information school - university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Information School
Dissertation COVER SHEET (TURNITIN)
Module Code: INF 6000
Registration Number 140135712
Family Name M‟kulama First Name Abel C.M
Assessment Word Count: 14, 887. Coursework submitted after the maximum period will receive zero marks. Your assignment has a word
count limit. A deduction of 3 marks will be applied for coursework that is 5% or more above or below the word count as specified above or that does not state the word count.
Ethics documentation is included in the Appendix if your dissertation has been judged to be Low
Risk or High Risk. (Please tick the box if you have included the documentation) A deduction of 3 marks will be applied for a dissertation if the required ethics documentation is not
included in the appendix. The deduction procedures are detailed in the INF6000 Module Outline and Dissertation Handbook (for postgraduates) or the INF315 Module Outline and Dissertation Handbook (for undergraduates)
x
- 2 -
The use of Participatory technologies by lecturers: a comparative study of the University of
Zambia department of Library and Information Studies (LIS) and the University of Sheffield
Information School (iSchool).
A study submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MSc. Information Management
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
Abel M‟kulama C.M
September 2015
- 3 -
Abstract Background: The interactive nature of participatory technologies offers great opportunities for teaching and
learning. Institutions of higher learning are increasingly using LMS‟ (e.g. Blackboard), blogs, wikis‟ and video-
sharing among other technologies in order to enhance interaction. Several studies indicate increased
adoption and use of participatory technologies by lectures in universities.
Aims: The aim of the study was to investigate the use of participatory technologies in higher education,
comparing the University of Sheffield, iSchool and the University of Zambia, department of LIS
Methods: Case study design was used to address the objectives. Data collection was triangulated involving
self-administered questionnaire, follow up interviews and document analysis. The study received ethical
approval and before data collection the instruments were piloted with one person. Six lecturers, three from
the iSchool and another three from the department of LIS at UNZA were selected using purposive and
convenience sampling procedures to participate in the study.
Results: Findings show that educators are familiar with technologies and the popularly used tools are LMS
(e.g. Blackboard), Blogs, Video-sharing (e.g. YouTube), social networking sites, and wikis. However,
lecturers from the iSchool at Sheffield are more knowledgeable and interact more with technologies than
lecturers from Zambia. Lecturers from both cases perceive social technologies as essential in enhancing
interactive learning.
In addition, findings reveal that lecturers use participatory technologies for purposes of transferring course
information were lecturers load notes for students to download; as a medium for clarifying and applying
course concepts; collaboration and exchange of ideas, and assessment. Comparison of the two cases shows
that the iSchool applies technologies beyond just transferring information and communication but actively
engage students, however lecturer from UNZA use it more for communication and less interaction. Findings
show that teaching culture influences the use of technologies and analysis of cases reveals that teaching at
iSchool accommodates interactive technologies while teaching at UNZA does not. The major challenges
affecting technology enhanced learning include student‟s unequal access to technologies, lack of inadequate
facilities, lack of training and lack of institutional support.
Conclusions: The research has investigated the use of participatory technologies and established that lecturers use
different technologies for different purposes. However, it is recommended that institutions adopting interactive
pedagogies, investing in adequate technologies and provide consistent support to lecturers. The research recommends
that research within the area of applying technologies for teaching and learning be carried.
- 4 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Above everything else I‟m indebted to God for His Grace and unfathomable wisdom, guiding me throughout
my studies and course of life. I also express my deep appreciation to Sheila Webber who supervised this
work and taught me myriad things in research and information literacy. Sheila was available to support,
criticise, suggest, encourage, and advise me. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Pinfield for encouraging
and giving academic direction as my personal tutor. I would also like to acknowledge Mr Nelson Musipa, for
mentoring and helping me to Navigate through life spiritually. Special thanks go to my family for constantly
praying and encouraging me to work hard. Thanks to all the members of staff from the University of Sheffield
and the department of library and information studies at the University of Zambia. Finally, thanks go to
everyone who shared my life and experiences during this process.
- 5 -
Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... - 3 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... - 4 -
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. - 7 -
Chapter One ............................................................................................................................................... - 8 -
1.0 Introduction and background ............................................................................................................ - 8 -
1.1. Background Information ................................................................................................................ - 9 -
1.2. Research Aim: ............................................................................................................................ - 10 -
1.3. Research Questions ................................................................................................................... - 10 -
1.4. Objectives ................................................................................................................................... - 10 -
1.5. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ - 10 -
Chapter Two ............................................................................................................................................. - 11 -
2.0 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... - 11 -
2.1 Participatory technologies and Pedagogy ................................................................................... - 11 -
2.2 Teaching approaches in LIS ....................................................................................................... - 14 -
2.3 Benefits of Participatory Technologies ........................................................................................ - 15 -
2.4 Barriers to Using participatory technologies ................................................................................ - 15 -
2.5 Examples of Participatory tools ................................................................................................... - 16 -
2.6 Purposes of participatory technologies: ...................................................................................... - 18 -
2.7.0. Factors influencing adoption and use of participatory technologies ......................................... - 19 -
2.7.1. Awareness and knowledge .................................................................................................. - 19 -
2.7.2. Teaching Approaches .......................................................................................................... - 19 -
2.7.3. Skills Levels ......................................................................................................................... - 20 -
2.7.4. Institutional Support ............................................................................................................. - 20 -
2.7.5. Summary of literature review ............................................................................................... - 20 -
Chapter Three .......................................................................................................................................... - 21 -
3.0. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. - 21 -
3.1. Research Design ........................................................................................................................ - 21 -
3.2. Population .................................................................................................................................. - 22 -
3.3. Sample: ...................................................................................................................................... - 22 -
3.4. Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... - 22 -
3.5. Research Instruments ................................................................................................................. - 23 -
3.6. Pilot study ................................................................................................................................... - 23 -
3.7. Data Analysis:............................................................................................................................. - 24 -
3.8. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................ - 24 -
3.9. Justification of the Methodology .................................................................................................. - 24 -
3.10. Limitations of the Study: .......................................................................................................... - 25 -
Chapter Four ............................................................................................................................................ - 26 -
- 6 -
4.0 Research Findings ......................................................................................................................... - 26 -
4.1.0 The iSchool at University of Sheffield ...................................................................................... - 26 -
4.1.1 Characteristics of iSchool respondents ................................................................................ - 26 -
4.1.2 Familiarity with technologies ................................................................................................ - 26 -
4.1.3 Technologies which lecturers have used ............................................................................. - 27 -
4.1.4 Perception about technologies enhancing interaction .......................................................... - 28 -
4.1.5 Perception about technologies being enjoyable ................................................................... - 28 -
4.1.6 Purposes technologies are used for ..................................................................................... - 28 -
4.1.7 Training and Support in using participatory technologies ..................................................... - 30 -
4.1.8 Initiative to learning educational technologies ...................................................................... - 30 -
4.1.9 Challenges .......................................................................................................................... - 30 -
4.1.10 Teaching Approaches and the use of participatory technologies ......................................... - 31 -
4.1.11 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... - 32 -
4.2.0 The department of LIS at UNZA .............................................................................................. - 33 -
4.2.1 Characteristics of respondents ............................................................................................ - 33 -
4.2.2 Familiarity with technologies ................................................................................................ - 33 -
4.2.3 Technologies which lecturers have used ............................................................................. - 33 -
4.2.4 Perception about technologies enhancing interaction .......................................................... - 34 -
4.2.5 Perception about technologies being enjoyable ................................................................... - 34 -
4.2.6 Purposes technologies are used for ..................................................................................... - 35 -
4.2.7 Training and Support in using participatory technologies ..................................................... - 36 -
4.2.8 Initiative to learning educational technologies ...................................................................... - 36 -
4.2.9 Challenges faced in using participatory technologies ........................................................... - 36 -
4.2.10 Teaching Approaches and the use of participatory technologies ......................................... - 37 -
4.2.11 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... - 37 -
4.3.0 Summary of Findings and Comparisons of cases.................................................................... - 39 -
Chapter Five ............................................................................................................................................. - 43 -
5.0. Discussion of findings .................................................................................................................... - 43 -
5.1. Familiarity ................................................................................................................................... - 43 -
5.2 Types of technologies used. ....................................................................................................... - 43 -
5.3 Perceptions on enhancing interaction ......................................................................................... - 44 -
5.4 Purposes of participatory technologies ....................................................................................... - 45 -
5.5 Lecturer‟s personal initiative ....................................................................................................... - 46 -
5.6 Institutional support .................................................................................................................... - 46 -
5.7 Teaching Approaches ................................................................................................................. - 47 -
5.8 Challenges in using participatory technologies ........................................................................... - 48 -
5.9 Recommendations by Lectures .................................................................................................. - 49 -
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................ - 50 -
- 7 -
6.1 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... - 51 -
Department of LIS at UNZA ............................................................................................................... - 51 -
The iSchool at University of Sheffield................................................................................................. - 51 -
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. - 52 -
1. Appendix1: Participants information Sheet ................................................................................. - 61 -
2. Appendix3: Ethics approval letter................................................................................................ - 63 -
3. Appendix4: Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... - 63 -
4. Appendix5: Interview Schedule ................................................................................................... - 67 -
5. Appendix6: Screenshots of data in SPSS .................................................................................. - 67 -
6. Appendix7: Annual report of the department of LIS at UNZA ...................................................... - 68 -
7. Appendix8: More examples of participatory tools ........................................................................ - 70 -
8. Appendix 9: Ethics application Form ........................................................................................... - 73 -
List of Figures Figure 4.1.3:1: Technologies used (iSchool) ............................................................................................. - 27 -
Figure 4.1.6:1: Purposes for which technologies are used (iSchool) ......................................................... - 29 -
Figure 4.1.9:1Challenges faced in using technologies (iSchool) ............................................................... - 31 -
Figure 4.2.3:1: Technologies used (LIS department, UNZA) ..................................................................... - 34 -
Figure 4.2.6:1: Purposes for which lecturers use technologies (LIS Depart., UNZA) ................................. - 35 -
Figure 4.2.9:1: Challenges faced in using technologies (LIS depart., UNZA) ............................................ - 36 -
Figure 4.2.11:1: Comparison of technologies used between cases ........................................................... - 40 -
Figure 4.2.11:2: Comparison of purposes for which lecturers use technologies between cases ................ - 41 -
- 8 -
Chapter One 1.0 Introduction and background Participatory technologies are widely considered the “major component of web 2.0 technologies”,
which according to Alexander, (2006:33) refer to the various tools on the “World Wide Web (WWW)”
characterised by generation of content by users, easy to use and interact with (Reevs, 2009).
Participatory technologies represent the advancement from “static „Web1.0‟ pages” in which
information flow was one way to dynamic and interactive pages in which users interact in real time
(Poore, 2014:5). These technologies have provided new and exciting opportunities for social
interaction as well as a means for creating, accessing and sharing knowledge among people from
different backgrounds including academics (Bennett et al., 2012).
While there are various definitions of participatory technologies in literature, this paper defines
participatory technologies as:
“…a set of networked tools that support and encourage individuals to learn together while
retaining individual control over their time, space, presence, activity, identity and relations.”
(Minocha, 2009:2).
Albert and Campbell (2008:11) define participatory technologies as
“…communication technologies that facilitates interpersonal interaction and communication,
driving major sites for recreational and social computing within the university student
population.”
Participatory technologies encompass different types of “technological instruments” that according
to Skaržauskien, et al. (2012:3) can be used by individuals in “private or public sector organizations”
such as universities. With student centred learning being one of the key issues in discussion,
particularly the desire to enhance participatory learning in universities, social technologies offer
opportunities that can help to achieve the goal of student centred learning as well as increase
access to education (Cochrane, 2009). The assumption therefore is that participatory technologies,
offer affordances that would help to achieve collaborative learning.
The main characteristics of participatory technologies as observed by Ventura and Quero (2013)
are “openness and connectedness” and these features are pertinent in the educational realm.
Participatory technologies are also characterised by the ability to ensure broader participation as
people can contribute to topics in real-time (Minocha, 2009). In addition, Hargadon (2008) argues
that participatory technologies have moved the internet into what is referred to as the three “Cs”
including: “contributing, collaboration, and creating” (p.3). This implies that users are not just
- 9 -
recipients of information, but are themselves active creators, contributors and distributors of
knowledge. Farkas (2012:2) considers participatory technologies as “enhancers of reflective and
dialogical learning” as well as providers of freedoms in learning through virtual environments.
Many universities have adopted and are using participatory technologies including learning
management systems (LMS) (e.g. Blackboard and Moodle), response technologies (Clickers),
conferencing and/or Webinars (e.g. adobe connect) and massive open online courses (MOOCS)
(Bower et al., 2015). In addition, educators also use Blogs, Video-sharing (e.g. YouTube), Wikis‟,
Second life (SL), and social networking (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) to enhance collaboration and
participation in teaching and learning. These tools are designed to help with course management,
engagement, socialization and professional career development online (EDUCAUSE, 2014; JISC,
2014; Farkas, 2012)
However, there is need to gain full understanding of the uses, experiences, motivations, challenges,
and the influence that participatory technologies may be having on teaching and learning, and how
participatory technologies can be applied with various teaching approaches in order to achieve
quality education. In addition, there is need to understand the similarities and differences in the use
of participatory technologies by institutions in developed countries such as the United Kingdom (UK)
and developing countries like Zambia. Therefore this research was envisioned to investigate and
answer questions regarding the use of participatory technologies by lecturers in institution of higher
learning comparing the information school (iSchool) at the University of Sheffield, at and the
department of library and information studies (LIS) at University of Zambia (UNZA).
1.1. Background Information
This section covers the cases being studied; however, detailed information of the cases is covered
in chapter four of the dissertation.
UNZA was founded in 1966 and the department of LIS was established in 1967 under the school of
education. The department of LIS started as a UNESCO project aimed at training “librarians,
archivists, records managers, information workers and documentalists” for a country that had just
gained its independence. The department has grown and now offers Bachelor of Arts in library and
information studies (BA.LIS) and a two year Master of Library and Information studies (MLIS).
The University of Sheffield was established in 1829 as Sheffield medical school and became
University of Sheffield in 1905. The information school was founded in 1963 as a post graduate
school of librarianship. Later on, the school widened its research and teaching areas to include
- 10 -
among others “library management and information society, information literacy, archives and
records management, information retrieval, information systems, data science, knowledge and
information management”. In the year 2010, the information school joined the international network
of iSchools based in North America and hence known as the iSchool (Stordy, 2012; University of
Sheffield, 2013:7).
1.2. Research Aim:
➢ The aim of the research was to investigate the use of participatory technologies in higher
education, comparing the iSchool at University of Sheffield, and the department of LIS at
UNZA.
1.3. Research Questions
➢ How familiar are lecturers with participatory technologies?
