6 Improving Teaching and Learning in Nigerian Universities through Smart Technology in the 21 st Century: An Empirical Survey

Abstract

This study investigated ways of improving teaching and learning in Nigerian universities in the 21st Century through smart technology. The purpose of the study was to find out smart technologies available in the universities in the South-Eastern Nigeria, the utilization of the smart technologies, and how they have improved teaching and learning in the 21st century. The study was guided by six specific objectives and a corresponding six research questions. Three hypotheses were formulated for the study. Descriptive survey design was adopted for the study. The target population was ten public universities in the South-Eastern Nigeria, comprising five federal universities and five state universities. A sample size of 1,500 respondents comprising 500 lecturers and 1000 students were used for the study. Questionnaire was the instrument for the data collection. Frequency and percentage were used to answer research question one. Mean and standard deviation were used to analyze the research questions four, five and six. A mean score of 2.50 and above was used as the benchmark for agreement in any item, while a mean score below 2.50 imply disagreed. In order to establish the extent of utilization of smart technologies for teaching and learning as raised in research question two and three, a real limit numbers were used as follows: 3.50-400=Highly Utilized (HU); 2.50-3.49= Utilized (U); 1.50 – 2.49 = Rarely Utilized (RU); 1.0-1.49= Very Rarely Utilized. t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. The study found that, smart phones, Ipads, laptops, tablets, internet and e-library are available in the South-Eastern universities, while phablets, smart board, digital camera, smart tables, projectors and smart classroom are unavailable. The study also found that, the lecturers are rarely using smart phone, ipads, tapletes and e-library, but are highly using laptops and internets for their teaching. Equally found in the study was that, students are highly utilizing smart phone, laptops and internet for learning, while they are rarely using ipads, taplets and e-library. The finding of the study revealed that, smart technologies improve teaching and learning in the universities. Some challenges of using smart technology in schools are: unavailability of some smart technologies, not familiar with the technology; fear of using smart technologies, among others. Ways of improving the utilization of smart technologies were identified in the study.

Keynotes: smart technologies, availability of smart technologies, utilization of smart technologies, teaching and learning, Nigerian universities, 21st Century.

Introduction 

Use of technologies for teaching and learning in the universities has increased dramatically in recent years. As new technologies are invented, they are integrated into the educational system to make teaching and learning easy, and produce higher learning outcome. The use of technology for learning started with television in 1970s, then, progressed to video teleconferencing in the 1980s, to computers in the classroom in the 1990s, to the social media technologies (Harnish, Bridges, Sattler, Signorella & Munson, 2018) and smart technology in the 21st century. Each of these progresses has played significant roles in shaping the education system both developed and developing countries. However, some of the newest technologies such as smart technologies, which are already available in some universities, seem to have provided more valuable interactive learning that has improved teaching and learning in the 21st century.

Smart technology has no clear and unified definition so far. However, the adjective ‘smart’ is similar to the one attributed to a person that is regarded as being ‘smart (International Association of Smart Learning Environments, 2019). According to Interactive Technology and Smart Education (2018), smart technology is an interactive technology that offers a more flexible and tailored approach to meet diverse individual requirements by being sensitive, manageable, adaptable, responsive and timely to educator’s pedagogical strategies and learners education and social needs. Innara, Elena, Olga, Tatiana and Nataliya (2019) conceived smart technologies as tools of new global knowledge, which transformed from information standards to innovational approaches to acquisition of professional skills and competences on the basis of systemic vision and constant update of existing knowledge.

In the educational context, smart technology covers smart learning environment, smart classroom and smart devices. A smart learning environments encompass intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs), adaptive learning systems, technology-enhanced learning, web-based learning, mobile learning, context-aware ubiquitous learning using sensing technologies (Hwang, 2014). Such environments enable learners to access digital resources and interact with learning systems in any place and at any time. They equally actively provide the necessary learning guidance, hints, supportive tools or learning suggestions in the right place, at the right time and in the right form. Hwang specified that, the potential criteria of a smart learning environment includes context-aware, able to offer instant and adaptive support to learners, and able to adapt the learner interface and subject content. Koper (2014) proposed that smart learning environments are defined as physical environments that are enriched with digital, context-aware and adaptive devices, to promote better and faster learning. Innara, Elena, Olga, Tatiana and Nataliya (2019) posited that, smart technologies in the system of smart education are innovational educational environment of higher school, in which emphasis is made on application of technologies in scientific and educational activities of lecturers, scientific personnel, and students for using and distributing global knowledge. A smart learning environment not only enables learners to access digital resources and interact with learning systems in any place and at any time, but also actively provides the necessary learning guidance, hints, supportive tools (Khushboo, 2016). Khushboo explained further that, such environment can always seamlessly provide the most needed tasks or support to learners by taking multiple personal factors (e.g., preferences, learning needs, personal schedule) and environmental factors (e.g., location of the real-world target) into account without being limited by any particular domain, no matter whether they are in school or not.

