2.1.2  Pedagogy

Pedagogy represents “the art of educational science and encompasses teaching methods and practices, as well as the skills required to convey understanding, knowledge or know-how” (Walder, 2014a).

Undoubtful, technology has a great effect on the learning process. The rapid changes in technology have reflected on the teaching methods. On the other hand, pedagogies are not so much flexible, as they take more time to show changes (Mentis, 2008).

Contemporary, it is becoming more urgency to use an innovative pedagogy in higher education. For instant, rather than using the traditional method of lecturing, it is significantly better to be more associated with new accomplishment that intend to improve student learning. Using innovative pedagogy exposes some themes such as novelty, change, reflection, application, improvement, human relations and technology (Walder, 2014b; Ben Hamida et al., 2016).

Using the eLAG framework assumes that there must be some changes in the pedagogy side moving from a homogenous system used in learning to a more diverse one. Table (2) shows the four levels or dimensions that have the most effect on the pedagogy side throughout the eLAG framework: learning theories, teacher and learner, the content and e-learning (Mentis, 2008).

2.1.3 Context

It is apparent that the changes in technology and pedagogy have major effect on the learning and teaching, by shifting them towards electronic and more innovative way. However, the institute where the learning process takes place, the curriculum and the lectures, as well as the way used in the exams and teaching, affect the e-learning process tremendously (Laudrisen, 2009).

Such elements are referred to as the context in the eLAG framework by Mentis (2008). Table (2) illustrates the four levels or dimensions that could affect the context; in terms of community characteristics, institutional characteristics, discipline characteristics and e-learning orientations. Moreover, they support the progress of e-learning process from a formal to an informal way.

2.2   Study Questions

According the previous review, the study proposed the following questions:

Q1. What is the current situation of applying e-learning techniques in the Tourism and Hotels Faculties in Egypt?

Q2. To what extent the eLAG competencies—technology, pedagogy and context; are used by the academic staff of Tourism and Hotels Faculties in the Egyptian governmental universities?

Q3. What are the benefits and challenges that could face applying Technological Pedagogical Innovation (TPI) in education process, from the educators’ point of view?

Q4. Is there any correlation between eLAG dimensions—technology, pedagogy and context?

3    ethodology

3.1   Research Approach

The main objective of this study is to explore the competencies of e-learning in higher education in Egypt, specifically the case of Tourism and Hospitality Institutions. Accordingly, this study can be classified as being a descriptive-exploratory one. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches have been followed by developing and distributing an online questionnaire form, in order to collect the data necessary for answering the study questions.

3.2   Population and Sampling Technique

The target population of this study included all academic staff of Tourism and Hotels Faculties in the Egyptian governmental universities. There are ten faculties, from which the study considered the faculties that have a permanent academic staff. Only one faculty was excluded, since it depends on part-time members from other institutions, while there was no permanent staff member at the time of conducting this study. All scientific departments, within all faculties, were considered in the study—Tourism Studies, Hotel Studies/Management, and Tourist Guidance departments.

In order to identify the population elements, a comprehensive list was thoroughly developed with all academic staff members, based partly upon the information available on each faculty’s official website. Moreover, this information was then refined by contacting each faculty; to ensure the accuracy of the list, as well as to investigate the acting status of staff members.

Accordingly, only acting staff members (excluding those who were on a long-term vacation), with a total of 441 staff members, were invited to participate in the study.  All those elements of population are considered in the field study. This list is referred to as the available or accessible population that was considered more realistic to be investigated. The following table (3) represents the population and response data distributed according to academic position, gender and scientific department.

Table 3: Distribution of Population and Response Data

3.3   Instrument Development and Measures

Firstly, in order to explore the competencies of e-learning in higher education, a number of models and frameworks was reviewed concerning the evaluation of e-learning environment, as mentioned previously in table (1). This aimed to set the pillars of e-learning process. However, the study adopted the e-Learning Alignment Guide (eLAG) framework that is developed by Mentis (2008), as being one of the reliable models or frameworks address such issue. It was mentioned as a rational description for e-learning situations (Greener, 2009; Laudrisen, 2009; Byers, 2010).

 

To compile the data required for the study, a questionnaire consisting of five sections was designed. The first section collected information on the demographic profile of the participants such as gender, age range, educational qualifications, academic position, affiliated university, scientific department, and teaching experience. This section included also two questions related to whether the participants have been enrolled in training on using either new pedagogical techniques and/or technological tools in teaching.