➢ What technologies have lecturers used in teaching and learning
➢ How do lecturers perceive participatory technologies on interaction?
➢ What purposes do lecturers use participatory technologies for?
➢ What are the differences and similarities in the use of participatory technologies?
1.4. Objectives
➢ To find out lecturers familiarity and attitude towards participatory technologies in universities
➢ To find out which participatory technologies lecturers use
➢ To explore purposes for which lecturers use participatory technologies
➢ To explore the similarities and differences between iSchool and LIS department in the use
technologies
1.5. Significance of the Study
The use of participatory technologies in higher education has been explored and is still being
studied from various angles. However, this study gives insight into the use of participatory
technologies among educators having investigated lecture‟s use of social technologies at iSchool
and the department of LIS at UNZA. It is hoped that the findings of this study will contribute to the
existing body of knowledge concerning effective use of participatory technologies. With clear
understanding of the various technologies, examples of best practices, support systems, and
understanding of the possible challenges in using social technologies, it is hoped that the study will
help to inform policy and influence the integration of participatory tools in universities.
- 11 -
Chapter Two 2.0 Literature Review
This chapter reviews the current literature in the use of participatory technologies in higher
education. The literature covers the uses, purposes, benefits and challenges of using participatory
technologies. The chapter also covers examples of participatory technologies, teaching approaches
in LIS education and empirical studies on social technologies. The literature used in this paper was
acquired by searching recommended database including Star plus, Google scholar, PubMed, JELIS
and many others journals and books. My supervisor occasionally recommended databases to
search and specific research papers to consider for up to date literature.
2.1 Participatory technologies and Pedagogy
The review of literature (Mazur et al., 2015; EDUCAUSE, 2014; Cochrane & Bateman, 2010),
shows that the adoption and use of participatory tools in education is on the rise. For instance
Virkus (2008:4) observes that “modern society is built to a large degree on digital environments of
work and social communication” and technologies are increasingly becoming fundamental in the
lives of learners. Attwell and Hughes illustrate the rise in the use of participatory technologies in
education as follows:
“…one of the factors driving the exploration and development of new pedagogies and the use
of technology for learning is a concern that education may be becoming out of step with the
way that people use technology today for socialising, working and learning.” (2010:7).
Therefore educators are challenged to suit the learning style of the “web 2.0 generation” of students
by using tools that appeal to them (Poore, 2014). Cochrane and Bateman (2010:2) observe that
educators are harnessing participatory technologies “for creating student centred learning
environments” as these technologies provide platforms for collaborative, social and interactive
learning. Other reasons for the increase in the use of virtual environments include the flexibility,
easiness and the interoperability nature of participatory technologies and the affordances that they
bring with them (Veletsianos, 2014; Webber and Nahl, 2011).
While it is generally agreed that participatory technologies influences the way teaching and learning
is conducted, Farkas (2012:11) posits that “participatory technologies are not transformative in and
of themselves”. In other words participatory technologies are not in themselves drivers of
participatory learning because participatory learning can take place even without technologies. The
underlying assumption is that interactive learning or teaching approaches which encourage
interaction should be adopted and then technologies such as blogs, wikis, and clickers can then be
- 12 -
used to help enhance interaction and participation. To illustrate this point Veletsianos (2014) states
that:
“…what impacts learning is not the technology, what impacts learning are changes
in instructional design and pedagogical practices supported by the introduction of new
technologies.”
Therefore, Farkas (2012) and Veletsianos (2014) advises that to enhance student collaboration and
engagement using participatory tools, educators will have to change their practices and adopt
pedagogies that encourage collaborative learning. Hence, Farkas (2014) notes that the use of
participatory technologies in most institutions is hampered by the fact that learning is still heavily
“reliant on teaching approaches in which the transmission of knowledge is from the instructor to
students” (p.5). This argument is also made by Cochrane (2010) who advocates for the adoption of
the “social constructivist” approaches to learning in the hope that socialisations and interaction will
be encouraged. It is therefore pertinent that institutions and individual lecturers adopt approaches
which encourage participation as they seek to adopt participatory technologies and hope to engage
with students.
To ensure clarity in the discussion regarding teaching approaches and “pedagogy”, and the use of
participatory technologies, the concept of “pedagogy” is defined. Hamilton defines pedagogy as:
“…the integration in practice of particular curriculum content and design, classroom
strategies and techniques, and evaluation, purpose and methods. All of these aspects of
educational practice come together in the realities of what happens in classrooms. Together
they organize a view of how a teacher‟s work within an institutional context specifies a
particular version of what knowledge is of most worth, what it means to know something, and
how we might construct representations of ourselves, others and our physical and social
environment” (Hamilton, 1999:148).
Several theories have been developed to try and explain pedagogies or teaching practices in
education and more recently the use of technologies. Some of the popular theories include the
“social constructivist theory”, and the “connectivist theory” and Inquiry based learning (IBL) (Attwell
and Hughes, 2010; McKinney, 2013), and these are briefly explained below.
2.1.1 The social Constructivist theory
Social constructivism is a pedagogical theory that emphasises the need for collaboration among
learners. The theory stresses the value of receiving feedback and giving feedback in leaning (Wang,
2014; Peer, 2001). Therefore, in social constructivism learners are teachers and teachers are
learners. Citing Skinner (1957), Peer (2001) argues that in the construction of scientific knowledge
for instance, a scientist discovery is communicated to peers who provide feedback positive or
- 13 -
negative and thus after agreement forms part of the scientific knowledge. In other words social
constructivism in education encourages the development of ideas rather than accepting anything or
other people‟s ideas and solutions. However, it is observed that achieving this exchange of ideas
does not come naturally, and has inherent difficulties (Peer, 2001). Therefore the assumption is that
with the use of participatory technologies and their affordances, using a pedagogical approach like
“social constructivism” enables for the students and educators to present, exchange, collaborate as
well as provide and receive feedback in the learning process (Darrow, 2009).
2.1.2 The Connectivist Theory
The “connectivist theory” developed by “George Siemens in 2004” (Darrow, 2009:6) is yet another
approach that explains teaching and learning within the digital age. Siemens considered
constructivism and other teaching theories valid. However, he was of the view that these theories
(e.g. social constructivism) exhibited limitations in explaining teaching and learning especially with
increased use of technologies. As a result, he advocated for a theory called the “social connectivist
theory”. The core argument of the connectivist approach is that “technologies and network-building
are critical to learning in the twenty-first century” (p.86). This approach is anchored on the following
principles:
“Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
The capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
The ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
Decision-making is itself a learning process” (Siemens, 2004).
In the connectivist approach, participatory technologies provide the virtual platforms to ensure that
learning is more connected and interactive. Therefore, as Darrow (2009) argues, „connectivism‟ can
“significantly improve education and revise educational perspectives and generate a significant shift
toward learner-centred education” (p.1).
2.1.3 Inquiry based learning
IBL describes pedagogic approaches to learning in which learning is purely “driven by students
pursuing their own research and inquiries”. Instead of students being on the receiving end of the
learning process as is the case in “didactic teach approaches”, IBL puts students at the centre of
learning, considering them as partners with lecturers playing the facilitator role (McKinney, 2013:
44). As Levy et al. (2012) observes, IBL takes various forms, for instance it can be used to
spearhead “acquisition of clearly defined, knowledge such as the conceptual foundations of a
- 14 -
scientific discipline”, at the same time IBL can be used to foster acquisition of knowledge on
unknown things with uncertainty. Simply put IBL accords students the opportunity to learn in such a
way that they are themselves real researchers seeking and finding solutions to problems. In this
case students are able to “engage producers and authors of Knowledge” in the long run they
themselves become produces of knowledge. As McKinney put it, IBL is based on “constructivist
theories” of education in which the belief is that “learners construct meaning from their learning
activities” (p.44). Therefore, the main characteristic of IBL is that learning and research is focused
on students seeking solutions to problems with lecturers playing the facilitator and encourager role
(Cleland and Walton, 2012).
2.1.4 Blended teaching
Blended learning is a model which aggregates face to face interaction with online learning. Blended
learning according to Bower (2015:15) is “where students participate in face-to-face classes by
means of rich-media synchronous technologies”. This view is also held by other researchers
including Lameras et al. (2012) who investigated the use of LMS as a means of blended teaching
and learning in Greece. Sharpe et al., (2006) reviewed the literature on students experience in using
blended e-learning in the UK and Webber and Nahl (2011) also studied the use of blended teaching
using SL and found myriad benefits for both educators and students. Therefore, as Poore (2014)
stresses participatory tools modify the way educational enterprises are conducted, including
organization and delivery of instructional content; assessment preparation and student interaction.
2.2 Teaching approaches in LIS
Traditionally, lectures present lectures, assignment and consultations to students and each of the
individual lecturers take their own approach. There are different approaches to teaching in
universities however, it is important that teaching factors the leaner in the learning process, hence
student centred learning (Selehe, 2008). LIS education has undergone significant transformation
over the past years and some of these changes are influenced by the diversity of the 21st century
(Edegbo (2011). Therefore, LIS programs have widened and become more generalised, providing
generic as well as specific skills for information management. In addition, Gorman (2004) notes that
LIS education has had to deal with the mushrooming of modern technologies and the impact
technologies are having on the society.
Analysts including Rajkoomer (2013) argue that many LIS schools have adopted and are using
blended learning approaches as the main mechanism for teaching and learning. Therefore, the
campaigns for adopting and implementing educational technologies can be said to be influenced by
the need to meet demands for technology advancement (Jaiswal, 2001), but also the increasing
realisation of the affordances presented by the different participatory technologies (Hargadone,
- 15 -
2009). It is also observed that LIS educators have made significant steps to adopt blended teaching
methods through the use of technologies (Rajkoomer, 2013).
2.3 Benefits of Participatory Technologies
A number of analysts (An, et al., 2011; Attwell and Hughes, 2010; Poore, 2014) identify numerous
benefits of using participatory technologies. Some of these benefits include “maximising class time,
fostering authentic learning, and student centred learning” (Mazur, 2015: 8). Other benefits include
“ability to provide greater educational access, ensure equitable learning experiences for students
who are geographically isolated” and enabling universities to produce graduates who are ready for
the “21st century workplace” (Bower et al., 2015:15). Hargadon (2008) considers the utilisation of
participatory technologies as an ideal situation for educators, and argues that it is the reason why
ambitious individuals and universities are taking tapes to incorporate them in their professions.
Dahlstrom, et al. (2013) observes that the use of participatory technologies and their associated
affordances have the potential to strengthen educators practice by providing opportunities for
“collaboration and participation”. Webber and Nahl (2011) illustrate the benefits of participatory tools
to include:
“…unprecedented access to geo-distant tutors, professionals and experts in every field;
flexible meeting times; experiencing content in unique forms; and acquiring VW information
literacy” (p.5).
In addition, Minocha argues that participatory tools provide opportunities for offering:
“…online news, course materials, file storage, library promotions and general information
about the facilities and services at the university.” (Minocha, 2009: 356).
Therefore, the advantage of participatory technologies in higher education as stressed by Mazur
(2015) is the ability to ensure a high level of student centeredness and interaction online while
complementing the face to face methods.
2.4 Barriers to Using participatory technologies
While there are numerous benefits to using participatory technologies in teaching and learning,
there also challenges affecting utilization of interactive technologies. To start with, Reynard (2009)
observes that educators tend to have a preference for “easy-to-manage, direct instructional
methods” as opposed to the online environments and project oriented models that require the use of
participatory technologies. This is perfectly illustrated by Farkas who observes that:
“…the desire to implement the ideal of social constructivism in teaching and learning has
remained elusive as traditional pedagogies are encouraged in many institutions through
policies regarding course design and assessment practice.” (2012: 10).
- 16 -
The underlying implication is that the use of participatory technologies may be hampered by the
teaching methods or approaches being utilised by an institution. If the teaching methods are less
interactive, the use of participatory technologies is likely to suffer.
In continuation, Mazur et al. (2015) argues that the use of technologies in universities is hampered
by the skills gap. The lack of skills to effectively use blogs, video applications and other tools
prevent educators from using technologies. For example, educators may not be able to “design
intellectually engaging” learning resources that offer students active learning support (Mazur,
2015:7). This is evident in a number of African institutions (Chewe and Chitumbo, 2012; Chawing,
2014), for instance, the use of Moodle at UNZA is hampered by the lack of skills among educators.
Similarly, Chawinga (2014) discovered lack of skills among educators in Malawi. In addition,
Ishtaiwa (2011:34) states that “lack of consistent professional development programs” on using
technologies is another barrier encountered.
Inadequate information commination technologies (ICTs) facilities for accessing interactive
technologies is yet another challenge faced. This is worsened by the increasing numbers of
students against capacities in institutions. Student‟s negative attitude to using social technologies in
teaching is also discouraging to educators, as some students shy away from, while others look
down on social media innovation claiming that interactive technologies are destructing or childish
(Mazur, 2015).
2.5 Examples of Participatory tools
This section covers some examples of participatory technologies. More examples of participatory
tools have been provided in appendices, please refer to appendix9.
Blackboard (Mole): Blackboard (Bb) is a proprietary LMS that offers a “virtual learning
environment”. The goal of blackboard is to provide an engaging and collaborative learning
environment that allows educators to develop course modules including “reading and responding to
discussion questions, and taking quizzes (Scott, et al., 2015:2; Courts and Tucker, 2012:5). Several
studies have investigated the use Blackboard in higher education. For example, Al-Drees, et al.
(2015) investigated the usability of blackboard in Saudi Arabia‟s Tainah University. The results
shows that most users (71%) did not find the software useful for interaction, another staggering
(78%) said Bb was not useful in interacting with their instructors. Therefore as Poore (2014) notes,
LMS are less flexible and interactive, however, they are useful for course management and transfer
of information.
- 17 -
MOODLE stands for “modular object-oriented dynamic learning environment”. It is a free open
source learning software that allows educators to manage their course content and engage
student‟s online. Moodle can be used by “teachers, students or administrators” (Moodle, 2015;
McNeill and Bower, 2012:2). Moodle comes with a number of features, summarized as follows:
“…encourages a social constructionist pedagogy which basically involves collaboration,
activity-based learning, critical reflection, etc.); offers online classes and supplementing face-
to-face learning.” (Moodle, 2004)
Several studies have investigated the use of Moodle, for example Fidalgo, et al. (2011) carried out a
study to investigate the use of “Moodle as a support tool for lecturers in Portugal”. The study
revealed that “most teachers by a narrow (58%) margin had not changed their pedagogical
practices as a result of using Moodle”. Among those whose pedagogical skills changed, the majority
67% had been trained by the institution. Therefore, training was recommended in order to ensure
full adoption and use. Chewe and Chitumbo (2012) investigated the adoption of Moodle at UNZA
and the main findings reveal that educators have not fully embraced the system and they need
training and support.
