Research Methodology

This study was done in Tanzania at one of the HEIs known as College of Business Education (CBE). CBE has a high rate of student enrollment in recent years. In the academic year 2014/2015 academic year alone, the CBE enrolled 13,000 students [56]. Similarly, CBE has an advantage of having the four campuses strategically distributed in four regions of the country: Dar es Salaam (the business capital of Tanzania), Mbeya (one of the regions with high produce of agricultural products, also, it is bordering Malawi, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo providing opportunities of businesses for people of those countries), Dodoma (the present capital city of Tanzania famous for growing grapes), and Mwanza (a city which is a source of water for lake Nile and bordering Uganda and Kenya through Lake Victoria ). CBE also is in collaboration with international universities such as the University of Eastern Finland in Finland, the Dalian University of Technology and Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, a university in Chengdu

province of China, and Stockholm University in Sweden. Furthermore, CBE in 2016, was selected as the best HEI in Tanzania. Following these characteristics, CBE was chosen as the main study area.

This study’s population involved teachers, students, and members of the management team from all four campuses of CBE. 1170 participants took part in the study during different stages of the DSR framework implementation [57], [58]: 296 teachers, 863 students and 11 members of the management team. In the study, DSR framework was complemented by the Activity Theory (AT) [59]. While the DSR framework elaborated the stages of development of the artefact, the AT saw the integration of technology as a tool that mediates social action, including the relationships of humans in undertaking those actions. According to Kuuti [59], the structure of an ‘activity’ comprises four elements namely, tool, subject, object, and an outcome realized after the transformation process completed. The transformation defined in the study relates upon realizing an innovative teaching and learning in HEIs.

The narration of the dissertation is aiming at responding to the four research questions related to the aspects of co-designing and co-developing a mobile educational tool. Technology in the education sector in both developing and developed countries has proven fruitful and valuable [60]. Using mobile education tools has itself been an innovation in education and educational innovation, at all levels and in higher education [61].

This dissertation, therefore, narrates the processes of designing and developing a mobile education tool through four main aspects:

1. broad assessment of contextual requirements, including an understan-ding of the problem,

2. co-design and co-development of a mobile education artefact or a tool to support an innovative teaching and learning,

3. demonstration of the tool, and 4. co-evaluation of the tool

These four aspects are described through the combination of the DSR framework and the AT [59], [57]. Furthermore, the four-cycle model of IS

DSR [62] concretizes the evaluation the tool prototype while considering the external environment outside its application context.

The motivation of the research is to enable the teachers as well as the students of HEIs in Tanzania to attain a level of innovative teaching and innovative learning respectively and thereby minimize educational-related challenges they faced, including the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, which call for social distancing. Furthermore, the rapid penetration of mobile technologies in emerging economies, and Tanzania in particular, has catalyzed the possibility of using mobile education tools to enhance both innovative teaching and learning in HEIs.

The co-designing & co-development of the College of Business Education Mobile Education Tool (CBEMET) prototype as an artefact was conducted within a DSR approach combined with the AT. The AT was used as the theoretical lens to examine the student–teacher relationship in the requirement definition, co-designing and development, demonstration, and co-evaluation of the CBEMET for innovative teaching and learning constituting an activity system: (a). tools (technical and human), (b). the norms (teacher–student relationship in the co-designing and co-evaluation activities), (c). labour divisions (i.e., group dynamics and student–teacher roles), and (d). rules (informal, formal, and technical). The Engeström’s (1987) triangle was used to define thoroughly the component structure of each instance of an activity (Figure 3.1). Furthermore, this study considered the four-cycle model of IS DSR by Drechsler and Hevner, which introduces an impact and change cycle [62]. Previous studies on artefacts concentrated on applying a DSR approach alone for the co-creation, demonstration and evaluation of the artefacts, without taking into account the impact cycle of the developed artefact [63], [64], [65], [66].

Within DSR an artefact is indeed defined as an object made by humans to be used to address a certain problem [57]. From the literature we learn that Kuuti [59] explored AT to demonstrate the use of tools in transforming human activities. Synergizing the AT and DSR four-cycle model advocates the processes of artefact design and development, considering a wider environment outside the artefacts’ immediate application context of the

artefacts. The external environment is important to consider, as it looks at the dynamic nature of the artefact, whereby the change and impact cycle influence the design in the artefact contextual environment [58]. Considering the four-cycle model of IS, DSR is important because the external environment (e.g., government directives, policy consideration, etc.) impacts the internal application environment, e.g., at CBE, an application developed may be required to integrate with the education systems of Tanzania (Figure 3.1).

The importance of the four-cycle could be summarized as follows:

• It covers a wider application context (including an external environment) and it integrates the different sources of contextual change and dyna-mics into the DSR conceptual cycle.

• An extended four-cycle view (which considers an external environment to the application) allow DSR paradigm shift that integrates the propo-sed individual measures resulting from the literature on how to mould different dynamics within DSR into what is known as comprehensive knowledge base.

• It handles real-time-related aspects in DSR.

• Due to its consideration of dynamics, which in real sense lies in the wider environment (external one) outside the artefacts’ immediate applicati-on capplicati-ontext (where it is being applied), it extends what is known in the original three-cycle view model.

What is narrated and believed in this study, is that for DSR method framework to be effective, analysis and consideration of the external wider environment were necessary. In 2014, the Tanzanian government directed all HEI authorities through an Education and Training Policy to use ICT in delivering education, whereby the innovations in education should be prioritized in every institution (see Figure 3.1).

The method framework to approach and develop DSR projects, as described by Johannesson and Perjons [57], highlights several activities to carry out.