The following sections (2, 3 and 4) represented the different zones of eLAG. The second one related to the features of using technological tools/media in teaching—whether for preparing lectures (6 statements), during lectures (6 statements), or after lectures (5 statements). The third section related to using pedagogical methods, which represented by four statements. Both sections were measured on a five-point scale; to determine the extent of participant’s usage of each tool/method (5=‘Always’; 1=‘Never’).

The fourth section concerned with the innovative teaching context, where represented by six statements. The last section of the questionnaire aimed to explore both benefits and challenges that could face applying Technological Pedagogical Innovation (TPI) in education process from the educators’ point of view. Benefits and challenges were represented by 10 and 7 statements respectively. Sections (5 & 6) were also measured on a five-point scale; to determine the agreement level of participants on each statement (5=‘Strongly Agree’; 1=‘Strongly Disagree’).

Finally, the questionnaire was designed using Google Forms, and a pilot survey was conducted by sharing the link with some faculties’ educators. Then, feedbacks were collected, reviewed, and applied before distribution process.

3.4   Questionnaire Distribution and Data Collection

The online questionnaire form’s hyperlink has been sent to all elements of the population (a total of 441 acting staff members); via private phone messages or personal e-mails. Furthermore, coordinators from each faculty have shared the form’s hyperlink with their scientific departments’ closed groups on social networks and/or smart phone applications. In order to get a high response rate, a reminder contact was sent to those who did not give feedback for their participation. The survey was conducted during September and October 2019. It was estimated that the questionnaire completion needs only 5-10 minutes. Anonymity was ensured and participation was voluntary.

In total, 147 responses were received, from which only 14 responses were filtered out; either because of replication by submitting twice, or they did not belong to the target population criteria previously mentioned. Thus, the remaining 133 responses (out of total population elements 441) were valid for statistical analysis, with a total response rate of (30.16%). The detailed response data distributed according to academic position, gender and scientific department are illustrated in the above table (3).

3.5   Data Analysis Techniques

IBM SPSS Statistics Program (Version 25) was used to analyze the collected data, to answer the study questions. Firstly, descriptive statistics (frequencies & percentage) were used to describe the participants’ profile, as well as to calculate means and standard deviations for all questionnaire dimensions and their statements.

Secondly, significant statistical relationships were calculated using compare means tests—“One-Sample T-test,” “Independent-Samples T-test,” or “One-Way ANOVA test;” in order to determine whether there are significant differences between faculties educators’ profile in terms of gender, scientific department, academic position and teaching experience. Finally, Correlation Coefficient was calculated using r-test, to investigate whether there are significant correlation relationships between e-Learning Alignment Guide (eLAG) Dimensions.

 

4    Results

4.1   Profile of Participants

By calculating descriptive statistics, the following table (4) demonstrates the demographic profile of the participants in terms of gender, age range, educational qualifications, academic position, affiliated university, scientific department, and teaching experience.

 

 

Based on total number of responses (133), the female represented about 67%, while the male recorded only 33%. Relating to age range, almost 70% of the participants (94) were between 20 and 40 years old. Regarding the educational qualifications, almost two-third of participants has held a doctoral degree. About 51% of participants (68) have occupied either position of assistant professor (28%) or lecturer (23%). Notably, some staff members in different academic positions were on their process for upward promotion.

As for the universities affiliation, academic staff members from all governmental Tourism and Hotels Faculties, in Egypt, were participated in the study. Alexandria University occupied the top of the list by 56 participants, with 42% of total responses; followed by Mansoura University (19 participants) and Helwan University (18 participants), with percents around 14%. However, participants who affiliated to Universities of Matrouh (6), South Valley in Luxor (5) and Minia (3) came at the bottom of the list, with participation rates below 5% for each one.

Most of participants were from the Hotel Studies/Management departments (54), representing 40.6%; followed by Tourism Studies departments (49 participants) and Tourist Guidance departments (30 participants), with percents of 36.8% and 22.6% respectively.

Almost 25% of the participants (33) had a reasonable teaching experience ranging from (5-10) years. Also, both experience intervals ranging from (1-5) years, and (10-15) were represented by 25 participants (18.8%) for each one of them.

Investigating whether the participants have been enrolled in training on using either new pedagogical techniques and/or technological tools in teaching; revealed that although 90% of the participants (120) were trained on using technological tools in teaching; only 49% of the participants (65) were trained on using new pedagogical techniques.