Conferencing/Webinars are another participatory platform, defined by Cullen and Thomson (2013)
as “live, interactive teaching and learning activities” for seminars, tutorials, workshops, and lectures
delivered through full featured web conference system”. The commonly used web system is adobe
connect. In a small case study on the use of Webinars, Cullen and Thomson (2013) discovered that
organisational members were keen to register for webinar seminars rather than the face to face
workshops that would run parallel. The participants cited flexibility and time saving as well as the
convenience of working in quiet office environments while interacting on video conferences as the
useful affordances of webinars.
Audience response technologies such as clickers are used to get instant responses from the
audience. Clickers use “infrared or radio frequency technology to transmit and record audience
responses to questions posed by the instructor” (Jackson, 2014: 4). Clickers are used to get
responses from verbal or clicker software questions, by simply clicking in answers using remote
transmitters. The use of clickers‟ impacts pedagogy in different ways, for example, educators are
enabled to redesigning course structures into “question driven instruction” (Mellon, 2014).
Therefore, Clickers help interaction and engagement by asking questions and getting quick
responses from the learners.
- 18 -
Wikis: Wiki technologies offer an arena for collaboration and knowledge sharing that is effortless
among communities of users without programing knowledge (Kroski, 2004). Lai & Ng (2011)
explored the use of Wikis by student teachers in developing interactive assessment capabilities.
The findings reveal that „Wikis‟ helpful in developing digital skills as well as collaboration and
organisational skills. Wikis affordances are vital in enhancing teacher capabilities and play
significant roles in enhancing interactive and social oriented learning.
Blogs are “online journals or Website on which articles are posted and displayed in chronological
order and the content created centres around a particular subject matter or theme” (Kroski,
2004:13). A study by Zhang (2014) in Australia reveals that using blogs to communicate with
students may significantly impact student “motivation, collaboration and course satisfaction” and
therefore help address “pedagogical challenges” (P.2). Webber (2014) reports on the utilization of
“Blogs as a core part of the class activity” at the iSchool, University of Sheffield. Using blogs
students created online resources and interact with each. Working with blogs was thought to have
more creative affordances which provide team focus and allows for reflection (Webber, 2014).
3D-Virtual world in Second life (VW, SL): These are “public 3-D virtual tools used for social
interaction in almost all fields including education, entertainment, and commerce” (Cote et al.,
2012:21). The technology is owned by Linden lab and is accessible freely using linden lab programs
online. In SL people create “avatars which are virtual representations of themselves and interact
with one another” online. The avatars are able to jointly carry out activities including meeting other
avatars, socialising, build things, and trade virtual property and services. SL has been successfully
used in education, for example Cote et al. (2012) investigated librarians working in SL for teaching
and learning as he sought to determine the impact of SL on their work. A total of 62 librarians were
investigated and the results reveal that librarians from various institutions, different levels of
academic advancement and departments engage with SL. Similarly, Webber and Nahl (2011) used
SL to teach and interact with students at the iSchool in Sheffield and USA and the tools were
considered vital in enhancing interaction.
2.6 Purposes of participatory technologies:
Published research including “phenomenographic study” (Lameras, et al. (2012), and other studies
(An et al., 2010; Albert, 2008; Minocha, 2009; Attwell and Hughes, 2010) show that educators use
participatory technologies for different purposes including among others online collaboration,
communication, assessment, administration and transferring course content. According to Lameras
et al. participative technologies are used for purposes outlined below:
- “information transfer;
- 19 -
- application and clarification of concepts;
- exchange and development of ideas, and resource exploration and sharing;
- collaborative knowledge-creation, and development of process awareness and skills”.
(2014:145).
In continuation, Weber and Nahl (2011) stress the purposes of using SL as enhance “innovation,
outreach, career development, and research and curriculum development”. VLE also provide
“sustainable learning opportunities by saving space, time, funds, and resource consumption, as well
as increasing international and interdisciplinary interaction among programs, educators, librarians
and students” (p.1). From an African perspective, Chawinga (2014) discovered that lecturers used
web 2.0 tools for purposes of giving assignments and assessment feedback, loading and storing
lecture content and as am interaction platform.
2.7.0. Factors influencing adoption and use of participatory technologies
There are various factors that affect the use of social technologies and some of these factors
include educator‟s perception of technologies, awareness and skills, teaching approaches and
training and support. Albert and Campbell (2008) argue that there exists no universal phenomenon
affecting adoption and use of social technologies, as it is affected by various factors. A study by
Rogers-estable (2014) focusing on factors that influence adoption and use of VLE investigated three
universities and 54 members of staff in the United States (USA). Findings show that using
interactive technologies is affected by factors classified as “intrinsic‟ and extrinsic” factors. Intrinsic
factors include “belief, motivation, and confidence”, while extrinsic factors include “time, training and
support”. Extrinsic factors were found to be the main barriers or enablers to using participatory
technologies in education.
2.7.1. Awareness and knowledge
The levels of awareness and knowledge about the different participatory technologies affect the
adoption and use of technology observed Albert and Campbell (2008). Sawant (2012) in a study
seeking to find the level of familiarity of social software concepts, “tools, services and applications
among LIS educators” in India, discovered that educators were either neutral or less familiar about
participatory tools and this negatively affected the use of social technologies. In contrast, Cote et al.
(2012) argues that librarian educators in Europe are spearheading the use of participatory
technologies, particularly. Therefore levels of awareness and knowledge affluences teacher‟s use of
participatory tools.
2.7.2. Teaching Approaches
It is observed that teaching approaches also impact the use of participatory technologies (Albert and
Campbell, 2008). As Hartshorne and Aijan (2009) observes the instruction methods have a
- 20 -
likelihood of influencing acceptance and use of participatory applications. An exploratory study by
Selwyn (2007) investigated the relationship between teaching styles and use of social software and
reveals that there is a substantial association between teaching styles and the use of participatory
technologies. This is in line with Lameras, et al. (2012) who posits that “pedagogical beliefs and
circumstances underpinning face to face teaching are more influential in shaping approaches to
blended VLE” (p.1). In other words the style or teaching approaches influences the use of
technologies in an institution.
2.7.3. Skills Levels
It is argued that the digital skills of staff and students influence the use of social technologies (Albert
and Campbell, 2008). For example, in Zambia a number of lecturers at UNZA lack skills to use
„Moodle‟ and other participatory technologies (Chewe and Chitumbo, 2012). Therefore, to ensure
effective adoption and use of social technologies it is recommended that lecturers and students
undergo training and receive consistent support.
2.7.4. Institutional Support
Lai and Chen (2009:591) consider institutional support as “the degree to which schools are
committed to successful implementation and use” of social technologies. Institutional support
involves management and decision makers having a positive and supportive attitude towards the
utilization of social technologies. Institutional support can take the form of adopting interactive
teaching approaches, providing incentives such as rewards and organising seminars were best
practices can be shared and learned.
2.7.5. Summary of literature review
The review of literature shows that LIS educators are among the main users of social technologies.
Various benefits and purposes of using participatory technologies have been identified including the
ability to enhance participation in real time, flexibility, and wider access to materials and tutors by
students (Minocha, 201; Webber and Nahl, 2011). However, the literature also shows that various
factors influence the adoption and use of technologies and these differ for different institutions and
regions. The need for institutional support, training and raising awareness are some of the factors
deemed necessary to improve the use of participatory technologies.
- 21 -
Chapter Three 3.0. Methodology This chapter contextualises the procedures that the study employed in order to address the
research questions and objectives. It explains the research design, description of the population and
the techniques used to select the sample and the procedures and instruments used to collect data
as well as data analysis processes.
3.1. Research Design
Research design according to Gray (2014) is how the research project is structured, and how the
main components of the research project work together in order to ensure that the set objectives are
addressed. This study adopted the case study research design which Ying defines as:
“…an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident.” (2009: 13).
The case study design is suitable for “study the behaviour patterns of a particular case in detail and
holistically in its original context. Unlike other designs such as surveys which rely on large and
widely distributed populations, case study is useful for investigating and analysing specific situations
instead of investigating large populations (Connaway and Powell, 2010).
Simon (2009) highlights various strengths of the case study design and therefore reason for
adoption in this study, including ability to facilitate for “in-depth analysis of programs and
documenting of multiple perspectives, exploring contested viewpoints and demonstrating the
influence of key actors” (p. 23). The other advantage of the case study design is its ability to help
investigate various “themes and subjects from a much more focused range of people”. It allows for
thorough analysis of minute samples and provides for space to investigate such a population from a
“particular perspective” (Gray, 2014: 266). In a case study, the case under investigation can be an
organisation, an individual, a community, a nation or a role player (Gray, 2014).
There are different types of case study designs, Yin (2009) identifies four main types and these are
“single case, single case embedded, multiple cases and multiple-case embedded”. Hence,
considering that the main objective of the research project was to compare two institutions the
iSchool at Sheffield University and department of LIS at UNZA, a “multiple case or collective case
study approach” was employed. According to Thomas (2011:141) using multiple cases allow for
conducting cross-case analysis of the cases being studied. Therefore, case study provided a basis
for comparing and understanding the use of participatory technologies by lecturers at the iSchool
and the department of LIS at UNZA. Each case was thoroughly investigated including collection of
- 22 -
primary data using questionnaire and interviews and analysis of official documents, websites and
research reports of studies by faculty members.
3.2. Population
The research population is “a group of individuals” out of which a sample is selected (Gray, 2014).
The study was conducted at iSchool and the department of LIS at UNZA, therefore the population
consisted of the lecturers from the two institutions. The iSchool at Sheffield University has about 28
academic staff (Annual report, 2014) and the department of LIS at UNZA has 13 academic
members of staff (UNZA, 2014). Therefore, the total population was 41 academic staff, out of which,
six lecturers were purposively selected.
3.3. Sample:
Sample size is the “predictable population whose properties are studied to gain information about
the whole population” (Connaway and Powell, 2010:56). The sample size was six (6) lecturers,
three (3) lecturers from the department of LIS at UNZA and three (3) from the iSchool at Sheffield.
The participants were drawn from the population using convenience and purposive sampling
techniques, implying that sampling was done at two stages. Convenient sampling was used
because, lecturers from the department of LIS were relevant for the study and were workmates of
the researcher, making it easy to recruit.
For the iSchool, participants were considered convenient because of the knowledge of using social
technologies in teaching and they were within reach of the researcher. Therefore, using these
techniques the participants were targeted and recruited for the study (Connaway and Powell, 2010).
Recruitment was done using emails, phone calls and face to face inquiry. The potential participants
were contacted and given “consent forms” which provided information about the study.
3.4. Data Collection
The data collection process for this study was influenced by the principles of the case study design.
As Gray (2014) observes, case study has attributes of combining various methods in the data
collection process and sources may include “reviewing official documents, websites, archives, and
interviews” among others. The use of various sources of data as Connaway and Powell (2010)
notes is “triangulation”. Therefore the data collection process was triangulated, meaning that data
was collected from both primary and secondary sources and both quantitative and qualitative data
was collected. Primary data collection was done using a self-administered questionnaire and
interviews.
The data collection process was preceded by applying and gaining ethics approval for the study.
The process involved seeking permission to conduct research and to administer questionnaires and
- 23 -
interviews. This was followed by making arrangements to contact the selected participants for the
interviews. The participants were recruited on the basis of “voluntary contribution, informed consent
and anonymised reporting” (Pinfield, et al., 2013). The participants from both Zambia and UK were
given information sheets explaining the details of the project and their part in the research. In
addition, the participants had the opportunity to ask questions before answering the questionnaire
and the interviews. The participants from Zambia were interviewed using telephone calls while
those from Sheffield were interviewed using face to face, the interviews were recorded and
transcribed.
Secondary data is data that is collected from “secondary sources” and this involves gathering data
that has already been collected by someone else (Gray, 2014). This involved observing and
reviewing institutional policies, strategies, journal articles, yearbooks, module outlines and websites.
3.5. Research Instruments
The tools employed for data collection were self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured
interview schedules. Gray (2014: 352) defines questionnaire as “a research tool through which
participants respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order”. The advantages of
questionnaires include cost effectiveness in terms of time and finances; quick inflow of responses,
convenience for participants to complete, easy coding and analysis and avoidance of interviewer
bias. However, questionnaire also has challenges such as low response rates and inadequate detail
in responses. The decision to use the questionnaire was to help with predestining the themes of the
study as questions were influenced by literature, as well as to benefit from the advantages of using
questionnaire.
A semi structured interview guide which is basically a written list of questions that need answering
(Simon, 2009) was used to collect qualitative data. Interviews according to Gray (2014:383) allow
the researcher to “probe” for detailed elaboration on a particular phenomenon. This is necessitated
by the need to get more information from the responses made in questionnaires. In addition,
interviews are useful in enhancing the quality of the data gathered as complements to the
questionnaire (Gray (2014).
3.6. Pilot study
The importance of piloting research instruments has been well documented, for instance Bryman
(2004) posits that pretesting of instruments helps to “identify problems for both participants and
researchers on issues such as question wording and visual design” (p.34). A pilot study was
conducted to pre-test the usability of the selected research instruments using one participant who
later provided feedback on what needed to improve on the instruments. The questionnaire and
- 24 -
interview schedule were both piloted in the third week of July 2015 and the interviews were
conducted the following two weeks.
3.7. Data Analysis:
Data analysis refers to examining and scrutinising collected data and making “deductions and
inferences”. This process involves revealing the underlying structures, mining important variables,
identifying inconsistencies and testing the assumptions that arise (Gary, 2014). The data was
systematically organised and stored in the Google drive server provided by the University of
Sheffield. The quantitative data from the questionnaire was analysed using statistical package for
social scientists (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel.
Qualitative data was analysed using “thematic approach” with a “deductive reasoning” as themes
were determined by questionnaire questions (Wisker, 2008). Hatch observes that qualitative data
analysis deals with:
“…organizing and interrogating data in ways that allow researchers to see patterns, identify
themes, develop explanations, and make interpretation……Researchers always engage their
own intellectual capacities to make sense of qualitative data. It always involves mind work.”
(2002: 148).
3.8. Ethical Considerations
This research project was classified as low risk research and was given ethical approval by the
University of Sheffield Research Ethics committee. Informed consent was sought and the
participants were accorded the opportunity to ask questions and to volunteer to participate in the
study. The data was treated with utmost confidentiality and the identity of participants was made
anonymous.
3.9. Justification of the Methodology
Given the aims of the study, adopting the case study design and employing triangulation technique
in data collection enabled for in-depth investigation of the use of participatory technologies among
lecturers. It is believed that the methodology provided the necessary tools and procedures required
to achieve the aims and objectives of the study. However, like any other research designs, the case
study approach is also faced with the issues of validity and reliability. As Gray (2014) observes,
issues of validity and reliability are pertinent in case study designs because data is gathered from
smaller or limited samples. Therefore some of the issues faced with regards to validity include the
“quality of concepts” which the study claims to investigate. Other validity challenges faced in case
studies are issues of determining whether the finding of the case study can be generalised beyond
the study itself.
