Challenges of implementing e-learning in African universities: Experiences from Ethiopia and Rwanda Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 31/5/2024 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 31/3/2025 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 1/4/2025 education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 33 Number 34 May 27, 2025 ISSN 1068-2341 Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities: Experiences from Ethiopia and Rwanda Mikyas Abera University of Gondar Ethiopia Pierre C. Bimenyimana University of Rwanda Rwanda Solomon M. Abebe University of Gondar Ethiopia Jean Claude Byungura & Raymond Ndikumana University of Rwanda Rwanda & Mustofa W. Jemal Queen’s University Canada Citation: Abera, M., Bimenyimana, P. C., Abebe, S. M., Byungura, J. C., Ndikumana, R., & Jemal, M. W. (2025). Challenges of implementing e-learning in African universities: Experiences from Ethiopia and Rwanda. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 33(34). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.8772 http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.8772 Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 2 Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted society, the economy, and education. The University of Gondar (UoG) and the University of Rwanda (UR) were similarly affected. Both closed their campuses, suspended face-to-face learning, and embraced internet-based resources and tools. However, successful transitions from class-based learning to e-learning require embedding e- learning in their culture, structure, policy, and processes. In this paper, we explored their challenges in this process. We used the ecological systems perspective and viewed the universities as interrelated units capable of fulfilling institutional functions and responding or adjusting to ecological factors. We collected data through document review, key informant interview (KII), and focus group discussion (FGD). We audio-recorded and transcribed all KIIs and FGDs. We used Atlas.ti(9) to iteratively code, re-code, and categorize results under four themes: (a) technology/infrastructure, (b) pedagogy/devices, (c) policy/leadership, and (d) culture/skills. The two universities were relatively similar in technology and pedagogy challenges, but the UR reportedly had a better e-learning policy environment, leadership, culture, and skills. We concluded with remarks on how these two African public universities could address these challenges, create institutional resilience, and ensure their e-learning embraces and promotes accessibility, equity, and inclusion. Keywords: e-learning; PPCT; challenges; university; Ethiopia; Rwanda Desafíos de la implementación del aprendizaje en línea en universidades africanas: Experiencias de Etiopía y Ruanda Resumen: La pandemia de COVID-19 interrumpió significativamente la sociedad, la economía y la educación. La Universidad de Gondar (UoG) y la Universidad de Ruanda (UR) se vieron afectadas de manera similar. Ambas cerraron sus campus, suspendieron la enseñanza presencial y adoptaron recursos y herramientas basadas en internet. Sin embargo, una transición exitosa del aprendizaje en el aula al aprendizaje en línea requiere integrar este último en la cultura, estructura, políticas y procesos institucionales. En este artículo, exploramos los desafíos que enfrentaron en este proceso. Utilizamos la perspectiva de los sistemas ecológicos, considerando a las universidades como unidades interrelacionadas capaces de cumplir funciones institucionales y de responder o aj ustarse a factores ecológicos. Recopilamos datos mediante revisión documental, entrevistas con informantes clave (EIC) y grupos focales (GF). Todas las EIC y GF fueron grabadas y transcritas. Utilizamos Atlas.ti(9) para codificar, recodificar y categorizar los resultados de manera iterativa bajo cuatro temas: (a) tecnología/infraestructura, (b) pedagogía/dispositivos, (c) políticas/liderazgo, y (d) cultura/habilidades. Las dos universidades enfrentaron desafíos relativamente similares en cuanto a tecnología y pedagogía, pero la UR presentó un entorno más favorable en políticas de aprendizaje en línea, liderazgo, cultura y habilidades. Concluimos con observaciones sobre cómo estas dos universidades públicas africanas pueden abordar estos desafíos, crear resiliencia institucional y asegurar que su aprendizaje en línea promueva el acceso, la equidad y la inclusión. Palabras clave: aprendizaje en línea; PPCT; desafíos; universidad; Etiopía; Ruanda Desafios na implementação do ensino a distância em universidades africanas: Experiências da Etiópia e de Ruanda Resumo: A pandemia da COVID-19 causou profundas interrupções na sociedade, na economia e na educação. A Universidade de Gondar (UoG) e a Universidade de Ruanda (UR) foram igualmente afetadas. Ambas fecharam seus campi, suspenderam o ensino presencial e passaram a utilizar recursos e ferramentas baseados na internet. No entanto, a transição bem-sucedida do ensino presencial para o ensino a distância requer a incorporação deste na cultura, estrutura, políticas e processos institucionais. Neste artigo, investigamos os desafios enfrentados por essas universidades nesse processo. Utilizamos a perspectiva dos sistemas ecológicos e consideramos as universidades Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 3 como unidades inter-relacionadas, capazes de cumprir funções institucionais e responder ou se ajustar a fatores ecológicos. Os dados foram coletados por meio de análise documental, entrevistas com informantes-chave (EIC) e grupos focais (GF). Todas as EIC e GF foram gravadas e transcritas. Utilizamos o software Atlas.ti(9) para codificar, recodificar e categorizar os resultados de forma iterativa em quatro temas: (a) tecnologia/infraestrutura, (b) pedagogia/dispositivos, (c) políticas/liderança e (d) cultura/habilidades. As duas universidades apresentaram desafios semelhantes quanto à tecnologia e pedagogia, mas a UR demonstrou um ambiente mais favorável em termos de políticas de EAD, liderança, cultura e habilidades. Concluímos com observações sobre como essas duas universidades públicas africanas podem enfrentar esses desafios, fortalecer sua resiliência institucional e garantir que o ensino a distância promova acessibilidade, equidade e inclusão. Palavras-chave: ensino a distância; PPCT; desafios; universidade; Etiópia; Ruanda Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities: Experiences from Ethiopia and Rwanda In the 21st century, higher education has embraced e-learning, delivered synchronously, asynchronously, or blended, for its better accessibility, inclusivity, and efficiency (Chandra & Sharma, 2018; Muhie et al., 2020; Pittard, 2004; Seale, 2014). E-learning offers great flexibility for self-paced, self-directed, and personalized learning and facilitates peer feedback and mentoring, which improve learning outcomes for all learners, including those with disabilities (Abdelaziz, 2022; Fayram et al., 2018; Van-Popta et al., 2017; Waight & Oldreive, 2020). E-learners can also effectively collaborate and work across institutions and geography by accessing high-quality course resources from international sources such as open educational resources (OERs) and massive open online courses (MOOCs) that would improve their academic and educational experiences (Gardner & Brooks, 2018; Littlejohn et al., 2016; Reddy et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated e-learning innovation and adoption worldwide (Bao, 2020; El-Sabagh, 2021; Nicoleta & Maria-Loredana, 2012; Picciano, 2017; Yavuzalp & Bahcivan, 2021). However, educational institutions in the global South were less prepared for this transition and faced considerable challenges (Kabir et al., 2022). As schools and universities closed to address public health concerns, educators in these regions turned to technology, including the Internet, to facilitate remote learning (Chen & Aytenew, 2021). The integration of digital tools encountered numerous obstacles, especially in Africa, including limited technical skills, lack of awareness, insufficient access to devices, unaffordability, poor internet connectivity, and a general lack of readiness for such a swift shift to e-learning (Eke, 2011; Johnson et al., 2021; Kabir et al., 2022). Africa experiences barriers to internet access, including unreliable connectivity, high expenses, and frequent power outages (Almahasees et al., 2021; Bao, 2020; Chen & Aytenew, 2021). Many