j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

1/11

2006 The AuthorPublished by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 1 2007 7282doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00595.x

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 200520053817282ArticlesE-readiness model for higher education

British Journal of Educational Technology

Developing an e-readiness model for higher educationinstitutions: results of a focus group study

Carlos Machado

Carlos Machado is a research associate at the Department of Social Research of the Vrije UniversiteitBrussel and has participated in projects funded by the European Commission since 1998. He is respon-sible for the introduction of learning technologies in five universities of Central Asia within the frame ofa TEMPUS project called TOHOSTCA. Address for correspondence: SOCO-TESA, Vrije UniversiteitBrussel Pleinlaan 2 1050 Brussels Belgium. Telephone: +

326292164; fax: +

326292420; e-mail:[email protected]

Introduction

This paper is the result of the authors participation in a Tempus project, namedTOHOSTCA (Tourism and Hospitality Studies in Central Asia), whose main goal is themodernisation of curriculum in the field of tourism and hospitality, as well as theintroduction of modern learning approaches through new technologies in three coun-tries of Central Asiathe Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia and Uzbekistan. For the sake ofclarification, the Tempus programme is an initiative launched by the European Com-mission and is adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU) in 1990.The initial objective of Tempus was to support the reform of the higher education sectorof Central and Eastern Europe in the framework of the EUs Phare programme to pro-mote economic and social cohesion in these regions. Thereafter, Tempus was extendedto the New Independent States and to Mongolia by a Council decision (93/1246/European Economic Commission [EEC]) in 1993. In this context, TOHOSTCA offers thepossibility for the previously mentioned developing countries to increase regionalcooperation and to improve technical and human resources within five of their highereducation institutions (HEIs) with the objective of building a common onlinecurriculum.

Although technical resources and equipment have been provided for academic staff andstudents of these five institutions, creating online courses demands a reflection on theimportant interconnectedness between different elements. From a technical side, per-sonal computers and computer facilities have to be available and accessible. Crucially,links to the Internet also have to be guaranteed and regularly upgraded to enableacceptable levels of communication and collaboration between teachers and students.Furthermore, managers should plan and implement strategies that move e-learningto the mainstream of educational practice. However, any strategy that gives technologyan independent role as problem solver is doomed to fail (Lundvall, 2004). From aninstructional point of view, Betty Collis (1996) reminds us that it is not technology butthe instructional implementation of the technology that determines the effects onlearning (p. 146). From a learners perspective, the final variable that influences the
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

2/11

E-readiness model for higher education

73

2006 The Author

learning effectiveness is undoubtedly the learning abilities of the student and the stu-dents involvement in the learning process. Indeed, the relationship between informa-tion and communication technologies (ICTs), institutional managers, instructors and

end-users has not escaped unnoticed by other authors (eg, Hanft, Mskens & Terfehr,2002; Mattila & Hgerfors, 2004; Stansfield, Connolly & McLelland, 2004).

With this idea in mind, the global concept of e-readinessin other words, how ready acountry, region or society is in terms of ICTsis brought originally into the educationalsphere. When HEIs in developing countries propose to introduce online practices, itcould be observed that educational managers may fear they are not ready for such animportant breakthrough. But how are they to know what being ready means? Gettingclear answers to this question could lead to a number of interpretations. Thus, it is thepurpose of this paper to reveal a primary model of e-readiness for the specific context of

higher education. To validate the conceptual framework, a focus group was created toinvestigate whether the elements of the modelhaving been concealed from the par-ticipantswere identified, what variables were represented most effectively, what typesof key players were to be included and what subject areas or topics were most suited toan e-readiness approach. Before presenting the results and findings of the focus groupsession, we shall briefly describe the specific e-readiness model that has hereby beenconceptualised.