- 25 -
3.10. Limitations of the Study:
The major limitations of the research were time, financial resources and accessing the participants.
Time proved to be a problem for administering the questionnaire, conducting the interviews, and
analysing and interpreting the results, and writing the report. Due to limited financial resources
researcher could not travel to Zambia for data collection, instead relied on phone call for interviews.
Phone interviews though less costly meant that the researcher had limited time to respond to further
questions. Gaining access to participants was another limitation for this study. Participants from the
iSchool were busy and on holiday hence difficulty to get the data on time. Similarly, Zambia
participants were also busy and finding appropriate times for the interviews was difficult.
- 26 -
Chapter Four
4.0 Research Findings
This chapter covers the findings from the self-administered questionnaire and follow-up interviews.
All the sampled participants answered the questionnaire and the interviews. The findings of the
study are presented case by case followed by a summery and comparison of the two cases.
4.1.0 The iSchool at University of Sheffield
The iSchool at the University of Sheffield has about 28 academic, 9 research and 10 administrative
staff. The iSchool provides both face to face and online teaching services through “the data portal
MUSE”. The virtual environment and learning management system “Mole” (Blackboard) is the
official system used for management of courses and online learning. Educators within the
department use various other online tools, such as blogs and social media (University of Sheffield,
201).
The iSchool has commitment to effective teaching through the use of blended teaching and student
centred approaches which encourage the use of technologies. For example, research on teaching
approaches such as inquiry based learning and use of interactive technologies has been
documented (Cox et al., 2008; Webber, 2011; Webber and Nahl, 2011; Roberts, et al., 2013;
McKinney, 2014). In addition, the iSchool at Sheffield supports and encourages the use of
technologies and this is seen through the annual conferences on learning and teaching. By
observation, the iSchool has good ICT infrastructure including computer laboratories, and chart
rooms with quality internet connection.
4.1.1 Characteristics of iSchool respondents
The respondents from the iSchool were all above the age of 51, one participant was female and two
were male. Out of these participants, two had been in teaching for more than 20 years and one had
been in teaching between 6-10 years. All the questionnaires at the iSchool were successfully
answered and follow up interviews conducted.
4.1.2 Familiarity with technologies
Questions within this area were designed to help understand the extent to which lecturers are
familiar with participatory technologies. All (100%) the participants were familiar with participatory
technologies. The popular view from the interview was knowing, for example participant # 2 stated:
“Yes, I do know a number of these technologies and I have experimented with them” (participant
#2).
- 27 -
4.1.3 Technologies which lecturers have used
As shown in Figure 4.1:3 below, Mole (Blackboard), Blogs and video sharing are the most used tools
by all the participants (100%), 67% use Social networking (e.g. Facebook), wikis, and 3D SL. 33%
indicated clickers , conferencing and Google hangouts, while no participant uses podcasts.
Figure 4.1.3:1: Technologies used (iSchool)
The interview questions aimed at finding out how lecturers use technologies, and the main themes
emerging include; transferring information, knowledge creation and sharing, and assessing
students.
Transferring course information
This is where lecturers use participatory technologies to transfer course information and Blackboard
was the main tool used. For example, Participant #2 stated that:
“Mole is the main way the whole department uses to transfers course information, I use it specifically
for that”.
Creating and sharing knowledge:
Lecturers said that Blogs and Video-sharing are main tools used to create and share knowledge.
For example participant #2 stated that:
“I get students to create a resource themselves using blogs or video tools. I ask them to create
resources and interact over that.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
LMS (Blackboard & Moodle)
Wkis
Blogs
Video Sharing
Social media
Clickers
Podcasting
Conferencing
3D VW Second Life
Googlehangouts and docs
100%
67%
100%
100%
67%
33%
0%
33%
67%
33%
- 28 -
Collaboration:
Regarding collaboration, lecturers explained that the discussion boards in mole and Blogs are used
to get students to collaborate. For example, Participant #3 commented that:
“I think the discussion boards in Mole are the bits that I have used the most and I have used them in
different ways. I get students to search and identify some items on a particular subject and they had
to put a post on the discussion board”
Assessment:
Lecturers shared using videos, blogs and wikis‟ as part of student assessment. For example
participant#2 shared that:
“I have given students assignments to create wikis where they create a resource about a particular
topic”.
4.1.4 Perception about technologies enhancing interaction
All the lecturers at iSchool perceive technologies essential in enhancing interaction. The popular
view from interviews was that technologies encourages and motivates students to collaborate. For
example participant#1 stated that:
“…the affordances of Mole (Blackboard) enable [collaboration], for example the discussion board
were teachers and students can interact is a good way of bringing about more social constructivists
type of learning”.
For participant#3 for instance, giving an example of SL argued that technologies are essential in
enhance interaction and engaging students:
“SL has all sorts of possibilities that can help people to challenge their ideas, and part of the goals of
education is to challenge people to think differently”
4.1.5 Perception about technologies being enjoyable
With regards to finding technologies enjoyable, the findings show that 67% of lecturers agreed that
it is enjoyable while 33% were neutral.
The main theme identified from interview results was that using technologies is enjoyable and
useful. For example participant#3 stated that:
“I do find participatory technologies useful, enjoyable and fun. I feel comfortable in using the
technology and when I see a new tool I want to try it out”.
4.1.6 Purposes technologies are used for
As shown in figure 4.1.6 below 100% of lecturers use participatory technologies for purposes of
transferring course information, 100% for applying and clarifying course concepts, 100% as a
platform for encouraging the development and exchange of ideas. 67% indicated for collaboration
and knowledge creation as well as for offering assessment and grades.
- 29 -
Figure 4.1.6:1: Purposes for which technologies are used (iSchool)
In probing further, the dominant themes that emerged regarding purposes for which lecturers use
technologies include Transferring course content, applying and clarifying concepts, knowledge
creation, collaboration platforms and assessment purposes.
Transfer of course information:
With regards to using technologies to transfer course information, participant#3 for example
explained how Blackboard was used for this purpose:
“I use Mole basically as a content delivery platform, so there is an easy way for them [students] to
download and they look at it”
Applying and clarifying concepts:
This centred on using participatory technologies for students and educators to explain concepts and
allow students to engage each other and answer each other‟s questions online. For example
participant#3 gave an extended example about achieving this purpose using SL:
“Using the „opinionator‟ [a clever tool in SL], with sections in it, you can say what text describes you in
the section. Students would have to choose the section that best describes their response and the
avatar will be standing on any of those or on I don't know and at the middle it gives you a pie chart
showing how many people are on each answer. You can also ask them to explain why they chose
that. It‟s a nice tool for clarifying concepts but also encouraging the exchange and development of
ideas”.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
transfer course information
apply and clarify course concepts
Encourage exchange and development of ideas
Collaboration and knowledge creation
course assessment and grading
Other please specify
100%
100%
100%
67%
67%
0%
- 30 -
Development and exchange of ideas
This involves using participatory technologies to create resources and sharing them online and the
popular tools used for this purpose where blogs. For example participant#2 stated that:
“I get students to create a resource themselves… if they create a blog, then they create blog
entries. If they create a wiki, wikis‟, if social booking, they add bookmarks and share them, if
they create a little video, post it on social media. It's about them synthesizing the materials
together and creating a new resource, one that is visible to other students and also present
it”
Assessment
For assessment and grading purposes, the popular view focused on giving tasks online and
providing student‟s feedback. For example, participant#1 talking about using Mole stated that:
“I used to have weekly tasks, some of which were done via Mole test function”
For participant#2 participatory technologies are useful in providing quality assessment feedback to
students:
“You can do it a bit better with social technologies such as Mole or blogs than we normally do
things as you can highlight part of an essay and show student. Or you can have audio or video
feedback”.
4.1.7 Training and Support in using participatory technologies
With regards to training and support all the participants (100%) indicated receiving training and
support. The dominant theme in this regard was that Sheffield University has supportive policies in
using technologies. For example participant#3 stated that:
“I think Sheffield does really well in encouraging and providing training and support”.
4.1.8 Initiative to learning educational technologies
When finding out if lecturers take personal initiatives in learning the use of participatory
technologies. All (100%) the participants agreed that they take personal initiatives. The dominant
view was that lecturers made efforts and took initiatives to attend training and learn about using
technologies and pedagogies. For participant #3 enjoying and being enthusiastic about using
technologies was the driving force to learn more:
“I think you have got to have someone that‟s enthusiastic, I am probably enthusiastic cause I
enjoying doing it. I keep learning these technologies”
4.1.9 Challenges
Regarding facing any challenges, the findings were varied, 33% agreed, 33% were neutral and 33%
disagreed to facing challenges. The follow up question sought to find out the major challenges
- 31 -
faced. As shown in figure 4.1:9:1 below. The 33% indicated difficulty to use, no one indicated
teaching approaches, 67% indicated lack of adequate facilities another 67% said time constraints,
100% said students not having equal access and skills to use social technologies and 33 lack of
interest.
Figure 4.1.9:1Challenges faced in using technologies (iSchool)
The two dominant themes identified were unequal access to technologies for students caused partly
because of inadequate infrastructure and students not being able to afford high speed technologies,
and unreliability of technologies.
Unequal access to technologies
Regarding unequal access to technologies, Participant#2 for example stated that:
“…the biggest challenge for me is probably making sure it's fair, for example filmmaking works really
well but some people come along and they already made other films, most people haven't. This
makes it difficult because students don't have the gadgets or skills”.
Unreliability of the technologies
Unreliability of the technologies has to do with technologies and systems failing while in use or not
working, for instance participant#3 stated that:
“It‟s particularly frustrating when University of Sheffield systems go down, so if Mole goes down it
becomes challenging”.
4.1.10 Teaching Approaches and the use of participatory technologies
Findings regarding teaching approaches show that teaching approaches at iSchool accommodates
the use of participatory technologies as the majority (100%) of participants agreed.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Difficult to use
Teaching approaches don’t support the use of …
Don’t find them relevant
Not aware and knowledgeble
Lack of adequate facilities
Time constraints
Not all students have access technologies and…
I am not interested
Other please specify
33%
0%
33%
0%
67%
67%
100%
33%
0%
- 32 -
The main themes emerging from the interviews were teaching culture and teaching quality
assurance. For example, talking about teaching culture participant#2 stated that:
“I think we do have a big focus on inquiry based learning and I would say there is still a
strong interest in those kinds of problem based or inquiry based pedagogical approaches
from a number of people in the iSchool, which in a way allow for using technologies”.
For participant#3, teaching approaches at iSchool undergo quality assurances which encourage not
only using technologies but quality teaching and learning:
“We have a process that we go through like module outline and teaching committee and so
forth and so on.
4.1.11 Recommendations
Regarding recommendations, results shows that 33% indicated raising awareness, 67% indicated
training teachers and students, 100% said providing consistent support, 67% thought providing
adequate facilities, 67% adopting interactive teaching methods, for the 67% who indicated other
their recommendations were “support from colleagues” (participant #3) and “adopting only
technologies that fit pedagogy” (participant #2).
The dominant themes identified from interviews include need for a supportive environment and
adopting appropriate technologies.
Supportive environment:
Regarding the need for supportive environment, lecturers emphasised that support from colleagues
would be helpful. For example, participant #2 shared that:
“…examples of good practice should be shared. It is quite inspiring to see what some people do with
social media. I have been to some talks about using clickers, I haven't used them myself because it
seemed quite complicated to get going with, but when you hear and see other people‟s stories, you
think that‟s really cool. So you want those inspirational stories about how to work well with
technologies”.
Adopt appropriate technologies
For participant #1, adopting appropriate technologies means acquiring and implementing
technologies which fits pedagogies of that institution and not any form of technologies:
“…management and educators should adopt technologies that fit pedagogy, because
teaching can be participative even without technologies”.
- 33 -
4.2.0 The department of LIS at UNZA
The department of LIS at UNZA has 13 academic and one administrative staff with approximately
750 students each year. The department of LIS at UNZA is mandated with overseeing and
spearheading the use of educational technologies in the school of education. The university recently
adopted Moodle as the official LMS for teaching and learning. Moodle is slowly being used and
efforts are being made to make it compulsory. The department has also been actively trying to
adopt and implement student centred pedagogical approaches and moving away from the dominant
lecturer centred approach the department has used over the years (Department of LIS Annual
Report, 2014).
Unlike the iSchool at university of Sheffield, where individual lecturers have written about the use of
participatory technologies such as blogs, wikis, and SL in teaching (Cox, et al., 2008; Webber,
2011), few lecturers in the department of LIS report actively using technologies, except for a
master‟s thesis by Mwinga (2014) investigating the use of web 2.0 technologies among students
and a Ph.D. thesis by Chifwepa (2006) investigating the use of various ICTs in distance learning.
The department of LIS at UNZA lacks in a number of ICT facilities for instance, it does not have a
computer laboratory or chartroom. The department relies on computers in the main library and
internet connectivity at the university campus is poor. Please see appendix7 for a summarised
report of the LIS department at UNZA.
4.2.1 Characteristics of respondents
Out of the three participants from the department of LIS at UNZA, two were male and one female,
one participant was above the age of 51years, one was between 31 and 40 years and the other one
below the age of 30 years. In terms of work experience, one lecturer had been in teaching for more
than 20 years, another one between 6-10 years, and one less than five years.
4.2.2 Familiarity with technologies
All (100%) the participants from LIS department agreed that they were familiar. The dominant view
was that educators the LIS department at UNZA had theoretical knowledge of technologies. For
example, participant #5 stated that:
“I know a number of these technologies, but I know most of them theoretically not practically”.
4.2.3 Technologies which lecturers have used
As shown in figure 4.2.3:1 below, 33% of participants indicated using Moodle, 33% Wikis, 33%
Video sharing 67% indicated using Blogs, 67% indicated social networking (Facebook), while no
lecturer uses clickers, podcasting, SL or Google-hangouts.
- 34 -
Figure 4.2.3:1: Technologies used (LIS department, UNZA)
The dominant themes that emerged from the interview on how educators used technologies include
communication, and delivering content to students. For example Participant, #4 stated that:
“I have used Moodle for different purposes, I have made announcements, sent messages and, I have
used the discussion forums in one of my Masters class, in which I would have discussions with the
students on a particular topic.
Talking about using video sharing for finding content and delivering it to students, participant#5 said:
“I have looked for educational videos and posted them online and I have asked students to react to it
and post their views online”
4.2.4 Perception about technologies enhancing interaction
All (100%) the participants from UNZA consider technologies as potential tools through which they
could enhance interaction. The dominant view shared was openness as students would openly
discuss and share views online. For example participant #4 shared the following:
“I found the use of the discussion board very interesting and useful when I interacted with students
online. The students who seemed shy were able to openly ask questions and make comments”.
