Page 138 - IJET_July2021_final
P. 138

members and all the faculty members  their pedagogical practices and attitude
        are technologically ready for eLearning.  towards eLearning is very low.
        However, their readiness in  terms of
           Figure 4 (a): Box plot displaying the ELr scores of Faculty members with
           respect to the Discipline; (b) Dimension wise readiness mean scores of
                      faculty members with respect to their Discipline






















        Level of education and ELr dimensions   by  the  median  score of  PG, D and  G
                                                faculty members. Further, there are no
        The  majority  of  faculty  members
        (49percent)  are Post  Graduates  (M    obvious outliers in any of the samples.
        =  228.12,  SD  =  28.01),  and  around   The result of one way ANOVA (F (4, 416)
        38percent of them are Doctorates (M =   = .401, p = .808) indicated that there was
        227.37, SD = 22.39). Figure 5 (a) and (b)   no  significant  influence  of  the  level  of
        respectively, represent the ELr scores   education of faculty members on their
        of faculty members according to their   ELr scores. Agboola, 2006; Mutiaradevi,
        level of education and the mean scores   2009;  Oketch  et.  al.,  2014;  Parlakkiliç,
        obtained by them on dimensions of ELr.   2015  concluded  that  faculty  members'
        From figure 5 (a), the IQR shows that the   level  of  education  does  not  have  a
        ELr scores of faculty members who are   significant  effect  on  their  perception
        Post Doctorates (PD) is more spread than   towards eLearning or their ELr. On the
        the ELr scores of Post Graduates (PG),   other hand, Nauaf, 2010 claims that the
        Doctorates (D). Further, the ELr scores   level of education  of faculty  members
        of Graduate (G) faculty members are     significantly influenced their perception
        negatively skewed while the ELr scores   towards  eLearning.  Further,  from
        of faculty members of other levels of   figure  5  (b),  it  can  be  interpreted  that
        education are distributed symmetrically.   faculty members with various levels of
        The maximum score of ELr of PG faculty   education scored highest in TR followed
        members is highest  followed  by  the   by  their RR and  A  scores. The faculty
        maximum scores of PD, D and G faculty   members in  all  the  groups  scored
        members.  The median score of ELr of    least in  terms  of  their  PR. Thus,  it  can
        PD faculty members is highest followed   be concluded  that level of education
                                                does  not  have  any  influence  on  ELr

         128                                        Indian Journal of Educational Technology
                                                              Volume 3, Issue 2, July 2021
   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143