E-readiness: a conceptual framework for education

Literature on the notion of e-readiness has shown a range of assessment tools that havebeen developed to measure a country or an economys level of penetration of ICTs (DIT,2003; McConnell International, 2001; Sachs, 2000). These studies have predomi-nantly been focused on global tools for measuring the digital divide between rich andpoor countries. Diverted from global perspectives, a second wave of e-readiness studieshas been introduced to specific ICT-related areas. Thus, in the context of electronicbanking, e-readiness is conceived as the function of the ability to pursue value creationopportunities (Maugis et al

, 2003); in the property world, to achieve e-readiness, fiveactions need to be taken. These are actions in the fields of innovation, flexibility andservice, connectivity, brand and location (Feenan & LaSalle, 2001); and within elec-tronic trade (zmen, 2003), e-readiness is presented as a resource to be implementedin any enterprise. To understand e-readiness, in zmens perspective, requires a three-step process. First, it is necessary to determine the processes through which an enter-prise makes use of its information, human, financial, physical and network resourcesin its business (marketing and production). Second, it must be calculated whetherbecoming electronic would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes.Third, there is a need to measure whether the enterprise has the resources to enter intoan electronic dimension. Hence, the equation of ICTs plus e-skilled people seems to bethe formula towards e-readiness.

Therefore, embedded in a second generation of studies, the model of e-readiness that ispresented in this study (see Figure 1) goes beyond the scope of global dimensions of

e-readiness to apply this notion to the educational realm. Within a more specific

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

3/11

74

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 1 2007

2006 The Author

approach, e-readiness is conceptualised as the ability of HEIs and the capacity of insti-tutional stakeholders (managers, key ICT persons, teachers and students) to generate(e-) learning opportunities by facilitating computer-based technologiesin short, howe-ready a HEI is to benefit from educational technology (or e-learning). In this context,the major opportunities and challenges in realising e-readiness as a managerial toolwhen measuring the level of integration of ICTs is to achieve a strategy that is tailoredto meet the particular needs of local HEIs and individuals. Thus, educational managerswould be able to define who may benefit from an e-readiness instrument and to makeuse of it so as to take specific steps towards the effective and sustainable use of educa-tional technologies that would help their institutions realise established developmentgoals.

Beyond the promises surrounding the introduction of new technologies, in general, andonline courses, in particular, it is important for HEIs to contemplate issues such asreadiness, effectiveness and expected benefits related to these technologies. Whilst it isacknowledged that the level of integration and utilisation of ICTs for teaching andlearning are dependent on external environments dominated by technological, socialand economic conditions, the values of reference for the model are taken from internalpolicies and institutional strategies. In terms of ability, when an HEI decides to introducenew methods of practice, developing at the same time new teaching capabilities, anumber of fundamental changes become apparent. For the Central Asian (CA) educa-tors, the concern relates to the adoption of new pedagogical approaches. Modern

teaching practices and the shift in power relation between professor and student are

Figure 1: Measuring e-readiness in HEIs.HEI, higher education institution; ICT, information and communications technology;

PC, personal computer.

Key factor OutputThroughputs

Abilityof HEIstakeholders

Changes in

learning policies

HEI current Policy

HEI future Strategy

Capacityof learningstakeholders

Provision of ICTtraining

KnowledgeTeaching and learning stylesInstructional methodologyTechnocultural acceptance

Facility

by learningtechnologies

Introduction of PCs InfrastructureNetwork services

Level of e-

readiness

Control for the ability, capacity and facility provided at an HEI

Feedback

Impact

Example of inputs

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

4/11


75

2006 The Author

challenging their traditions as academics. For the managers, the issue relates to imple-menting a change process that is sustainable, strategic and accepted in concordancewith current policies and regulations. In this sense, an aspect that needs to be consid-

ered is that although the primary mission of a HEIie, the creation, preservation,integration, transmission and application of knowledgeis not changing, the particu-lar realisation of each of these roles is changing dramatically as it evolves into a globalknowledge industry (Duderstadt, 1997). People could learn and learn well withoutusing distant independent learning technology, but in a world driven by an ever-expanding knowledge-based economy, continuous learning, like continuous improve-ment, has become a necessity of life (Duderstadt, 1999). Thus, educational managersneed to contribute with forms of learning that combines the acquisition of market-driven skills (eg, IT skills) along with the maintenance of a cognitive context into whichthese skills can be related over time.