4.2.5 Perception about technologies being enjoyable
Findings indicate that all (100%) the participants consider the technologies they have used
enjoyable. The dominant theme from the interviews was that technologies are enjoyable as quick
sources of solutions and partly online interaction. In this regard participant #5 stated that:
“I do find them enjoyable, when I don't know how to do something, I run to YouTube and the problem
is sorted by someone else. I have, on occasions asked students to check videos out and make
comments on what their impressions might be on that video”
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
LMS (Blackboard & Moodle)
Wkis
Blogs
Video Sharing
Social media
Clickers
Podcasting
Conferencing
3D VW Second Life
Googlehangouts and docs
33%
33%
67%
33%
67%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
- 35 -
4.2.6 Purposes technologies are used for
As shown in figure 4.2:6 below, 67% indicated transfer of course information, 33% use it to clarify
course concepts, 67% said encouraging development and exchange of ideas, while no lecturer
indicated collaboration and knowledge creation, and course assessment and grading purposes.
Figure 4.2.6:1: Purposes for which lecturers use technologies (LIS Depart., UNZA)
The dominant themes from the interviews were that lecturers at the department of LIS use
participatory technologies for transferring course information and communication purposes with
a few instances of discussions.
Transferring course information
Regarding transferring course information, lecturers would use technologies to load notes, slides
and assignment instruction among others. For example, participant #4 stated that:
“I have used Moodle for different purposes; I have made announcements, and sent messages”.
For participant #6 the use of participatory technologies is mainly for purposes of communication
such making announcements or notifications:
“I have used Facebook to communicate, and also to interact over a topic or subject or even to make
clarifications on things that students did not understand in class”.
Collaboration and interaction
Participant#4 for instance, talks about using Moodle for purposes of interacting and collaborating online:
I have used the discussion forums in one of my Masters class, in which I would have discussions with
the students on a particular topic. I would ask them to carry out research on a topic and post their
findings online and we would discuss the findings”
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
transfer course information
apply and clarify course concepts
Encourage exchange and development of ideas
Collaboration and knowledge creation
course assessment and grading
Other please specify
67%
0%
67%
0%
0%
0%
- 36 -
4.2.7 Training and Support in using participatory technologies
The findings show that department of LIS at UNZA does not train and support lecturers in using
technologies. The identified theme was lack of institutional policies to support and train lecturers on
a consistent basis. For example Participant #4 shared that:
“…training is one serious problem when it comes to encouraging the use of technologies. It
could be planned for but implementation is very poor, budgeting and finding trainers is
difficulty at UNZA”
4.2.8 Initiative to learning educational technologies
Findings show that 67% of participants took initiatives to attend training, and the dominant view
shared was, making efforts to learn. For instance, participant #4 shared the following:
“…as an individual, l try to attend training workshops where teaching methods and use of
ICTs are talked about”
4.2.9 Challenges faced in using participatory technologies
All (100%) the lecturers at UNZA agreed to facing challenges and the outline of challenge as shown
in figure 4.2.5 below are: 100% said teaching approaches, 100% indicated inadequate facilities,
100% faced time constraints and another 100% students not having equal access to technologies
and skills, 67% indicated not aware and knowledgeable, and not relevant, 33% difficulty to use,
while no lecturer indicated not interested and other.
Figure 4.2.9:1: Challenges faced in using technologies (LIS depart., UNZA)
The dominant themes from interviews include infrastructure, teaching culture, time, and unequal
access to technologies.
Infrastructure
For Participant, #4 for example, lack of adequately developed ICT infrastructure was the major
challenge affecting the use of participatory technologies at UNZA:
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Difficult to use
Teaching approaches don’t support the use of …
Don’t find them relevant
Not aware and knowledgeble
Lack of adequate facilities
Time constraints
Not all students have access technologies and…
I am not interested
Other please specify
33%
100%
67%
67%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
- 37 -
“The infrastructure is not fully developed, we need more computer labs so that student can
have access to computers; we also need to expand our wireless so that students can access
the systems flexibly from anywhere”
Time
For Participant #5 the lack of adequate time to work on and with technologies and become confident
is the challenge:
“We don't even have the time to experiment with these technologies. Time is a very
significant problem for us, the teachers and the student ratio is very bad.
Teaching culture
Regarding the culture of teaching and the use of social tools, Participant, #4 observed that the
culture of teaching was the main barrier to using participatory technologies:
“…we must change our teaching methods; we are still doing lecturer centred methods which
does not encourage interaction”.
4.2.10 Teaching Approaches and the use of participatory technologies
With regards to teaching approaches, results show that teaching approaches at UNZA do not
support the use of social technologies. The dominant theme from the interviews was that teaching
culture was not accommodative of using interactive technologies. For example Participant #6
shared the following:
“The main challenge to the use of these tools is more a pedagogical issue. The teaching
approaches at UNZA do not encourage participatory type of learning and use of social
technology. Learning is so teacher centred”
4.2.11 Recommendations
Reading recommendation, 100% indicated raising awareness, 100% training for teachers and
students, 67% consistent support, 100% providing adequate facilities, and another 100% adopt
interactive technologies. The dominant themes arising from the interview results include training for
both lecturers and students, need for intuitional policies and teaching culture.
Training:
Lecturers were of the view that both lecturers and students undergo training. For example,
participant#4 commented that:
“Both lecturers and students must be trained. In fact, it should be lecturers first to have the skills, and
then training should be on-going not one off, and not ad hoc”
- 38 -
Institutional policies:
Commenting on the need to develop institutional policies to spearhead the use of technologies,
Participant#4 shared the following:
“…we should start with re-examining our policies, ICT policy at UNZA, the integration of ICTs in our
education system, our teaching and learning should accommodate the use of social technologies”.
Teaching culture
Lecturers felt that to encourage the use of participatory technologies, the current teaching culture
should be changed. For example, participant#6 stated that:
“…the starting point is to encourage the use of technologies in our department we should start as a
small unit, experiment with them and then sell the idea to other schools having understood the
benefits of using social technologies”
- 39 -
4.3.0 Summary of Findings and Comparisons of cases
This section summarises the findings from the questionnaire and the interviews and compares the
findings from the two cases. The summary and comparison is organised based on the findings and
themes that emerged.
To begin with, findings show that lecturers from both the iSchool and the department of LIS at
UNZA are familiar with various participatory technologies. However, interview results show that
lecturers from the iSchool are more knowledgeable about technologies as compared to lectures
from Zambia as some participants from the department of LIS stated that they only have theoretical
knowledgeable about participatory technologies.
Regarding use of technologies, the results show that lecturers from both the iSchool and the
department of LIS at UNZA use technologies, however each of these lecturers use them differently.
Findings show that lecturers from the iSchool tend to interact more with technologies. For instance,
evidence shows that „Mole‟ is mainly used for transferring course information, making
announcements and partly interaction. In addition, lecturers at iSchool use Blogs, Wikis and Video
sharing for creating and sharing knowledge. Results also highlight how tools such as SL are used to
engage and challenge students online. The findings also show evidence of using participatory tools
such as Mole and wikis to assess students and providing assessment feedback.
For the department of LIS at UNZA, while lecturer‟s use participatory technologies, it is clear that
lecturers interact with only a few of these tools. The popularly used tools are Blogs, Social
Networking sites and Moodle. While, there is evidence of using Moodle and social networking sites
to transfer information, there is little evidence of interacting and collaboratively creating knowledge
on the virtual environment. The respondents at UNZA do not use clickers, podcasts, conferencing,
SL and Google hangout. The assumed reason for this is the lack of awareness, knowledge and
training. As already acknowledged, lecturers at the department of LIS know most of these
technologies theoretically. See figure 4.2.11:1 below for comparison of technologies used between
iSchool and the department of LIS at UNZA.
- 40 -
Figure 4.2.11:1: Comparison of technologies used between cases
With regards to lecturer‟s perception of participatory technologies being enjoyable and enhancing
interaction. The findings show that lecturers from both cases enjoy using participatory technologies
and this explains why lecturers continue using technologies in teaching. Similarly, lecturers from
both the iSchool and the department of LIS at UNZA perceive participatory technologies as
essential in enhancing interaction. However, findings from the iSchool provide evidence of how
lecturers use participatory technologies to enhance interaction and collaboration online. For
example participant#2 explained that:
“…the beauty of participatory technologies is that students learn from each other and it's clear that
students spend a lot of time with other students and learn a lot from each other that way”.
Conversely, there is little evidence of how technologies are used to enhance collaboration and
interaction online at the University of Zambia. However, lecturer gave examples of using Moodle to
interact, and also using video sharing to encourage comments online.
Regarding purposes for which lecturers use technologies, findings show significant differences
between the cases. From the iSchool at University of Sheffield, lecturers use technologies for
transferring course information, applying and clarifying concepts, encouraging exchange and
development if ideas, platform for collaborative knowledge creation and for assessment and grading
purposes. The results suggest that lecturers at iSchool make extensive use of the technologies.
However, findings from UNZA show that lecturers use technologies mainly as platforms for
delivering content, making announcements and applying and applying clarifying concepts, though to
lesser extent. Therefore, it suffices to say that lecturers from the iSchool apply participatory
technologies more progressively as compared to lecturers from UNZA were the main purpose
identified is transfer of course information and communications, with little evidence of interaction.
Please see figure 4.1:11:2 below for comparison of purposes between cases.
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
LMS(Blackboar
d &Mo…
Wkis Blogs VideoShari
ng
Socialmedi
a
Clickers
Podcastin
g
Conferenc
ing
3DVW
SecondLife
Googlehangoutsanddocs
Yes: Ischool 100% 67% 100% 100% 67% 33% 0% 33% 67% 33%
Yes: Department of Lis 33% 33% 67% 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Technologies lecturers have ever used
- 41 -
Figure 4.2.11:2: Comparison of purposes for which lecturers use technologies between cases
Findings about institutional support show that the iSchool at University of Sheffield has consistent
policies supporting the use of technologies. In addition, the iSchool has consistent quality assurance
process guiding modules development and teaching and learning. Conversely, the department of
LIS at UNZA does not have policies supporting the use of technologies.
In addition, evaluation of results regarding teaching approaches shows that the culture of teaching
at the iSchool is accommodative of using technologies as they use IBL which emphasises student
centred teaching, problem solving and interaction (McKinney, 2013). Conversely, findings at the
department of LIS at UNZA show that there is no clearly defined teaching approach to be followed;
hence teaching culture is more lecturer centred and does not accommodate using technologies.
Analysis of challenges suggests that lecturers at iSchool face fewer challenges as compared to the
department of LIS at UNZA. The major challenges at the iSchool include unequal access to
technologies for students and unreliability of technologies. Conversely, the department of LIS at
UNZA faces immense challenges and the popularly cited challenges include teaching approaches,
inadequate infrastructure, time constraints and lack of skills development and training.
Finally suggested recommendations show that lecturers at the iSchool needed support and
adoption of appropriate technologies. Lectures recommended the need for supportive from
colleagues. Emphasis was put on ensuring that appropriate technologies which fit pedagogy and
not just any technologies are adopted. For the department of LIS at UNZA, lecturers made
recommendations included training lecturers on how to use technologies; developing institutional
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
transfercourse
information
apply andclarifycourse
concepts
Encourage
exchangeand
development ofideas
Collaboration and
knowledge creation
courseassessme
nt andgrading
Otherpleasespecify
Yes: iSchool 100% 100% 100% 67% 67% 0%
Yes: department of LIS 67% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0%
Purposes participatory Technologies are used for
- 42 -
policies to guide investment into ICT infrastructure; changing the teaching culture and introducing
reward systems. However, it should be noted that it seemed to be generally agreed that focus
should be on learning rather than just using technologies for the sake of using it.
- 43 -
Chapter Five 5.0. Discussion of findings
This purpose of this chapter is to discuss research findings and the discussion is organised
according to the objectives of the study as outlined in the introductory chapter. This chapter will also
draw conclusions, make recommendations and highlight possible areas of future research.
5.1. Familiarity
This section primarily addresses the objective which is related to lecturer‟s familiarity with
participatory technologies. The findings show that lecturers from both the iSchool at University of
Sheffield and the department of LIS at UNZA are significantly familiar with different participatory
technologies. These findings are in line with findings from various related studies. For instance
Cote, et al. (2012) argues that librarian educators are familiar with the use of various participatory
technologies. In addition, studies by lecturers from the iSchool at University of Sheffield (Webber
and Nahl, 2011; Cox et al., 2008; Webber 2014) demonstrates lecturers‟ familiarity and
knowledgeable in using technologies for teaching, professional development and students
engagement. However, other studies such as Sewant (2012) in a different context found librarians
less familiar with interactive technologies. In this case, an interesting finding was a comment by
participant #5 from the department of LIS at UNZA that: “I only know these technologies
theoretically” rather than practically, suggesting that levels of knowledge could be low in some
regions and institutions.
5.2 Types of technologies used.
The research has established that lecturers use various participatory technologies and each of
these technologies are used to achieve different purposes. For instance results show that lecturers
use Blackboard mainly for transferring course information. While the goal of Blackboard as Scott et
al. (2015) notes is to provide an engaging and collaborative learning environment, this study shows
that Blackboard is a less interactive system as lecturers from iSchool confess that they do not find it
interactive (participant#1). Therefore as Poore (2014) observed LMS (e.g. Blackboard) support
“didactic or transmission educative practices that push content at Students”. It can therefore be
argued that this is the reason why lecturers use it more for transferring content rather than
interaction.
In addition, findings established that lecturers at iSchool us Blogs, video sharing and Wikis for
creation of knowledge. The major themes identified were that Blogs offer more flexible platforms for
interaction and creation of Knowledge among students. Zahnag (2014) established in Australia that
Blogs offer creative ways of interacting with students online. Similarly, this study confirms reports
- 44 -
made by Webber (2014) that blogs were useful in creating resources online. Wikis are also widely
used for collaborative knowledge creation and sharing online (Lai and Chen, 2011). The study
established that lecturers make use of the various tools to engage students, share knowledge as
well as collaborate online. However, it was interesting to see that there was no lecturer using
podcasts and in the various studies reviewed it is not clearly stated why podcasts are rarely used for
teaching.
Findings from the department of LIS show that the main tools which lecturers use are Blogs, video
sharing, social networking sites (Facebook) and Moodle. Analysis of how these technologies are
used reveal that lecturers use these tools to deliver course content, communicate and interact
online. Findings show that because teaching methods at the department of LIS at UNZA are lecturer
centred and less interactive, the use of participatory technologies is limited to transferring content
and making announcements with little interaction using discussion boards and video sharing (Poore,
2014; Farkas, 2012). As observed by Chawinga (2014) in a study investigating the use of Web 2.0
tools: blogs, wikis, video sharing and social networking (e.g. Facebook) were the popularly used
tools, however, Chiwinga does not explain why these tools were popular.