On the other hand, smart classroom is about integrating voice-recognition, computer-vision, and other technologies to provide a tele-education experience similar to a real classroom experience (Shi, Xie, Xu, & Shi, 2003). In the opinion of Bautista and Borges (2013), smart classrooms are associated with organizing and setting learning space in schools in a way that the best conditions for learning, physical and methodological, are generated in the most efficient and satisfactory way possible for all agents involved in the process. The design of the smart classroom includes the presentation of materials, access to learning resources, interactive teaching, contextual awareness, classroom layout and electrical management and so on. The components of smart classroom are smart devices.

A smart device is an electronic gadget that is able to connect, share and interact with its user and other smart devices. Smart devices can be a set of system hardware and software ICT resources, dynamic component-oriented resource extensions and plug-ins (Plug and play) of some hardware resources, remote external service access and execution, local, internal autonomous service execution, access to specific external environments: human interaction, physical world interaction and distributed ICT / virtual computing interaction, or ubiquitous computing properties. Some examples of smart devices are e-library, smart phone, ipads, phablets, digital camera, laptops, emails, internet services, smart boards, tablets, digital classroom, smart board, smart tables, among others. These devices can be used separately or connected together to improve learning or make learning more interesting. Some of these devices should be available in Nigerian universities, but the researcher is not sure of the ones available and their utilization for teaching and learning, despite the huge benefits of using them.

There are many benefits of integrating smart technologies in teaching and learning in the universities. The use of smart technologies for teaching makes it interesting and could improve desire to teach for lecturers that are familiar with them. The desire of the students to participate in class may increase when they are taught using smart technology. Learning with smart technology can equally make learning easy both for lecturers and students once they know how to utilize the devices effectively. Students who are taught with smart technology may want to share ideas and engage collaboratively in studying even after their lectures. It may create in the students, positive attitudes to learning. This is why Höjer and Wangel (2015) held that a good technological design goes beyond simply using the latest technology in education, to nurturing smart behavior by amalgamating various technologies for collective use. Khushoo (2016) expressed that, the smart classroom could actively observe, listen and serve the teachers, and teachers can write on a wall-size media-board just by their hands, or use speeches and gestures to conduct the class discussion involving of the distant students. Likewise, Innara et al (2019) held that functions of lecturers, scientific officers, and students in the system of smart education change by creation of new educational environment that erases boundaries between scientific research and educational activities. Thus, it is possible that, when students are exposed to the use of smart technology, they put more effort in learning.

Globally, many universities are speedily integrating smart technology in their school programme for the purpose of improving teaching and learning. In a lot of European countries (the UK,Germany, Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic), these technologies are standard approaches in the system of higher education. In Nigeria, the pace at which the universities are embracing these technologies, their availability and extent of utilization for teaching and learning purposes is not clear.  However, for Nigerian universities to thrive like universities in the developed countries, the smart technology should be provided in the universities by the government, to improve the educational system, in order to achieve the National Philosophy of Education and to prepare work force that meets the challenges of the 21st century. Therefore, the problem of this study is to find out the availability and utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities; as well as the challenges affecting the utilization, and ways of improving the utilization.

Purpose of the study 

The general purpose of this study is to investigate how smart technology has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities in the 21st Century. Specifically, the study tends to:

1. Find out the smart technologies available in Nigerian universities.
2. Determine the extent lecturers utilize available smart technologies for teaching
3. Determine the extent students utilize the smart technologies for learning.
4. Find out how smart technology has been improving teaching  and learning in Nigerian universities
5. Find out the challenges of utilizing of smart technologies in Nigerian universities.
6. Find out ways of improving utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities.

 Research Questions

The following research questions were formulated to guide the study:

1. What are the smart technologies available in Nigerian universities?
2. To what extent do lecturers utilize the smart technologies for teaching?
3. To what extent do students utilize the smart technologies for learning?
4. How has smart technologies improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities?
5. What are the challenges of utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities?
6. What are the ways of improving utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities?

Hypotheses 

The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance:

Ho1    There is no significant difference in the mean rating scores of students and lecturers on how smart technologies has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.

Ho2    There is no significant difference between the mean rating scores of students from federal     universities and those from state universities on how smart technology has improved     teaching and learning in the universities.

Ho3    There is no significant difference in the mean rating scores of lecturers from different universities on how smart technologies has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.

