Higher Education in Saudi Arabia - Literature review Example

2. Literature Review 2.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present a comprehensive and critical review of existing literature that informs the research questions. As explained in the introduction chapter, the objective of this study is to investigate the factors influencing the adoption of LMS among female academic staff in Saudi Arabia. To achieve this, the design of this study focuses on the TAM model to investigate the factors that influence the use of technology among female academic staff in universities in the kingdom. It will also investigate more thoroughly the key finding by Al Balawi (2007) that fewer female university academic staff use web-based learning tools compared to males. To inform this study, this literature review will examine the interplay between the three broad conceptual fields: Influence of Gender Separation in KSA Elearning and LMS within in Higher Education in KSA and Female academic staff in Higher Education KSA This chapter is organised into three main sections which reflect the fields outlined above. The first section will review the historical context of higher education in Saudi Arabia and in particular the issue of gender separation. The second section will present an analysis of elearning within higher education in the kingdom. The third section will examine the status of women in higher education in KSA in general and that of female academic staff in particular. The last section will examine the gaps in the literature and link them to the aims of the research. 2.#.# Higher Education in KSA Saudi Arabia has over the years been determined to enhance the education of its people. One aspect that shows this determination is the “government’s commitment to providing educational opportunities for young people in the country, with particular attention to opportunities in higher education” (Aljubaili, 2014, n.d.). The evolution of higher education in KSA can be traced back to 1954 when the Ministry of Education was established (Alamri, 2011). During this early phase, education was offered to males only and there were no institutions offering education to the female population. In 1957, the first university in the kingdom, King Saud University was established, in part to the need to educate Saudi Arabian students in KSA and not relying on higher education overseas. As noted by Alamri (2011), “in 1957, there was a need to open a university to educate Saudi students instead of sending them abroad for education, therefore, King Saud University was established and inaugurated in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia” (p. 88). The newly established university “moved the kingdom to a new era in the educational field by having different colleges and specialties” (Shaker & Babgi, 2009, p. 105). Alkhalaf, Nguyen and Drew (2010) note that higher learning institutions in the country are faced with overcapacity and deficiency of amenities as well as human resources for the provision of conventional-style learning to all the country’s candidates who qualify for enrolment. This sentiment is shared by Alebaikan and Troudi (2010a), who stated that “the capacity of universities and colleges in Saudi Arabia is limited compared with the rapid growth of students applying for college education” (p. 49). The definitions of elearning vary depending on the context of the definition as well as the attribute of the concept on which emphasis is placed. Sangrà, Vlachopoulos, and Cabrerav (2012) classified the definitions of elearning based on technology, the delivery systems in use, communication focus, and the educational paradigm of elearning. Technology-based definitions emphasise the technological attributes of e-learning while presenting the other features as secondary. For instance, according to Guri-Rosenblit (2005), elearning “relates to the use of electronic media for a variety of learning purposes that range from add-on functions in conventional classrooms to full substitution for the face-to-face meetings by online encounters” (p. 469). Along the same line Garrison (2011), notes that “the technological foundation of elearning is the internet and associated communication technologies” (p. 2). With respect to the delivery systems used, elearning is viewed “as a means of accessing knowledge… through learning, teaching, or training” (Sangrà et al., 2005, n.pag). Therefore, a delivery-system-oriented definition of elearning focuses on “the accessibility of resources and not the results of any achievements” (Sangrà et al., 2005, n.pag). For instance, Rossen and Hartley (2001) define the concept as “elearning refers to anything delivered, enabled, or mediated by electronic technology for the explicit purpose of learning (p. 2). This includes online learning, web-based learning and computer-based training (Rossen & Hartley, 2001). Communication-based definitions of elearning consider elearning to be “a communication, interaction, and collaboration tool” (Sangrà et al., 2005, n.pag) and assign a secondary function to other features of the concept. For instance, Garrison (2011) argues that “elearning is formally defined as electronically mediated asynchronous and synchronous communication for the purpose of constructing and confirming knowledge” (p. 2). Last but not least, educational-paradigm-focused definitions of elearning define elearning as “a new way of learning or as an improvement on an existing educational paradigm” (Sangrà et al., 2005, n.pag). For example, Idiegbeyan-Ose and Esse (2014) regard elearning as “the use of new multimedia technologies and the Internet to improve the quality of learning by facilitating access to resources and services as well as remote exchange and collaboration” (p. 47). 2.#.#.