5.3 Perceptions on enhancing interaction
The research established that lecturers from both the iSchool and the department of LIS perceive
participatory technologies as essential and useful in enhancing interaction. Moreover, lecturers
strongly consider good and interactive pedagogical methods primary in encouraging interaction
among students, and then participatory technologies as enhancers of interaction activities. For
instance, participants #1 stated that “encouraging good teaching should be the primary thing, which
may or may not be achieved through technologies”. The implication is that while technologies are
considered essential in enhancing interaction, change should always begin with adopting interactive
teaching approaches (Farkas, 2012). Therefore, findings of this study that technologies are
enhancers of interaction confirm observations by Dahlstrom, et al. (2013) that the benefits of using
participatory technologies in education include enhancing student and teacher interaction. In
addition, findings are similar with Emeagwali and Naghdipour (2013) who established that
interactive technologies are useful in enhancing interaction in the learning process. It can therefore
be suggested that having a quality blend of technologies with interactive teaching approaches can
effectively enhance interaction in learning.
In addition, the research has established that lecturers from both the iSchool and the department of
LIS at UNZA find using interactive technologies enjoyable. According to Lai and Chen (2011:951)
perceived enjoyment “is the extent to which the activity of interacting with social technologies is
- 45 -
enjoyable in its own right, away from any anticipated consequences for performance”. Therefore,
with lecturers finding participatory technologies enjoyable, the assumption is that educators will use
technologies if they enjoy it and will not continue using it if they do not enjoy. Hence, as Lai and
Chen conclude “greater enjoyment increases the willingness of teachers to adopt and use
participative technologies” (2011: 951).
5.4 Purposes of participatory technologies
This section deals with the objective related to purposes for which lecturers use participatory
technologies in teaching and learning. The research established that lecturers at the iSchool,
University of Sheffield use participatory technologies mainly for purposes including transferring
course information, applying and clarifying course concepts, as means for collaboration and
creation of knowledge, and for assessing and grading purposes. Therefore, As Lameras, et al.
(2012) observed, the use of participatory technologies at the iSchool is progressive and has
therefore attained a high level of use. It suffices to argue that the use of participatory technologies at
iSchool has progressively increased to levels of “extensive and complex” application as all the three
categories of use are evident.
However, this is not the case at the department of LIS at UNZA as results show that lecturers use
technologies mainly for transferring course information and communication, with little evidence of
interaction or collaboration. Therefore, applying Lameras‟ et al. (2012) model, in which he observes
that using participatory technologies for purposes failing under “category A” (transfer of information)
reflects using the technologies for “instructvist” or teacher centred learning. The LIS department at
UNZA is still developing in its use of technologies.
The research has also established that lecturers use social tools for “applying and clarifying course
concepts”. As Lameras et al. (2014) observed, participatory technologies are used as a medium
were interactions take place and this involves analysing and applying practical models as well as
giving and receiving feedback. Participant #2 for example illustrates how technologies are used for
this purpose:
“…[students] work out how to articulate what they think about the course concepts and show that they
understand them through creating media online and sharing them”.
Moreover, further observation in literature, for example Webber and Nahl (2011) reveal that using
SL is particularly useful for the purpose of clarifying and applying course concepts. In addition,
Warburton (2010) stipulates that affordances of wikis‟ are vital in enhancing collaborative and
interactive teaching and learning hence making it easy to clarify concepts.
- 46 -
The research has also established that lecturers use participatory technologies for collaboration and
creation of knowledge. This involves students using participatory technologies to engage each other
in groups and carry out specific task aimed at achieving particular goals (Lameras, et al., 2012).
This is in line with findings by studies including Cox, et al. (2008) and Webber (2014) who used
blogs in class activities for collaboration and knowledge creation. This is where students worked on
group tasks involving creating blogs, sharing resources, evaluating each other blogs online. Rott et
al. (2009) argues that wikis are very rich resources in supporting collaboration as students can
create and edit Wiki resources online.
In continuation, participatory technologies are also used for purposes of assessment and grading. In
this regard, Poore (2014) argues that educators use participatory tools for purposes of “formative
(as you go) and summative (at the end) assessment” (p.7). These findings show that lecturers use
technologies for both formative assessments were students are assessed on the tasks they
undertake online and for summative assessment. Similarly, Gray (2011) found Wikis, blogs and
LMS useful for assessment purposes both formative and summative assessment.
5.5 Lecturer’s personal initiative
The research has established that lecturers take personal initiatives to learn and be innovative in
the use of technologies. As Lai and Chen (2011) observes, taking initiative to improve
innovativeness and learn new educational tools “represents an individual‟s willingness to try out new
technology and this serves as a sign that people want to use social tools”. This is important in
ensuring that participatory technologies are adopted and put to use as educators are constantly
learning.
5.6 Institutional support
The literature review shows that the use of technologies can be enhanced with support from the
mother institution (Cowan, and Astall, 2010; Lai and Chen, 2011; Mazur, 2015). The research
established that the iSchool at University of Sheffield offers consistent support to lecturers in the
use of social technologies and technology enhanced learning. For instance, the University of
Sheffield has the “learning and teaching service” dedicated to providing support and encouraging
the use of participatory technologies on virtual communities which complements face to face
teaching and learning. In addition, support in using Mole (blackboard) is provided on a daily basis to
members of staff and students. The provision of consistent support in using participatory
technologies is vital in ensuring that lecturers are encouraged and inspired to use technology
enhanced learning (http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/cics/mole/for-staff )
- 47 -
In the case of the department of LIS at UNZA, the research shows that there is lack of support in the
use of interactive learning and interactive technologies. It is therefore suggested that using
technology enhanced teaching at UNZA will have to start from policy level as there is no
overarching policy stipulating teaching approaches and use of technologies. However, observation
of the University of Zambia‟s strategic plan 2013-2017 highlights the desire to adopt and fully
implement ICTs across the university campus, but implementation is poor. Hence, as Dalgarno, et
al. (2011), observes the use of social technologies requires consistent support, and if not provided,
using technologies suffers. In addition, “attitudes of decision makers towards innovation can also
significantly influence use of technologies” as it can motivate or discourage educators. Institutional
support could be in the form of providing incentives such as giving bonuses or commending
innovators for the achievements or sponsoring educators for training (Lai and Chen, 2011: 951).
5.7 Teaching Approaches
The research established that teaching approaches have a significant influence in the use of
participatory technologies. This as we see in literature implies that teaching approaches can either
encourage or hinder the use of participatory technologies (Poore, 2014). Findings at the iSchool,
University of Sheffield show that teaching approaches accommodate the use of participatory
technologies. The iSchool uses IBL method which according to McKinney (2013) is based on
constructivist teaching approach and these approaches encourages student centeredness and
interaction in the learning process. It can be argued that because teaching approaches at iSchool
are student centred and encourage inquiring and problem solving with lecturers playing the role of
the facilitator, students are able to interact and engage with each other on the VLE.
However, in the case of the department of LIS at UNZA, the research established that pedagogical
approaches are lecturer centred and non-participative (participant#4). This is further complicated by
the fact that the department does not have a policy document outlining the exact teaching methods
being applied. As Poore (2014:15) noted, some approaches are “monolithic, or teacher centred”
making interaction difficult to achieve. For instance, participant #4 lamented that:
“…the teaching approaches at UNZA do not encourage participatory type of learning and use of
social technologies. Learning is so teacher centred”
Therefore, it can be suggested that to encourage the use of participatory technologies, the
department of LIS will have to adopt and implement interactive teaching approaches (e.g. Social
constructivism, Connectivism, or IBL) described in Chapter two above. Therefore, it suffices to say
as Poore (2009) and Hatshorne and Aijan (2009) observed that instructional methods influence the
adoption and use of technologies.
- 48 -
5.8 Challenges in using participatory technologies
This section primarily deals with the research question related to challenges faced in using
participatory technologies. The research established that the major challenges faced in using
participatory technologies are inadequate facilities, time constraints and student‟s unequal access to
technologies. Analysis of the iSchool shows that unequal access to technologies was the main
challenge faced in using participatory technologies. This according to Mazur (2015), who explored
the use of flipped classrooms, has a negative effect on the use of social technologies as it makes it
difficult to ensure a level playing field. The findings of this study and other studies including Webber
(2014) and Cox, et al. (2008) also shows that students from different backgrounds have different
levels of digital skills and knowledge as well as access to technologies and it becomes challenging
for lecturers to ensure a level playing field. Heath (2013) also observes that unequal access to
technologies is a major cause of disparities especially for students from poor families.
In continuation, the research also established that inadequate infrastructure is another major
challenge affecting the use of interactive technologies. This is worsened by the increasing numbers
of students in universities against investment in ICT infrastructure especially in developing countries
(UNESCO, 2002). To illustrate the point, Chawinga (2014) discovered that inadequate infrastructure
was one of the main challenges affecting the use of web 2.0 tools in Malawian universities. As
pointed out in the literature review, the University of Zambia has inadequate infrastructure including
poor internet connectivity, inadequate computers and computer laboratories. In addition, to these
challenges, results also show that time constraint is another challenge that affects the use
participatory technologies. These findings are similar to Chen, et al. (2012) who examined the use
of technologies in teaching in Singapore and established that time was one of the main extrinsic
factors that affect the use of participatory technologies.
In continuation, the research also established that low digital skills affect the use of social
technologies in education. In this regard, Poore (2014) notes that digital skills which involves
knowing how technologies affect how we find things, communicate and understand is influential in
how lecturers interact with participatory technologies. In the department of LIS at UNZA for
example, it was observed that educators lacked practical knowledge about different social tools
(Chewe and Chitumbo, 2012).
Therefore, comparing the challenges at the two cases, the results show that the department of LIS
at UNZA faces a lot more challenges including inadequate digital skills for lecturers, poor IT
infrastructure, time constraints and teaching approaches do not support interaction and use of social
- 49 -
technologies. Conversely, the major challenge lecturers at the iSchool faced is unequal access to
technologies by students.
5.9 Recommendations by Lectures
This section considers the suggestions which lecturers made to help encourage the use of
technologies. The main recommendation from the iSchool was the need for consistent support from
the department and other members of staff. For example participant#3 stated that “supportive
environment from all the colleagues is very important”. This is considered important in encouraging
the use of educational technologies and as Losh (2012) observed, it should be encouraged among
educators to share both success stories and unsuccessful stories to learn from each other. To
encourage the use of technologies, there is need for consistent support through such initiative as
teaching and learning workshops. Social technology adoption will only succeed when it is fully
supported, and clearly spelled out in policy documents (Skillsforscare, 2013).
In the case of the department of LIS at UNZA, the research established that there is need to start
with raising awareness, training educators, providing adequate ICT facilities and adopting
participative teaching approaches. Similarly, Chifwepa, (2006) and Chewe and Chitmbo (2012)
stressed the need to raise awareness and train educators in using participatory technologies.
Therefore, as UNNESCO (2002) observed, for institutions wishing to adopt ICTs in the learning
programs, the critical thing to do is to involve educators from the very beginning “as faculty will plan
considering their own conditions, culture, and context” (p.71). In addition, Afshari et al. (2009) is of
the view that to encourage the use of social technologies, institutions should provide consistent
“professional development to teachers in order to model new pedagogies and use of social tools".
- 50 -
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
The aim of the research was to investigate the use of participatory technologies in higher education,
comparing the iSchool at University of Sheffield, and the department of LIS at UNZA. Reflecting on
the research carried out, I have addressed each of the research questions and objectives that were
originally set to be attained and a layout of results is presented in chapter four of this dissertation.
The findings established that lecturers are familiar with different participatory technologies and
evidence shows that lecturers use participatory technologies of different kinds for different
purposes. However, considering the two cases, the findings show that lecturers from the iSchool at
the University of Sheffield are more knowledgeable and therefore use participatory technologies
more “extensively” than lecturers from the department of LIS at UNZA.
The main findings of this research are that lecturers use participatory technologies in teaching and
learning, different technologies are used for different purposes (Lameras, et al., 2012), and use of
participatory technologies is influenced by teaching approaches and institutional support. However,
various challenge effective use of technologies.
Lecturers have demonstrated that participatory technologies are useful in interactive teaching and
learning and are therefore used for various purposes. For instance, the major themes identified in
this regards were that participatory technologies are used for purposes of transferring course
information, applying and clarifying course concepts, “collaborative development and exchange of
ideas” as well as for assessment and grading purposes. It should be highlighted however that by
definition, the goal in applying participatory technologies is to enhance participation, socialisation
and collaboration among students. Therefore, there is need to focus on learning rather than using
technologies for the sake of using it.
The research has also established that lecturers from both the iSchool and the LIS department at
UNZA consider using technologies essential and useful in enhancing interactive learning. Lecturers
shared their experiences on how participatory tools such as blogs, video sharing and SL enhanced
interaction among students. While much of the examples from the department of LIS show how
lecturers use social tools for delivering content and communication with fewer examples of
interactive activities such as using the discussion boards in Moodle and video sharing.
However, using participatory technologies is faced with a number of challenges and some of the
significant challenges identified in this research include teaching approaches and unequal access to
- 51 -
technologies. For instance, teaching culture at the department of LIS is teacher centred and
therefore not accommodative of participatory technologies, while the lack of support also makes it
challenging for lecturers as well. Unequal access to technologies by students, time constraint,
inadequate infrastructure, and training other the other challenges faced. These challenges make it
difficult for lecturers to fully utilise technologies enhanced teaching and learning.
6.1 Recommendations Department of LIS at UNZA
To encourage the use of technologies as seen in literature and from the findings of this research, it
is recommended that UNZA develops a policy to guide the investment in ICT infrastructure. The LIS
department should have its own computer laboratory for students and lecturers to use. Adopting
teaching approaches which foster interactivity, for example trying IBL and train lecturers in using
student centred teaching. The department can also introduce incentives such as recognising and
awarding innovators to inspires and encourage lecturers to use technologies. Moreover, the
department can develop mentorship programs in which skilled lecturers help and train less
knowledgeable lecturers.
Future research: A research study aimed at developing a model that would help to harness the use
of participatory technologies at UNZA would be appropriate. For example, experimenting with the
use of technologies in one of the modules for a semester and then trying it again with other modules
later.
The iSchool at University of Sheffield
Considering findings of the research and literature review, recommendations for the iSchool include
ensuring a supportive environment: this can involve team teaching and mentoring were lecturers
who are skilled can teach and help lecturers who are less knowledgeable. In addition, the head of
department can spearhead and champion the adoption and use of participatory technologies.
Introduce incentives such as awarding or crediting lecturers for using participatory technologies to
enhance interactive learning and can as well encourage lecturers to adopt and use technologies. To
deal with the increasing number of students, the iSchool could invest in more computers and
increase the capacity of chart rooms for example.