Methodology

This study adopts descriptive survey design. The target population was ten public universities in South-Eastern Nigeria, comprising five federal universities and five state universities. A sample size of 1,500 respondents comprising 500 lecturers and 1000 students were used for the study. Questionnaire was the instrument for the data collection. Frequency and percentage were used to answer research question one. Mean and standard deviation were used to analyze the research questions four, five and six. A mean score of 2.50 and above was used as the benchmark for agreement in any item, while mean score below 2.50 imply disagreed. In order to establish the extent of utilization of smart technologies for teaching and learning as raised in research question two and three, a real limit numbers were used to take the decision as follows: 3.50-400=Highly Utilized (HU); 2.50-3.49= Utilized (U); 1.50 – 2.49 = Rarely Utilized (RU); 1.0-1.49= Very Rarely Utilized. t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. To take decision on the hypotheses, the null hypotheses of no significance difference was accepted for any item that its critical value is greater than 0.05 but was rejected if the critical value is less or equal to 0.05. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23 was used for the analysis.

Results

Research Question 1:

What are the smart technologies available in Nigerian universities?

Table I: Mean ratings of students and lecturers on smart technologies available in Nigerian universities

Key: A=Available; NA= Not Available

The table 1 above shows the frequency and percentage of the respondents on availability of smart technologies in Nigerian universities. The percentage of the responses on availability of smart phones, Ipads, laptops, tablets, internet and e-library are 100, 67.6, 92.5, 66.8, 92.5 and 67.7 respectively. This implies that both students and lecturers agreed that these smart technologies are available in the universities. On the contrary, the percentage of the responses on availability of phablets, smart board, digital camera, smart tables, projectors and smart classroom are 1.56, 0.99, 1.80, 0.02, 0.06 and 1.04 respectively. This implies that these smart technologies are not available.

Research Question 2:

To what extent do lecturers utilize the smart technologies for teaching?

Table 2: Mean ratings of lecturers on extent they utilize smart technologies for teaching

Key: HU= Highly Utilized, U= Utilized, RU=Rarely Utilized

The table 2 above shows the mean rating and standard deviation scores of lecturers on their extent of utilizing smart technologies. The mean rating scores of lecturers on teaching with smart phones, ipads, taplets and e-library are 1.96, 1.81, 1.76 and 1.64 respectively. These mean scores are within the real limit numbers of 1.50 – 2.49, indicating rarely utilized. Conversely, the mean rating scores of lecturers on teaching with laptops and taplets are 2.80 and 2.79 respectively. These mean scores are within the real limit numbers of 2.50-3.49 and indicates utilized. The result of the analysis implies that, while the lecturers are rarely using smart phone, ipads, tapletes and e-library, they using laptops and internets for their learning to high extent.

Research Question 3:

To what extent do students utilize the smart technologies for learning?

Table 3: Mean ratings of students on extent they utilize smart technologies for learning

Key: HU= Highly Utilized, U= Utilized, RU=Rarely Utilized.

The table 3 above shows the mean rating and standard deviation scores of students on their extent of utilizing smart technologies. The mean rating scores of students on teaching with smart phones, ipads, laptops, taplets, internet and e-library are 3.96, 1.81, 3.80, 1.79, 1.06 and 1.04 respectively. From the analysis, the use of smart phone, laptops and internet is within the real limit number of 3.50-4.00, indicating highly utilized. The use of ipads, taplets and e-library is within the real limit number of 1.50 – 2.49, indicating rarely utilized. This implies that, students are highly utilizing smart phone, laptops and internet, while rarely utilizing ipads, taplets and e-library in the Nigerian universities.

Research Question 4:

How has smart technologies improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities?

Table 4: Mean ratings of the respondents on use of smart technologies for improving teaching and learning

Table 4 above shows the mean rating and standard deviation scores of the respondents on how smart technologies have improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities. The mean rating scores of the respondents on all the above eight listed items are above 2.50 bench mark and therefore indicates agreed. This means that both the lecturers and students agree that smart technologies improve teaching and learning in the universities.

Research Question 5:

What are the challenges of utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities?

Table 5: Mean ratings of the respondents on challenges of utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities

Table 5 above shows the mean rating and standard deviation scores of the respondents on challenges of using smart technologies in Nigerian universities. The mean rating scores of the respondents on items 1 to 5 are above 2.50 bench mark and therefore indicates agreed, whereas items 6 to 8 are below 2.50 bench mark and therefore indicates disagreed. This implies that, the respondents agree that, most smart technologies needed for teaching and learning are not available; most lecturers do not know how to use smart technologies; some lecturers are afraid of using smart technologies; and some students are afraid of using smart technologies.

On the contrary, the respondents disagreed that, it is too difficult or expensive to integrate smart technologies into university programme; and there is no time for lecturers to learn how to use these smart technologies.

Research Question 6:

What are the ways of improving utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities?

Table 6: Mean ratings of the respondents on ways of improving utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities

Table 6 above shows the mean rating and standard deviation scores of the respondents on ways of improving utilization of smart technologies in Nigerian universities. The mean rating scores of the respondents on all the five listed items are above 2.50 bench mark and therefore indicates agreed. This implies that, the respondents agreed on the ways of improving smart technologies listed above.

