International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2017, Vol.11, No. 1, pp.34-41

A Case Study of the University-wide Effects ofe-learning Promotion Activities
Masaki Nakamichi
Ehime University, Japan
nakamichi.masaki.me@ehime-u.ac.jp
Junko Nemoto
Ehime University, Japan
nemoto.junko.nu@ehime-u.ac.jp
Toshihiro Kita
Kumamoto University, Japankita@ield.kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Hiroshi Nakano
Kumamoto University, Japannakano@cc.kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Katsuaki Suzuki
Kumamoto University, Japanksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

Despite a growing trend to incorporate e-learning into higher education in Japan, a challenge facing the promotion of elearning is the transience of such programs, which rapidly stall. We developed a new support system that includes an
Instructional Design Office for faculty who require support in utilizing e-learning. The support system aims toaccommodate diverse learning activities and all types of classes. We investigated our e-learning promotional measures overa 3-year period from 2013 to 2015, and made immediate improvements to increase the reach of e-learning.
Achievements include an increase in the number of learning management system courses from 410 to 1004 and anincrease in the number of teachers who applied to offer e-learning courses from 123 to 408. A questionnaire survey
asking for feedback on the promotional measures demonstrated the validity of the measures and the suitability of the
support system.
Keywords: e-learning, faculty development, Learning Management System,

Introduction
The rapid globalization of higher education over the past 20 years has seen a dramatic expansion of the use of
information and communications technologies (ICT). As such, sophisticated e-learning continues to be emphasized
as a learning method (Shimizu, 2006; Shigeta, 2013). However, a shared challenge facing universities attempting to
introduce and promote e-learning is that such initiatives are often transient in nature and stall after their initial
application (Iiyoshi, 2014). In addition, some reports have indicated faculty resistance to online education as being
among the largest impediments undermining the advancement of such initiatives (The Open University of Japan,2011). Furthermore, in view of the current situation of initiatives at individual universities, another factor that has
been brought to light is that promotion efforts remain one-sided on the part of the university, with implementation
left to the individual efforts of interested faculty members (Yoshida, Taguchi, & Nakahara, 2005). Because of this
impasse, many universities are expected to benefit from measures that elicit the true value of systems and personnel
devoted to the implementation of e-learning initiatives, as well as those that facilitate more effective e-learning use(Assareha, 2011). There is one previous study on the direction of e-learning promotion, but it does not discuss
practical content in detail (Casanovas, 2010). In terms of other cases outside of Japan featuring situations in which
utilization has fallen off after introduction, we also find reports that widely acknowledge the value of the Learning
Management System (LMS), but state that it is largely under-utilized (Dutton, Cheong, & Park, 2004) or else utilized
in few classes (Green, 2003), which echoes the Japanese experience. Moreover, there have also been reports ofskepticism concerning the impact of the introduction of e-learning systems on teaching methods (Carmean &Heafner, 2002). In other words, these reports share the common theme that the spread of such systems is difficult
IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

34

and not something that is achieved merely through their introduction. Clarifying measures to promote the spread ofe-learning may therefore be said to hold promise for universities facing similar challenges in Japan and overseas.
Ehime University has for the last several years convened training sessions on e-learning and instructional
improvement, and faculty interest has been keen. Nevertheless, in practice, incorporating e-learning as a method of
instructional improvement has proven to be a time-consuming and psychologically challenging task for faculty.
Consequently, this apparent interest has not led to any concrete educational improvements (Nakamichi & Suzuki,2013). Therefore, as a solution, an Instructional Design Office (IDO) was set up to support instructional design andpromote e-learning, thereby establishing a university-wide promotion system for e-learning (Nakamichi & Suzuki,2013). In this paper, since it is our aim to promote the spread of e-learning as a learning environment, we will
advance our discussion by defining e-learning as “educational activities taking advantage of LMS” as a first step in elearning activities. In addition, we focus on the efforts made to promote the university-wide spread of e-learning inconnection with the implementation of an institutional system to support instructional design. In addition topresenting the results of faculty evaluations of these promotional measures from interviews and questionnaires, we
also summarize their effects.