Further research: A research on ways to encourage lecturers at iSchool to use VLEs would be
recommended. Studies about student‟s experiences in learning using VLE environments in specific
modules would also be desirable. A study constructing face to face teaching and use of VLEs to
understand the differences and the impact each of the two types has, would be appropriate.
- 52 -
Bibliography Afshari, M., Bakar, K.A., Luan, W.S., Samah, B.A., & Fooi, F. S.(2009). Factors affecting teachers‟
use of Information and Communication Technology. International Journal of Instruction, vol. 2(1): pp.78-98
Aijan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0
technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 11(2): pp.71- 80.
Al-daihani, S. (2009). Perceptions of Academic Librarians in Kuwait of Library 2.0.
Digest of Middle East Studies, 2004, pp. 27–39. Al-Drees, A. Khalil, M. S. Meo, S. & Abdulghani, H. M. (2015). Utilization of
blackboardamong undergraduate medical students: Where we are from the reality? Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, vol. 10(1), 16–20.
Alexander, B. B. (2006). Web 2.0: A New wave of innovation for teaching and
learning. Retrieved from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0621.pdf. Accessed 2015, June, 12
An, Y., & Williams, K. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 Technologies: Benefits,
Barriers and Lessons Learned. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_10/article04.htm. Accessed 2015, June 24
Anyangwe, E. (2012, March). The guardian: 20 tips and resources for using learning
technology in higher education. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/mar/06/using-technology-in-university-teaching. Accessed 2015, Aug. 08
Arif, M. and Mahmood, K. (2012), “The changing role of librarians in the digital world:
adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by Pakistani librarians”. The Electronic Library, Vol. 30(4): pp. 469-479.
Attwell, G., & Hughes, J. (2010) Pedagogic Approaches to Using Technology for Learning Literature Review. Lifelong learning UK, Retrieved from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110414152025/http:/www.lluk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Pedagogical-appraches-for-using-technology-literature-review-january-11-FINAL.pdf
Bennett, S. Bishop, A. Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012).
ImplementingWeb2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, vol. 59(2), pp. 524–534.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social science research methods (2nd. ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, K. E., & Lee, M. W. J. (2015). Design and implementation
factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Elsevier, Computer and Education, Vol. 86(2015): pp. 1-17.
- 53 -
Chan, C., Ping, S., & Issa, T. (2011). The Awareness and Knowledge of Web 2.0 Technologies in Education: An Australian Perspective. The International Journal of Learning. Vol. 18(2): pp. 121-132.
Chawinga, M. D. (2014). The use of web 2.0 by students and lecturers at Mzuzu
University, Malawi: the case of the Faculty of Information Science and Communications. Retrieved from: http://etd.uwc.ac.za. Accessed 2015, May 18
Chelliah, J. & Clarke, E. (2011). Collaborative teaching and learning: overcoming the digital
divide. On the Horizon, Vol. 19(4): pp. 276-285. Chewe, P., & Chitumbo, E. (2012). Moodle Adoption at the University of Zambia:
opportunities and Challenges. Retrieved from: http://www.sjpub.org/sjsa/sjsa-289.pdf. Accessed 2015, June 17
Chifwepa. V. 2006. Development of a Model Plan for the Application of Information Communication Technologies in Distance education at the University of Zambia. PhD Thesis in Distance education, Lusaka: UNZA.
Cleland, j and Walton, G. (2012) Online peer assessment: Helping to facilitate learning
through participation. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Vol. (4): pp.1-12.
Cochrane, T. & Bateman, R. (2009). Transforming Pedagogy Using Mobile Web 2.0.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, Vol. 1(4): pp.56–83 Courts, B., & Tucker, J. (2012). Using technology to create a dynamic classroom experience.
Journal of College Teaching & Learning, Vol. 9(2): 121-128. Cote, D. Kraemer, B. Nahl. D. & Ashford, R. (2012). Academic Librarians in Second Life. Journal of
library innovation, Vol. 3(1): pp. 20-47 Cox, A., Levy, P., Stordy, P., and Webber, S. (2008). Inquiry-based learning in the first-year
Information Management curriculum. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, Vol. 7(1): pp.3-21.
Cox, A.M. & Pinfield, S. (2013). Research data management and libraries: Current activities and
future priorities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Published „online before print‟, June 28, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0961000613492542.
Cox, A., Webber, S., Levy, P., & Stordy, P. (2007). "Blogging to support Inquiry-based
learning" Shock of the Old 2007: Shock of the Social, University of Oxford. Retrieved from: https://help.it.ox.ac.uk/ltg/events/shock2007/programme. Accessed 2015, Aug. 06
Cowan, J., & Astall, C. (2010). Exploring collaborative learning: Experiences of a web2.0
tool within a pre-service teacher education environment. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Teaching, Technology, Vol. 22(3).
Cullen, R., & Thomson, C. (2013). Using the Adobe Connect video conferencing system to
deliver a Webinars series at MMU. Retrieved from: http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/Vol9Iss2/1_cullen_thomson.pdf Accessed 2015, June 22
- 54 -
Czerkawski, B. (2011). Implications of connectivist pedagogy for online learning environments. In C. Ho & M. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (pp. 1876-1879). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/39001 Accessed 2015, August, 8
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, C. D. & Bichselet, J. (2013). The Current Ecosystem of Learning
Management Systems in Higher Education: Student, Faculty, and IT Perspectives. Retrieved from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1414.pdf Accessed 2015, June 25
Dalsgaard, C. (2006), “Social software: e-learning beyond learning management systems”,
European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, No. 2006, available at: www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm. Accessed 2015, May 30
Darrow, S. (2009). Connectivism Learning Theory: Instructional Tools for College Courses
by. Western Connecticut State University Danbury, CT. Retrieved from: http://library.wcsu.edu/dspace/bitstream/0/487/1/.pdf
Downes, S. (2005, Oct. 17th) “E-learning 2.0,” e-Learn Magazine. Retrieved from:
http://www.elearnmag.org/. Accessed 2015 June, 26 Dube, T. (N.D.). The Role of the Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in Learning
Design. Retrieved from: http://www2.derby.ac.uk/response/issue-eight-the-cedm-issue/80-a/168-tr?format=pdf. Accessed 2015, June 10
Edegbo, W. O. (2011). Curriculum Development in Library and Information Science
Education in Nigerian Universities: Issues and Prospects. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/edegbo.htm. Accessed 2015, Aug. 14
EDUCAUSE (2012). ECAR study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology,
2012. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2012. Accessed 2015, Aug. 16
EDUCAUSE (2015, April) The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment: A Report on
Research. Retrieved from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli3035.pdf. Accessed 2015, June 25
EDJUDO (2015) “Web 2.0 teaching tools”. Retrieved from: http://edjudo.com/web-2-0-teaching-tools-links. Accessed 2015, June 27 Eison, J. (2010). Using Active Learning Instructional Strategies to Create Excitement and
Enhance Learning. Retrieved from http://cte.cornell.edu/documents/presentations/Eisen-Handout.pdf Accessed 2015, May 10
Emeagwali, O. L and Naghdipour, B. (2013).Exploring the Usage and User-Perception of
Interactive WhiteBoards in Higher Education in North Cyprus. Elsevier Ltd. Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 83: (13): pp. 272–276.
Farkas, M. (2012). Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy. Library
Hi Tech, Vol. 30(1): pp. 82–94
- 55 -
Fidalgo, P., Paz, P. & Santos, L. P. (2011). Using Moodle as a Support Tool for Teaching in Higher Education in Portugal: An Exploratory Study. Retrieved from https://eleed.campussource.de/archive/8/3161. Accessed 2015, May10
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How Video Production Affects Student Engagement :
An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos. In ACM Conference on Learning at Scale pp. 4–5. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239
Gorman, M. (2004). Whither library education? New Library World 105 (1204/10205): pp.
376 - 380. Gray, E. D. (2014). Doing Research in the Real World. Los Angeles: SAGE publications Halverson, R., & Shapiro, R., B. (2012). Technologies for Education and Technologies for
Learners: How Information Technologies Are (and Should Be) Changing Schools (WCER Working Paper No. 2012-6). Retrieved from: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php Accessed 2015, May 24
Hamilton, D. (1999). The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?), Pedagogy,
Culture & Society, Vol. 7(1): pp135-152 Hargadon, S. (2008). Educational Networking: The important role Web 2.0 will play in
education. Retrieved from: http://www.elluminate.com/downloads/whitepapers/SocialNetworkingWhitepaper.pdf. Accessed 2015, April 12
Hargadon, S. (2008, Oct. 22nd). Moving Toward Web 2.0 in K-12 Education (Brave New
Classroom 2.0). Retrieved from: www.britannica.com. Accessed 2015, July 04 Heath, R. (2013). Unequal access to digital technologies, 'major challenge' for poor students.
Retrieved from: http://www.examiner.com/article. Accessed 2015. Aug. 04 Hoic-Bozic, N., Holenko Dlab, M., & Mornar, V. (2015). Recommender System
and Web 2.0 Tools to Enhance a Blended Learning Model. DOI: 10.1109/TE.2015.2427116 Jackson, R. (n.d.). The Promise and Challenges of Integrating Interactive Technologies into
University Pedagogy. University of Washington; Seattle. Retrieved from: http://www.css.washington.edu/ Accessed 2015, Jun. 20
Jaiswal, B. (2002). Methods of Teaching Library and Information Science: An Empirical
Approach. Annals of Library and information Studies, Vol. 49(4): pp.135-139 JISC, (2015) Digital Media: YouTube and Vimeo for Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/youtube-vimeo-education. Accessed 2015, Aug. 07 JISC (2008). Great Expectations of ICT: how HE institutions are measuring up? Retrieved
from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/podcasts/great-expectations-of-ict-23-jun-2008. Accessed 2015, Aug. 16
Ishtaiwa, F. (2011). “Faculty Attitudes and Use of Moodle Course Management System as a
Supplement to Face-to-Face Instruction: A Jordanian Case Study”. Retrieved from http://search.shamaa.org/PDF
- 56 -
Kahn, S. (2014). E-Portfolios: A Look at Where We've Been, Where We Are Now, and
Where We're (Possibly) Going. Association of American Colleges & Universities. Vol. 16(1): Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/e-portfolios-look-where-weve-been-where-we-are-now-and-where-were. Accessed 2015, July 01
Kirriemuir, J. (2009). The Spring 2009 snapshot of virtual world use in UK higher and further education. Bath: Virtual World Watch, for the Eduserv Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/8706245/ Accessed 2015, June 05
Kuklthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the
21st century. Westport, CT & London: Libraries Unlimited Kombo, D. K & Tromp, D. L.A (2006). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction. Nairobi:
Paulines Publications Africa Kroski, E. (2004). Web 2.0 for Librarians and Information Professionals. London: Neal-
Schuman Publishers Inc. Lameras, P., Levy, P., Paraskakis, I. & Webber, S. (2012) Blended university
teaching using virtual learning environments: conceptions and approaches. Instructional Science, Vol. 40(1): pp. 141-157
Lai, H., M., & Chen, C. P. (2009) Factors influencing secondary teachers‟ adoption of teaching
blogs. Educators and Education, Vol. 56(2011): pp. 948-960. Lai, Y. C., & Ng, E. M. (2011) Using wikis to develop student teachers‟ learning, teaching,
and assessment capabilities. The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 14(1): pp.15-26.
Levy, p., Little, S., McKinney, P., Nibbs, A., & Wood, J. (2013) The Sheffield Companion to Inquiry-based Learning. Retrieved from: www.shef.ac.uk/ibl Accessed 2015, Aug. 08
Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005) Vygotsky‟s philosophy : Constructivism and its criticisms
examined. International Educational Journal, Vol. 6(3): pp. 386–399. Lontia, K. (2013). Department of Library and Information Studies: Brief History of the
Department. Retrieved from http://education.unza.zm/index.php/2013-02-27-09-57-51/library-information-studies Accessed 2015, May 21
Mazoue, J. G. (2013). The MOOC Model: Challenging Traditional Education.
http://er.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/123456789/71/. Accessed 2015, June 26 Mazur. A. D., Barbara, B., & Jackson, M. (2015). Learning Designs Using Flipped
Classroom. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 41(2): pp. 42-105. McKinney, P. (2014). Information literacy and inquiry-based learning: Evaluation of a five-
year Programme of curriculum development. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 46(2): pp.148-166
- 57 -
McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf . Accessed 2015, April 15
McNeill, M., Bower, M., Curtis, K., & Hedberg, J. (2012). A Pedagogical Evaluation of Moodle Extensions. In ascilite Conference. 2010 (1)
Mellon, C. (2014). What are clickers and how can we effectively use them ? What are
clickers and how can we effectively use them ? Retrieved from: https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/technology/clickers/pdfs/clickers-pedagogicalvalue.pdf Accessed 2015, May 02
Minocha, S. (2009). Role of social software tools in education: a literature review. Education
+ Training, Vol. 51(5/6), pp. 353–369. Moodle (2015). Moodle: features. Retrieved from: https://docs.moodle.org/29/en/Features.
Accessed 2015, Jul. 09 Mwiinga, T. (2014). Investigating the use of Web 2.0 applications for educational purposes
among undergraduate students at The University of Zambia: A case of two programmes. Retrieved from: http://dspace.unza.zm:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/3349/Main%20Document.pdf
Noel, L. (2015). Using blogs to create a constructivist learning environment. Elsevier Ltd. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences 74 (2015): pp. 617–621
Pan, G., Sen. S., Starret, D., Bonk, C., & Rogers, M. (2012). Instructor-Made Videos as a
Learner Scaffolding Tool. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching: Vol. 8(4). Retrieved from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol8no4/pan_1212.htm Accessed 2015, May 12
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: SAGE
Publications Peer, J. J. & Darlene E. & Crone,T. (2001). A social constructivist approach to computer-
mediated Instruction. Computers & Education 38(2002): pp.221–23 Poore, M. (2014) Studying and Researching with Social Media. London: SAGE publications Powell, R., R. & Connaway, L., S. (2010) Basic Research Methods for Librarians. Westport;
Libraries Unlimited Rajkoomar, M. (2013) Blended learning in Library and information Science (LIS) education
and training. Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, Retrieved from: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1948&context=iatul Accessed 2015, May 24
Ram, S., Anbu, K. J. & Kataria, S. (2011), “Responding to user‟s expectation in the library:
innovative Web 2.0 applications at JUIT Library: a case study”. Electronic library and information systems, Vol. 45(4): pp. 452-469.
