to technology weak Internet access or low bandwidth missing maintenance skills or technical support problems by interacting with interfaces
recommendations organizational provisions or new equipment organizational provisions or new equipment improve infrastructure design courses to learn maintaining computers redesign interface
adaptation provisions AP: modify MOs according to available infrastructure -
AP: reduce size of MOs and develop offline hybrid courses -
AP: develop a new interface and consider local users preferences
Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries language
13
misunderstandings through language problems local procedures and structures are not considered social values and habits are not considered different interaction habits
content in another language or a dialect needed consider local procedures
AP: translate text components AN: provide language paths
consider social context
AP: enrich LOs with content aware of social context
“tag-team” approach
religious
belief-related objections to contents or interaction formats
consider religious concerns
didactical
didactical approaches are rejected by students and/or teachers little or no experience of using computers little or no previous knowledge for understanding LOs
locally developed curriculums and direct communication offering introduction courses
AN: providing more or fewer opportunities of varying learning paths AP: redesign content according to religious rules AN: avoid interaction formats that offend role constraints AP: create LOs according to a learning theory AN: providing more or fewer opportunities varying learning paths AN: offer additional LOs that provide help
offering additional courses
AP: enrich LOs with explanations AN: offer additional explanations
local context
social context interaction
computer literacy competence
AP: enrich LOs with local content
AP = adaptive presentation - AN= adaptive navigation
4 Conclusion This paper provides a structured list of barriers to knowledge transfer into developing countries identified by an analysis of selected case studies describing e-learning initiatives in such countries. On this basis, recent alternatives for adaptation in e-learning offerings have been described and their impact on the identified barriers has been discussed. Reflecting the results, it turns out that for all barriers in the dimensions culture and previous knowledge, there is a corresponding adaptation solution. Special emphasis has been given in the discussions to show how these solutions can be described as standardized metadata elements, such as based on the LOM standard. Obviously, there is not a solution for every barrier in the technology dimension, where a minimal technological infrastructure has to be there in order to be able to build a functioning e-learning solution on top. However, recommendations that have shown a positive effect in the reported case studies are given with respect to this dimension, but also with respect to some barriers in the other two dimensions. Comparing recent case studies to case studies that reflect initiatives of more than five years ago, not much seems to have changed with respect to the problems encountered and barriers found. A central recommendation
14
from this multi-case study is that e-learning initiatives targeting knowledge transfer to developing countries should be well prepared to implement some adaptation solutions when reusing LOs and courses designed for developed countries. As opposed to a couple of years ago, these adaptation solutions can now be readily applied. This paper should help to deploy a structured approach that provides a list of alternative adaptation solutions to cope with the challenges. However, it is yet unclear how to select the appropriate solution and who, i.e. which institution should exert the effort of enriching LOs for adaptation in developing countries. As this approach is expensive and time-consuming, it is only feasible if adaptation solutions can then be reused in many e-learning initiatives, i.e. on a national or international level, rather than a singular initiative or on a regional level. This would require that national or even international guidance backs the procedure. International initiatives, such as Green-WiFi and OLPC (one laptop per child), deliver technology and with it information. Further investigation should explore the added value for developing countries generated by this kind of initiatives. Future research needs to address a detailed analysis of the barriers, the institutional settings and define measures that show the impact of implementations of various adaptation alternatives on individual learners.
