Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
5.2 Respondents’ Demographic Profile
104
The high response rate was as a result of the support of the offices of the Directors of Research in the two universities. They were responsible for introducing the researcher to the academics and students and also for publicising the questionnaire. Six research assistants along with student departmental representatives, departmental secretaries and some lecturers in the three faculties/colleges assisted the researcher in following up on each student and academic in the completion of the survey. They achieved this by informing their colleagues (students or academics) to complete and return the questionnaires. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a copy of the approval letter to conduct the study, issued by the management of the research office and offices of the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the universities. The approval from the VCs enabled the researcher to access the academics and students. In addition to the approval letter, some Heads of Departments (HoDs) requested academics to complete the questionnaire. The initial survey period, which was proposed for three months, was extended to six months to enable more academics and students to participate in the survey and to provide ample time to complete and return the questionnaires. The researcher had to personally follow up on the Heads of Faculties and librarians and also on some of the academics to ensure that the questionnaires were completed. The results are presented below, using both descriptive and inferential statistics.
105
Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents by University
The distribution of respondents on the basis of their universities in Figure 6 showed that 71%
and 43% of academics and students respectively were from University of Ibadan (U.I) while 29% and 57% of academics and students respectively were from Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta (FUNAAB).
5.2.2 Distribution of Respondents (Academics and Students) by Faculty/College
Data collected was also analyzed to determine the distribution of academics and students based on faculty or college. The results are presented in Table 5a and 5b.
Table 5a: Distribution of Academics by Faculty/College
Note: *N=195 is the total number of usable completed questionnaires out of 240 copies of questionnaires administered to academics in the two universities.
The results in Table 5a depict the faculty/college of academics in the study. The majority of respondents 124 (64%) were from the faculty/college of Science/Natural Science; this is followed by respondents from the faculties/colleges of Technology/Engineering 39(20%) and Veterinary Medicine 32(16%) respectively. The results correspond with the those from the
Faculty/College U.I (N=138) FUNAAB (N=57) Total (*N=195)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Science/Natural Science 86 62.3 38 66.7 124 64.0
Technology/Engineering 27 19.6 12 21.1 39 20.0
Veterinary Medicine 25 18.1 7 12.3 32 16.0
Total 138 100.0 57 100.0 195 100.0
106
separate analysis of data collected from respondents from the two universities which indicated that the respondents were mostly academics from the Faculty of Science/Natural Science.
Table 5b: Distribution of Students by Faculty/College
Note: *N=331 is the total number of usable completed questionnaires out of 351copies of questionnaires administered to students in the two universities.
The distribution of students on the basis of faculty/college revealed that 240 (72.5%) were from the Faculty of Science/Natural Science, 73 (21.1%) Technology/Engineering and 18 (5.4%) were from Veterinary Medicine. Likewise, results of data collected from respondents in U.I showed that 55.7% were from Sciences/ Natural and Bio-sciences, 36.4% from Technology/Engineering and 7.9% from Veterinary Medicine. Similarly, results from FUNAAB revealed that 84.8% were from Sciences/Natural and Bio-sciences, 11.5% from Technology/Engineering and 3.7% from Veterinary Medicine. The results indicated that students from the Faculty of Science/College of Natural and Bio-Sciences mainly dominated the study.
5.2.3 Distribution of Respondents (Academics and Students) by Gender
This section presented the gender of academic and student respondents from the two universities involved in the study as shown in Figure 7.
U.I (N= 140 ) FUNAAB (N= 191) Total (*N=331) Faculty/College Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Science/Natural
Science 78 55.7 162 84.8 240 72.5
Technology
/Engineering 51 36.4 22 11.5 73 22.1
Veterinary
Medicine 11 7.9 7 3.7 18 5.4
Total 140 100.0 191 100.0 331 100.0
107
Figure 7: Distribution of Respondents by Gender (N= 195 for academics and 331 for students)
From Figure 7, results showed that of the 195 academic respondents 73% were male, while 27% were female. Similarly, the results also showed that 75% of student respondents were male while 25% were female. The results indicated the dominance of male students over females in the surveyed universities.
5.2.4 Distribution of Respondents (Academics and Students) by Age
The respondents were asked to indicate their age range on the questionnaire. The results are shown in Tables 6a and 6b for academics and students respectively.