Test of Hypotheses

Hypothesis One:

There is no significant difference between the mean rating scores of students and lecturers on how a smart technology has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.

Table 7: Summary of the t-test statistics for hypothesis three

Table 7 revealed that the calculated t-value is 0.41 at 22 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Since the calculated sig. value of 0.68 is greater than 0.05 level of significance, the hypothesis of no significant difference is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the mean rating scores of students and lecturers on how smart technologies has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.

Hypothesis Two:

There is no significant difference between the mean rating scores of students from federal universities and those from state universities on how smart technology has improved teaching and learning in the universities.

Table 8: Summary of the t-test statistics for hypothesis three

Table 8 revealed that the calculated t-value is 0.38 at 22 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Since the calculated sig. value of 0.63 is greater than 0.05 level of significance, the hypothesis of no significant difference is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the mean rating scores of students from federal universities and those from state universities on how smart technology has improved teaching and learning in the universities.

Hypothesis Three:

There is no significant difference in the mean rating scores of students from different universities on how smart technologies has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities. .

Table 9: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the mean ratings of respondents on how smart technologies has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities

The one-way ANOVA revealed that the F-ratio is 0.942 at 9 degree of freedom at 0.05 level of significance. Since the calculated sig. value of 0.49 is greater than 0.05 level of significance, the hypothesis of no significant difference is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the mean rating scores of students from different universities on how smart technologies has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.

Finding of the Studies

The following are the findings of the study:

1. Smart phones, Ipads, laptops, tablets, internet and e-library are available in the universities in South-Eastern Nigeria, while phablets, smart board, digital camera, smart tables, projectors and smart classroom are unavailable.
2.  The lecturers are rarely using smart phone, ipads, tapletes and e-library, but are using laptops and internets highly for their teaching.
3. The students are highly utilizing smart phone, laptops and internet for learning, but are rarely using ipads, taplets and e-library in the universities.
4. Smart technologies improve teaching and learning in the universities.
5. Some challenges of using smart technology in schools are: unavailability of some smart technologies, not familiar with the technology; fear of using smart technologies, among others.
6. Several ways were identified for improving smart technologies in the universities, such as Government assistance in providing smart technologies in Nigerian universities; in-service training for lecturers on how to use smart technologies; providing smart technology training for the students; encouragement to use smart technology by the Head of Departments in the universities.
7. There is no significant difference between the mean rating scores of students and lecturers on how smart technologies have improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.
8. There is no significant difference between the mean rating scores of students from federal universities and those from state universities on how smart technology has improved teaching and learning in the universities.
9. There is no significant difference in the mean rating scores of students from different universities on how smart technologies has improved teaching and learning in Nigerian universities.

Conclusion

The finding of the study has provided the basis for the researcher to conclude that, smart technology has not been fully integrated into the Nigerian universities. However, the available smart technologies in the Nigerian universities have helped to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Smart technologies have also become viable innovation for improving students’ desire to participate in lectures, makes learning easy both for lecturers and students, and as well encourage students to share ideas and engage collaboratively in studying after the lecture. There is need therefore to improve the utilization of smart technology by Government’s intervention in providing smart technologies in Nigerian universities. There should equally be an in-service training for lecturers on how to use smart technologies, and smart technology training programme for the university students in Nigeria.

References

Bautista, G., & Borges, F. (2013). Smart classrooms: Innovation in formal learning spaces to transform learning experiences. Bulletin of the IEEETechnical Committee on Learning Technology, 15 (3), 18{21.

Harnish, R. J., Bridges,  K. R., Sattler, D.N., Signorella, M. L. & Munson, M. (2018). The use of technology in teaching and learning. Society for the teaching of Psychology.

Höjer, M. & Wangel, J. (2015). Smart Sustainable Cities: Definition and Challenges, in ICT Innovations for Sustainability, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, ed. by L.M. Hilty, B. Aebischer (Springer, New York), 333–349.

Hwang, G. J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-14.

Innara, L., Elena, S., Olga, L., Tatiana, L. &  Nataliya, S. (2019). Smart technologies: perspectives of usage in higher education, International Journal of Educational Management,12 (1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2018-0257.

Interactive Technology and Smart Education (2018). Smart technology. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=itse

International Association of Smart Learning Environments (2019). Smart learning. Retrieved from http://iasle.net/about-us/background/.

Khushboo, W. (2016). Smart classrooms –various definitions and functions. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303912331.

Koper, R. (2014). Conditions for effective smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments 1(5), 1–17 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0005-4

Shi, Y., Xie, W., Xu, G., & Shi, R. (2003). The smart classroom: merging technologies for seamless tele-education. IEEE Pervasive, 47–55.

Correspondence can be directed to:

Mary N. Onyia

Department of Curriculum Studies,

Enugu State College of Education, Enugu.