LECTURERS’ USE OF WEB 2.0 IN THE FACULTY OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS AT MZUZU UNIVERSITY, MALAWI

  • Winner Dominic Chawinga Mzuzu University, Malawi
  • Sandy Zinn University of Western Cape
Keywords: Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour, Faculty of Information Science and Communications, Higher Education, Lecturers, Malawi, Mzuzu University, Students, Teaching, Web 2.0.

Abstract

The study reported on in this article investigated the use of Web 2.0 technologies by lecturers in the Faculty of Information Science and Communications at Mzuzu University (MZUNI), Mzuzu, Malawi. By distributing a questionnaire to 19 lecturers, conducting follow-up interviews with seven lecturers and analysing the curricula, the study showed that between 10 (58.8%) and 13 (76.5%) lecturers use Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, Google Apps and Twitter to accomplish various academic activities, such as handing out assignments to students; receiving feedback from students; uploading lecture notes; searching for content; storing lecture notes; and carrying out collaborative educational activities. The study adopted the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour (Taylor and Todd 1995) and the theory’s elements that strongly affected lecturers’ use of the technologies according to the results included attitude and perceived behaviour control. The study also found that poor Internet access remains the key stumbling block towards a successful adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by lecturers at MZUNI. To this end, the study recommends that the newly established Department of ICT Directorate with support from MZUNI management should install campuswide Wi-Fi and improve Internet bandwidth so that lecturers’ access to the Internet is not limited to their offices but rather is available in the teaching rooms across the campus.

References

Ajjan, H., and R. Hartshorne. 2008. Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education 11(2), 71-80.

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50(3), 179-211.

Al-Qirim, N. 2010. Critical success factors for pedagogy 2.0.http://www.iiis.org/CDs2011/CD2011SCI/S2ES2011/PapersPdf/SB294GV.pdf (accessed July 20, 2013).

Armstrong, J., and T. Franklin. 2008. A review of current and developing international practice in the Web 2.0 in higher education. http://goo.gl/gR8mRh (accessed June 10, 2013).

Azab, A. N., M. H. Abdelsalam, and S. Gamal. 2013. Use of Web 2.0 collaboration technologies in Egyptian public universities: an exploratory study. http://goo.gl/z6w7Oj (accessed August 20, 2013).

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77-101.

Brown, S. A. 2012. Seeing Web 2.0 in context: a study of academic perceptions. Internet and Higher Education 15(1), 50-57.

Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., and J. Lee. 2008. Connecting informal and formal learning experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 8(2), 100-107.

Campion, R. S., andF. N. Nailda. 2012. Web 2.0 and higher education: its education use in the university environment. http://www.eurodl.org/?article=535(accessed March 20, 2013).

Chaputula, A. H., and B. Y. Boadi. 2010. Funding for collection development activities at

Chancellor College Library, University of Malawi. Collection building 29(4),142-147.

Cormode, G., and B. Krishnamurthy. 2008. Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2125(accessed August 20, 2014).

Daher, T., and B. Lazarevic. 2014. Emerging instructional technologies: exploring the extent of faculty use of Web 2.0 tools at a Midwestern Community College. TechTrends 58(6), 42-50.

Davis, F. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(2), 319-339.

Eyyama, R., I. Menevis., and N. Dogruer. 2011. Perceptions of teacher candidates towards Web 2.0 technologies. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 15(5), 2663-2666.

Farkas, M. 2012. Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy. Library Hi Tech 30(1), 82-94.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

Gaffar, K., L. Singh,T. Thomas. 2011. Are we ready for Web 2.0? Evidence from a Caribbean University. Caribbean Teaching Scholar 1(2), 129-146.

Greenhow, C., B. Robelia,and J. E. Hughes. 2009. Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now? Educational Researcher 38(4): 246-259.

Grosseck, G. 2009. To use or not to use Web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 1(2), 478-482.

Hartley, J. 2004. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage.

