**1. Introduction**

The unpreparedness of lecturers to integrate technology for teaching and learning was distinctly exposed when the shutdown of the higher institutions of learning was announced in March 2020 due to the COVID19 pandemic [1] and the lockdown regulations to facilitate social distancing, as a measure to control the spread of the virus [2]. The pandemic brought an enormous transformation in the way we live, learn and work [3]. These factors resulted in the new normal in all the sectors including education [4]. Global, education institutions provided a speedy adaption to the way learning and teaching were conducted [3]. To save the 2020 academic year, online teaching and learning were opted for Simelane-Mnisi and Mji [2]. In the study conducted in 20 countries on the online adoption for teaching and learning, the results reveal that very few countries were prepared to swiftly move to online learning instantly [5].

In South Africa, out of fourteen universities, only four universities were able to switch to online learning immediately [6]. This posed a challenge to both the lecturers and the students in the study university, as they were not able to continue with learning and teaching during this period. The emergency remote workshops were put in place to prepare lecturers for remote teaching [7]. Emergency remote technologyenhanced development programs were adopted to support lecturers with the design and development of online modules [8] by the instructional designers as experts [9, 10]. However, not all lecturers were on board. Furthermore, students were affected by digital divide as not all of them had access to a strong network connection. Hence the study university had to adopt the multimodal teaching and learning to save 2020 academic year [6]. These barriers were also observed with the University students in Nigeria who did not have computers and Wi-Fi to move their studies online [3]. It is worth noting that in the study university professional development programs on technology integration in education including Partners@work and eLeaders had been in place, but the buy-in remained low as the lecturers reverted to traditional methods of teaching [11].

This chapter reports on the strategy as a plan, ICT policy that could support in repositioning lecturers for the integration of technology for the new normal in Education. The question posed in this study is "*How can the strategy as plan, ICT policy, be utilized to promote technology integration to reposition lecturers for the new normal in the School of Education*?" To respond to this question, literature on the strategy as plan, ICT leadership role, stakeholders and the ICT policy processes were reviewed, the document analysis on the school of Education policies, relating to Internet access policy, strategic plan, consolidation plan and institutional strategy 2014–2019 was conducted. Furthermore, to establish lecturers' perceptions on the promotion of ICT in the School of Education, open-ended questionnaires and individual interviews were conducted.

## **2. Strategy as plan**

To overcome lecturers' challenges in this study, the strategy as a plan which is one of the strategies in the Mintzberg 5Ps strategic Model [12] used in the business sector was explored to reposition the lecturers. According to Simelane [13], the strategy as plan in the business sector is a policy of the organization intended to regulate how business is run. In education, the ICT policy is defined as the plan of actions or rules set by the institution to integrate technology in teaching and learning [14, 15]. The ICT policy determines the culture of teaching and learning. The integration of technology has been applauded for enhancing teaching and learning among other factors. Proponents of technology integration argue that the development of the ICT policy is the prominent step towards successful technology integration [14]. Furthermore, it is asserted that schools that are successful in technology integration are regulated by the ICT policy. Parry et al. [16] argue that for the policy to translate into results it must be planned, developed, implemented, monitored and reviewed. However, the development of the ICT policy requires ICT leadership with a distributive approach that is "diffused and dispersed" within the institution of learning [17]. It is also asserted that the involvement of all the stakeholders throughout the phases of the policy processes positively impacts the adoption and implementation of the policy [18]. Hence all the stakeholders must be involved in the planning, development, monitoring and reviewing of the policy.

*Strategy as Plan for Technology Integration to Reposition Lecturers for the New Normal in Higher… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102078*

### **2.1 The leadership role in the ICT policy process**

Cross and Adam [19] and Nath [20] perceive the ICT leadership as an important and precondition for successful development and implementation of the ICT policy. These authors posit that effective leadership must establish the steering committee which must, in turn, establish the working committee. The working committee is responsible for reviewing the ICT policy draft and ensuring that all the stakeholders are involved and are in agreement with the stipulations [21]. They must also ensure that there are experts such as instructional designers to advise the working committee. The ICT policy from another institution can also be useful as an example. The steering committee is responsible for ensuring that the policy is approved by all the stakeholders before its implementation.