In terms of capacity and facility, e-readiness is concerned with decisions about matterssuch as the provision of e-learning material and access for students (local and remote);the extent and acceptance of moves towards different cultural patterns in teachingsupport and student learning; the balance between alternative forms of organising andpresenting knowledge to students in such a way that they can find, select and use it (eg,the balance between teaching and learning styles, instructional methods, etc); and theinstitutional infrastructure and technical unit to support course instruction, coursedesign, networking operations, the use of virtual resources, electronic staff/studentexchanges and alternative methods of assessment.

Verification of the conceptual model: conducting a focus group session

With occasion of a recent TOHOSTCA project management meetingin Finland,February 2005it seemed that the best way to verify the integrative nature of theperviously mentioned model of e-readiness was to organise a focus group with the CAcoordinators and to explore how they could envisage some questions related to theintroduction of online courses for their institutions. If, on the one hand, one fundamen-tal issue in the field of educational technology is the role technology can play in improv-ing educational outcomes (Tiene & Ingram, 2001), on the other hand, the factorsrelated to the use of a technology innovation in a learning-related practice is the focusof attention of numerous studies (

inter alia

Collis & Jung, 2003; Collis & Pals, 1999;Collis & van der Wende, 2002) in which technological environment, educationalstrategies, ease of use, teacher and student engagement are all elements to be accountedfor, to a greater or lesser extent, in the implementation of an e-readiness measurementtool.

The use of a focus group seemed adequate for a number of good reasons. Focus groupinterviews have been extremely useful in market research studies and used to greateffect as a valuable tool for social researchers and other professionals regardless ofparticular fields of interest (eg, Curran & Downing, 1989; Frey & Fontana, 1993;Madriz, 2000; Powell, Single & Lloyd, 1996). For example, the use of this particular

qualitative method may allow researchers to explore the reaction to ideas at various

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

5/11

76


2006 The Author

stages of a design process. Morgan (1998a) considers this technique as ideal for earlyexploratory design stages. Focus group interviews can also contribute to the identifica-tion of relevant theoretical concepts or can assist in the formulation of relevant hypoth-

eses (Fuller, Edwards, Vorakitphokatorn & Sermsri, 1993). Moreover, Denton andMcDonagh (2003) recommend using focus groups for topics poorly understood and,when using group synergy, can lead to promoting discussion and generating ideas.However, Morgan (1998b) reminds that a general myth that relegates all qualitativemethods to a preliminary, exploratory role prepares the way for real research. Focusgroups could provide a useful role as a first stage in developing all kinds of projects, butthat does not mean that they must be limited to that role. There are situations wherethis methodology is very adequate for preliminary exploration, but it could also beapplied in other stages of research design. Despite the fact that focus groups may notbe as strong as participant observation and in-depth interview in their ability to observe

phenomena and to understand participants knowledge, Morgan (1996) considers thistechnique as a better tool at combining those two objectives together. It can be used forunderstanding the processes by which events and actions take place and for gaininginsights about the processes that lead to desired outcomes. On the whole, differentmethods have different strengths and, for many purposes, the strengths of focus groupinterviews are entirely sufficient. Morgan (2002) encourages a broader innovation inthis practice.