Methods
The educational institution investigated in this study was Ehime University, a national university comprised of sevenfaculties, and seven graduate schools, employing 855 faculty members (excluding the university hospital) and 432
staff (total number of administrative and technical staff excluding those employed by the university hospital) with astudent enrolment of approximately 10,000 (as of May 1, 2015). The IDO at the heart of the present initiative
commenced activities in 2012 on the basis of a pilot e-learning promotion initiative (Nakamichi, Matsuba, Ekawa,
Ohmori, & Suzuki, 2009), and was officially launched in 2013. Based on a theory (Rogers, 2007) holding that apenetration rate of 16% will serve as an indicator of progress, the operational target for the university was to bring
the percentage of faculty members making use of e-learning activities to over 16%, to which end the following four
promotional measures were put into practice.

Promotional Measures
Institutional backing for the promotion of e-learning. Firstly, efforts were made to establish campus
regulations, rules and guidelines relating to e-learning. In addition to raising awareness on campus, these efforts werein line with university policies, which facilitated their acceptance by faculty. At the IDO, team members – including
instructional design experts, technical specialists in ICT, and administrative staff – undertook activities to establish acooperative framework that could take advantage of their individual expertise. Main activities included supporting
instructional design, assisting with the development of teaching materials, and providing operational support forlessons that make use of e-learning (Csete & Evans, 2013). A proactive and collaborative stance was also adopted in
the provision of support for instructional improvement, rather than a less engaged stance that simply responded tofaculty members’ desires.
Attentive support. By taking care of copyright processing, providing support to experts in instructional design
and ICT specialists, and making the necessary improvements to allow for the implementation of LMS courses, the
IDO has endeavored to ease anxieties and workloads among faculty members who either lack confidence or are
unfamiliar with ICT (King & Boyatt, 2015). In addition, as well as providing ongoing support for faculty members
who have already begun to take advantage of e-learning, the office has enlisted their cooperation as opinion leadersin its public relations activities (Rogers, 2007).
Leaflets featuring case studies of the use of ICT in education by familiar faculty members. The IDO has
issued leaflets as a medium for publicizing its activities to promote e-learning. These leaflets are comprised of two
sections, “e-Learning News” and “Case Studies of the Use of ICT in Education.” The former section consists ofarticles with useful information, such as introducing the functionality of the Moodle e-learning software andproviding news about the rollout of wireless Internet across campus, as well as toolbox-style articles relating to
instructional improvement, including useful hints about how to use LMS software effectively. The latter section
brings together examples of the efficacy of e-learning in the classroom and personal accounts drawn fromexperience. The leaflets are published on a bi-monthly basis, and are also used as a tool for broadcasting the resultsof promotional measures. Furthermore, articles in the leaflets are posted on the IDO website along with videointerviews with the aim of securing even greater publicity.
Organizing training sessions relating to ICT and instructional design. With the objective of widely
promoting the use of ICT and instructional design among faculty members, training programs have been organized
IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

35

for instructors at both beginner and advanced levels. While only one course was held in 2012, since the IDO had
not yet officially opened, six were held in 2013, eight in 2014, and eleven in 2015. While the courses initially targeted
beginners, in response to participants’ wishes, advanced courses and instructional design courses were subsequently
added. In addition, beginning in 2014 a framework was put in place for these courses to be made available throughe-learning.

