An Assessment of Educators’ Level of Concern on the Adoption of Education 5.0: A Case of One University in Zimbabwe

Main Article Content

Dumisani Rumbidzai Muzira
Robert Muzira


Background: This study was an assessment of educators’ levels of concern on the adoption of Education 5.0: A case of a State University in Zimbabwe. Education 5.0 being a new curriculum reform in Zimbabwe which focuses on five pillars namely, research, teaching, community service, innovation and industrialisation. Educators are directly involved in implementing education reforms hence the importance of an assessment of their stages of concern towards the adoption of Education 5.0.

Methodology: A survey using 35 questionnaire items adapted from the Concerns-Based Adoption model was used to collect data from a sample of 28 lecturers derived from a population of 30. The researcher completed a score sheet using the responses from the questionnaires. Data on stages of concern was coded using Likert scale of 0 to 3. Data was analysed to measure stages of concern among the educators who are implementors of Education 5.0. by averaging the five items per stage to determine the level of concern among the educators. Standard deviation for each stage of concern was also calculated to determine variations among the educators’ level of concern.

Results: The study revealed that the educators had their highest intensity of concern under stage 2 (personal), followed by stage 5 (collaboration), and their least concern on stage 6 (refocusing), followed by stage 3 (management). These findings indicate that these educators are on the self-level of concern, much concerned about how they would personally be affected by Education 5.0 and least concerned about the task at hand, which is the implementation of Education 5.0.

Conclusion: The high intensity scores of educators’ concern at the personal and collaboration stages suggest that educators are more worried about how Education 5.0 adoption would affect them personally and also their significant others, students being part of this group. It is expected of educators to be concerned about how their students will be affected because students are part of lecturers’ most valued clients.

Educators, education 5.0, curricular reforms, curriculum implementation

Article Details

How to Cite
Muzira, D. R., & Muzira, R. (2020). An Assessment of Educators’ Level of Concern on the Adoption of Education 5.0: A Case of One University in Zimbabwe. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 39(17), 22-32.
Short Research Article


Armstrong DG. Curriculum today. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. 2003;249.

Ornstein AC, Hunkins FP. Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2013.

Jabri M. Managing organizational change: Process, social construction and dialogue. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 2012;62.

Canada G. Bringing change to scale: The next big reform challenge. New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Books Group; 2010.

Tirivangana A. Education 5.0 and Vision 2030, re-configuring Zim University degrees. The Patriotic; 2019.


Pratt D. Curriculum design and development. New York: Harcourt Brace. 1980;4.

Riddel AR. Reforms of educational efficiency and equity in developing countries: An overview. Compare. 1998;28(3):227-292.

Knight GR. Philosophy and education: An introduction in Christian perspective. Michigan, MI: Andrews University Press; 1980.

Sizer TR, Sizer NF. The students are watching: Schools and the moral contract. Boston: Beacon Press; 1991.

Zain NM, Aspah V, Abdullah N, Ebrahimi M. Challenges and evolution of higher education in Malaysia. UMRAN-International Journal of Islamic and Civilizational Studies. 2017;4(1-1).

Fuller FF. Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal. 1969;6(2):207-226.

Kotler P, Armstrong G. Principles of marketing (13th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. 2012;156.

George AA, Hall GE, Stiegelbauer SM. Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. SEDL. 2013;8.

Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research methods for business students (5th Ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education; 2008.

Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30:607–610.

Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 2016;5(1):1-4.

George AA, Hall GE, Uchiyama K. Extent of implementation of a standards-based approach to teaching mathematics and student outcomes. Journal of Classroom Interaction. 2000;35(1):8–25.

Sekaran U, Bougie R. Research methods for business students; 2000.

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). New York, NY: Pearson; 2012.

Wani TA, Ali SW. Innovation diffusion theory. Journal of General Management Research. 2015;3(2):101-118.

Wright P, Mukherjib A, Kroll MJ. Extensions of the principal agency theory. Elsevier Science Inc, New York; 2001.

Kotler P. Kotler on marketing. Simon and Schuster; 2012.