### **2.2 Stakeholder' role in the integration of ICT policy in HEIs**

According to [18, 22, 23] stakeholders in the university includes anyone who is influenced or influences the innovation including the knowledge industry, academia, designers, policymakers and other institutions involved in higher education. The stakeholders consist of internal and external members. The internal members relate university admission board, governing council, undergraduate and postgraduate students, government, academic and non-academic staff, university administrators. Whereas, external stakeholders involve the National university commission, NGOs, industries, private companies, parents, development agencies and trade unions [20].

### *2.2.1 The university administrator*

The Vice-Chancellor as the administrator, his assistants, including deputy vice-chancellor, registrar, the deans of faculties, directors of institutes and heads of departments has the responsibility to set the academic tone of the institution. This is accomplished when there is a collaborative approach in problem-solving and decision-making. This creates a healthy relationship between the stakeholders. Rana et al. [24] assert that a distributed approach influences the quality of education.

### *2.2.2 Government and university governing board*

The government owns and funds the universities. It is their responsibility to ensure that there are relevant resources including the ICTs to influence the quality of education. Usman [25] argues that effective policymaking requires an enlightened governing board that has a broad view of the impact of higher education on society and is conscious of the strategic directions and resources for achieving institutional missions. Additionally, the governing council also must ensure the continuous improvement of the quality of university education, define strategic visions, formulate and monitor policies, contribute to the university decision making, ensure that the academic staff is of good quality. Goodson [18] posits that the governing council must collaborate with external stakeholders in improving academic standards and quality in the university.

### *2.2.3 Students*

Students are primary stakeholders in the education industry [26]. The participation of students in taking decisions positions the students to play a responsible role

in their learning. It is argued that students must be involved in academic decisions including the integration of ICT for teaching and learning as they are part of the academic community and clients of the university [27].

### *2.2.4 Council of Higher Education (CHE)*

The regulating body responsible for all the universities in South Africa is the Council of Higher Education (CHE). Its responsibility includes ensuring that all the programs that are run in the university are credited, setting the standards for qualifications, the quality of teaching and learning determining the number of students to be admitted to each university [27]. The involvement of this council as stakeholders influences the decisions that would enhance the quality of teaching and learning.

## *2.2.5 University admission board*

The admission board has a responsibility of ensuring that all the students admitted and enrolled meets the admission requirements as this has an impact on the quality of education in the university. Furthermore, this board must ensure that the environment in the university is conducive for teaching and environment including the relevant ICTs [18].

### *2.2.6 Academic and non-academic staff*

Lecturers are the academic staff and play a very prominent role in enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. As the facilitators in the teaching and learning environment, they are responsible for ensuring a conducive environment that has relevant ICTs for students to engage meaningfully for learning to take place. Lecturers as professionals, are responsible for guiding, planning and evaluating the students [18].

### *2.2.7 The non-governmental organizations (NGOs)*

For the government to accomplish the goals in the national development plan (NDP), it needs the NGOs that will assist by aligning their work with the NDP. For instance, the NGOs can mediate intervention programs, which will connect the department of education, and universities, other partners and industry. Moreover, NGOs can bring innovations that can benefit the institutions of learning. Additionally, the involvement of NGOs has a positive impact as they can influence collaboration, advocate excellence, assist in policymaking at the university level, to the attention of policy developers. The NGOs can solicit the 1% of net profit as the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) code to be spent for socioeconomic development [28].

### *2.2.8 Parents*

Parents as stakeholders in education are responsible to ensure that the students have all the resources needed to enhance the quality of education. They are to ensure that there is food, accommodation, offer counseling to the student by encouraging them to attend classes [29]. The policy process is discussed next and illustrated in **Figure 1**.