universities are reluctant to embrace technology in education due to challenges such as the high costs of implementation, insufficient infrastructure, a lack of awareness, policy , and resources, and cultural fears surrounding innovation (Atanga et al., 2020; Balaraman et al., 2018; Osubor & Chiemeke, 2015; Tallvid, 2016). Consequently, most transitions from class-based teaching to e- learning are poorly designed, quick fixes. For instance, in Ethiopia, e-learning became synonymous with using any internet-based communication media, and many Ethiopian universities resorted to using emails, websites, etc., to share course content with students (Luele et al., 2023; Mengistie, 2021). Most content was not customized for e-learning. Teachers used Zoom and Microsoft Teams to conduct lectures or thesis defence sessions (Balaraman et al., 2018; Luele et al., 2023). More Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 4 importantly, relevant policies on e-learning were either non-existent or in development (Bekele, 2021). Despite criticism, e-learning could improve both access to and the quality of education (Bhuasiri et al., 2012; Graham, 2019). However, studies identified numerous obstacles to adopting e- learning in developing countries, including a general lack of awareness, low rates of acceptance, limitations in bandwidth and connectivity, low levels of computer literacy, insufficient quality e - learning resources, challenges in maintaining learner online engagement, and language barriers (Balaraman et al., 2018; Osubor & Chiemeke, 2015). Scholars also raised concerns regarding its fairness, particularly in low-resource settings where digital divides are prominent, leading to unequal access to technology and resources among various social groups (Lim et al., 2020; Reddy et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2018). Additionally, educators often overlook the importance of e-learning quality and student experience, which require new content and teaching methods that the existing educational systems and institutional frameworks may not adequately support (Atanga et al., 2020; Kebritchi et al., 2017; Pham et al., 2019; Smith & Northcote, 2017). A successful e-learning program requires an adequate policy framework, a supportive institutional environment, and robust, flexible communication and administration policies that govern intellectual property and online interactions (Ali, 2021; Bekele, 2021). These elements are crucial for embedding e-learning into the institutional culture, structures, processes, and daily operations (Babeley, 2016; Eke, 2011). Additionally, it is important to consider the societal aspect, ensuring that e-learning does not exacerbate the existing digital divide and exclusion affecting various communities (Catalano et al., 2021; Mengistie, 2021; Tonks et al., 2021). For example, students from rural or remote areas often encounter connectivity issues, while faculty and students with disabilities face unique accessibility challenges (Mengistie, 2021). These disadvantaged groups typically lack access to necessary resources for effective e-learning and sufficient support from mentors, teachers, and administrators, and may not possess adequate e-learning skills. In other words, a successful e-learning program must be calibrated internally and externally. Internally, it should tackle physical, institutional, infrastructural, normative, policy, and perceptual barriers. Externally, it must ensure that it does not create or worsen disadvantages for specific s ocial groups. This paper explored the challenges the University of Gondar (Ethiopia) and the University of Rwanda experienced in implementing collaborative e-learning programs involving the Mastercard Foundation and Arizona State University. Both institutions envisioned enhancing their e-learning capabilities and improving institutional resilience, particularly in light of challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, despite significant challenges. By highlighting these experiences, this study aimed to shed light on their obstacles and lessons, which would inform improved e-learning policymaking and programming in low-resource settings, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. This study underscores the critical role that e-learning plays in expanding access to quality higher education, aligning with governmental goals to increase enrollment across all education levels (MoE, 2021). To guide this exploration, the study utilized Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the systemic interactions that influence e - learning outcomes. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration among the academic community and the need for managing interactions at the institutional and national levels to overcome challenges and achieve effective e-learning implementations. PPCT Model of Human Development: Analytical Framework This study employs Bronfenbrenner’s latest bioecological model – process-person-context- time (PPCT) – which builds on his ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979, 1989, 1993, 1995, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Over several iterations, the theory has Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 5 increasingly highlighted individuals’ bidirectional interactions with their environment across four systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (see Figure 1; Hayes et al., 2017; Tudge et al., 2022; Tudge & Rosa, 2013). Human development, thus, involves understanding the dynamic relationships between an active individual and their evolving immediate settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The PPCT centers on proximal processes to explain how process, person, context, and time interact in development (Hayes et al., 2017; Tudge & Rosa, 2013). Figure 1 Analytical Framework: PPCT Model of Human Development Process, the PPCT model’s first component, encompasses all proximal and distal interactions between developing individuals and their environments (Krishnan, 2010). Distal interactions (macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem) indirectly influence development, while proximal interactions occur within the microsystem through sustained, reciprocal engagements, directly impacting individuals (Bronfenbrenner, 1993; Krishnan, 2010). The second component, Person, emphasizes the active role of individuals in shaping their development, focusing on biological influences (Hayes et al., 2017). People are not passive recipients but engage dynamically with their environments, influenced by three key traits: active behavioral disposition (e.g., curiosity, aggression), resource characteristics (e.g., education, health), and demand characteristics (e.g., age, gender; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Hayes et al., 2017). These traits impact how individuals interact and are perceived, necessitating adaptable learning environments to meet developmental needs (Hayes et al., 2017; Krishnan, 2010). In educational technology, studies show that motivated teachers and students embrace and engage in e-learning better, improving their outcomes in terms of participation and performance (Cabero et al., 2013). Context, the third component, encompasses ecological systems: microsystem (immediate settings), mesosystem (connections between microsystems), exosystem (indirect influences like parental workplaces), and macrosystem (cultural/national influences; Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993; Krishnan, 2010). Activities, roles, and relationships happening at all system levels are crucial for understanding human development. The final component, Time, accounts for chronological age and significant life events (e.g., schooling, marriage), shaping future experiences, self-efficacy, and motivation (Bronfenbrenner, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 6 1993; Hayes et al., 2017; Krishnan, 2010; Shelton, 2019). Time influences individuals, relationships, and their environment (Shelton, 2019). The PPCT model provides a structured framework for analyzing the systems influencing e - learning adoption in two African universities, highlighting the role of environmental, cultural, and historical factors. It positions academic community members within l ayered environments that shape their development and psychosocial change, offering a unified yet nuanced way to examine how immediate and broader contexts affect