# Institutional Making elearning cost-effective is still a challenge (Al-Shehri, 2010). Successful delivery of elearning requires significant investments in the technologies and equipment to be used, training of staff and monitoring of learners to ensure that the technologies are used effectively. This involves high (though now rapidly decreasing) “initial costs related to technology, infrastructure, and training” (Albidewi & Tulb, 2014, p. 214). According to Guri-Rosenblit (2005), this “costly experience has caused many higher education institutions to question the increasing costs of their commitments to digitisation and wired campus programmes” (p. 484). Also, in a research on the effectiveness of using IT in higher education in KSA, Alfahad (2012) concluded that factors such as student possession of access to computers, Internet services and software are significant components of the costs involved in the delivery of elearning programmes. In addition, an important issue that still remains in regard to the initial cost of web-based teaching is faculty training. This is because members of faculty “have to learn not only the software and Internet tools to do a new kind of teaching, but also the new design issues associated with it” (Albidewi & Tulb, 2014, p. 215). Absence of coordination and organisation among different organisations (Al-Shehri, 2010). A qualitative research conducted by Al-Shehri (2010) suggested that there are no clear organisational links to ensure coordination and collaboration among the various entities involved in elearning in KSA. For instance, it is necessary that both the public and private organisations involved in elearning such as the Ministry of Higher Education, the National Centre of E-learning and all universities and other higher learning institutions are informed of the need to have a formal oversight in the development of elearning to ensure quality and hence success. According to Al-Shehri (2010), better management and organisation can change the existing inequities and variations in administration of elearning in various institutions into strengths as opposed to weaknesses. “Technical support and infrastructure” is a major challenge for elearning in Saudi Arabia (Al-Shehri, 2010, p.149) including policies, procedures, software and hardware capacity requirements needed for elearning. This also extends to institutional or organisational vision. Although elearning infrastructure and technology require the existence of adequate telecommunications capacity, technical support and coverage, these are oftentimes lacking in Saudi Arabia. Notably, Internet coverage in the kingdom is poor in some areas. Citing various sources, AlMegren and Yassin (2013) note that although Internet access is the backbone of elearning infrastructure, and some universities in Saudi Arabia have easy access to the Internet, some universities still do not have wireless access. The result is that “Saudi university students continue to face obstacles in accessing the Internet off campus” because many of them do not have dependable and affordable access to the Internet at home due to the point that IT security at the university makes it difficult for them access servers from other places other than at the university (AlMegren & Yassin, 2013, p. 121). In addition, Al-Shehri (2010) argues that the organisations involved with the implementation of elearning need to come together and devise a collective vision for elearning for the entire country in order to address the realities and eliminate the risks involved. Lack of knowledge and research about learners including: what motivates them, what leads to students failing or withdrawing (Al-Shehri, 2010). Al-Shehri (2010) points out that there is need to know the characteristics, motivations and ability of elearners before asking them to enrol into elearning programmes. This is because the traditional system of classroom teaching has been the norm for many years and to ask learners to adopt other forms of learning may feel strange and even difficult to accept. Internet access for all students and educators (Alebaikan & Troudi, 2010). With an Internet penetration level of only 27 per cent by 2011 (Mirza & Al-Abdulkareem, 2011), Saudi Arabia still faces the challenge of ensuring that many people, especially students and educators involved in elearning, have access to the Internet. Notably, according a review of literature by Mirza and Al-Abdulkareem (2011), “the general public in Saudi Arabia often complains about the poor performance and reliability of the Internet” (p. 121). Further, “consumers in both the public and private sectors are greatly distressed by Internet connection issues” (Mirza & Al-Abdulkareem, 2011, p. 121). Internet access and reliability are therefore issues that need to be addressed to increase the uptake of elearning among students and educators. Plagiarism as there are existing non-plagiarism tools for use by universities, there is limited “anti-plagiarism software that supports the Arabic language” (Alebaikan & Troudi, 2010b, p. 512). Plagiarism is also one of the ethical learning issues identified by Ahmed, Buragga and Ramani (2011) as affecting elearning. Because of the online learning environment that characterises most elearning practices, it has been found that some students are usually unwilling to interact with the various activities involved in the learning process, such as doing quizzes and assessments and participating in forum discussions. Such students usually take the ‘easier option’, in which they get involved in malpractices such as copying from each other or from other sources while doing various types of assessments. Al-Maqtri (2014) asserts that “this was confirmed by frequent complaints from teachers and students equally that the latter (those involved in plagiarism) are not involved actively on online (Bb) activities” (p. 648). Alebaikan (n.d.) argues that universities are required to come up with policies that address such ethical issues when implementing blended learning, with particular emphasis on intellectual property rights (IPR) and plagiarism. However, the same author notes that “there is a lack of awareness of IPR and plagiarism in undergraduate studies in Saudi universities” (p. 10). Additionally, as things currently stand, “e-plagiarism is a serious challenge in blended learning” (Alebaikan, n.d., p. 10). This point is emphasised by Alebaikan and Troudi (2010b), who note that “it was noticed that plagiarism was visible in online discussions more frequent as ‘cut & paste’ is an easy action” (p. 512). 