*Strategy as Plan for Technology Integration to Reposition Lecturers for the New Normal in Higher… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102078*

### **2.3 Policy process**

The ICT policy process as illustrated in **Figure 1** entails the planning, development, Implementation, reviewing phases. Monitoring is also an integral part of the cycle and runs throughout all the phases.

### *2.3.1 Planning phase*

The planning phase is the initial phase of the policy cycle. This phase is sometimes referred to as the needs analysis. To conduct the needs analysis system approach is often used [30]. It consists of six levels relating to alpha, beta, delta, gamma, and zeta.

Alpha as the first level entails identifying the needs of the institution or clearly articulating the main objective to the stakeholders. In the case of changing the culture of instruction, the main objective would be integrating technology for teaching and learning to enhance students' engagement.

Beta involves establishing issues that are associated with the main objectives that can lead to its accomplishment. The baseline data is collected where the use of instruments including, survey questionnaires, document analysis, observations and interviews are employed. The data collected is analyzed. All the issues that have the agenda status that is, clearly defined are compiled in the agenda-setting. Which leads to the next phase. In Gamma as the third step, these items on the agenda are deliberated and solutions are identified, deliberated, and agreed upon. This step leads to Gamma, where the strategies to address issues raised in the first step are developed. Delta as the fourth level consists of the final report of the needs analysis which involves the compilation of the strategies to be used. The Epsilon level of the analysis entails the summative evaluation of the strategies employed to establish if they will work. For ICT integration, ICTs would be piloted [31]. The ultimate level is the Zeta level of analysis, the final level where amendment is done if needed. This level entails the compilation of a report to be submitted to the steering committee leading to the development of the ICT policy [30]. However, when the members of the working committee are not skilled, they may bring unrealistic recommendations that will hinder the implementation of the ICT policy. ICT policy [32].

### *2.3.2 Developing an ICT policy*

The lack of a clear ICT policy poses major snags to effectively integrate ICT for teaching and learning in the universities [32, 33] argue that the school-based ICT policy planning must be in the context of curriculum reform and suggest that the ICT policy should possess the features including the institution ICT policy description that is in line with the ICT National policy. It must have a vision that serves as the blueprint or a guidepost to keep the institution focused [34]. It should include a mission statement on how the institution's vision will be achieved, objectives and subobjectives to be realized in teaching and learning an o. Have an overview of the ICT services relating to administration, education, research, a description of the university's infrastructure with the details of the hardware and the software to be installed in the lecture halls. Furthermore, the type of hardware and software general standards of how the ICT services are to be managed and supported and a plan regarding the implementation of the policies in the institution and the envisaged budget. However, the development of an ICT policy is not without challenges. These hindrances result from the lack of the stakeholders' involvement, skills and knowledge transfer that is required for a sound vision and a comprehensive ICT policy [35]. Furthermore, the incompetency of the leadership to promote the participation of the stakeholders affects the integration of technology [31–36].

## *2.3.2.1 Guidelines for a successful ICT policy*

Fishman & Pinkard [37] postulate that the guidelines for the ICT policy should be grounded in a shared vision of teaching and learning [38, 39]. Secondly, the ICT policy must be aligned with the curriculum content and enhance the student's learning [40] in [41]. Thirdly, technology is ever-evolving therefore an ICT policy must be frequently reviewed and updated [38]. Lastly, the ICT policy development required the collaboration of all the stakeholders to be successful. However, its success depends on its implementation [42]. It is, therefore, asserted that the strategic plan developed in the planning phase should include strategies to implement the ICT policy [43].