Data Collection and Analysis
We evaluated the results of this initiative by observing the changing trends in the number of LMS courses offered(hereinafter “number of courses offered”) and the number of faculty members offering LMS courses (hereinafter“scope of faculty involvement”) based on findings from a questionnaire and interview survey. Because applications
to offer LMS courses were sent to the IDO by means of an online entry form, the number of LMS courses offered(as an indicator of penetration) was counted for yearly intervals as the number of courses for which applications
were accepted. Also, since we counted the number of faculty members who applied to offer the aforementioned
courses, the scope of faculty involvement was counted for yearly intervals not as the total number of applicantsregistered, but rather as the real number of individuals. This way, a faculty member who applied to offer threecourses would still be counted as a single individual. The reason why the real number of individuals was counted inaddition to the number of courses offered was because an increase in use by a portion of faculty members interested
in e-learning alone cannot be considered to constitute university-wide spread. LMS, in which courses are offered byfaculty members, is implemented on a university-wide basis, and was judged to be a valid indicator of the results ofuniversity-wide e-learning promotional measures. As for other surveys, a questionnaire survey and an interview
survey were conducted. The reason for this was because in order to determine whether the four promotional
measures affected incorporation of e-learning, it was necessary to know the faculty members’ evaluations regarding
each type of support. The questionnaire survey consisted of 20 items for quantitatively determining how evaluations
changed during the two years in which promotional measures were implemented. The interview survey was
conducted in order to collect more detailed reasons for the responses, and to contribute to detailed evaluation andimprovement of promotional measures.
To collect opinions about e-learning promotion strategies and the IDO’s initiatives, we conducted anonymous
online questionnaire surveys in 2014 and 2015. In terms of content, the surveys involved a total of 20 items, some ofwhich related to the content of the four promotional measures and others that were expected to change according
to the results of those measures. The reason why the questionnaire survey was conducted online was because it waseasier to respond to than paper-based surveys, and could be expected to reduce costs and improve response rates.
Responses were solicited using a five-point scale of “Agree,” “Somewhat agree,” “Neither agree nor disagree,”“Somewhat disagree,” and “Disagree.” The conection between The four promotional measures and thequestionnaire items is as follows. Institutional backing for the promotion of e-learning: 1) to 3), Attentive support: 4)to 7), Leaflets featuring case studies of the use of ICT in education by familiar faculty members: 8) to 10),
Organizing training sessions Relating to ICT and instructional design: 11) & 12), other items after 13) are others thatwere expected to change according to the results of those measures. Furthermore, respondents were asked to givefree-description responses of their impressions and opinions of the four promotional measures. To eliminate biases
of opinion, semi-structured interviews were conducted with three faculty members who had offered courses for the
first time in the 2015 academic year and three faculty members who had offered courses continuously since 2013,
when they were introduced as a measure to promote the spread of e-learning. The interview survey was conductedin April 2016. Interview data was recorded either using a digital recorder or written notes and when the interview
was complete, the recorded contents were checked by the faculty member who was the subject of the interview to
identify and address any discrepancies. Data falling into the category of free descriptions obtained during thequestionnaire and interviews was revised only to correct misprints or omissions (i.e., spelling errors), and data forwhich the meanings of words and phrases was essentially identical (differing only in terms of word endings forexample) was consolidated. Otherwise, descriptions were as much as possible left as originally given.

Results
University-wide measures to promote e-learning were carried out from 2013 to 2015. Between 2013 and 2015, thenumber of courses offered increased by 594, from 410 to 1004 courses (an increase factor of approximately 2.5),
while faculty involvement rose from 123 teachers to 408 (a factor of approximately 3.3) (Figure 1).

IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

36

Questionnaire surveys were conducted in 2014 and 2015. As shown in Figure 2, when the number of positive
responses (the aggregate of “Agree” and “Somewhat agree”) was tabulated for the 20 questionnaire items, three
items were found to have increased by 20% or more over the previous year. First, the increase in “3) A department
specializing in instructional design is necessary to provide quality assurance in university education” suggests an