4.2   Results Discussion

4.2.1  Using Technological Tools/Media

This section aimed at exploring the features of using technological tools/media in teaching process by the participating staff members from all governmental Tourism and Hotels Faculties, in Egypt. Participating staff members were asked to assess their usage pattern of teaching tools/media—for preparing, during, and after delivering lectures; from their viewpoints. Mean score and standard deviation have been calculated for each method, as well as in total, based on the whole data collected.

Firstly, as tabulated in table (5), analyzing data related to using technological tools/media for preparing lectures declared that the overall mean was (3.77). The highest mean was recorded to the tool of ‘Search Engines’ with (4.43); followed by ‘E-Books & E-Periodicals’ tool with a mean (4.22). On the other hand, using tools such as ‘Course Specific Software/Website’ and ‘Social Networking Websites’, recorded the lowest means of (3.05) and (3.14) respectively; comparing to other tools. To explore whether there were significant differences referring to attributes of educators’ profile; compare-means tests (Independent-Samples T-test and One-Way ANOVA) were applied to different tools/media used for preparing lectures. Accordingly, there were no significant differences between the participating educators that could be referred either to the scientific department, academic position or teaching experience. However, only one tool (Printed Books & Periodicals) recorded high statistically significant difference at confidence level (0.01), referred to gender, with (p-value=0.004).

Generally, it could be concluded that technological tools/media for preparing lectures have been usually employed by participating educators, except tools of using ‘Course Specific Software’ or ‘Social Networking Websites’; with no significant differences between the participants that could be referred to gender, scientific department, academic position or teaching experience. The most used technological tools/media for preparing lectures were ‘Search Engines’ and ‘E-Books & E-Periodicals’.

Secondly, data analyses presented in middle part of table (5), which related to using technological tools/media during lectures; illustrated that the overall mean was (3.48). A high proportion of participants depended on using the ‘Visual Presentations (e.g., Power Point, Prezi)’ tool with a mean of (4.42); followed by using ‘Verbal Presentation and the White Board’ tool with a mean (3.89). On the other hand, using tools such as ‘Online Applications (e.g., Edmodo, Google classroom, Schoology)’ and ‘Search Engines (e.g., Google)’ scored the lowest means of (2.69) and (3.05) respectively.

 

Applying compare-means tests to different tools/media used during lectures, to investigate whether there were significant differences referring to attributes of educators’ profile; revealed the following relationships:

1.     There were no statistically significant differences between the participating educators regarding any of tools/media used during lectures referred to gender or scientific department.

2.     There were 5 tools/media used during lectures recorded high statistically significant differences at confidence level (0.05), referred to academic position or teaching experience, as follows:

-      Using ‘Printed Out Materials’ and ‘Interactive Videos’ tools during lectures referred to academic position, with (p-value=0.030 & 0.025) respectively.

-      Using ‘Visual Presentations (e.g., Power Point, Prezi)’ tool during lectures referred to academic position and teaching experience, with (p-value=0.027 & 0.018) respectively.

-      Using ‘Online Applications (e.g., Edmodo, Google classroom, Schoology)’ tool during lectures referred to teaching experience, with (p-value=0.017).

Generally, such results declared that technological tools/media have been employed on a moderate scale during lectures by participating educators. The most used one was ‘Visual Presentations (e.g., Power Point, Prezi)’; whereas the majority of participants also depended on using the ‘Verbal Presentation and the White Board’, rather than other technological tools such as ‘Online Applications (e.g., Edmodo, Google classroom, Schoology)’ and ‘Search Engines (e.g., Google)’. No significant differences were noticed referred to gender or scientific department; while only 5 tools/media recorded high statistically significant differences referred to academic position or teaching experience

Finally, based on data analyses illustrated in last part of table (5), which related to using technological tools/media after delivering lectures; high proportion of respondents have used ‘Traditional Paper Assignment’ tool with a mean of (4.43). On the other hand, using tools such as ‘Course Specific Software/Website’ and ‘Online Applications Assignment (e.g., Edmodo, Google classroom, Schoology)’ scored the lowest means of (2.64) and (2.90) respectively.

Applying compare-means tests to different tools/media used after delivering lectures revealed that there were no significant differences between the participating educators that could be referred either to the gender, scientific department, academic position or teaching experience.

