Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in University Learning Environments Asma Md Ali (Doctor of Philosophy) 2013 RMIT UNIVERSITY Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in University Learning Environments A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Asma Md Ali B. (E-Business) School of Business Information Technology and Logistics RMIT University Melbourne, Victoria, Australia June 2013 Declaration I certify that except where due acknowledgement have been made, the work is that of the author; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; and any editorial work carried out by a third party is acknowledge. Signed : Name : Asma Md Ali Date : ii Acknowledgements Alhamdulillah Studying a PhD is definitely a complex process. Initially the concept of research does not seem so very difficult but to get a PhD is not easy.
Although a PhD journey seems solitary, it is a team project with many hands and souls along the way. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the team. I am grateful to Associate Professor Dr Joan Richardson, my primary supervisor, for being available to review my work, for helping me to restructure my thoughts, for providing keen insights which have enhanced my understanding of research, and for support throughout the academic journey. I also thank Associate Professor Dr Peter Macauley, my second supervisor, for advice on career and life, and for the review of my thesis submissions.
Thank you to the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, and the International Islamic University Malaysia, for the financial scholarship. I also thank my colleagues at KICT and the officers at MSD; and the research office staff at RMIT SBITL, SGR, SBGR and the libraries. I appreciate the people who gave their time to participate in the interviews. I also gratefully acknowledge friends and mentors in SBITL who have shared much of my journey with me.
I would also like to thank the editors and the paper reviewers. My heartfelt thanks to my dearest husband and my children. I thank my husband, Fakhrullah, for his faith and forgiveness, for attending to the baby, the kids and things, and for being a good motivator. I thank my children, Noor Ain, Omar Muaz and baby Ilham Hafiz, who were understanding when Ummi was too busy.
Thank you for welcoming me when I get home. Thank you for cheering me up. Thank you to my dearest mama, Masniyati Salikin, and papa, Md Ali Othman. Thank you for the love, sacrifices and prayers.
Thanks to family, relatives and friends for support, well wishes and inspiration during these years. It has been a real pleasure to work collaboratively with a great team. I thank you all for the encouragement and support in helping me to complete this thesis. Although a great deal of assistance has been received from many people, I must claim responsibility for any and all mistakes and shortcomings in this thesis.
iii Preface The following papers were written as part of this research: Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson. Web Interactive Multimedia Technology: State of the Art in Jasni Mohamad Zain, Wan Maseri Binti Wan Mohd, Eyas El-Qawasmeh (Eds.), Part III Communications in Computer and Information Science 181 Springer 2011, ISBN 978364 22220 23, p. Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson. Web Interactive Multimedia Technology Evolution in Jianhong Zhou(Ed.), ASME Press 2011, ISBN 9780791859735.
Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson “Using Web Interactive Multimedia Technology: Several Approaches” paper submitted for the International Journal of Learning on April 2012. Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson, “Web Interactive Multimedia Technology: Implementation from Two Perspectives”, International Journal on New Computer Architectures and Their Applications (IJNCAA) 2(1): 154-166, The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (ISSN: 2220-9085)2012. Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson, “Web Interactive Multimedia Technology: State of the Art" International Conference on Software Engineering and Computer Science (ICSECS) 2011, Kuantan, Malaysia, Proceedings, Paper 342. Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson, “Web Interactive Multimedia Technology Evolution” International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology (ICCET) 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson, “Web Interactive Multimedia Technology Implementation: A University Context” UK Academy for Information Systems (UKAIS) International Conference 2012,Proceedings,Paper 37. Asma Md Ali, Joan Richardson, Peter Macauley, Evaluation on Web Interactive Multimedia Technology, Poster - Presented at RMIT Business Research Week 2011, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Asma Md Ali, A Study on Web Interactive Multimedia Technology – Presented at ACIS 2009 Doctoral consortium, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. iv Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES VIII LIST OF TABLES IX GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS X ABSTRACT 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Background and Context 6 1.2 Aim and Significance 13 1.3 Structure of the Thesis 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 18 2.1 Web Interactive Multimedia Technology Affordances 20 2.1 The History of Affordance Capability 22 2.2 Emerging Technologies Use in Higher Education 23 2.3 Web Interactive Multimedia to Improve Lectures 26 2.4 Organisational and Academic Implementation of Web 2.2 Technology Adoption Issues in Higher Education 32 2.1 Reliability of the Technology 34 2.2 Change to Suit New Generation of Students 34 2.3 Direction (Guide) for Implementation 36 2.4 Time for Learning to Use Emerging Technology 37 2.6 Attitude towards Emerging Technology 38 2.7 Information Technology Skills or Proficiency 39 2.3 Web Interactive Multimedia Technology Adoption in Learning 39 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) - Fishbein and Ajzen (1981) 43 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) - (Ajzen, 1985) 44 2.3 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 45 v 2.4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) 47 2.5 Diffusion of Innovation Model (DIM) 48 2.0 Augments Delivery of Well Designed Curricula 49 2.4 Design Science Research in Information Systems 53 2.1 Guidelines for the Use of a Design Science Research Approach 58 2.2 A Paucity of Design Science Research Applications 62 2.5 Design Science Research Framework 64 2.1 Design Science Research Model Components 65 2.2 Solution Technology Invention 67 2.3 Elluminate – Web Interactive Multimedia Technology Affordances 69 2.6 Web Interactive Multimedia Technology In Learning 72 2.7 Development of the Research Conceptual Framework 75 2.1 Design Science Research Approach 79 3.1 Elluminate Affordances Use from an Information Systems Perspective 80 3.2 Design Science Research Model – Solution Technology Invention, Theory Building and Naturalistic Evaluation 82 3.3 The Research Process 83 3.6 Themes Development for Each Investigative Domain 98 vi 3.7 The Artefact: Guidelines as an Outcome 102 3.6 Limitations of the Research 102 3.8 Summary 104 4 DATA AND ANALYSIS 105 4.1 Solution Technology Invention – Delivery Strategies and Constraints 105 4.2 Naturalistic Evaluation – Stakeholders’ Evaluation 106 4.3 Theory Building – Learning Constructive Alignment 106 4.4 Elluminate as an Exemplar of Web Interactive Multimedia Technology 107 4.2 Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in Subjects Case Studies 107 4.3 A Neuroscience Postgraduate Subject (Case 1) 110 4.1 Case 1 Neuroscience – Learning Environment 110 4.2 Case 1 Neuroscience – Student Class Size 111 4.3 Case 1 Neuroscience – Why Elluminate? 111 4.4 Case 1 Neuroscience – Solution Technology Invention: Delivery Strategies and Constraints 112 4.5 Case 1 Neuroscience – Elluminate Affordances 114 4.6 Case 1 Neuroscience – Naturalistic Evaluation: Stakeholders’ Evaluation 117 4.7 Case 1 Neuroscience – Theory Building: Learning Constructive Alignment 118 4.8 Case 1 Neuroscience – Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in Learning 120 4.9 Case 1 Neuroscience– Conceptual Model 123 4.4 A Postgraduate Business Subject (Case 2) 126 4.1 Case 2 Business – Learning Environment 127 4.2 Case 2 Business – Student Class Size 127 4.3 Case 2 Business - Why Elluminate? 128 4.4 Case 2 Business – Solution Technology Invention: Delivery Strategies and Constraints 128 4.5 Case 2 Business – Naturalistic Evaluation:- Stakeholders Valuation 131 4.6 Case 2 Business – Theory Building: Learning Constructive Alignment 132 4.7 Case 2 Business – Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in Learning 133 4.8 Case 2 Business – Conceptual Model 136 4.5 A Foundation Computing Subject (Case 3) 138 vii 4.1 Case 3 Computing - Learning Environment 138 4.2 Case 3 Computing - Student Class Size 139 4.3 Case 3 Computing - Why Elluminate? 