Figure 1. Annual trends in the number of courses and scope of faculty involvement.
understanding that such support is involved with education at a university-wide level and that it also carries
organizational significance. In addition, from responses to the effect that “7) Without the support of the IDO, I do
not think I would have engaged in instructional improvement on this occasion” and “4) Instructional improvement
was simpler than I initially thought,” we find that the provision of fine-tuned support has the effect of alleviating thedaunting perception associated with e-learning. Items that increased by 10% or more included “2) I feel that the
IDO is necessary as a place to seek advice about instructional improvement,” “1) I feel the IDO is meaningful withregard to the preparation of teaching materials as well in supporting instructional design,” and “11) I would like toknow more about theories and methods of instructional design in order to revise my lesson structure.” In addition,
positive responses also increased for the item associated with “9) The e-Learning News leaflets published by the
IDO are a useful reference with regard to instructional improvement,” showing that the leaflets were proving usefulas a source of information. In this way, we find that positive evaluations of the promotional measures and activitiesof the IDO increased, as did positive views toward lesson improvement.
In the interview survey and the free-description responses to the questionnaires, responses such as “Having
institutional support put me at ease, and I felt that e-learning did not have a high threshold” and “It was easy tomake use [of e-learning], since they worked together with me on content development and I was able to receive
operational support” indicated that involvement with e-learning was associated with higher levels of anxiety than
expected for faculty members, and a correspondingly high demand for support (Table 1). As a result of thepromotional measures, a significant increase was observed in both the number of courses offered and the scope of
faculty involvement, while the utilization of e-learning expanded dramatically. The target of 16% identified in 2012
represented 137 faculty members, which was successfully surpassed when faculty involvement reached 177 after the
implementation of the promotional measures in 2013. Furthermore, from 2014 to 2015, the number of courses
offered increased by 23, while faculty involvement increased by 139, reaching totals of 1004 courses and 408 faculty
members. The scope of faculty involvement represents the number of faculty members who applied to offer courses
through the LMS, while the number of courses offered represents the number of LMS courses that were actuallyoffered. In other words, these numbers can be presumed to indicate the presence of a large number of faculty
members preparing to offer LMS courses. From the increased proportion of positive feedback on the questionnaire,it seems highly likely that the number of courses offered will continue to increase in the future.
As discussed earlier, the questionnaire survey soliciting responses regarding IDO support indicated that instructors
feel that e-learning is necessary; this suggests that the increase in the number of courses offered and the scope of
faculty involvement was a result of the promotional activities.

IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

37

Figure 2. Changes in the proportion of positive questionnaire responses (“Agree” or “Somewhat
agree”).
Table 1
Free-Description Questionnaire Responses and Interview Survey Results
1. Institutional Backing for the Promotion of e-Learning
・ Having content production guidelines helped get me started since they demonstrated a format to follow.
・ Having institutional support put me at ease, and I felt that e-learning did not have a high threshold.
・ It was easy; the entire IDO took care of the schedule all the way to the end.
2. Attentive Support
・ The breadth of instructional design has expanded.
・ Thanks to the IDO, I was able to build a lesson in only a short time with little effort.
・ It was helpful to receive assistance with things like editing teaching materials
・ I was happy with the advice I received on how to prepare tests and the responses to my questions about
instructional design.
・ It is very helpful that they provide open access to things like the template for their questionnaire function.
・ They made improvements so that students could apply to Moodle course offerings with the touch of abutton, making the application process easier.
・ It was easy to make use [of e-learning], since they worked together with me on content development and I

IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

38

was able to receive operational support.
・ I feel that the application method is simple and convenient.
・ They worked together with me at the beginning, and by halfway through the process I was able to work on
my own.
・ I was happy with how they eased my misgivings about dealing with copyright issues, tool and proposed amethod of converting newspaper articles to illustrations
3. Organizing Training Sessions Relating to ICT and Instructional Design
・ I took part in an e-learning training session 2 years ago. Since I found this quite informative, I’m now trying
to participate in conjunction with a training session for educational coordinators.
・ What I learned by taking part in the training session inspired me to get to work on my next batch of teachingmaterials.
・ I gained knowledge of ICT.
4. Leaflets Featuring Case Studies of the Use of ICT in Education by Familiar Faculty Members
・ It was useful, as it helped me understand the nature of the support they offer.
・ I appreciated the tips on how to take advantage of Moodle.
・ I file all of the leaflets, which I put to use as a tool for obtaining necessary information.
・ For the time being at least, I appreciate that the leaflets are printed.
・ I was very pleased that a student contacted me after watching the online video introduction.
・ The case studies of other teachers all have something of interest. I find them quite informative.