In general, these results revealed that technological tools/media have been employed on a limited scale after delivering lectures by participating educators, since the majority of them depend on using the ‘Traditional Paper Assignment’ tool, rather than technological ones; with no significant differences between the participants that could be referred to gender, scientific department, academic position or teaching experience.

4.2.2  Using Pedagogical Methods

This section represents the usage of different pedagogical methods, by the participating staff members from all governmental Tourism and Hotels Faculties, in Egypt. Educators were asked to assess their usage pattern of such methods during lectures from their points of view. Mean score and standard deviation have been calculated for each method, as well as in total, based on the whole data collected.

Table (6) declared that the overall mean was (3.79). The highest mean was recorded to the method of ‘Two-way teaching’ with (4.26); followed by ‘Drills and practices’ and ‘Guided self-learning’ methods with (4.18) and (4.01) respectively. On the other hand, ‘One-way teaching’ method was sometimes used with a mean of (2.71), comparing to other interactive methods. Therefore, it could be concluded that the interactive pedagogical methods have been usually used by participating educators.

These findings appear to be supported with the results of Ganyaupfu (2013), who confirmed that the teacher-student interactive approach produced the high mean score, followed by the student-centered approach; whereas the lowest mean score was recorded for the teacher-centered approach.

In order to explore whether there were significant differences referring to attributes of educators’ profile; further statistical analyses were applied by comparing means of different pedagogical methods. As shown in table (6), results revealed that there were no significant differences between the participating educators that could be referred to gender, academic position or teaching experience; except only two methods recorded high statistically significant differences at confidence level (0.05), as follows:

1.     ‘One-way teaching’ method; referred to gender, with (p-value=0.022).

2.     ‘Guided self-learning’ method; referred to gender, academic position and teaching experience, with (p-value=0.024, 0.045 & 0.008) respectively.

Moreover, there were no significant differences regarding any of these methods referred to the scientific department.

 

4.2.3  Innovative Teaching Context

This section aimed to investigate importance of determinates or dimensions of innovative teaching context, which could support using new technological tools or teaching pedagogy.

Participating staff members were asked to state the extent to which they agree with such dimensions from their perspectives. Mean score and standard deviation have been calculated for each dimension, as well as in total, based on the whole data collected.

Table (7) showed that the educators almost agreed on the listed dimensions of innovative teaching context. All determinates or dimensions recorded no extreme scores; with an overall mean of (3.93), and individual means ranged (3.80 – 4.06).

Further statistical analyses were applied by comparing means of different dimensions of innovative teaching context, to explore whether there were significant differences referring to attributes of educators’ profile. According to results presented in table (7), there were no significant differences between the participating educators that could be referred either to the scientific department, academic position or teaching experience. However, only one dimension recorded high statistically significant difference at confidence level (0.05), referred to gender, with (p-value=0.042); namely; dimension of ‘The supportive institutional infrastructure’.

Therefore, it could be concluded that such dimensions could support the innovative context in teaching process, for all faculty staff members, regardless their profile attributes. 

 

4.2.4  Benefits and Challenges of Applying TPI

This section reflects the respondents’ perceptions towards benefits and challenges of applying TPI in educational process. From the data presented in the following table (8), it could be concluded that the majority of respondents strongly agreed that applying TPI has a lot of benefits, with means ranged between (4.23 – 4.54).

Such findings were supported by the study of Scoppio and Covell (2016). Moreover, they added that it is important to ensure that the continual changes in the learning technology should not threaten the pedagogical basics.

The participating educators illustrated that applying TPI would ‘build the capacity for both instructors and students’; ‘encourage students’ research skills’; ‘stimulate the student innovative skills’; ‘enrich the students learning ability’; and ‘reach new and more effective teaching and presenting techniques’.

This result is also confirmed by Kaushal and Mahajan (2017), which showed that interactive lecturing leads to better understanding of the course content and collaborates the concepts of the topics more clearly.

Generally, there were no significant differences between the investigated respondents towards benefits of applying TPI referred to gender, scientific department, academic position or teaching experience. Only three statements showed that there were statistically significant differences, as follows:

1.     Applying TPI enhances and updates student with the work needed qualifications (referred to scientific department).

2.     Applying TPI develops and manages my course syllabus in a better way (referred to teaching experience).

3.     Applying TPI saves time in reaching the material needed for my course (referred to academic position).