In the light of the above advantages, a focus group with the five coordinators of the CAHEIs could confirm the adequacy of the elements presented in the proposed model of e-readiness. There is no denying that in this type of research, moderators can shape thethings they hear or convey the conversation towards an established goal. In a semis-tructured manner, the session was orientated towards the problem of introducing newforms of teaching and learning in their respective institutions. Moreover, the previouslymentioned e-readiness framework was purposely concealed so that participants couldreact and express their opinions without being biased by the model. In this case, it wasconsidered more efficient, from a strategic point of view, to start by letting the CAparticipants understand the problems of e-learning for HEIs than to directly explore amodel of e-readiness, with all the complexities that it could bring fortheven if previ-ously, they had attended an informative presentation about e-readiness and were some-how familiar with the concept. Problem identification often benefits from the processesof exploration and discovery amongst the principal strengths of qualitative methods(Berg, 1995; Crombie & Davies, 1996; Patton, 1990). Likewise, the discussion betweenpeople may provide a variety of useful data and different perspectives relatively quick,giving feedback on a number of unforeseen factors (Brooks, 2002), topics (Denton &McDonagh, 2003) or, simply, ideas. Thus, our intention was to verify whether ourproject partners could provide new ideas or valuable data about all, or some, of theindicators incorporated in the proposed e-readiness model.

A major constraint for the research task was the language. Krueger (1998) acknowl-edges that conducting focus groups through an interpreter is not only difficult and

tedious, but it also puts into question their research value. Following Kruegers recom-

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

6/11


77

2006 The Author

mendations, the session was conducted in the most common language for the coordi-natorsthat is, Russianso as to allow the participants to best express their views inan efficient way. The Mongolian coordinator preferred to continue the conversation in

English, though. A translator accompanied the moderator through the session. A backtranslation of the questions and answers were given to a second translator who verifiedthe text and put the sentences considered as incorrect, or that could lead to mis-interpretation, in brackets. Although this was a lengthy process, it ensured clarity andaccuracy of results.

The strategy of using focus groups is considered particularly suitable for designs whereconceptual development is an important outcome of the research. The session allowednot only CA partners to offer their perceptions of the problem, but gave the moderatorroom for strategy formulation whilst having the opportunity to understand the perspec-

tives of the others and to verify whether their opinions were leading to the very samemodel of e-readiness. In this sense, despite the different roles and positions within thegroup (ie, a vice-rector, a dean, a project manager, a head of international relations anda professor; in total, four men and a woman) it was very useful to let the group knowthat the opinion of all the participants were important for the research project and itwould be valued positively. Informal round-robin conversation took place so that every-body could express his or her opinion.

Each contribution was recorded in a digital device for future transcription. Qualitativedata from the focus group session was taken collectively into rich textual file. Subse-quently, it was analysed using Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software.The different stages in the analysis through this method are well described and illus-trated by Gibbs (2002) and Richards (2002).

Findings

The findings of the focus group session could be regrouped in three clusters. The firstcluster includes two introductory questions that tackled the challenges and problemsof adopting educational technologies. The second cluster relates to the identification ofkey stakeholders along this process. And the third cluster refers to specific aspects ofeach of the stakeholders previously mentioned. The results are shown in Table 1.

Mapping the context of e-readiness

The session started with general questions regarding the benefits and problems of intro-ducing online courses in the CA HEIs.

Q.1 In your opinion what is the main advantages of introducing online courses for yourinstitution?

Q.2 and what are the main disadvantages?

This approach is similar to what has been defined as cognitive mapping (Eden, Jones &Sims, 1983) in the sense that the CA coordinators began considering all the aspects

relating both to the existence and to the solution of the problem of introducing ICTs in

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

7/11

78


2006 The Author

their respective institutions. Some of the factors recognised were related to the (lack of)

availability to access, equipment and resources, the capability of students and professorsregarding concepts such as attendance, laziness, computer and language skills, moti-vation, understanding and perception, provision of training and the managers vision.The answers hereby collected would suggest that apart from the provision of adequateinfrastructure and technical resources as a major factor for the success of suchinitiatives, CA coordinators considered explicitly other intangible assets included in theframework of e-readiness.

Identifying key stakeholders

As result of the answers devoted to question one and two, subsequent questions wereformed around the identification of key stakeholders within HEIs that determine thesuccess or failure when introducing online courses.

Q.3 In your opinion, who is responsible for the success or failure of delivering online courses inyour institutions?

Q.4 Why?

Consequently, three stakeholders were clearly identified by all the participants (ie,administrators, teachers and students). These three levels were represented, as we couldsee, in the model of e-readiness. The weight in importance of each stakeholder, however,

differed amongst participants.