2.#.#.# Academic Staff Acceptability of technology by the Saudi learning and teaching community (Al-Harbi, 2011). Acceptance of elearning is affected by a number of factors. These include students’ attitudes toward elearning, influence of people around them (particularly academic staff), as well as accessibility of elearning (Al-Harbi, 2011). Support from the university staff is particularly important in inculcating confidence among students regarding the using of elearning tools (Al-Harbi, 2011). However, a review of literature by AlMegren and Yassin (2013) revealed that the transition from the traditional method of teaching and learning to the use of technology in the education system may not be easy for teachers, administrators and students. AlMegren and Yassin (2013) indicate that “the majority of teachers lack … basic knowledge of e-communication” and that “they are reluctant to change and accept a new method of teaching dependent on the computer[, which] could be a result of the closed society they grew [up] in, their fear of failure, and their unawareness of the importance of the new system” (p. 122). Because of such challenges, university members of faculty face usability problems, which require extra input from them. Adoption of new technologies does not always occur uniformly among all people in a profession. Faculty members have different perceptions regarding the use of elearning technologies and this affects how they accept such technologies. For instance, an analysis by Alenezi (2012) suggests that “the use of elearning by instructors is explained largely in terms of their perceptions about the value they get from e-learning systems” (p. 22). This means that university staff members who promptly realise the benefits of using elearning technologies are more likely to be the first ones to start using such technologies in the delivery of teaching. E-pedagogy is not widely used by educators in university set-ups because they “have limited pedagogical and technical experience in developing web-based teaching methods” (Alebaikan & Troudi, 2010b, p. 510). This can be linked to the point that many members of university staff lack the basic knowledge required to use elearning technologies, having been brought up accustomed to the traditional methods of classroom teaching and learning. As well, “some academics are technophobes and many higher education institutions do not recognise the time effort spent in implementing web-based teaching and preparing computer-generated instructional materials” (Alqurashi, 2009). Increase in the time requirements placed on educators (Alebaikan & Troudi, 2010). Specifically, the authors found out that the virtual interaction required tutors to dedicate more time on and off college to monitor and/or evaluate students’ participation in electronic learning forums. It is also indicated that that “technology-based teaching is time consuming, leads to increasing workload, and demands high levels of technical support” (Alqurashi, 2009). The extra demands put on instructors by the elearning technologies thus make it “very difficult to convince the majority of faculty members, who are normally reluctant to adopt new technologies”, of the benefits of using such technologies (AlMegren & Yassin, 2013, p. 122). 2.#.#.# Students Students are more interested in mastering technology, and in the process, lose sight of what education is all about (Al-Shehri, 2010). As noted above, one of the ways through which students can lose sight of what they are learning is the tendency not to do assignments and quizzes and to engage in unethical practices such as plagiarism. In addition, it has been suggested that improper use of the elearning environment by students “can lead to negative student behaviours, from playing games to tampering with security measures” (Intel Corporation, 2010, p. 4). Students in Saudi Arabian universities exhibited differences in their intention to use elearning; their attitude towards the use of elearning; their perceived usefulness of elearning; and their perceived ease of use of elearning There were also differences among students in terms of gender, faculties, resident (regular) and non-resident students (Al-Harbi, 2011). These differences generally affect students’ levels of acceptance and use of new learning technologies. Unfavourable perceptions and attitudes towards elearning by students (Al-Harbi, 2011). A study by Mirza and Al-Abdulkareem (2011) noted that “the online degree is seen to have less job opportunities and is not comparable to traditional degrees” (p. 87-88). This implies that many current and potential students are likely to opt for traditional classroom learning instead of elearning programmes. As well, other factors such as learners’ lack of prior IT knowledge and attitudes toward elearning impact the acceptance of elearning by students. Despite the challenges indicated above, elearning continues to grow in the higher education context within the KSA. This has been achieved primarily via learning management systems Read More

 

Read More