6.4 Use of Web 2.0 Technologies for TAL Purposes
6.4.1 Academics and Students’ Use of Web 2.0 Technologies for TAL Purposes
166
of students did. Again, more students (up to 65.9%) than academics (up to 52.8%) used Web 2.0 for online group discussion. The variation in what academics and students used Web 2.0 technologies for may be attributed to factors such as knowledge of the technologies‟
functionality and individual tasks and responsibilities. Findings gathered from Heads of Faculties and librarians also support the findings from the qualitative study, indicating that academics and students utilized Web 2.0 technologies for academic, personal, research and educational purposes. The current study contributes to the body of knowledge discussed by identifying a number of activities for which academics and students used Web 2.0 technologies.
167
Gamal (2013) and Chawinga (2014) who found that academics rarely used these tools for TAL purposes. Ugwuogo (2013) observed that even though institutions in developed countries have advanced the use of new technologies (such as the Web 2.0) in classrooms, developing countries (including Nigeria) were yet to begin.
The findings of the current study however, indicates a high use (up to 63%) of some Web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Instant messaging, YouTube and Skype, for teaching purposes in the surveyed universities. These findings seem to conform with Ajise and Fagbola‟s (2013) who found that academics in Nigerian universities mostly used Web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, wikis, and podcasting for TAL purposes. However, the current study refutes the finding of Ajise and Fagbola on high use of Twitter and podcasting for teaching purposes. Okoreke (2014) in a survey on the use of social media in teaching by academics in Southeast Nigeria found that academics mostly used Facebook 50(86.20%) and blogs 8(12.06%) for TAL purposes.
According to Junco, Heiberger and Loken (2010) academics used social media and some other Web 2.0 technologies in education to support collaboration, sharing of information, participation and community building.
Furthermore, the current study revealed that the overall usage of Web 2.0 for teaching purposes by academics in FUNAAB was higher than it was at U.I. This may be explained by the age difference recorded between academics in the two universities. As discussed in Section 5.2.4, there were younger academics (40 years and below) in FUNAAB (59.7%) than in U.I (44.2%).
Given this, it can be inferred that younger academics (who can be grouped as digital natives) were more likely to adopt and use technologies faster than the older counterparts (digital immigrants). Similarly, Mbatha (2013) argued that some academics did not adopt the use Web 2.0 in their teaching because they believed that these technologies did not have any relative advantage in improving the way they taught and they also found them not to be user-friendly.
From a broad perspective, academics who have long been involved with the traditional methods of teaching may be difficult to be influenced into using Web 2.0 and other new technologies for teaching purposes. In this regard, evidence from Korte and Husing‟s (2006) study revealed that it was a great challenge to motivate teachers who had longer teaching experience to use ICTs in class in some countries such as Germany. Nevertheless, the foregoing study found that the vast majority of European academics considered the use of ICT
168
in classes as greatly beneficial. This result may suggest that older academics with a long history of teaching have started developing interest in the use of technologies for academic and teaching purposes.
Findings on students‟ use of Web 2.0 technologies presented in Table 9b show SNSs (particularly, WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter), Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, Instant messaging, newsgroups or online forums as the most widely used Web 2.0 technologies for learning purposes. The current study indicates a high use of some Web 2.0 such as Wikipedia (83%), WhatsApp (67%), Facebook (67%) and YouTube (67%) for learning purposes in the surveyed universities. Likewise, the use of blogs (44%), Instant messaging (44%) and newsgroups/online forums (40%) and Twitter (39%) were found less common among the students. These findings contradict Tunde-Awe (2015) who, in a survey on the relevance of online social networking media in English as a Second Language among students in a Nigerian University, found that only 32% of the respondents used Facebook for academic purposes.
Likewise, Diyaolu and Rifqah (2015) reported that students found Wiki/Wikipedia (up to 95.4%), YouTube (up to 65.3%), Facebook/Twitter (up to 54.7%) and blogs (up to 50%) useful for learning purposes in selected Nigerian private universities.
