This presentation on the FCDO funded Skills for Prosperity Kenya (SFPK) project was presented at EDEN2023 in Dublin, Ireland on 20 June 2023 by Beck Pitt. Find out more about SFPK: https://iet.open.ac.uk/projects/skills-for-prosperity-kenya#overview

1. Work together. Learn together. Grow together.
Implemented by:
Add Ukaid/UK Government,
Embassy or HMG logo
Add partner logo
Challenges for Innovation and Educational
Change in Low Resourced Settings:
A Kenyan Example
Fereshte Goshtasbpour, Beck Pitt, Simon Cross, Rebecca Ferguson and Denise
Whitelock (The Open University, UK)
EDEN 2023, Dublin

2. 2
What we will
cover today • About the Skills for Prosperity Kenya project
• Evaluation timeline & data collection
• Key questions
• The Beyond Prototypes model
• Perceived barriers to TEL
• Proposed solutions
• Conclusion and Q&A

3. 3
Skills for
Prosperity Kenya
Project
• A 2.5-year nationwide capacity development
programme to build Kenyan HE sector expertise in
digital education (online and blended)
• Aimed to introduce HE staff to principles of effective,
inclusive and accessible online education and to
strengthen their skills and capabilities for delivering
quality digital education.
• Funded by UK Government Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office (FCDO)
• Included all 37 public universities in Kenya
• Designed for educators, managers and support staff

4. 4
Skills for
Prosperity Kenya
Project
Two stages:
Baseline capacity development
Jul 2021- Mar 2022
Mastery capacity development
May 2021-Jan 2023
• 29 public universities, 254
staff
• Eight-session self-study
online course, requiring 30
hours of study
• Wraparound webinars
• Online community of
practice
• 8 public universities, 83 staff
• 8-block self-study online
course with moderated
discussions requiring 72
hours of study
• Expert webinars
• University projects
supported by expert
mentors
• Online community of
practice

5. 5
Evaluation
Timeline & Data
Collection
Sep
2020
-
March
2021
Nov
2022
Dec
2022
-
Jan 2023
June-
July
2020
• Baseline data
• (pre-course survey
& needs
assessment)
• Evaluation data
1 (immediate)
• Post-course
survey
• Evaluation data 2
(spaced, 12-18 months
after programme)
• Qualitative
questionnaire
• Evaluation data 3
(spaced, 12-18 months
after programme)
• Qualitative interviews
and focus groups

6. 6
1) What problems did participants from the
Skills for Prosperity Kenya programme face
in supporting, delivering or managing TEL in
their institutions?
2) What solutions did participants propose
for the problems identified by question 1?
Image: “Planning research” by Bryan Matters, Visual
Thinkery licensed under CC-BY-4.0
Key Questions

7. 7
• Poor understanding of barriers within
low-resourced settings
• Varied stakeholder voices: support staff
experiences/voice absent in current
literature
• Develop a better understanding of what
factors ensure successful implementation
of TEL.
Image: “Planning research” by Bryan Matters, Visual
Thinkery licensed under CC-BY-4.0
Why these
questions?

8. 8
The Beyond
Prototypes
Model
Image credit: Scanlon et al., 2013, p. 29.

9. 9
Findings: Barriers
to Implementing
digital education

10. 10
Findings: The
Ecology of
Practice
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by all groups:
• Internet services
• Electricity
• ICT infrastructure
• Software and e-resources
• Limited knowledge and skills of teachers.
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by some groups:
• Class size (educators and support staff)
• University capacity/facilities for large cohorts (support
staff)
• Large cohorts and lack of individual interaction/support
(educators).

11. 11
Findings:
Communities
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by all groups:
• Student perception and attitudes
• Teacher heavy workload
• Time constraints.
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by some groups:
• Teacher resistance, low motivation & negative
attitudes (management and support staff)
• Lack of professional service support (managers and
support staff)
• Uncertainty of how to best support educators (support
staff).

12. 12
Findings:
Pedagogy Perceived barriers to TEL identified by educators:
• Choosing appropriate pedagogies
• Lack of flexibility of existing curriculum
• Lack of open and distance learning curriculum.
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by managers:
• Teaching practical subjects such as STEM
• Online assessment
• Ineffective facilitation.

13. 13
Findings:
Technical
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by support staff:
• Appropriate tools and technologies.
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by managers:
• Appropriate tools for online examinations and
attendance reporting.

14. 14
Findings: Wider
Context
Perceived barriers to TEL identified by support staff and
management:
• Funding and investment.