These activities of the method framework comprise five systematic iterative components. The components include problem explication, requirement

evaluation. In following these stages, the iterations of the previous steps improve the functionality of the prototype. It allows the researcher to refine and redefine requirements to enhance the functionality of the prototype to fulfill its mission increasingly and continually. Hence, the proposed artefact followed the stages described in the Johannesson and Perjons DSR method framework, through two iterative co-design processes: the first one with teachers only and the second one with the students, to arrive at the final artefact. The first iteration resulted in Papers I–III, whereby we developed and demonstrated the prototype artefact based on the requirements presented by teachers. The second iteration constitutes Papers IV–VI, which are the feedback from students and results from the final evaluation of the prototype artefact by teachers and students on all four campuses of the College of Business Education situated in four regions.

The problems that faced the teaching staff and students at the College of Business Education (CBE) were the difficulty in sharing educational content and the lack of innovative teaching and learning tools and methods. This results in discrepancies in the instructional materials used, so that for the same course in a semester the materials differed regarding coverage and quality, throughout the four campuses. Hence, students on one campus complain about the coverage of examinations of the same course in other campuses (as CBE has four campuses). This situation hinders the provision of equal education to students on all four campuses of the college. Consequently, a mobile application appeared to be a suitable solution to this problem.

Teachers and students at the CBE have mobile devices, which they use to access online information, social media, SMS, and various applications [43], [53]. Therefore, in this dissertation, the DSR’s problem explication and requirement definition stages cover the aspect of research questions RQ1 and RQ2, in which the teachers’ and students’ practical problems that were a source for the research are explored. These research questions (RQ1, RQ2) also investigate the overall functional and non-functional requirements of the proposed artefact. While the technical requirements describe the resulting prototype’s ability regarding inputs, process, and outputs, the non-functional requirements describe typical characteristics of the prototype regarding security, reliability, accessibility, and performance. In soliciting the

requirement definition of the prototype, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in the research. A quantitative approach normally uses post-positivist claims in developing knowledge (that is, cause–effect thinking, reduction to specific variables and hypotheses and questions, use of measurement, observation, and the testing of theories). Further, it tries to employ strategies of inquiry, like experiments and surveys and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield statistical data. Conversely, a qualitative approach is a method in which the inquirer often makes knowledge claims based primarily on constructivist perspectives (that is, for example, the multiple meanings of each individual experiences, socially meanings and historically constructed, to develop a theory or pattern) or advocacy/

participatory perspectives (that is, political, issue-oriented, collaborative, or change-oriented), or both. It also uses strategies of inquiry, such as narratives, phenomenology, ethnographies, grounded theory studies, or case studies.

According to this approach, a researcher collects emerging data primarily to develop themes from the data.

Furthermore, in a mixed-method approach, the researcher normally tends to base knowledge claims based on pragmatic grounds (for example, consequence-oriented, problem-centred, and pluralistic). It employs strategies of inquiry that involve collecting data either simultaneously or sequentially in order better to understand a research problem. The data collection on the other hand involves gathering both numeric information (for example, instruments) and text information (for example, the interviews) so that the final database represents both quantitative and qualitative information [67].

In this study, to respond to RQ2, we applied a mixed-method approach which resulted in Papers I, II, and VI. The advantage of using various research methods is that they provide more valid results [67]. Combining research methods in one study is also known as triangulation, which was achieved by validating collected data from questionnaire through interviewing, observations, and the focus group discussions. The required features of the mobile education tool prototype were sought through qualitative research methods, since it profoundly explores the innermost feelings of the participants’ experience, what they prefer, and their perceptions of the

technique aimed at systematically obtaining empirical data from teachers and students about their mobile device usage patterns, their readiness in using their devices for innovative teaching, and the expected functionalities of the conceived mobile education tool.

DSR co-designing, and co-development, demonstration and initial evaluation of the artefact were the focus of RQ3. An artefact, the CBEMET prototype—a mobile education tool prototype—was designed and co-developed by CBE teachers, 3 researchers, and 2 software developers. The co-designing and development processes were performed such that they could be emulated or explicated in other educational settings. During the 1st iteration, only teachers were involved in co-designing, whereby they provided examples of what they would prefer the prototype to look like regarding the main menu. The researchers and developers concentrated on taking notes of what was being narrated and only asked questions to capture given points clearly. The initial prototype resulted in sketch designs and a prototype, which were demonstrated to the co-designers for initial evaluation. The items of the main menu were among the list that was keenly followed by all the teachers when the initial evaluation was used to test the designed menu.

Their interest came mainly because they wanted to determine how well the prototype worked regarding the requirements they set. That is, whether the prototype solved some of their practical problems. Papers III, IV, and V present the results of the co-design and co-development of the prototype.

Instruments used in this inquiry were questionnaires, observation, and in-depth interviews.

To establish the innovative pedagogical experiences of both the teachers and the students regarding RQ4 about the use of the prototype artefact, the researchers basically relied on the views of teachers and students identified in Paper VI by evaluating their opinions on pedagogical approaches and innovative teaching and learning experiences at CBE.

Table 1.1 shows the relationships that exist among the different research components of a DSR method framework described and Activity Theory connected to research questions, research methods and to the research papers. It illustrates the research methods used in each article and the research questions addressed.

Table 1.1: The relationship that exists among research questions, DSR components, research methods and research papers.

Research

question (RQ) A DSR component Method types Papers in Questio

RQ1 Problem explication Mixed method I

RQ2 Requirement’s definition Mixed method I, II, VI RQ3 Co-designing, development,

demonstration of artefact, and initial evaluation

Mixed method,

prototyping III, IV, V RQ4 Co-evaluation of artefact Mixed method,

literature survey VI