139 4.4 Case 3 Computing - Solution Technology Invention: Delivery Strategies and Constraints 140 4.5 Case 3 Computing - Naturalistic Evaluation: Stakeholders Evaluation 144 4.6 Case 3 Computing - Theory Building: Learning Constructive Alignment 144 4.7 Case 3 Computing - Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in learning 145 4.8 Case 3 Computing – Conceptual Model 146 4.6 A Postgraduate Consultancy Subject (Case 4) 148 4.1 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy - Learning Environment 148 4.2 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy - Student Class Size 149 4.3 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy - Why Elluminate? 149 4.4 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy - Solution Technology Invention: Delivery Strategies and Constraints 149 4.5 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy - Naturalistic Evaluation - Stakeholders Evaluation 152 4.6 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy - Theory Building: Learning Constructive Alignment 153 4.7 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy - Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in Learning 154 4.8 Case 4 Lactation Consultancy – Conceptual Model 156 4.7 Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in Subjects Stakeholders’ Analysis 157 4.1 Solution Technology Invention – Delivery Strategies and Constraints 158 4.2 Naturalistic Evaluation – Stakeholders’ Evaluation 162 4.3 Theory Building – Learning Constructive Alignment 162 4.1 Solution Technology Invention – Delivery Strategies and Constraints 166 5.1 Affordance Use and Class Management 171 5.2 Affordance Related Communication Constraints 175 5.2 Naturalistic Evaluation – Stakeholders’ Evaluation 181 5.1 Useful for Learning 182 5.2 Easy-to-use 185 5.3 Technology Affordances Improvement: Easy-to-use and Useful 188 viii 5.4 Technology Experience Improvement 189 5.5 Attitude When Facing Problems 190 5.3 Theory Building – Learning Constructive Alignment 194 5.1 Design and Planning to Meet Intended Learning Objectives 194 5.2 Affordance Use Summary 198 5.4 Guidelines for Implementing Technology Affordances in Learning Activities 201 5.5 Lessons Learnt From This Study 205 5.1 Design Science Research Reflection 205 5.1 Web Interactive Multimedia Technology in University Learning Environments0 208 6.2 The Guidelines to Subject Design 213 6.3 Contributions of the Study 214 6.4 Suggestions for Future Study 217 REFERENCES 219 APPENDIX I: Ethics Approval 236 APPENDIX II: Sample of Invitation to Participate 237 APPENDIX III: Sample of Participant Consent Form 239 ix List of Figures Figure 2.1: Basic concepts underlying stakeholder acceptance model (adopted from Masrom & Hussein 2008) 43 Figure 2.2: Research conceptual model (adapted from Venable 2006a) .2: Interview broad topic areas based on the research conceptual model .3: Themes constructed from the interview data based on the research conceptual model.4: Development of a theme in Solution Technology Invention.1: Case 1 Neuroscience – A sample of constructional alignment.3: Case 2 Business - The design of the learning activities and assessment alignment .4: Case 3 Computing - Aligning learning activities and assessment to intended learning outcome.5: Case 4 Consultancy - Aligning learning activities and assessment to intended learning outcomes or objectives .1: Subject design alignment.197 x List of Tables Table 2.1: Summary of five technology theories in the study of technology adoption .2 : Summary of the learning theories (adapted from Ally 2008; Ertmer & Newby 1993) .3: The five types of theory in Information Systems (IS) (adapted from Gregor 2006) .4: The artefact and output in Design Science Research (adapted from Hevner et al.
2004; March & Storey 2008; Vaishnavi & Kuechler 2008) .1: A concise conceptual model.2: The summary of this research process (adapted from Alturki, Gable, & Bandara 2011a) .3: Design evaluation methods (Hevner et al.4: The stakeholders’ categorisation and reference.5: The aim in each domain of the research conceptual model for categories development.6: Applying the text component to all three stakeholders .1: Summary of Elluminate affordances used in learning and teaching activities in Case 1 .2: Summary of web interactive multimedia technology affordances for learning in Case 1 .3: Summary of Elluminate affordances used in learning and teaching activities in Case 2 .