human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995). Specifically, this study applied the PPCT model to investigate how environmental, institutional, cultural, and historical factors influence teachers’ and students’ access to technology, motivation, attitudes, and e-learning adoption. Students, teachers, and educational leaders were portrayed as key actors engaging in bidirectional interactions within their institutional settings, national priorities, and the global environment. Given ICT’s prominence in society, economy, and education, integrating e-learning is essential. When universities fail to align with this purpose, the benefits of new learning technologies are diminished (Babeley, 2016; Powell & Barbour, 2011). The study examined institutional realities, policies, and structural contexts to assess their impact on resilience, relevance, normative frameworks, leadership, and stakeholder perceptions of e -learning (Ilgaz & Gülbahar, 2015; Judit, 2018; Maina & Nzuki, 2015). Methods and Procedures This study employs a cross-sectional, qualitative-exploratory design to collect empirical data and critically review documents to understand e-learning initiatives’ development, implementation, and updates during and after COVID-19. Utilizing multiple qualitative methods—including key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and systematic document analysis — the study compares two universities, the University of Gondar (UoG) in Ethiopia and the University of Rwanda (UoR) in Rwanda, to examine their e-learning development in the context of institutional and policy changes. Research Design The study employed a cross-sectional design to collect data between August and September 2022. Empirical data were collected through interviews, FGDs, and a thorough review of institutional documents such as e-learning policies, strategic plans, program reports, and ICT-related documents. A structured framework guided the document review, ensuring a systematic assessment based on clearly defined criteria: policy relevance (alignment with national or institutional eLearning strategies) and institutional impact (measured by policy adoption, funding allocation, or integration into university curricula). These criteria were chosen to align with the study ’s objective and applied consistently through a coding scheme to enhance reliability. This design enabled the capture of institutional realities at the UoG and UoR. Study Participants Study participants included faculty, students, administrators, and national education ministry executives directly involved in e-learning initiatives. The study used purposive sampling to select 37 participants based on their expertise and roles. Specifically, UoG contributed 21 participants—8 faculty members, 6 students, and 7 administrators—and UoR contributed 14 participants—7 faculty members, 4 students, and 3 administrators. Additionally, 2 executive representatives from the national education ministries of Ethiopia were included. These details ensure that the sample represents diverse perspectives across the institutions and educational system. Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 7 Data Collection Data were gathered using qualitative methods and document analysis. All interviews and FGDs were conducted face-to-face in Amharic (the working language in Ethiopia) at UoG and in English at UoR; translation into English was carried out by a certified translator, with back - translation procedures to ensure accuracy. The data collection instruments—semi-structured interview guides and FGD protocols—were piloted and validated through expert review before use. Document Review The document review involved a systematic search and a critical appraisal of key institutional and policy documents relevant to higher education policies, distance education, e -learning policies, strategic plans, and documents related to ICT and access to higher education. Key Informant Interview We conducted key informant interviews with policymakers, top leadership, deans, directors, and ICT or e-learning experts. Nine interviews were conducted in Ethiopia and 14 in Rwanda, focusing on senior managers and administrators involved in e-learning development. In both sites, interviews were conducted individually, with each session lasting between 45 and 90 minutes, ensuring consistency. Focus Group Discussion Furthermore, we organized two FGDs to explore Ethiopia’s national and UoG’s institutional e-learning contexts. The findings from these FGDs offered valuable insights into the diverse and unique experiences with e-learning. The first FGD included faculty and staff from various academic and administrative units, such as ICT and the registrar’s office. The second FGD comprised students from several study programs, including those with disabilities and female students. Each FGD had 6 to 8 participants, was conducted in Amharic, and lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Data Analysis All KIIs and FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then imported into Atlas.ti for coding. We adhered to rigorous ethical research procedures to collect and analyse empirical data, utilizing a critical document review alongside an iterative coding and thematization process for KIIs and FGDs with the assistance of Atlas.ti (v.9). The data analysis process began with open coding, which we subsequently refined and organized based on conceptual affinities and empirical findings. To ensure reliability, we conducted regular team discussions to address discrepancies, refine code definitions, and maintain consistency in our coding practices. Furthermore, reflexivity underpinned the overall process, with coders documenting their interpretations and potential biases to enhance transparency. Our shared codebook was continually revised through collaborative reviews, ensuring its comprehensiveness and validity. Grouping related codes created themes that facilitated thematic and narrative analysis, enabling us to extract insights relevant to the research questions. Following the Clarke & Braun (2017) methodological framework, we employed an inductive approach to analysis enhanced by thematic analysis techniques, allowing us to explore the complex contextual and cultural dimensions. We also applied content analysis to critically evaluate and assess key policy and institutional documents integral to the e -learning agenda. Finally, we reported our findings through narratives to ensure clarity and effectiveness in presentation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 8 Ethical Considerations We obtained ethical clearance for the study from the institutional research ethics boards of both UoG and UR. Before data collection, all participants provided verbal informed consent, and we used codes and secure data storage to maintain confidentiality and anonymity . Challenges in E-Learning Implementation E-learning’s popularity as an alternative to conventional classroom-based learning has grown tremendously, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, its design and implementation in the global South have faced many challenges. While exploring two African public universities and their experiences with e-learning, we identified their key challenges as related to technology and infrastructure, pedagogy and content, policy and leadership, and culture and skills. Table 1 provides a summary of these challenges. Table 1 Summary of Challenges, Indicators, and Sample Quotations Challenges Indicators Quotation Technology and infrastructure Inadequate facilities “Many universities … do not have a well-developed digital center, advanced LMS, or other resources necessary to start e- learning” (P1, FGD-1, UoG) “Network and connectivity are a few of the several e-learning challenges at UR” (KII-9, UR) Low ICT capacity “The ICT system capacity is a challenge. It gets slow when a large number of students log on to register online” (KII-3, UoG) “Challenges … include limited access to technology and poor internet connectivity” (KII-12, UR). Lack of skills and gadgets “UoG has not bought laptops and computer accessories in the past 3 years” (P1, FGD-1, UoG) “There is a limited number of computers” (KII-9, UR) “Faculty have poor IT skills and [did not have] … ample opportunities to develop their ICT skills related to e-learning content development or pedagogy” (KII-2, UR) Policy and leadership Limited coverage of e-learning in current trends “E-learning is not well explored as a new educational trend. There are only a few guidelines on e-learning without necessary detail” (KII-14, UR) Lack of incentives “Copyright and incentives for content creation may hinder effective e-learning implementation” (P1, FGD-1, UoG). Culture and skills Resistance to e- learning adoption “Some [faculty] were hesitant or resistant to using e-learning, while others were eager to adopt it” (KII-12, UR). “There could be resistance from the old guard … due to lack of capacity, skills, or awareness of its benefits” (KII-1, E-MoE). Inadequate digital literacy and staff willingness to adopt e-learning “Many faculty lack the digital skills required to develop multimedia course content … for e-learning (P1, FGD-1, UoG) UR needs to “mobilize lecturers and equip them with enough skills in interactive digital content” (KII-13, UR). Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 9 Technology and Infrastructure Many participants reported that both universities lack adequate ICT infrastructure and personnel to support successful and sustainable e-learning implementation. Participants referred to damaged or poorly maintained equipment or devices retained and developed for human resources as “inadequate.” For instance, a participant at UoG commented that though many universities have invested in ICT infrastructure, they “do not have a well-developed digital center, advanced LMS, or other resources necessary to start e-learning” (P1, FGD-1, UoG). Another participant at UoG added that “technological infrastructure is also a significant concern for UoG leadership, including data center capacity, processing and storage capabilities, reliable wireless and wired network systems, and support systems” (KII-3, UoG). For this participant, it is doubtful whether UoG’s ICT infrastructure would handle the online activities that e-learning entails: “The ICT system capacity is a challenge. [Let alone e-learning], it gets slow when many students log on to register online” (KII-3, UoG). Still other participants were concerns with ICT’s manpower to run or manage a full-fledged e-learning platform, stating the existing staff “need further training to calibrate their e-learning skills and competencies” (KII-2, UoG). Furthermore, FGD participants lamented that unreliable electricity and connectivity have affected e-learning delivery: “Connectivity will be a major challenge to e-learning [at the UoG]. Power interruptions and outages are frequent” (P5, FGD-2, UoG). This challenge is critical, forcing faculty to “submit students’ grades online and in print … since we are not confident in internet connectivity” (P6, FGD-1, UoG). The participant added, “We struggle to maintain stable connectivity to complete simple administrative procedures like registering students, uploading students’ performance reports, etc.” (P6, FGD-1, UoG). Accordingly, many faculty members utilize traditional communication channels with learners. These narratives show that the UoG is facing significant challenges with its ICT infrastructure, which is currently insufficient to meet the needs of its community. Users experience notable slowdowns, particularly during peak usage times, and the ICT staff lacks the necessary skills to manage the existing facilities effectively, resulting in suboptimal resource utilization. Furthermore, frequent electricity and connectivity problems disrupt routine communication, diminishing faculty confidence in the current systems. To address these issues, UoG must reassess its bandwidth capacity, ensure reliable access to electricity, and invest in staff development. This will be essential for creating an effective e-learning platform that serves its community effectively. On the other hand, ICT and the internet also present significant challenges to implementing an e-learning initiative at UR. One participant stated, “Network and connectivity are among the primary e-learning challenges at UR” (KII-9, UR). Another participant noted that “limited access to technology and poor internet connectivity” are key obstacles to adopting e-learning at UR (KII-12, UR). Due to these challenges, a participant remarked that UR is “embarking on e-learning” and stressed that “all stakeholders should support it with increased budget and training for effective management” (KII-8, UR). These observations regarding UR’s difficulties with internet connectivity and ICT reflect similar concerns voiced by participants from UoG about their university ’s ICT infrastructure and technology, highlighting the urgent need for decisive interventions in both institutions. Devices and Pedagogy Participants in both universities also raised concerns regarding accessing affordable and necessary tech devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones required for e-learning (e.g., P5, FGD-2). Many participants also noted the enormity of this challenge for most students and their families in the context of the rising cost of living. For instance, a participant reported that “most Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 10 students have phones with keypads. They use desktops at libraries to access digital content ” (P1, FGD-2, UoG). A participant observed, “As it is known, not all students have access to smartphones, laptops, or computers” (KII-3, UoG). Only a handful of students, mostly in graduate programs and from well-to-do families, have laptops, tablets, or smartphones. E-learning’s technology-intensive nature is its main challenge at the UoG: “Each student should have a computer or smartphone” (P1, FGD-1, UoG). For a participant, “The main challenge of e-learning is access to resources” (KII-3, UoG). Teachers, too, need digital centers with necessary devices, including a computer, camera, editing equipment, or tools, etc., to prepare digitalized course content. Despite this, “the UoG has not bought laptops and computer accessories in the past 3 years [to maintain broken ones]” (P1, FGD-1, UoG). Participants noted that the UoG faces a significant shortage of technology devices for faculty, hampering their ability to deliver quality education, and most students lack equipment for effective e-learning. To address these issues, the university needs to establish digital centers to enable faculty to create and access high-quality online course materials, enhancing the overall educational experience for teachers and students. On the other hand, participants at the UR expressed concerns regarding the limitations in resources and skills that hinder effective e-learning. One noted the “insufficient number of computers available for users” (KII-9, UR); and another highlighted “the faculty’s lack of computers and adequate IT skills,” emphasizing that “they have not had sufficient opportunities to develop relevant ICT skills for e-learning content development or pedagogy throughout their educational journeys” (KII-2, UR). To address these issues, participants suggested establishing a specialized pedagogical unit to enhance faculty ICT and e-learning competencies. However, they also pointed out that “the heavy workloads of faculty members, stemming from an unfavorable staff-student ratio and the need to engage in additional teaching, research, and consultancy to maintain a decent income as well as publishing (KII-2, UR), detract from their focus on creating high-quality e-learning materials. As a result, “many e-learning platforms and content remain largely inaccessible to students” (KII-2, UR). It is worth noting that, unlike UoG, UR has a guiding policy that facilitates the creation of “some ICT facilities that support e-learning and require both academic staff and students to embark on e-learning.” Nonetheless, “the pedagogical skills for e-learning need to be taught to faculty” (KII- 8, UR). Another participant agreed, “lecturers and students need to keep improving their blended teaching-learning skills” (UR, KII-13). Moreover, participants have expressed concerns about UR’s current e-learning approach, citing inadequate support in advising, tutoring, mentoring, and hands-on laboratory or technical learning (KII-12, UR). While UR has leveraged its policy on distance and open learning to develop online course content during and after COVID-19, the limited access to tech devices and ICT skills among students and faculty presents significant barriers. Participants suggested that to enhance its e - learning initiative, UR needs to invest in training faculty on ICT skills and effect ive student support in online environments. Nonetheless, acknowledging its academic community’s diversity is essential for an effective e-learning program at the UR. In other words, UR’s initiative to improve access to devices and ICT skills within its academic community must address “the challenges many students face, particularly those in remote areas with unreliable internet access” (KII-9, UR) and those in difficult circumstances that demand their labor contributions in household chores, or engagement in generating income to support their poor families (KII-12, UR). Many students lack the necessary technology and connectivity for effective e-learning. Additionally, it is crucial for the initiative to foster an e-learning pedagogy that promotes social interaction and a sense of community among learners (KII-12, UR). Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 11 Policy and Leadership Participants at the UR expressed concerns regarding the current policies surrounding e - learning. While there are “guidelines for conventional classroom learning, e -learning has not been sufficiently explored as an educational trend. This resulted in a lack of detailed policies” (KII-14, UR). Hence, to establish e-learning as a standard practice, there is a need for increased confidence and collaboration among leaders. A participant noted that designing an effective e-learning policy and implementing it “requires all partners to work together to minimize existing constraints (KII-3, UR). In this direction, “the university has initiated several measures to promote e-learning’s future success, with institutional policymakers and managers showing support and understanding of the necessary steps for effective implementation” (KII-8, UR). Participants agreed that though UR has some e-learning guidelines, they require further detail and revision to facilitate effective governance and implementation. More importantly, UR also has wilful leadership to support e-learning, but engaging partners in the process will be essential to ensure the success of e -learning programs moving forward. On the other hand, participants in Ethiopia have raised concerns about the absence of comprehensive policy and incentive mechanisms for academic and technical staff involved in e - learning. This issue requires significant attention from leadership, particularly regarding incentives for teachers creating digital content for courses. A participant at the Ethiopian Ministry of Education (E-MoE) acknowledged the necessity of addressing the lack of incentives, mentioning that “developing digital content is not currently viewed as part of teachers’ responsibilities. Teachers express frustration over investing their time in these demanding tasks without adequate rewards ” (KII-1, E-MoE). Although the E-MoE has attempted to offer incentives, “teachers have rejected the proposals, deeming them insufficient” (KII-1, E-MoE). Further insights from the UoG suggest that “copyright issues and incentives for content creation could impede the successful implementation of e-learning initiatives” (P1, FGD-1, UoG). Some faculty members emphasize their demands for monetary compensation or reduced teaching loads as essential for continuing their e-learning contributions (KII-2, UoG). The UoG has received limited satisfaction from its leadership and the E-MoE regarding these demands, intensifying concerns that e-learning activities could stall (KII-2, UoG). Recognizing the problem, the E-MoE is working on a policy and incentive scheme to foster content development while asserting that educational materials should be in the public domain (KII- 1, E-MoE). A participant at UoG commented that “a clear e-learning policy is necessary to establish standards surrounding open-access publishing, the non-commercial use of online educational materials, and incentives” (P2, FGD-1, UoG). Overall, participants agreed that the UoG and E-MoE must develop policies and incentive structures to support digital content creators, ensuring faculty members are motivated and acknowledged for their contributions to e-learning. Culture and Skills Appropriate e-learning initiatives and their successful implementation depend significantly on academia’s cultural and skills environment. Participants at UR were conscientious about their institution’s circumstances: “The attitude of the faculty staff towards integrating technology into their teaching can vary. Some were hesitant or resistant to using e-learning, while others were eager to adopt it” (KII-12, UR). The participant explained, Factors that can influence a faculty member’s attitude towards e-learning include their level of comfort and experience with e-learning, their perceptions of its effectiveness, and the resources and support they can avail. With time, the overall Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 12 level of resistance to using e-learning has significantly decreased, and as of now, no one is resistant (KII-12, UR). Another participant identified the skills gap among faculty and students in utilizing e-learning resources as impacting their perception and utilization of e-learning platforms. Accordingly, the participant commented, the UR needs to “mobilize lecturers and equip them with enough skills in interactive digital content” to reduce their resistance and improve their adoption of e-learning (KII- 13, UR). On the other hand, participants at UoG repeatedly underlined the academic community’s inadequate digital literacy and willingness to adopt e-learning. Many faculty members lack the digital skills to develop multimedia course content, such as videos and images essential for e-learning (P1, FGD-1, UoG). Most students have gaps in their digital skills, and the university’s technical staff in computer labs and libraries do not regularly update their ICT skills (P1, FGD-1, UoG). For a participant at the E-MoE, this “lack of capacity, skills, or awareness of its benefits” usually translates into “resistance” to e-learning, especially among “the old guard in universities” (KII-1, E-MoE). In addition, “a small survey during COVID-19 found that teachers’ language skills were below standard” (KII-1, E-MoE), which may affect, for instance, the quality of “online course contents they created” (KII-1, E-MoE). Accordingly, a participant noted that the academic community’s technical and language skills must improve through “intensive and adaptive training and a dedicated budget for a time-bound e-learning program” (P1, FGD-1, UoG). Participants also argued that further training and orientation programs on “the importance of e-learning, the quality control features on the LMS, scenarios for e-learning application,” (P4, FGD-1, UoG), “experiential learning” (UoG, KII-3, UoG), and “opportunities for online learning” (P2, FGD-1, UoG) should be organized to improve staff willingness and awareness to adopt e-learning. Participants’ reports show that the UR initially struggled with e-learning adoption due to widespread resistance and a lack of necessary skills, which has diminished over time, allowing for greater acceptance of e-learning within the institution. Conversely, the UoG continues to face challenges in implementing e-learning effectively. This situation is largely attributed to its members ’ inadequate digital skills and confidence to create, manage, and consume digital course content. To foster a cultural shift toward embracing e-learning at both institutions, it is crucial to enhance their capabilities, thereby building confidence and facilitating better integration of technology in education. Discussion This study employed a PPCT model and qualitative approach to identify individual, institutional, national, and cultural factors that interact and influence e -learning adoption at UoG and UR. Its findings reflected primarily on infrastructure, pedagogy, policy, and culture. Firstly, participants at UoG and UR noted that their universities adopted e-learning mainly after COVID-19 suspended in-person classes, mirroring trends in the global south (Bao, 2020; El-Sabagh, 2021; Yavuzalp & Bahcivan, 2021). Furthermore, the war in northern Ethiopia uniquely accelerated e- learning at UoG due to campus closures and safety risks. However, UoG’s pre-pandemic ICT infrastructure was unready, lacking platforms, digital content, and awareness for a seamless shift. Secondly, participants observed that Rwanda and Ethiopia’s education ministries encouraged digital libraries and online courses. Rwanda mandated e-learning with support from UR, while Ethiopia’s MoE worked with universities