Discussion
Our thoughts on each of the four promotional measures are discussed below.

Institutional Backing for the Promotion of e-Learning
As one factor behind the promotion of the development of rules and regulations, we may first of all cite theproposal and approval of establishing an e-learning expert committee on campus. The development of rules andregulations relating to education was carried out under the auspices of academic affairs organizations that initiallylacked consultative agencies specializing in e-learning. With the establishment of a committee, however, aframework for the consideration and discussion of promotion-oriented activities was successfully secured. In
addition, comments from faculty members to the effect that “Having content production guidelines helped get me
started since they demonstrated a format to follow,” show that the development of guidelines in addition to rules
and regulations has both facilitated a broader awareness of specific procedures and functions and elicited motivation
toward their utilization. However, getting to the point of setting up a committee and establishing rules andregulations required time for committee members and peripheral faculty members to understand the necessity ofsuch rules and regulations. It was necessary that negotiations be carried out to build consensus while repeatedly
requesting that e-learning promotional measures from the committee be investigated by individual faculties and thenincorporating their respective opinions. Although labor-intensive, this iterative process could also be said to have
had the effect of eliciting the assent of surrounding parties and giving the initiatives an institutional status. Sincesome feedback indicated that “Having institutional support put me at ease, and I felt that e-learning did not have ahigh threshold,” this suggests the significance of giving initiatives institutional status, notwithstanding the timerequired to build consensus.

Attentive Support
With regard to systems involving the provision of e-learning utilization support by experts in LMS course designand other ICT specialists, it is essential to bear in mind that these parties also serve as partners in the improvementof courses, as readily seen from comments such as “It was helpful to receive assistance with things like editing
teaching materials” and “They worked together with me at the beginning, and by halfway through the process I wasable to work on my own.” Rather than simply undertaking tasks such as the production of videos, their orientation
towards trying to understand why these instructors want to take advantage of e-learning, and what effects they hopeto achieve, may also have encouraged instructors’ motivation. In other words, building an effective support system,in addition to staff size, expertise, and developing personnel who are able to adopt a supportive attitude while
IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

39

providing consultation, proves highly effective (Al-Busaidi & Al-Shihi, 2012). Moreover, it is thought that theinclusion of instructors with actual LMS course experience in the provision of support will facilitate the elicitation ofwhat it is that instructors actually require.

Leaflets Featuring Case Studies of the Use of ICT in Education by Familiar Faculty Members
As a strategy for heightening the publicity effect of promotional leaflets, we can mention the listing of “e-Learning
News” and “Case Studies of the Use of ICT in Education” as complementary content. As suggested by faculty
members’ positive feedback with respect to “e-Learning News” for instructors who would like to receive support infuture, it may be that this section of the leaflet is used as a tool for obtaining introductory information. On the other
hand, comments with respect to “Case Studies of the Use of ICT in Education” to the effect that, “The case studies
of other teachers all have something of interest. I find them quite informative” show that this section is informative
for those who are already taking advantage of this technology, and it is apparent that the interests, knowledge, andusage level vary widely among instructors who see the leaflets. For this reason, when thinking about theconfiguration of the leaflets, it would seem that incorporating content targeting different interests and levels of
engagement could be effective in stimulating interest. Furthermore, because the interviews for these articles are
conducted by technical specialists and instructors who support the use of e-learning on a daily basis, it is easier todraw out the hardship and ingenuity that go into the shaping of e-support initiatives, giving the content an air ofcredibility. From comments such as “I was very pleased that a student contacted me after watching the online video
introduction,” we can see that diversifying media for posted content also leads to a heightened perception of theleaflets’ significance.