## *2.3.3 Implementing the ICT policy*

Implementing the ICT policy denotes the integration of the ICT to enhance teaching and learning for a meaningful engagement in the learning institution as stipulated in the ICT policy [44]. There are four dimensions of implementation relating to smart policy design, inclusive stakeholder engagement, conducive context and a coherent implementation strategy [45]. According to Aziz [46], a smart policy design consists of logical and feasible solutions to identified needs. Inclusive stakeholder engagement implies the involvement of the relevant, skilled stakeholders throughout the stages of the ICT policy. The conducive context denotes the implementation that is supported by an environment where there are relevant ICTs for students and lecturers to interact. Finally, there must be a coherent implementation strategy that outlines all concrete measures for the successful implementation of the ICT policy [47]. The implementation can be hindered by inefficient leadership, non-involvement of stakeholders, unskilled stakeholders, financial constraints, over-dependence on donors and students and lecturers' resistance [47].

*Strategy as Plan for Technology Integration to Reposition Lecturers for the New Normal in Higher… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102078*

### *2.3.4 ICT policy monitoring*

Policy monitoring entails tracking the progress of policy implementation, observing the activities during the policy implementation, and identifying obstacles [48]. To allay some of the challenges associated with the policy process, it is suggested that stakeholders' participation; monitoring and evaluation with mechanisms for learning should be integrated into all the phases of the policy process [31]. Benner [49] and Maski Rana [50] assert that observations during the implementation of the ICT policies are scarce in the institutions of learning. This is due to the lack of expertise to assess the progress of strategies and activities, funding and human resource to effectively monitor the progress of the implementation of ICTs [48, 51] argue that there must be at least three units that assess different aspects of the ICT integration relating to the progress of the integration in general, activities in the classrooms, the skills and resources.

### *2.3.5 Reviewing the ICT policy*

Reviewing the ICT policy implies evaluating the catastrophes or accomplishments of the implementation of the policy to come up with actionable outcomes [5]. According to Bratton & Gold [47] the three phases entailed in the review of the ICT policy include preparing the ground for the review, carrying out the review and finalizing the review report and disseminating the results.

'Phase 1: Preparing the ground for the review entails clearly defining the objectives to be reviewed and compiled a list of the aspects to be reviewed before the policy experts can be consulted. It is suggested that to effectively identify aspects to be assessed, previous research and reports of similar projects can be used to identify similar aspects to be evaluated. After the relevant information is identified, aspects to be reviewed may be handed over to the policy experts for consideration. It is also indicated that aspects may be assigned to stakeholders to be consulted and attend meetings where the mission will be discussed [47]. Phase 2: Carrying out the review, involves swotting the key policy components of the institution's ICT master plan and their implementation, examining the availability of human resources and ICT skills; assessing the institutional framework, scrutinizing implementation mechanisms and the roles of different stakeholders [6]. Phase 3: Finalizing the review and disseminating of the results relate to compiling a written report and distributing it to the relevant stakeholders to view and come up with the way forward [47].

For successful reviewing of the policy process, the leadership direct the reviewal and assign roles to the other stakeholders and report the progress of the ICT integration, ensuring that the stakeholders are capacitated with the necessary skills to review policies and there are relevant resources to conduct the process of reviewing and there is enough budget for the process. Furthermore, the leadership must encourage stakeholders' involvement in reviewing the ICT policy to avoid the process being the responsibility of certain individuals. If the stakeholders are not capacitated with negotiation skills, conflicts arise which results in disagreements [47].

For the ICT policy to work in the higher learning institution, stakeholders including lecturers, instructional designers, student teachers, subject heads, and ICT specialists have to collaborate in its planning and development [11]. The involvement of all the stakeholders during the development of the ICT policy promotes ownership and conformability in integrating technology [14, 52]. The collaboration of all the stakeholders is equally important in the implementation of the ICT policy [53]. In Vietnam, for instance, COVID-19 has resulted in the development of ICT policy to support blended learning [54]. Furthermore, it is posited that technology integration is more likely to succeed when the lecturers understand and share the value of ICT policies [55]. Furthermore, it is argued that many benefits could be obtained by giving students freedom of learning anytime and anywhere as education compared to traditional learning [11].