to compile course materials for online platforms. The UoG instructed undergraduate students to access e-learning resources independently and without adequate guidance. Its graduate students used tools like Microsoft Teams, but faculty often lacked Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 13 training to effectively use these resources, as reported for other African universities (Almahasees et al., 2021; Chen & Aytenew, 2021; Johnson et al., 2021; Kabir et al., 2022). Consequently, they relied on platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and Webex for communication. They also faced challenges, including poor connectivity, inadequate ICT infrastructure, and a lack of devices, that hindered e - learning at UR and UoG. Thirdly, the COVID-19 pandemic intensified internet connectivity issues in non-urban areas, creating major challenges for students and faculty. Universities focused on timely graduations, often sacrificing educational quality and making poor investments. This impacted staff and students ’ views on e-learning adoption, raising concerns about institutional capacity, leadership commitment, and digital skills. Participants also suggested that infrastructure, capacity building, and awareness should have preceded e-learning implementation. However, they support e-learning and recognize the need for strategic investments in information and communication technology (ICT) to enhance educational access and quality. Fourthly, at both universities, there is a significant confusion surrounding e -learning – its definition, benefits, risks, implementation, and requirements. Many individuals equate e-learning with sharing materials through internet platforms like Telegram or Facebook, highlighting a lack of understanding of its broader scope. This study found that cultural factors such as resistance to change, staff’s levels of digital and language literacy, inadequate teacher training, and poorly designed courses that lack inclusivity may have contributed to negative perceptions and hinder the overall success of e-learning initiatives. Fifthly, the study reported participants’ concerns about the inadequate commitment from leadership regarding e-learning adoption. They highlighted that essential institutional investment was lacking in ICT infrastructure, capacity building, and awareness campaigns for a successful e-learning program. This insufficient commitment resulted in poor coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of ICT and e-learning initiatives. Furthermore, weak leadership and unclear strategies for e -learning constitute significant risks, affecting coordination initiatives and incentive mechanisms to motivate staff and students. In conclusion, a few reflections on the study’s use of the ecological systems model to explore e-learning initiatives at UoG and UR. The study’s findings effectively highlighted how macro- structural factors, such as national education policies, government priorities, and socio -economic conditions, significantly influence the effectiveness of e-learning programs. These factors can either facilitate or hinder the adoption of e-learning based on their implementation. It also emphasized the importance of exosystemic and mesosystemic elements, including institutional policies, leadership styles, organizational culture, and investment capacity building, in establishing effective e-learning environments. The study found that the readiness to adopt e-learning is greatly influenced by institutional culture and leadership’s openness to innovation. Inter-institutional collaboration was noted as vital for knowledge-sharing and resource mobilization. Furthermore, central to the ecological systems model were various stakeholders—students, faculty, ICT support staff, and administrators—who play critical roles in the success of e-learning initiatives. Students require access to digital resources, while faculty need technical skills and adaptable teaching methods. ICT staff maintain the technological infrastructure, and administrators focus on policy and resource allocation. In light of these findings, this study advocates for a holistic approach to educational transformation that addresses infrastructural and cultural challenges while enhancing stakeholder engagement as implementers and beneficiaries whose skills, attitudes, and commitments are critical for advancing the process. It urges UoG and UR to ensure equitable access to e-learning for diverse student backgrounds. The findings suggest that UR should develop a sustainable e-learning ecosystem beyond temporary COVID-19 measures, focusing on online pedagogy training and inclusive strategies. Both universities must reinvest in e-learning to prevent a Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 14 decline in usage and ensure the sustainability of past investments. With these, both universities could effectively navigate the intricacies of digital transformation, aligning strategies with external conditions and internal dynamics, ultimately promoting equitable and high-quality educational outcomes. Limitations This study faced several challenges, including time constraints and limited financial support and availability of key informants. It required time to organize visits between both universities to understand the contextual realities and a series of workshops for validation. Addressing this issue, the research team organized virtual meetings to optimize the use of funds and time. This study was an exploratory, qualitative study based on data collected from purposively selected individuals at the two universities and national leaders for higher education. It is limited in scope and representativeness. We recommend rigorous study on the subject utilizing a mixed- method approach and involving multiple and relevant stakeholders. Acknowledgement We extend our heartfelt gratitude to Arizona State University for its financial support, which was instrumental in facilitating our fieldwork and data collection for this article. Additionally, we thank the education administrators, university faculty, students, technical and support staff at the UoG and UR, and the relevant education authorities, for their valuable contributions as discussants and key informants in our study. References Abdelaziz, S. (2022). The online education in the higher education, a complete system rather than just a platform. Business and Management Studies, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v8i1.5536 Ali, A. (2021). E-learning for students with disabilities during COVID-19: Faculty attitude and perception. SAGE Open, 11(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211054494 Almahasees, Z., Mohsen, K., & Amin, M. (2021). Faculty’s & students’ perceptions of online learning during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 6(Art. No. 638470), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.638470 Atanga, C., Jones, B., Krueger, L., & Lu, S. (2020). Teachers of students with learning disabilities: Assistive technology knowledge, perceptions, interests, and barriers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(4), 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419864858 Babeley, R. (2016). Review & critical study of content management system software. International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, 7(12), 20205-20209. https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2016/7/12/34 Balaraman, P., Berhe, G., & Kamalakannan, P. (2018). E-learning trends, technologies and case insights of students e-readiness from Ethiopia. Research Explorer, 6(17), 153-161. Bao, W. (2020). Covid-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 Bekele, A. (2021). Integration of technology and e-learning into medical education in Ethiopia: The Covid-19 silver lining? Ethiopian Medical Journal, 59(4), 279-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419864858 https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2016/7/12/34 https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 15 Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J., & Ciganek, A. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.32.7.513 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 187-224. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (2 ed., pp. 37-43). Freeman. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. Elder, & K. Lusher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619-647). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10176-018 Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives of human development . Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bio-ecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114 Cabero, J., Llorente, M., & Morales, J. (2013). Contributions to e-learning from a best practices study at Andalusian universities. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal (RUSC), 10(1), 226-239. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1159 Catalano, A., Torff, B., & Anderson, K. (2021). Transitioning to online learning during the COVID - 19 pandemic: Differences in access and participation among students in disadvantaged school districts. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(2), 258-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2020-0111 Chandra, S., & Sharma, B. (2018). Near, far, wherever you are: Chemistry via distance in the South Seas. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(2), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1440106 Chen, C., & Aytenew, G. (2021). Facing challenges of Covid-19: The perspective of China and Ethiopia educational institutions. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.26737/jetl.v6i1.2288 Eke, H. (2011). Modeling LIS students’ intention to adopt e-learning: A case from University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 478. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/478 El-Sabagh, H. (2021). Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on development students’ engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(53), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4 Fayram, J., Boswood, N., Kan, Q., Motzo, A., & Proudfoot, A. (2018). Investigating the benefits of online peer mentoring for student confidence and motivation. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 7(4), 312-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-10-2017-0065 Gardner, J., & Brooks, C. (2018). Student success prediction in MOOCs. User Modeling and User- Adapted Interaction, 28(2), 127–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9203-z Graham, A. (2019). Benefits of online teaching for face-to-face teaching at historically Black colleges & universities. Online Learning, 23(1), 144-163. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1435 Hayes, H., O’Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. N. (2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for practitioners and students in early years education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845 https://doi.org/10.1037/10176-018 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114 https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1159 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2020-0111 https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1440106 https://doi.org/10.26737/jetl.v6i1.2288 https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/478 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-10-2017-0065 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9203-z https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1435 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646206 Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 16 Ilgaz, H., & Gülbahar, Y. (2015). A snapshot of online learners: e-readiness, e-satisfaction and expectations. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2117 Johnson, J., Reddy, P., Chand, R., & Naiker, M. (2021). Attitudes and awareness of regional Pacific Island students towards e learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(13), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00248-z Judit, N. (2018). Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 160-185. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.2886 Kabir, H., Tonmon, T., Hasan, K., Biswa, L., Chowdhury, A., Islam, M., Rahman, M., & Mitra, D. (2022). Association between preference and e-learning readiness among the Bangladeshi female nursing students in the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 46(8), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-022-00697-0 Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713 Krishnan, V. (2010, 7-9 May). Early child development: A conceptual model. Early Childhood Council Annual Conference, “Valuing Care,” Christchurch, New Zealand. Lim, C., Ra, S., Chin, B., & Wang, T. (2020). Leveraging information and communication technologies (ICT) to enhance education equity, quality, and efficiency: Case studies of Bangladesh and Nepal. Educational Media International, 57(2), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1786774 Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003 Luele, S. A., Taye, M. T., & Moges, B. A. (2023). The adoption of the first online teaching and learning in the Ethiopian postgraduate classes during COVID-19: From public university instructors’ perspectives in the Amhara Region. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2203064. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2203064 Maina, M., & Nzuki, D. (2015). Adoption determinants of e-learning management system in institutions of higher learning in Kenya: A case of selected universities in Nairobi Metropolitan. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 6(2), 223–248. Mengistie, T. A. (2021). Higher education students’ learning in COVID-19 pandemic period: The Ethiopian context. Research in Globalization, 3(100059). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2021.100059 MoE. (2021). Education sector development programme, 6 (E.S.D.P. 6): 2020-25. Ministry of Education - Ethiopia. Muhie, Y. A., Tesfay, C. H., & Tamirat, B. W. (2020). Enablers, difficulties, and features to implement e-learning technology in conventional higher education: Case study and prototype implication. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 13, 219-244. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2020.1310015 Nicoleta, G., & Maria-Loredana, P. (2012). E-learning innovations in higher education. Challenges of The Knowledge Society, 2, 1775-1787. Osubor, V. O., & Chiemeke, S. C. (2015). The impacts of information culture on e-learning innovation adoption in learning institutions in Nigeria. African Journal of Computing and ICT, 8(1), 17-26. Pham, L., Limbu, Y., Bui, T., Nguyen, H., & Pham, H. (2019). Does e-learning service quality infuence e-learning student satisfaction and loyalty? Evidence from Vietnam. International https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2117 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00248-z https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.2886 https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-022-00697-0 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713 https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1786774 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2203064 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2021.100059 https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2020.1310015 Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 17 Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0136-3 Picciano, A. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning Journal, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225 Pittard, V. (2004). Evidence for e-learning policy. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 13(2), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200179 Powell, A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Tracing international differences in online learning development: An examination of government policies. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.61468/jofdl.v15i1.17 Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chandra, S. (2020). Student readiness and perception of tablet learning in higher education in the Pacific—A case study of Fiji and Tuvalu: Tablet learning at USP. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 22(2), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.2020040104 Seale, J. (2014). E-learning and disability in higher education (2nd. ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203095942 Shelton, L. G. (2019). The Bronfenbrenner primer: A guide to develecology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315136066 Smith, L. A., & Northcote, M. (2017). Community in online higher education: Challenges & opportunities. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(2), 188–198. Tallvid, M. (2016). Understanding teachers’ reluctance to the pedagogical use of ICT in the 1:1 classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 503–519. Tonks, D., Kimmons, R., & Mason, S. (2021). Motivations among special education students and their parents for switching to an online school: Survey responses and emergent themes. Online Learning, 25(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2141 Tudge, J., Merçon-Vargas, E. A., & Payir, A. (2022). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory: Its development, core concepts, and critical issues. In K. Adamsons, A. L. Few-Demo, C. Proulx, & K. Roy (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methodologies: A dynamic approach (pp. 235–254). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92002-9_16 Tudge, J., & Rosa, M. E. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022 Van-Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R., & Simons, R.-J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003 Waight, M., & Oldreive, W. (2020). Investigating accessible information formats with people who have learning disabilities. Learning Disability Practice, 23(2), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.7748/ldp.2020.e2031 Yang, H., Zhu, S., & MacLeod, J. (2018). Promoting education equity in rural and underdeveloped areas: Cases on computer-supported collaborative teaching in China. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2393–2405. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89841 Yavuzalp, N., & Bahcivan, E. (2021). A structural equation modeling analysis of relationships among university students’ readiness for e-learning, self-regulation skills, satisfaction, and academic achievement. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 16(15). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00162-y https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0136-3 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225 https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200179 https://doi.org/10.61468/jofdl.v15i1.17 https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.2020040104 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203095942 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315136066 https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2141 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92002-9_16 https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003 https://doi.org/10.7748/ldp.2020.e2031 https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89841 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00162-y Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 33 No. 34 18 About the Authors Mikyas Abera (Corresponding Author) University of Gondar, Ethiopia mikidar2011@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1547-7982 Dr. Mikyas Abera is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Gondar, focusing on education, urbanization, inclusion, rehabilitation, and gender. He has held leadership roles at the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program and the School of Sociology and Social Work. Dr. Mikyas has collaborated with various scholars on research and community projects and has been published in multiple refereed journals. He is dedicated to promoting inclusion, participation, and excellence through quality education and ethical professional practice. Pierre Celestin Bimenyimana University of Rwanda, Rwanda bipiece@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4303-8087 Mr. Bimenyimana is a PhD Scholar in Social Work at the University of Rwanda and the University of Agder. He serves as Advisor to the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research at the University of Rwanda, teaches in the Department of Social Sciences, and is involved in the eLearning ecosystem at the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program. His research focuses on citizen satisfaction with public and private services, moral dispositions, social innovations, a nd youth engagement, and he has numerous peer-reviewed publications. Solomon Mekonnen Abebe University of Gondar, Ethiopia solomekonnen@yahoo.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1150-2319 Dr. Solomon Mekonnen Abebe is a Professor at the Institute of Public Health at the University of Gondar, Ethiopia, where he also directs the Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) program. He has held various leadership roles, including directing the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Pr ogram for over 5 years. His research focuses on non-communicable diseases, disability, inclusion, and rehabilitation services, particularly regarding the challenges faced by persons with disabilities in education and employment across several African countries. His work emphasizes the use of action research to benefit the community and promote inclusivity through innovative solutions. Jean Claude Byungura University of Rwanda, Rwanda byungurajc@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9614-7936 Dr. Jean Claude Byungura is an Associate Professor of Computer and Systems Science at the University of Rwanda and the Program Lead for eLearning at the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program. He holds a PhD in Computer and Systems Science focusing on E-learning from Stockholm University, and has completed postdoctoral research in Digital Health E-learning. His research centers on IT-institutional alignment, Information Systems, and Educational Technology. He has published numerous research papers and is actively involved in projects promoting digitalization and e-learning locally and globally. mailto:mikidar2011@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1547-7982 mailto:bipiece@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4303-8087 mailto:solomekonnen@yahoo.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1150-2319 mailto:byungurajc@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9614-7936 Challenges of Implementing E-Learning in African Universities 19 Raymond Ndikumana University of Rwanda, Rwanda r.ndikumana@ur.ac.rw ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5949-9884 Dr. Raymond Ndikumana is the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Strategic Planning and Administration and faculty at the University of Rwanda. His research focuses on enabling management control systems to support development and human capital impact. He holds a PhD in Management Accounting and Control from Örebro University (Sweden) and a Master’s in Accounting and Finance from the University of Dundee (UK). He is a Stanford University Certified Project Manager. Dr. Ndikumana has extensive experience in strategic planning, digitalization projects, partnership development, and institutional advancement, and currently serves on several regional and international boards. Mustofa W. Jemal University of Gondar, Ethiopia/Queen’s University, Canada goldenzazid@gmail.com/21mwj1@queensu.ca ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8835-1203 Mr. Mustofa W. Jemal is a PhD candidate in Health Quality at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, and an Assistant Professor in Journalism and Communication at the University of Gondar, Ethiopia. He has held leadership roles at the University of Gondar, actively managing programs, teaching, and conducting research. His interests focus on health disparities, service utilization, health systems, and e-learning, emphasizing communication strategies to improve health quality. Mustofa is dedicated to using storytelling and participatory research to empower marginalized communities and create culturally sensitive interventions, bridging health quality and com munication to promote an equitable healthcare system. education policy analysis archives Volume 33 Number 34 May 27, 2025 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). About the Editorial Team: https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/about/editorialTeam Please send errata notes to Jeanne M. Powers at jeanne.powers@asu.edu mailto:r.ndikumana@ur.ac.rw https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5949-9884 mailto:21mwj1@queensu.ca https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8835-1203 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ http://www.doaj.org/ https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/about/editorialTeam mailto:mailtojeanne.powers@asu.edu