Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
3.6 Net Benefits of Web 2.0 for TAL
72
this line of argument that the intention to use Web 2.0 technologies by Nigerian academics and students, result from attitude developed towards its use. This study used some questionnaire items such as “I prefer to use Web 2.0 for teaching/learning” and “I believe it is a good idea to use Web 2.0 for teaching/learning” (see section E of appendices 1 and 2) and interview question such as “How would you describe students/academics attitude towards the use of Web 2.0 technologies in your university?” to determine attitude towards use of Web 2.0 (see Appendix 3).
73
use/intention to use and user‟s satisfaction. They assumed that the “net benefits” are positive, therefore influencing and strengthening subsequent use of the system and user satisfaction.
However, in this study, the net-benefit variable is only dependent on intention to use.
Usoro, Echeng and Majewski (2013) in an empirical study from Nigeria noted that Web 2.0 is a technology that provides very effective web-based collaborative systems. As such, an awareness of their use for academic (TAL) purposes is needed to gain benefits from them.
They further emphasized that these technologies improved students‟ engagement by providing effective strategies for applying what has been learnt through other media. Web 2.0 technologies are also regarded as socializing tools which is one of the features that attract users or potential users to it.
Lupton (2013:1) added that Web 2.0 technologies offer various „pedagogical benefits‟ and support the development of digital literacy skills as users engage in „editing/manipulating content, commenting, „liking‟, curating and forwarding‟. McLoughlin and Lee (2007) supported that social computing tools and application (such as Web 2.0) in education enhances participatory learning, collaboration, knowledge and information sharing. Furthermore, by updating blogs weekly, students improved their thinking levels, according to Xia and Sharma (2010 cited in Usoro, Echeng and Majewski 2013). However, Franklin and Van Harmalen (2007) were of the opinion that due to the technology being quite new, it has a number of uncertain issues- one of which is its acceptance and use in TAL. So as to achieve a learner- centered teaching approach, there is a need for universities to integrate Web 2.0 and other 21st- century technologies.
Petter, Delone and Mclean (2008) identified perceived usefulness or job impact as the most common measure of net benefits at the individual level; and at organizational level, profitability measurements is most preferred. An, Aworuwa, Ballard and Williams (2009) conducted a web-based survey to examine the best practices in teaching with Web 2.0 technologies as well as the benefits and barriers associated with their use. The study identified the main benefits of using Web 2.0 technologies in TAL as (1) interaction, communication and collaboration; (2) knowledge creation; (3) ease of use and flexibility; and (4) writing and technology skills. At the individual and organizational level of analysis, a number of empirical studies have provided reasonable support for the relationship between system use and benefits
74
(Petter, Delone and Mclean 2008). Several studies have found that use or intention to use is positively associated with improved decision making and job performance (Halawi, McCarthy and Aronson 2007 and Payne, Wharrad and Watts 2012). Other studies have confirmed the significant relationship that exists between system use and net benefits (Seddon and Kiew 1996; Igbaria and Tan 1997; Rai et al. 2002; Kositanurit et al. 2006).
However, some study findings suggest that there are no relationships between these variables.
McGill et al. (2003) found that intended use is not significantly related to individual impact (task–technology fit and performance). Wu and Wang (2006) also found that there is no relationship between use and net benefits. Using perceived usefulness as a metric for measuring net benefits, many studies have found a relationship between behavioral intention and use of a system (Venkatesh and Morris 2000; Chau and Hu 2002; Wixom and Todd 2005;
and Klein 2007). Meaning that, a proper utilization of Web 2.0 technologies for academic purposes is needed to gain benefits from them (Usoro, Echeng and Majewski 2013). However, Adams et al. (1992) argued that there are some complications with using perceived usefulness items to measure net benefits, as Segars and Grover (1993) found that items such as „works more quickly‟, „job performance‟ and „effectiveness‟ did not fit well with perceived usefulness.
It implies that perceived usefulness might not be a suitable measure of net benefits; therefore this study does not include it as part of the measures.
Thongmak (2014) adopted the D&M model to assess the achievement of the e-learning system based on its total benefits. Questionnaires were used to obtain information on the consequence of the intention to use networks on net benefits. The study results showed a positive significant relationship between the intention to use the course‟s Facebook group and net benefits. In addition, intention to use was found to explain net benefits at the level of 46.2% (R2 = 0.462).
The forgoing study further revealed that 56% of students confirmed that Facebook was a useful tool for class-related collaboration activities; contacting their peers about questions and assignments; accessing course materials; setting up group meetings; and creating study groups.
These advantages were also described by Selwyn (2007). It was also noted that students‟
studying performance improved after using the course Facebook group. The foregoing study recommends that more factors concerned with academics and students be investigated to obtain a deeper understanding of other aspects of educators and learners. However, the study was limited to the constructs of D&M, responses from students, location of study and the
75
quantitative method of data collection and analysis. The present study extends Thongmak‟s (2014) investigation to the Nigerian context considering academics‟ use of Web 2.0 for TAL.
This study also adopts a mixed method approach to data collection and analysis.
Coleman, Herselman and Coleman (2012) employed a case study approach to investigate how doctors in remote rural hospitals in South Africa used computer-mediated tools (CMT) to communicate with experienced and specialist doctors for professional advice to improve their clinical practices. Data was collected from ten purposively selected doctors in ten hospitals using semi-structured open ended interview questions. Study findings revealed that the use of CMT by doctors to review spellings improved their message structure and made communication more precise and efficient. Also, CMT helped doctors reduce the enormous pressure emanating from a multitude of tasks including sending e-mails and transmitting patient information simultaneously. However, findings revealed that the speed of internet connectivity was very slow and sometimes not available due to power outages and poor network infrastructure; thereby resulting in very slow transmission of information. The availability of internet connectivity is also important for the use of Web 2.0 technologies in TAL because the internet remains the bedrock of all web-based systems and services.
Unreliable networks could adversely affect the decision of users about the Web 2.0 technologies.
To address the limitations in studies reviewed this present study investigated the factors that influenced the use of Web 2.0 technologies in TAL in Nigerian universities using selected constructs from D&M model, TAM and MST. Undergraduate students and academics formed the unit of analysis, while both quantitative and qualitative approaches were adopted. Some metrics of net benefits that were used in data collection instruments included “Web 2.0 technologies help me to acquire new knowledge and innovative ideas”, “Teaching/learning performances are enhanced with the use of Web 2.0” (see section D of appendices 1 and 2) and
“What has been the impact of Web 2.0 technologies on TAL?” (See Appendix 3).