Implementing e-Learning in low-resourced university settings: A policy and institutional perspectives at the University of Gondar and University of Rwanda

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak affected most universities, and it severely disrupted their face-to-face teaching and learning processes. The University of Gondar (UoG) and the University of Rwanda (UR) were no exceptions. Before the pandemic, E-learning was not an education norm in both institutions. Education was mainly face-to-face, inside a four-wall classroom experience. As COVID-19 restricted such experience, the two universities adopted a range of online platforms to support teaching, learning, and access to learning resources. Across the globe, E-learning solutions promise institutional resilience and innovative teaching and learning activities in tertiary education – but only if their development is embedded within enabling institutional culture, structure, policy, and processes. Against this backdrop, we designed a study to explore leadership and policy perspectives, institutional contexts, potentials/prospects, challenges, and best practices of educational digital solutions. In this exploratory study, we used accessibility and inclusivity as key motifs to frame discussions of results. We used a cross-sectional design and employed qualitative methods to collect data, i.e., document reviews, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. We adopted a descriptive thematic analysis procedure to organize, analyze, and interpret the data. Overall, the results indicate that education leaders, faculty, and students were not equipped to smoothly transition from face-to-face learning to e-learning in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only meeting technological requirements, the accelerated deployment of E-learning tools implied a change in pedagogy. We found that institutional policies were not designed to fully accommodate the change (except for some guidelines proposed during COVID-19). The lack of an e-learning strategy and resource limitations have hindered and continue to impact e-learning uptake in both institutions. We also found that poor internet connectivity, lack of tech devices and software, inadequate leadership commitment, power interruptions or outages, inadequate pedagogical training, low community perception, and poor administrative and technical skills are the challenges of the two institutions to effectively manage full-fledged e-learning programs. These challenges were usually amplified by the nature of national, local, and institutional contexts (e.g., a multi-campus, multi-college setting of UR and a war outbreak in northern Ethiopia). Noting that face-to-face education is still seen as premium, there is a need for a blended approach to e-learning and policies that would improve accessibility to and affordability of E-resources to diverse groups of staff and students. With varying degrees, we found that the two institutions are engaging in activities to promote e-learning. For instance, groups of e-learning Champions are advocating in both institutions for engagements in accelerated change efforts (be it on an e-learning platform, capacity building, access devices, and strategy). Both institutions have units that coordinate e-learning uptake and ensure its inclusivity. Both institutions could also benefit from increased governmental and development partners’ attention to the possibility and support of digital education. However, the issue of social equity and e-learning ecosystem management remains paramount in launching e-learning programs. In sum, we observed that e-learning is still in its nascent stages at both institutions although not at the same level. Their respective e-learning initiatives must integrate global best practices and specific local contexts and priorities. This requires that state and institutional leaders embrace and encourage co-creation, knowledge, and expertise sharing among institutions in low-resource and similar settings.