Table 1: Results of the focus group

Stakeholders Responsibilities Challenges and problems

Administration(rector level)

Policy and strategyInfrastructureSupport

Influence of national policies on ICTs (2)Free market (related to salaries offered in private

sector to qualified staff) (1)Motivation to adopt new technologies (2)Provision of adequate materials to teachers and

students (5)Teachers Delivery of new forms of

knowledge (teachermust acquire theknow-how of e-learningmethodologies)

Understanding new methods of teaching (2)Training in new forms of course delivery (3)Attitude and acceptance/refusal (3)Age and (lack of) skills (2)

Students Demand of new forms

of knowledge

Access (3)

Equipment (2)Laziness, low attendance (2)Understanding new methods of learning (1)Acceptance of new methods (3)ICT skills (2) and language skills (English) (1)

ICT, information and communications technology.

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

8/11


79

2006 The Author

Note that administrator, within a CA context, is a synonym for the decision maker inan institution, that is, the rector or similar position. Administrators could set policiesand strategies that favoured the accreditation and recognition of online activities. The

role of national ministries of education was particularly highlighted for the enhance-ment of e-learning in higher education.

Inquiring about each stakeholder

Once the key players were recognised, the conversation turned to specific aspects par-ticipants considered worth mentioning regarding each stakeholder. In this sense, theycommented on factors that they considered important to take into account when intro-ducing online courses. Whilst doing this question, some of the topics quoted during theintroductory phase were reconfirmed.

Herein, intangible issues such as the administrators vision (related to institutionalstrategies), skills (both computer and language skills), attitude and way of thinking fromteachers and students, knowledge, age, willingness, and so on were quoted. From thesefindings, it was recognised, for example, the positive impact that young teachers couldhave on the level of readiness. One of the coordinators stated.

I think that at the moment the generations of professors are changing, and in some five years allour professors will have good skills in computers, possessing knowledge of the methods andcourses. Speaking to my colleagues, we have come to the conclusion, that the implementation ofonline learning is necessary.

Conversely, it was suggested that older teachers could hinder the process of introducingand adapting online courses mainly because of their attitude towards new methods ofteaching and learning and towards new technologies in general.

Supporting the e-readiness model

The information collected was organised, grouped, stored and analysed though thesoftware programme Nvivo. After coding, clustering and analysing the main free andthree nodes, a graph was produced and compared with the conceptual framework (seeFigure 2). Most of the elements covered by the model reflected unanimous agreementamongst the five coordinators. Some others did not. In particular, two items reflected

notorious disagreement. On the one hand, the question of considering culture andattitudealso named mentality during the sessionas a main factor, did not shareequal views amongst participants. On the other hand, one coordinator added the ele-ment language skills (English). This is an interesting point that merits deeper analysis.

Conclusion

At the beginning of the 21st century, CA HEIs have been confronted with the unrelent-ing difficulty to put into place ICTs for education in spite of stagnant educational qualityand limited funding possibilities. These HEIs are making considerable preparationtowards the implementation of online delivery systems. Yet higher education managers

and administrators have not yet felt the need to assess the level of readiness of their

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

9/11

80


2006 The Author

institutions and end-users, but they begin to reflect upon the challenges and problemsgenerated by introducing online courses. Clearly, e-learning may bring as many benefitsas inconveniences for the CA institutions involved in the TOHOSTCA project. The find-ings from the focus group session point out that institutional policies and strategiesenhance important elements in the elaboration and implementation of online practicessuch as the provision of infrastructure, access to Internet and technical resources. Thesubject of technology was indeed the most often mentioned.