However, the finding of the ongoing study showed that students (below 25%) scarcely used Skype, Wiki-how, LinkedIn, RSS Feeds, podcasts/webcasts/vodcasts, My Space and Badoo. In addition, Social Bookmarking, Teacher Tube, Flickr and Bebo were hardly used for learning purposes. This low usage of other tools may be attributed to lack of awareness about the use of those tools for learning purposes; lack of required skills; and inadequate resources or infrastructures to help facilitate their use for learning purposes. The current findings seem to suggest that although students enjoyed using SNSs, Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, Instant messaging and newsgroups/online forums among others Web 2.0 technologies for learning purposes; they lacked the understanding of the usefulness of other Web 2.0 technologies. This is line with Kennedy et al. (2007) in a study in Australia which found that more than 80% of students surveyed in their study had never used podcast and wiki, while more than 50% had never used a SNS for TAL purposes. According to Garoufallou and Charitopoulou (2011), most students lacked knowledge on the importance and use of Web 2.0 technologies for academic purposes.
169
Kabilan, Ahmad and Abidin (2010) in a study on the use of Facebook for learning among students in a Malaysian university found that students engaged in meaningful language-based activities and interaction. Kosik (2007) in a related study found that some students used Web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook for academic reasons, particularly to connect with their classmates to get information about assignments. The author noted that these students used Facebook because it helped them in delivering information and responses faster. Zakaria, Watson, and Edwards‟s (2010) survey of 250 undergraduate students in a Malaysian university discovered that students were well familiar with social technologies and therefore felt contented using them for educational and learning purposes. The findings also agreed with Irwin, Ball, Desbrow and Leveritt (2012) study among students in an Australian university which found that 85% of the students used Facebook and the majority also agreed to use Facebook in future for learning purposes. The propensity and inclination of students towards using Web 2.0 could be attributed to the perceived value which they derived from using them.
Richards (2004:342) discovered from a study that young students tended to be more rapid in the uptake of ICT than older academics (teachers), and challenged academics to „go beyond the traditional separation between top-down theory and content‟ and the „mere procedural skills‟ to a more innovative method of teaching.
The findings in the current study also revealed some variations in the use of certain Web 2.0 technologies by students in the surveyed universities. For instance, more students from FUNAAB (93.7%) used SNSs for learning purposes than their counterparts from U.I (79.3%).
Furthermore, students from U.I. used wikis for learning purposes more than those in FUNAAB (see results in Table 9b). This indicates that the use of various Web 2.0 technologies for learning purposes may vary from one university to another. Findings from the interview report suggest that these Web 2.0 technologies are used by students based on their applicability to their course work. Availability and access to the internet may also contribute to the variation reported in students‟ use of these technologies for learning purposes. Korte and Husing (2006) in a related finding revealed that most students (86%) were more motivated to learn when internet facilities were available and used for TAL purposes in class. The finding in the current study established that FUNAAB made internet access freely available to staff and students compared to U.I where access to the internet was self-funded. The findings from Bola and
170
Ogunlade (2012) and Salaam (2003) also substantiates the argument that students do not have as much access to the internet service as the staff in Nigerian Universities.
Web 2.0 technologies have enormous potential to enhance the TAL experience. However, several issues in the Nigerian universities seem to affect usage of some of these technologies (that is, Skype, Wiki-how, LinkedIn, RSS Feeds, podcasts/webcasts/vodcasts, My Space and Badoo, Social Bookmarking, Teacher Tube, Flickr and Bebo) for TAL purposes. The issues affecting usage of Web 2.0 include (among others) lack of funding, exposure, technical support, institutional policies, inadequate internet facilities and bandwidths problems (Wright, Dhanarajan and Reju 2009; Sulaiman, Embi and Hamat 2011; Emmanuel, Ebiere and Vera 2013; and Mohamad, Salleh, and Salam 2015). The problem affecting Web 2.0 access in public universities seems to be a “non-issue” in private universities where Salaam and Adegbore (2010) found that internet facilities are available without restriction. Fasae and Aladeniyi (2012) are also of the view that a number of universities in Nigeria are taking significant steps to improve information and communication policies and consequently that this will have positive impact on the uptake of Web 2.0 for TAL purposes.