Table 6a: Distribution of Academics by Age Group
Note: *N=195 is the total number of usable completed questionnaires out of 240 copies of questionnaires administered to academics in the two universities.
Age group U.I (N=138) FUNAAB (N=57) Total (*N=195)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Below 30 years 16 11.6 9 15.8 25 12.8
31-40 years 45 32.6 25 43.9 70 35.9
41-50 years 58 42.0 18 31.6 76 39.0
50-60 years 15 10.9 4 7.0 19 9.7
60 years and above 4 2.9 1 1.8 5 2.6
Total 138 100.0 57 100.0 195 100.0
108
The distribution of respondents shown in Table 6a indicated that 39% of academics were within the age bracket 41-50 years, 36% were between 31-40 years, 13% were below 30 years, 10% were between 50-60 years while 3% were 60 years and above. The highest population (39%) of the respondents was in the age range of 41-50 years and the least (3%) in the category of 60 years and above. Results further revealed that there were younger academics (40 years and below) in FUNAAB (about 60%) than in U.I (about 44%).
Table 6b: Distribution of Students by Age group
Note: *N=331 is the total number of usable completed questionnaires out of 351copies of questionnaires administered to academics in the two universities.
The distribution of students by age presented in Table 6b showed that about 47% were within the age bracket 20-22 years, 23% were 23-25years, 16% were 16-19 years, 12% were 26 years and above, and about 3% were below 16years. The majority of the respondents (about 47%) were in the age range of 20-22 years and very few (about 3%) were in the category of below 16 years and this received the least responses. This implied that most of the students in the study were above 16 years of age. Results further revealed that there were younger students (19 years and below) in U.I (21%) than in FUNAAB (16%).
5.2.5 Distribution of Respondents (Academics and Students) by Educational Qualification and Year of Study
The study also sought to know the status of respondents by their educational qualifications and current year of study and this is presented in Figure 9a for academics and 9b for students respectively.
Age group (years) U.I (N=138) FUNAAB (N=57) Total (*N=195) Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Below 16 1 0.7 8 4.2 9 2.7
16-19 29 20.7 23 12.0 52 15.7
20-22 58 41.4 96 50.3 154 46.5
23-25 32 22.9 43 22.5 75 22.7
26 and above 20 14.3 21 11.0 41 12.4
Total 140 100.0 191 100.0 331 100.0
109
Figure 8a: Respondents (Academics) Highest Educational Qualification (N= 195) The educational qualification of the academics in Figure 8a showed that 52% of them had Doctoral degrees, 37% had Masters Degrees, while 11% had other degrees. These results showed that the majority of academics that participated in the study had a Doctoral degree.
Figure 8b: Respondents (Students) Current Year of Study (N= 331)
110
Results in Figure 8b showed that out of the 331 respondents surveyed, the majority 195 (59%) were in their third year of study while 136 (41%) were in their fourth year of study. The results indicated the dominance of students in their third year of study over those in the fourth year of study in the universities that were surveyed.
5.2.6 Distribution of Respondents (Academics and Students) by Years of Use of Web 2.0 Technologies
Respondents were asked for how many years they had been using Web 2.0 technologies. The purpose of the question was to help the researcher know how familiar respondents were with the use of these technologies. Results in Figures 9 below showed the responses of the academics and students from the two universities involved in the study.
Figure 9: Distribution of Respondents by Years of use of Web 2.0 Technologies
(N= 195 for academics and 331 for students)
The results in Figure 9 showed that the majority (50%) of the academic respondents indicated that they had been using Web 2.0 technologies for 7 years and above; 14% for 5-6 years and 3- 4 years; 9% for 1-2 years and only few (8%) of the respondents claimed to have used the technologies for less than one year. The results signified that most of the academics in the study were familiar with Web 2.0 technologies.
111
The results indicated that 31% of the student respondents had been using Web 2.0 technologies for 7 years and above, 30% for 5-6 years, 27% for 3-4years, 9% for 1-2years and 4% for less than one year. The remaining 40% of the student respondents have been using the Web 2.0 technologies for four years or less. As garnered from the responses, most of the students have been using Web 2.0 technologies for over 7 years, while less than 13% of the respondents have been using the technologies for two years or less.