Moreover, participants not only revealed those features that are important for the intro-duction of ICTs in the classroom. They also identified the main key stakeholders thatmay determine the success or failure of such initiatives, confirming the importance ofanalysing the characteristics of administrators, teachers and students in the study of e-readiness for education. On the whole, it was confirmed that the ability of administra-tors to facilitate not only hardware and software to teachers and students, but also toimprove the capacity of the main actors in the learning process, has a role to play.Regarding the capacity of the instructors, it was felt that e-learning could develop intoan accepted practice if the new generation of teachers participates in e-learning initia-tives and educational institutions facilitate specific training for the teaching staff.Although innovation in e-learning practices may bring abrupt changes in teaching andlearning organisations, bridging the gap between the older school of professors andyounger academics will depend on their attitude, willingness and motivation towardse-learning practices. All these concepts were strongly referred to as requisites neededto be able to adequately implement online activities.

Finally, the attitude of teaching staff, the response from students, the rectors visions orthe local and national policies on new technological practices are all issues as important

Figure 2: A synthesis of e-readiness throughout the focus group results.Nodes from Nvivo and comparison.

Administration level Instructor level Student level

Attitude

(behaviour)

ResistanceacceptanceUnderstanding

new methods

Computer skills

*Language skillsMotivation

Training

Performance

appraisal

Provision of

infrastructure

(including services)

Access

*Aspect not included in the

conceptual model

Policy and

strategies

Facility

Ability

Capacity

Attitude

(way of thinking)

Resistanceacceptance

Understanding

new methods

Skills

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

10/11


81

2006 The Author

to e-readiness as are the provision of computers, the access to the Internet and othertechnical resources. The implementation of a focus group has served to confirm thatability, capacity and facilityas they are defined in the modelare three key factors

for the successful implementation of an e-readiness measurement tool within HEIs. Theextent to which in-depth analyses improve the conceptual framework of e-readiness(and its indicators) for HEIs in developing countries will lead to continuous developmentand further attention.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Jeanne Bracken, editor at LIDeditorial, for her special assistance in the editing of this paper and also all the membersof the TOHOSTCA project for their kind collaboration.

References

Berg, B. L. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences

. London: Allyn and Bacon.Brooks, K. (2002). The influence of focus group feedback on the three organizational levels of an

international retailer.Journal of European Industrial Training

, 26

, 2/3/4, 204208.Collis, B. & Jung, I. (2003). Uses of information and communication technologies in teacher

education. In B. Robinson & C. Latchem (Eds), Teacher education through open and distancelearning

(pp. 171192). London, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.Collis, B. & Pals, N. (1999). A model for predicting an individuals use of a telematics application

for a learning related purpose. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications

, 6

, 1, 63103.

Collis, B. & van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education. An

international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in Higher Education

. Enschede:CHEPS, University of Twente.Collis, B. (1996). Tele-learning in a digital world: the future of distance learning

. London: Interna-tional Thomson Computer Press.

Crombie, I. T. & Davies, H. T. O. (1996). Research into health care: a practical approach to the design,conduct and interpretation of health services research

. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Curran, J. & Downing, S. (1989). The state and small business owners: an empirical assessment of

consultation strategies

. Paper presented at the 12th National Small Firms Policy and ResearchConference, Barbican London.

DIT (2003). India. E-readiness assessment

. Report 2003, Department of information technology,ministry of communications and information technology. Thompson Press: Government ofIndia and the World Bank.

Denton, H. & McDonagh, D. (2003). Using focus group methods to improve students designproject research in schools: Drawing parallels from action research at undergraduate level.

Journal of Technology and Design Education

, 13

, 129144.Duderstadt, J. J. (1997). The future of the university in an age of knowledge.Journal of Asynchro-

nous Learning Networks

, 1

, 2, 7888.Duderstadt, J. J.(1999). Can colleges and universities survive in the information age? In R. N.