Organizing Training Sessions Relating to ICT and Instructional Design
In terms of the content of training sessions, holding courses at a certain time every year featuring set content is aneffective way to handle skills training for newly appointed staff. As suggested by one faculty member who stated, “I
took part in an e-learning training session 2 years ago. Since I found this quite informative, I’m now trying toparticipate in conjunction with a training session for educational coordinators,” convening such courses regularly
enables coordination with other initiatives. In addition, it contributes to e-learning becoming more widely utilized;
therefore, there will naturally be increased demand for more advanced course content. Responding flexibly to suchchanges and supporting further skills training will eventually swell the ranks of faculty taking advantage of e-learning
as a first step to realizing a mechanism of mutual learning.
Course content should be reviewed annually based on insights drawn from questionnaire surveys of participants aswell as the needs of instructors who have come into view through the provision of support on a daily basis.
Furthermore, since it became possible to enroll in e-learning courses in 2014, opportunities have also arisen for
instructors to experience LMS courses from the perspective of learners, which has contributed to a deeper
understanding of the e-learning approach.

Conclusion
The period from 2013 to 2015, during which four measures to promote e-learning were implemented at Ehime
University, saw a dramatic expansion in the utilization of e-learning. From the number of LMS courses offered, thescope of faculty involvement in offering these courses, and the results of feedback interviews and questionnaires, it
has become clear that these four promotional measures are effective as strategies for achieving continued
penetration following the introduction of e-learning. This measure is effective when it is necessary to disseminate elearning at university. As a future challenge, it will be necessary to clarify the reasons why e-learning has been
underutilized so as to explore the possibility of its further promotion.

References
Al-Busaidi, K., & Al-Shihi, H. (2012). Key factors to instructors’ satisfaction of learning management systems inblended learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(1), 18-39.
Assareha, A., & Hosseini B. M. (2011). Barriers to e-teaching and e-learning. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 791-795.
Casanovas, I. (2010). Exploring the Current Theoretical Background about Adoption until Institutionalization of
Online Education in Universities: Needs for further research. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(2), 73-84.

IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

40

Carmean, C., & Haefner, J. (2002). Mind over Matter-Transforming Course Management Systems into Effective
Learning Environments. EDUCAUSE Review, 37(6), 26-34, November/December.
Csete, J., & Evans, J. (2013). Strategies for Impact: enabling e-learning project initiatives. Campus-Wide Information
Systems, 30(3), 165-173.
Dutton, W., Cheong, P., & Park, A. (2004). An Ecology of Constrains on E-learning in Higher Education: The caseof a virtual learning environment. Prometheus, 22(2), 131-149.
Green, K. (2003). Campus Computing 2003: the 14th National Survey of Computing and Information Technology in American
Higher Education, Encino, CA, The Campus Computing Project.
Iiyoshi, T. (2014). Research on the use of ICT in higher education institutions. Center for the Promotion of Excellence inHigher Education, Kyoto University, p. 339. [in Japanese]
King, E., & Boyatt, R. (2015). Exploring Factors That Influence Adoption of e-Learning within Higher Education.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1272-1280.
Nakamichi, M., & Suzuki, K. (2013). A case of e-learning promotion at a university by providing support for
instructional design and material development. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of Japan Society for
Educational Technology, 805-806. [in Japanese]
Nakamichi, M., Matsuba, R., Ekawa, Y., Ohmori, F., & Suzuki, K. (2009). Faculty development by using course
guidance VOD –Consciousness of faculty members to promote university-wide e-Learning–. Japan Journalof Educational Technology, 33(suppl.), 25-28. [in Japanese]
Rogers, E. M. (2007). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.), (T. Mitsufuji, Trans.). Tokyo, Japan: Shoeisha. [in Japanese]
Shigeta, K. (2013). Flipped Classroom: Educational reform utilizing information technology. Journal of Information
Processing and Management, 56(10), 677-684. [in Japanese]
Shimizu, Y. (2006). E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where do we stand? For the Japanese edition. Tokyo Denki University
Press, Tokyo.
The Open University of Japan (2011). Research on Promotion of ICT Utilization Education, Result Report. [in Japanese]
Available online: http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/06/16/1307266_1.pdf
Yoshida, A., Taguchi, M., & Nakahara, J. (2005). College e-learning management strategy success conditions. Tokyo: Tokyo
Denki University Press. [in Japanese]

IJEMT, Vol.11, No. 1, 2017, pp.34-41 ISSN 1882–2290

41