145
Based on the results of the hypotheses tested, the research framework resulted in the model presented in Figure 13 below.
146
considered to be electronic tools that were used for social, educational, research and various other purposes. The participants were well familiar with Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, Wikipedia, Facebook and YouTube, Learning Management Systems (LMS), Skype and some other social networking tools. These were similar to the results from the quantitative study which pointed out that academics and students were familiar with Web 2.0 technologies such as Facebook, LinkedIn and WhatsApp, Wikipedia, Instant messaging, YouTube and Skype.
These results suggest a high level of awareness of Web 2.0 technologies among academics and students.
Furthermore, the results revealed that Web 2.0 technologies were used as teaching materials; to give assignment to students; in project supervision; for distant learning courses for part-time students; for giving information on school academic calendar and activities; group discussion, file sharing; searching for academic related materials such as books and journals; and to share experience with others including those outside the institution. Results of the qualitative study corroborated that of the quantitative study which revealed that academics and students use Web 2.0 technologies for communicating with friends or colleagues, information search, personal activities, research activities and academic-related activities.
5.4.2 Web 2.0 Technologies Utilization in TAL
Responses from the interview showed that most of the respondents agreed that Web 2.0 technologies were being utilized for TAL purposes in their universities. However, it was pointed out that although the technologies had gained relevance more among students than academics, their use was relatively low. As one of the respondents stated:
We are just coming up as far as Web 2.0 technologies are concerned.
Some respondents however felt that the use of Web 2.0 technologies had improved significantly within the last 5-6 years of introducing them in the universities as students and lecturers were engaging with these tools. One of the respondents noted that:
To me, most of the efforts on using Web 2.0 technologies for TAL purposes can be said to be on individual basis. There is no official provision for their use. Hence, lecturers have been taking time to work with different groups of people with these tools based on their interests and which ones they find useful. For instance, I
147
sometimes make use of YouTube, Facebook, Blogs and emails for interacting with my students.
Another respondent mentioned that:
Web 2.0 technologies have been very useful for our teaching activities. Some that are used in our university for delivering teaching instructions include: Blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Some of these technologies are used with learning software such as: Teaching Essential Electronic Agricultural Library (TEEAL) which is on the university database, basically prepare for agricultural science courses; HINARI which is an online TAL software for medical science and AGORA (written in full as Access to Online Research in Agriculture).
The researcher asked how these technologies were used. Responses demonstrated that students sometimes submitted tests and assignments online and could also check their results through the same means. In addition the technologies were used to conduct exams for new intakes (students) and for courses with a larger population of students. Submission and reverting of test or exam scores or corrections to exercises were also done using some of these tools. It was also stated that Web 2.0 technologies were used in TAL for specific purposes that included uploading course materials and lecture notes; distant learning; giving assignments to students;
project supervision; group discussion on topics learnt or to be treated in class; file, photo and video sharing; and downloading teaching and reading materials. Some of the Web 2.0 technologies mentioned as used for TAL in the surveyed universities were Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, blogs and Google+ along with the Learning Management System (LMS).
However, the results suggested that the selection of which Web 2.0 technologies to use hinged on individuals‟ interest and usefulness of the tools to them.
On the other hand, some respondents did not use Web 2.0 technologies because they believed they were not necessary for TAL purposes. Similarly, it seems that some academics still preferred the traditional mode of teaching, thus they did not encourage or support the use of Web 2.0 technologies for TAL purposes in the university.
148
5.4.3 Attitude of Academics and Students towards Utilizing Web 2.0 for TAL Purposes Results showed that academics and students in the surveyed universities had diverse attitudes towards the use of Web 2.0 technologies for TAL purposes. Students were noted to have positive attitudes towards the use of Web 2.0 technologies for TAL purposes because they embraced new technologies easily and faster. For instance, it was reported that they were very enthusiastic about the use of these technologies for TAL purposes because they had the necessary skills essential for their use. One of the respondents mentioned that:
These students are so much attached to these technologies that trying to separate them from them look quite unrealistic. With the knowledge that they can also carry out their academic activities with the same set of tools they use for socializing makes them more interested and focused on their studies.
On the other hand, academics were reported to have mixed attitudes, that is, some positive, some negative towards Web 2.0, while some were indifferent. It was mentioned that some academics, especially the younger ones, embraced Web 2.0 because of the benefits they offered while some older ones preferred doing their teaching the traditional way (that is, face to face classroom learning with paper and ink). Another respondent noted that:
Students are catching up faster with the use of Web 2.0 and other new technologies than academics. This is because some academics are just technophobic and prefer doing things the old way, but generally I can say majority are hungry for the use of Web 2.0 tools especially for educational purposes but if we want to use these tools in teaching the university has to start it formally by initiating a policy that encourages its use.
Academics with positive attitudes towards use of Web 2.0 technologies believed that these technologies increased their speed of delivering instructions, made lecturing easier and provided more time for research. The Web 2.0 technologies also helped students to learn faster and better. However, those with negative or indifferent attitudes towards Web 2.0 argued that these tools were deteriorating the quality of education, and that some students (and also academics) could misuse the opportunity in order to become lazy and truant. It can be inferred from the responses that most academics were of the opinion that Web 2.0 technologies were not necessary for TAL purposes as it seems most lecturers still preferred the traditional mode
149
of teaching. Thus, they did not encourage or support their use for TAL purposes in the universities.
5.4.4 Net benefits of Using Web 2.0 for TAL Purposes
Web 2.0 technologies seem really beneficial for TAL purposes. Respondents indicated that Web 2.0 technologies were necessary to enhance TAL. They mentioned that the Web 2.0 technologies improved teacher-student interaction and relationships; allowed for quick sharing of knowledge and information; allowed easier and cheaper access to information tools; kept people updated; disseminated information to a well-populated class; improved academic output and productivity; enhanced user friendliness, collaboration, facilitated group discussion;
improved learning skills, brought students up to date with academic information and learning materials; and sharing of ideas on subject matters were some of the benefits of using Web 2.0 technologies for TAL purposes.
Additionally, findings showed that there were no formal institutional policies that supported the integration of Web 2.0 technologies in TAL at the U.I. In contrast, the Federal university of Agriculture Abeokuta had policies that supported the use of these technologies. For instance, it was reported that there are rules that lecturers must submit their lecture notes and course outlines to the committee that inspects them before they are uploaded to the internet (via the university website). It was however also revealed that plans were being made to formally incorporate the use of Web 2.0 technologies into the academic curriculum at U.I as soon as possible. The findings also indicated the availability of infrastructure including ICTs, power generating plants, internet facilities and computer laboratories that support the use of Web 2.0 technologies for TAL in these universities.
Furthermore, major factors such as support from the university authorities, academics and students‟ attitude to use, provision of ICT facilities, internet connectivity, erratic power supply, availability of internet resources, technological know-how, funds to install modern and essential gadgets, institutional policies that support the use of the technologies, training of academics and students, and creating awareness on importance of these technologies were identified as factors that affected the use of Web 2.0 technologies for TAL purposes. Likewise, some respondents complained about the lack of the following, namely encouragement; Web
150
2.0 use policy; reliable power supply; internet connectivity; technical support and training;
funds; readiness; ICT personnel or technical support team and electricity back-up as affecting Web 2.0 uptake. They also reported that the library as the core support for academic activities in the university is better positioned to provide academics and students with information and training on effective use of Web 2.0 technologies for TAL purposes.