Hartnett, J. L., Rosielle, L. J. and L. D. Lindley. 2015. Crowdsourcing your major: using Facebook to encourage faculty-student interaction and student engagement. In, Essays from excellence in teaching, eds. S. William, L. Stein and R. Stowell. XIV, 35-39.

Hough, J., and E. Neuland. 2012. Comparison of Web 2.0 on-line usage by on campus and distance learning students. http://goo.gl/hBFdrz (accessed May 25, 2013).

Kadzera, C. M. 2006. Use of instructional technologies in teacher training colleges in Malawi.PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.

Kwanya, T., C. Stilwell,and P. Underwood. 2012. The application of Web 2.0 tools by libraries in Kenya: a reality check. http://scecsal.viel.co.ke/images/e/ea/TheApplicationOfWeb2.0ToolsByLibrariesIn_ Kenya-ARealityCheck.pdf (accessed October 24, 2014).

Leedy, P. D., and J. E. Omrod. 2005. Practical research: planning and design. 8th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Luckin, R., W. Clark, R. Graber, K. Logan, A. Mee, andM. Oliver. 2009. Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16â€yearâ€old students. Learning, Media and Technology 34(2), 87-104.

Lwoga, E. 2012. E-learning and Web 2.0: transforming higher education in Africa: recommendations for successful implementation. Development and Learning in Organisations 26(5), 28-31.

Majhi, S., and B. Maharana. 2011. Familiarity of Web 2.0 and its application in learning: a case study of two Indian universities. Journal of Library and Information Science 3(6), 120-129.

McMillan, J. H. 2004. Educational research: fundamentals for the consumer. 4th ed. New York: Pearson.

McNamara, C. 1999. General guidelines for conducting research interviews. http://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm (accessed July 20, 2014).

Mtingwi, J., andJ. van Belle. 2012. The state of e-government and m-government readiness in Malawi. International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science 6(1), 58-68.

Mugwanya, R., M. Marsden,and R. Boateng. 2011. A preliminary study of podcasting in developing higher education institutions. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 13(3), 268-285.

Mzuzu University. 2015a. Annual report 2013/2014. Mzuzu: Mzuzu University.

Mzuzu University. 2015b. Mzuzu University ICT Directorate. http://ictdirectorate.mzuni.ac.mw/index.html (accessed October 28, 2014).

Neuman, W. L. 2006. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Nyirongo, K. N. 2009. Technology adoption and integration: a descriptive study of a higher education institution in a developing nation. PhD Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.

O’Reilly, T. 2005. What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software? http://goo.gl/oVj7DT (accessed July 10, 2014).

Palfrey, J., and U. Gasser. 2008. Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.

Ping, C. S. and T. Issa. 2011. The awareness and knowledge of Web 2.0 technologies in education: an Australian perspective. The International Journal of Learning 18(2), 1-17.

Prescott, J. 2014. Teaching style and attitudes towards Facebook as an educational tool. Active Learning in Higher Education 15(2), 117-128.

Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.

Rubio, R., S. Martín, and S. Morán, S. 2010. Collaborative web learning tools: wikis and blogs. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 18(3), 502-511.

Sarrafzadeh, M., Hazeri, A., and S. Alavi. 2011. The status of Web 2.0 in Iran's LIS education. Education for Information 28(2), 233-245.

Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2002. Research methods for business students London: Pearson Education.

Taylor, S., and Todd, P. A. 1995. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research 6(2), 144-176.

Tyagi, S. 2012. Adoption of Web 2.0 technology in higher education: a case study of universities in National Capital Region, India. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology 8(2), 28-43.

UNDP Human Development Report. 2014. Sustaining human progress: reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. Washington DC: Communications Development Incorporated.

Windschitl, M. 1998. The WWW and classroom research: what path should we take? Educational Researcher 27(1), 28-33.

Zanamwe, N., T. Rupere, and O. Kufandirimbwa. 2013. Use of social networking technologies in higher education in Zimbabwe: a learners’ perspective. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (2)1, 279-284.

Zinn, S. 2009. Readiness to adopt e-learning: pioneering a course in school librarianship education. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 75(2), 159-169.

Published
2016-03-10
Section
Articles