Katz, & Associates (Eds), Dancing with the devil: information technology and the new competitionin higher education

(pp. 125) San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.Eden, C., Jones, S. & Sims, D. (1983). Messing about in problems

. Oxford: Pergamon.Feenan, R. & LaSalle, J. L. (2001). The new world of e-conomy. Is your hotel ready? Retrieved

October 11, 2004, fromhttp://www.hotelbenchmark.com/Features/HEXEC/010301e-conomy.htm

Frey, J. H. & Fontana, A. (1993). The group interview in social research. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.),

Succesful focus groups: advancing the state of the art

. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
http://www.hotelbenchmark.com/Features/HEXEC/010301e-conomy.htmhttp://www.hotelbenchmark.com/Features/HEXEC/010301e-conomy.htm

8/10/2019 j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

11/11

82


2006 The Author

Fuller, T. D., Edwards, J. N., Vorakitphokatorn, S. & Sermsri, S. (1993). Using focus groups toadapt surbey instruments to new populations: experience from a developing country. In D. L.Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups. Newbury Park

, London, Delhi: Sage.Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis. Explorations with Nvivo

. Buckingham, Philadelphia:

Open University Press.Hanft, A., Mskens, I. & Terfehr, B. (2002). Online bachelor of business administration programaccess, didactics and research issues

. EDEN Second Research Workshop. Research and Policy inOpen and Distance Learning

, University of Hildesheim March 2123. European Distance Educa-tion Network (pp. 2830).

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups. In D. L. Morgan & R. A. Krueger(Eds), The focus group kit

. Vol. 3

. London: Sage Publications.Lundvall, B. (2004). Why the new economy is a learning economy. DRUID Working Paper No

0401.Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds),

Handbook of qualitative research

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mattila, L. & Hgerfors, A. (2004). Collaborative learning: a critical success factor in distance

learning. In Conference Proceedings, EDEN, Budapest, 1619 June 2004, New Challenges andPartnerships in an Enlarged EU

(pp. 323329).Maugis, V., Choucri, N., Madnick, S. E., Siegel, M., Gillett, S. E., Haghseta, F. et al

(2004) Globale-ReadinessFor What? Readiness for e-Banking (JITD) (April, 2004) MIT Sloan WorkingPaper 4487-04; CISL Working Paper No. 2004-04. The MIT Sloan School of Management,Massachussets.

McConnell International (2001). Ready? Net. Go! Partnerships leading the global economy

. RetrievedNovember 15, 2004, from http://www.mcconnellinternational.com

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review Sociology

, 22

, 129152.Morgan, D. L. (1998a). The focus group guidebook. In D. L. Morgan & R. A. Krueger (Eds), The

focus group kit

. Vol. 1

. London: Sage Publications.Morgan, D. L. (1998b). Planning focus groups. In D. L. Morgan & R. A. Krueger (Eds), The focus

group kit

. Vol. 2

. London: Sage Publications.Morgan, D. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds), Handbookof interview research. Thousand oaks

. London, New Delhi: Sage.zmen, S. (2003). E-readiness. E-trade bridge network

. Symposium Geneva, December 2003 Inter-national Trade Center Network. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://www.intracen.org

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods

. Thousand Oaks, CA.Powell, R. A., Single, H. M. & Lloyd, K. (1996) Focus groups in mental health research: enhancing

the validity of user and provider questionnaires. International Journal of Social Psychiatry

, 42

,3, 193206.

Richards, L. (2002). Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. Melbourne, Australia: QSRInternational.

Sachs, J. D. (2000). Readiness for the new world. A guide for developing countries

. Center for interna-

tional development

, Harvard University. Retrieved November 1, 2004, fromhttp://cyber.harvard.law.eduStansfield, M., Connolly, T. & McLelland, E. (2004). A framework for exploring success factors in

online learning. In Conference Proceedings, New challenges and Partnerships in an Enlarged EU

,EDEN Conference proceedings, Budapest, 1619 June 2004, New Challenges and Partnershipsin an Enlarged EU

(pp. 318322).Tiene, D. & Ingram, A. (2001). Exploring current issues in educational technology. New York:

McGraw Hill.
http://www.mcconnellinternational.com/http://www.intracen.org/http://cyber.harvard.law.edu/http://cyber.harvard.law.edu/http://www.intracen.org/http://www.mcconnellinternational.com/

j.1467-8535.2006.00595.pdf

Documents