15. 15
Proposed
solutions

16. 16
Ecology of TEL
• Regional and national coordinated
action required
• Telecommunication providers and
electricity suppliers
• Increase student access to resources
• Increase student sponsorship
• Ongoing capacity building and
professional development including
conference participation, workshops
and mentoring.

17. 17
TEL wider
context
• Increased funding for TEL
• Senior management advocacy and
lobbying
• Updated funding models
• Universities monitor funding use and
enable managers to provide resources
for TEL
• Role of government and ministries in
supporting TEL
• Institutional policies and embedding
TEL strategically.

18. 18
TEL wider
context
“The government needs to ensure that
universities have appropriate and
adequate infrastructure … If the
government of Kenya must charge
universities the costs should be subsidized
otherwise the cost is passed to parents
and guardians making education only
accessible to a few.”
(Manager, DVC Academics, Research & Outreach)

19. 19
Communities
• Institutional managers identified as
having key role in implementing TEL
(e.g. advocacy and provision of
essential resources)
• Recognition and motivation through
reward and incentivization
• Provision of CPD
• Raising student awareness about TEL
and increased access to affordable
devices.

20. 20
Conclusion
• Contributes to a growing understanding
of factors that impact TEL
implementation, innovation and
educational change
• Insight into support staff perspectives
• Identified barriers reflect stakeholder
experience and perspectives – provide
basis for collaborative solutions
• Presents potential solutions from
stakeholders
• Mapping approach enables identified
barriers without solutions to be noted.

21. 21
Any questions?
Thank you for joining us today!
@BeckPitt
Beck.Pitt@open.ac.uk
https://oro.open.ac.uk/89316/

22. 22
Bibliography
Agava, S., Selvam, S.G. and Pete, J. (2021), University Preparedness for Online Teaching and Learning amid COVID-19 in Kenya. In
Sengupta, E. and Blessinger, P. (Ed.) New Student Literacies amid COVID-19: International Case Studies. Emerald Publishing Limited,
Bingley, pp. 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120210000041012
Dalton EM, Lyner-Cleophas M, Ferguson BT, McKenzie J. (2019). Inclusion, universal design and universal design for learning in higher
education: South Africa and the United States. African Journal of Disability. (9) https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v8i0.519
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development (project report). Palo Alto, CA:
Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311
Gabriel, F., Marrone, R., Van Sebille, Y., Kovanovic, V., & de Laat, M. (2022). Digital education strategies around the world: practices
and policies. Irish Educational Studies, 41(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2022513
Hudson, K.E. (2017). Faculty development in developing countries: Introduction and overview. In: Smith, C., Hudson, K.E. (Eds.),
Faculty development in developing countries: Improving teaching quality in higher education. Routledge, New York, pp. 3-5.
King, F. (2014). Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: an evidence-based framework. Professional Development
in Education, 40(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.823099
McChesney, & Aldridge, J. M. (2021). What gets in the way? A new conceptual model for the trajectory from teacher professional
development to impact. Professional Development in Education, 47(5): 834–852.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1667412
McCowan, T., Omingo, M., Schendel, R., Adu-Yeboah, C., & Tabulawa, R. (2022). Enablers of pedagogical change within universities:
Evidence from Kenya, Ghana and Botswana. International Journal of Educational Development, 90: 102558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102558
Mutisya, D. N., & Makokha, G. L. (2016). Challenges affecting adoption of e-learning in public universities in Kenya. E-Learning and
Digital Media, 13(3–4): 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016672902
Newton, M. A., Oduor, A and Kiplaga, S. J. (2021). Opportunities and challenges of remote teaching and learning in university
education during the covid19 pandemic lockdown periods: the case of Maasai Mara University, Narok, Kenya. International Society
for the Study of Behavioural Development. Bulletin 79 (1): 7-15
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (International-7th ed.). London: Pearson.
Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Fleck, J., Cooban, C, Ferguson, R., Cross, S. and Waterhouse, P. (2013). Beyond
Prototypes: Enabling Innovation in Technology-enhanced Learning (Project report). Open University, Milton Keynes. [online]
http://oro.open.ac.uk/41119/1/BeyondPrototypes.pdf
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23. 23
Acknowledgements This presentation is licensed CC BY 4.0
unless otherwise stated.
Unless otherwise noted, ilustrations in
this presentation are original or
remixed versions of a selection of
images produced by Visual Thinkery for
the UK-Aid Funded Skills for Prosperity
Kenya programme, and are
licensed CC BY 4.0