References Ali A (2006) Modern technology and mass education: a case study of a global virtual learning system. In: Edmundson A (ed) Globalized learning cultural challenges. Idea Group, Hershey, pp 327-339 Back A, Bendel O, Stoller-Schai D (2001) E-Learning im Unternehmen Orell Füssli, Zürich Brusilovski P (2001) Adaptive hypermedia. User modeling and user adapted interaction. Vol 11 (½), pp 87-110 Dhanuka M, Price D, Teichner W (2003) Building social capital with Aptech's Vidya. Providing an IT introduction to thousands of poor Indians. World Resource Institute, August 2003, URL: http://www.digitaldivid end.org/pdf/vidya.pdf, viewed 2007-08-23 Dunn P, Marinetti A (2006) Beyond localization: effective learning strategies for cross-cultural e-learning. In: Edmundson A (ed) Globalized elearning cultural challenges. Idea Group, Hershey, pp 255-266 Duval E (2004) Learning technology standardization: making sense of it all. In: Computer Science and Information Systems, vol 1 (1), February 2004, pp 33-43
Knowledge Transfer with E-Learning Resources to Developing Countries
15
Duval E, Hodgins W (2003) A LOM research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference, Budapest Eberle JH, Childress MD (2006) Universal design for culturally-diverse online learning. In: Edmundson A (ed) Globalized learning cultural challenges. Idea Group, Hershey, pp 239-254 Giannini-Gachago D, Seleka G (2005) Experiences with international online discussions: participation patterns of Botswana and American students in an adult education and development course at the University of Botswana. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol 1 (2), pp 163-184 Haulmark M (2002) Accommodating cultural differences in a web-based distance education course: a case study. Proceedings of 9th Annual International Distance Education Conference, 22-25.01.2002 Hodgins WH (2002) The future of learning objects. URL: http://www. reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.doc, viewed 2008-02-14 Hodgkinson-Williams C, Mostert M (2005) Online debating to encourage student participation in online learning environments: a qualitative case study at a South African university. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol 1 (2), pp 94-104 Hodgkinson-Williams C, Siebörger I, Terzoli A (2007) Enabling and constraining ICT practice in secondary schools: case studies in South Africa. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, vol 3 (2/3), pp 171-190 Hofstede G (2001) Cultures consequences. Comparing values, behaviours, and organizations across nations. 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks. IEEE (2002) Draft standard for learning object metadata (LOM). New York, URL: http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_ Draft.pdf, viewed 2007-09-10 Kersten GE, Matwin S, Noronha SJ, Kersten MA (2000) The software for cultures and the culture in software. In: Hansen E, Bichler M, Mahrer H (eds) Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, vol 1, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, pp 509-514 Lee M, Thurab-Nkhosi D, Giannini-Gachago D (2005) Using informal collaboration to develop quality assurance processes for eLearning in developing countries: the case of the University of Botswana and the University of the West Indies Distance Education Centre. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol 1 (1), pp 108127 Lumande E, Ojedokun A, Fidzani B (2006) Information literacy skills course delivery through WebCT: the University of Botswana Library experience. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol 2 (1), pp 66-78
16
Maier R (2007): Knowledge management systems. Information and communication technologies for knowledge management. 3rd edn, Springer, Berlin Maier R, Thalmann S (2007) Describing learning objects for situationoriented knowledge management applications. In: Gronau N (ed) 4th Conference on Professional Konwledge Management Experiences and Visions, vol 2, GITO, Berlin, pp 343-351 Marcus A, Gould EW (2000) Cultural dimensions and global Web userinterface design: What? So what? Now what? Proceedings of the 6th conference on Human Factor and the Web, viewed 2000-06-19 Muwanga-Zake JWF (2007) Introducing educational computer programmes through evaluation: a case in South African disadvantages schools. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol 3 (3), pp 30-48 Naqvi S (2006) Impact of WebCT on learning: an Oman experience. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol 2 (4), pp 18-27 Neo KTK, Neo M (2002) Problem-solving on the Internet using web-based authoring tools: a Malaysian experience. e-JIST, vol 5 (2) OECD (2006) DAC List of ODA Recipients. Effective from 2006 for reporting on 2005, 2006 and 2007. URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/ 23/34/37954893.pdf, viewed 2008-01-25 Oppermann R (1994) Adaptive user support - ergonomic design of manually and automatically adaptable software. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ Reiß M, Dreher M (2002) Bedarfserhebung zur internetgestützten Weiterbildung. E-Learning als Geschäftsfeld Perspektiven einer Internetgestützten Weiterbildung aus Kundensicht, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart. Tannenbaum A (2002) Metadata solutions: using metamodels, repositories, XML, and enterprise portals to generate information on demand. Addison-Wesley, Boston Wells R, Wells S (2007) Challenges and opportunities in ICT educational development: a Ugandan case study. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, vol 3 (2), pp 100-108 Wiley DA (2001) Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: a definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. URL: http://www. elearning-reviews.org/topics/technology/learning-objects/2001-wileylearning-objects-instructional-design-theory.pdf, viewed 2007-09-10