- 58 -
Reeves, B., D. (2009). Three Challenges of Web 2.0. The Learning Leader. Retrieved from http://internetissues.pbworks.com/f/three+challenges+of+web+2.0.pdf. Accessed 2015, July 04
Reynard, R. (2009, Feb 18). Web 2.0 Tools and K-12 Challenges. Retrieved from
http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/02/18/web-20-tools-and-k12-challenges.aspx. Accessed 2015, July 04
Richards, D., Szilas, N., & Kavaki, M. (2007). Impacts of visualisation, interaction and
immersion on learning using an agent-based training simulation. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/0c960516e1beced129000000.pdf. Accessed 2015, June 25
Roberts, A., Madden, A. D. & Corrall, S (2013). Putting Research into Practice: An Exploration of Sheffield iSchool Approaches to Connecting Research with Practice. Johns Hopkins University Press, Vol. 61(3) pp.479-512
Rogers-estable, M. (2014) Web 2.0 Uses In Higher Education. European Journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning. Vol. 17(2): pp. 129–141. Sawant, S. (2012), “The study of the use of Web 2.0 tools in LIS education in India”. Library Hi-
tech News, Vol. 29(2): pp. 11-15. Selehe, R. B. (2008). Elimu 2.0 – Investigating the Use of Web 2.0 Tools for
facilitating Collaboration in Higher Education. Dublin Institute of Technology. Retrieved from: http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=scschcomdis Accessed, 2015, Aug. 05
Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning: A
critical review. Paper for OCEDKERIS expert meeting, Session 6 – alternative learning environments in practice: using ICT to change impact and outcomes.
Scott, B., Lyne, C. & Pink, C. (2015) “The virtual learning environment Blackboard: Uses and
limitations in the teaching and learning of four languages”. Retrieved from: https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/paper/1422. Accessed 2015, Jun. 12
Schrum, L., & Benson, A. (2000) Online professional education: A case study of an
MBA program through its transition to an online model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 4(1): pp. 52-61.
Simon, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE publications Ltd Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G. & Francis, R. (2006) The undergraduate experience of
blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice. The higher education academy. Retrieved from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/Sharpe_Benfield_Roberts_Francis.pdf
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from
http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm. Accessed 2015, July 07 Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm. Accessed, 2015, August 06,
- 59 -
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as Network-Creation. Retrieved from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm. 2015, Aug. 03
Skaržauskien, A., Tamošiūnait, R. & Žaleniene, I. (2012). Defining Social Technologies.
Retrievedfrom:https://www.mruni.eu/mru_lt_dokumentai/fakultetai/socialiniu_technologiju_fakultetas/Skarzauskiene%20final.pdf. Accessed 2015, May 23
Skillsforcare (2013). Learning technologies in social care: a guide for employers. Retrieved
from: http://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Document-library/Qualifications-and-Apprenticeships/Learning-technology/Learningtechnologiesinsocialcare-aguideforemployers.pdf. Accessed 2015, Aug. 16
Stordy, P. (2012). "Undergraduates‟ Internet Literacies". Retrieved from:
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/is/staff/stordythesis Accessed 2015, Aug. 04 The University of Zambia (2012). Strategic plan 2013-2017, retrieved from:
http://www.unza.zm/downloads/finish/3-administration/2-strategicplan. Accessed 2015, July, 20
Thomas, G (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Los
Angeles: SAGE publications Ltd UNESCO (2002). Essential components to support ICTs in teacher development. Retrieved
from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001295/129533e.pdf University of Washington (2014). “Learning Technologies: Clickers”. Retrieved from # http://www.uwb.edu/learningtech/clickers. Accessed 2015, June 27 University of Sheffield. (2012). Information School Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.319923!/file/Annual_Report_2012.pdf University of Sheffield. (2013). Information School. Postgraduate Taught Student Handbook.
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.208166!/file/2012-13PGTHandbook.pdf. Accessed 2015, June 12
Valetsianos, G. (2010). Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.icde.org/filestore/News/2004-2010/2010/G.Veletsianose-bookEmergingTechnologies.pdf. Accessed 2015, Jul. 07
Ventura, R., & Quero, M. J. (2013). Using Facebook in University Teaching: A Practical
Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 83(8): pp.1032–1038 Virkus, S. (2008). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: experiences at Tallinn
University, Estonia. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42(3), 262–274
Wang, Y. C. (2014). Using wikis to facilitate interaction and collaboration among EFL
Learners: A social constructivist approach to language teaching. Vol. 42 (14): pp.383-390 Webber, S. (2014). Using blogs as a core part of class activity. Retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber/webber-teaching-learning-conference-jan-2014-public. Accessed 2015, July, 17
- 60 -
Webber, Sheila and Diane Nahl. (2011). Sustaining Learning for LIS through use of a Virtual World. IFLA Journal (37)(1): 5-15.
Wisker, G. (2008). Research Skills: The Post Graduate Research Handbook. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan. Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Designing and Methods, 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. Zhang, H. (2014). The effects of blog-mediated peer feedback on learner‟s motivation,
collaboration and course satisfaction in a second language writing course. JSTOR, Vol. 30(6): pp. 670–685.
- 61 -
Appendices:
1. Appendix1: Participants information Sheet
The University of Sheffield. Information School
To investigate the use of participatory technologies in higher education, comparing the University of Sheffield, iSchool and the University of Zambia, Department of library and Information studies (LIS)
Researchers
Abel M‟kulama C.M Master of Information Management Information School University of Sheffield [email protected]
Purpose of the research
The purpose of the study is to understand how lecturers use participatory technologies in universities. This is done by comparing the University of Sheffield and the University of Zambia. It is hoped that the study will contribute to the use of participatory technologies in Universities.
Who will be participating?
We invite lecturers from the University of Sheffield and lecturers from the University of Zambia. Invitations to the University of Zambia have been sent and the coordinator of using Moodle has granted permission to be interviewed and also to interview other members of staff.
What will you be asked to do?
I will be asking you to complete a questionnaire that includes demographic information of the participants. Then a series of interview questions relating to the use of participatory technologies in teaching and learning will also be asked. The questions will include:
1. How do lecturers perceive participatory technologies and their teaching practices? 2. What influences the adoption of participatory technologies? 3. What Challenges do they faced in using participatory technologies? 4. Is training and institutional support on using participatory technologies affecting effective use
of participatory technologies? The other questions may emerge as the interviews will be conducted, and these will be asked as follow up questions.
What are the potential risks of participating?
The potential risks of participating are the same as those you experience in everyday life. However, the information collected will be treated with absolute anonymity. Your identity will not be given out.
What data will we collect?
The data collected will only be answers from the short questionnaire and the interview. The interview will be recorded for purposes of transcribing.
What will we do with the data?
The data will be stored on the University of Sheffield Google drive server. The data will then be analysed and used for my master‟s dissertation. Audio data will be transcribed and then analysed.
- 62 -
Once my Masters dissertation is completed, the data will be managed according the research data management guidelines of the University of Sheffield and then it will be destroyed.
Will my participation be confidential?
The participant‟s identity will be confidential and the data will be anonymised by coding the files using numbers. The identity of the participants will not be retained.
What will happen to the results of the research project?
The results of the study will be used for the master‟s dissertation and this will be made public. The school makes the dissertations publicly available after a period of time. The study might also be eligible for publication in a journal. I confirm that I have read and understand the description of the research project, and that I have had an opportunity to ask questions about the project. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without any negative consequences. I understand that I may decline to answer any particular question or questions, or to do any of the activities. If I stop participating at all time, all of my data will be purged. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential, that my name or identity will not be linked to any research materials, and that I will not be identified or identifiable in any report or reports that result from the research. I give permission for the research team members to have access to my anonymised responses. I give permission for the research team to re-use my data for future research as specified above. I agree to take part in the research project as described above.
Participant Name (Please print) Participant Signature
Researcher Name (Please print) Researcher Signature
Abel M‟kulama Date: 12/06/2015
Note: If you have any difficulties with, or wish to voice concern about, any aspect of your participation in this study, please contact Dr Jo Bates, Research Ethics Coordinator, Information School, The University of Sheffield ([email protected]), or to the University Registrar and Secretary.
- 63 -
2. Appendix3: Ethics approval letter
3. Appendix4: Questionnaire
Questionnaire No… Would you please tell me about yourself?
1. Age
a. 30 years and less ☐
b. 31-40 years ☐
c. 41-50 ☐
d. 51 and over ☐
- 64 -
2. Gender
a. Male ☐
b. Female ☐
3. Years in teaching
a. 5 years and less ☐
b. 6- 10 years ☐
c. 11-15 years ☐
d. 16-20 years ☐
e. 20 years and over ☐
4. Position……………………
a. Lecturer ☐
b. Senior lecturer ☐
c. Proffer ☐
d. Reader ☐
e. Research Manager ☐
f. Head of department ☐
g. Research Fellow ☐
h. Associate lecturer ☐
i. Other please specify…………... 5. Research interests please indicate………………………………………………….
Awareness and Perception
6. I am familiar with the different participatory educational technologies that can be used to aid teaching and learning
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. Agree ☐
c. Neutral ☐
d. Disagree ☐
e. Strongly disagree ☐
7. Which among these technologies have you ever used? (Please tick more than one)
a. Learner Management System (Blackboard or Mole/Moodle) ☐
b. Wikis ☐
c. Blogs ☐
d. Video sharing (e.g. YouTube) ☐
e. Webinars ☐
f. Social media (Twitter, Facebook) ☐
g. Clickers ☐
h. Podcasts ☐
i. Conferencing/Webinar (e.g. Adobe connect) ☐
j. 3D virtual Worlds (e.g. Second Life) ☐
k. Other please specify…………………………………………………. 8. I consider participatory Technologies essential to my teaching
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. Agree ☐
c. Neutral ☐
d. Disagree ☐
e. Strongly disagree ☐
9. I think Participatory Technologies are useful in enhancing student and teacher interaction
- 65 -
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. Agree ☐
c. Neutral ☐
d. Disagree ☐
e. Strongly disagree ☐
To explore the use of participatory technologies by lecturers
10. I find using participatory technologies enjoyable in teaching and learning
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. Agree ☐
c. Neutral ☐
d. Disagree ☐
e. Strongly disagree ☐
11. On a scale of 1-5, (1= I never use them at all and 5 = I use them in every session), how would you rate the frequency with which you use participatory technologies in teaching? (Please select one of the point on the scale below)
1-☐ 2- ☐ 3- ☐ 4- ☐ 5- ☐
12. Regarding your use of LMS (Mole/Moodle) what specific tools do you use for course
communication? (you can select more than one option)
a. Messages ☐
b. Announcements ☐
c. Chat Forums ☐
d. Calendar ☐
e. None ☐
f. Other, please specify………….
13. What purposes do you use participatory technologies? (please, you can select more than one choice if necessary)
a. Transfer of course information ☐
b. To apply and clarify course concepts ☐
c. To encourage the exchange and development of ideas by students ☐
d. As a collaboration platform for the creation of knowledge ☐
e. To offer course assessments and grades ☐
f. Other please specify……………. Factors affecting adoption and use of educational technologies
14. My institution/department offers training and support in using educational technologies
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. Agree ☐
c. Neutral ☐
d. Disagree ☐
e. Strongly disagree ☐
15. On a scale of 1-5, (1= Trained and supported in all and 5= Trained and supported in some), how would you rate the extent to which have you been trained and supported in using educational technologies.
1-☐ 2- ☐ 3- ☐ 4- ☐ 5- ☐
- 66 -
16. I take personal initiative to attend training and workshops where the use of educational technologies is dealt with
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. Agree ☐
c. Neutral ☐
d. Disagree ☐
e. Strongly disagree ☐
17. I find using participatory technologies in teaching challenging
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. Agree ☐
c. Neutral ☐
d. Disagree ☐
e. Strongly disagree ☐
18. What are some of the challenges you have faced in using participatory technologies in you teaching? (Please you can choose more than answer)
a. ☐ Difficulty to use
b. ☐ Teaching approaches don‟t support use of technologies
c. ☐ I do not find them relevant
d. ☐ Not aware and knowledgeable
e. ☐ Lack of adequate facilities (Computers and Classrooms) for using technologies
f. ☐ Not all students have technologies and skills to use in class or elsewhere
g. ☐ I am not interested
h. Other please specify……………. 19. Teaching approaches and class settings in my department encourages the use of
technologies
a. Strongly Agree ☐
b. b. Agree, ☐
c. c. Neutral ☐
d. d. disagree, ☐
e. e. strongly disagree ☐
Recommendation 20. What recommendations would you give to help improve the use of technologies in
teaching and learning?
a. ☐ Raise awareness about the different technologies
b. ☐ Train educators and students in using the technologies
c. ☐ Provide consistent support
d. ☐ Provide facilities that will enable large classes to learn in virtual environments
e. ☐ Adopt teaching approaches which encourage the use of participatory
technologies f. Other please specify…………….
- 67 -
4. Appendix5: Interview Schedule
1. I see from Q6 you mentioned……., would you please talk about your use of educational
technologies and their influence on influence on you teaching?
2. I see in Q13 you selected…….. as your motivation. Would you please talk more about this
motivation to use different technologies to teach? Please elaborate….
3. I see in Q13 you selected ………….as the main purposes, Kindly explain more this?
4. In Q10 you mentioned that using participatory technologies are enjoyable, would you please
talk more about how enjoyable using participatory technologies is on your practice?
5. You ………. as the challenge. Would please talk about some of the challenges you have face
and how you have managed to overcome some of these challenges?
6. What you recommend to encourage the use of technologies?
5. Appendix6: Screenshots of data in SPSS
Screenshot of data entered in SPSS Data view
- 68 -
Variable view
6. Appendix7: Annual report of the department of LIS at UNZA
THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION STUDIES
QUARTERY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2015 TO MARCH 2015
1.0. INTRODUCTION: This report is a reflection of the activities as well as the state of affairs of the Department of Library and Information Studies for the period October December 2014.
2.0 STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES
PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR QUARTER
ACTUAL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
OBSERVATION/ COMMENTS
Academic Activates
Teaching The Department undertook the teaching for both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the
Venues remain a problem
- 69 -
Department.
Research Most lecturers are busy with research work
All the research is self funded as UNZA is not able to fund the activities
Workshops A number of staff attended/facilitated in workshops around the country. One member of staff went to Kabwe to attend a workshop of trainers for teachers of ICT in Secondary Schools. The workshop was organized by the Ministry of Education
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
The Department requested for various ICT tools to help lecturers do their work.
We have seven members of staff without computers.
3.0. MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION ACADEMIC STAFF:
Position Establishment Filled Vacant
Professor 2 - 2
Senior Lecturer
4 2 2
Lecturer 8 8 -
Total 13 11 2
We also have two SDFs one doing the second part within UNZA and one has since changed the learning Institution to Sheffield University in UK.
Non-Academic Staff:
Position Establishment Filled Vacant
Secretary 1 0 1
Stenographer 1 0 1
Total 2 0 2
The departmental Secretary is on Leave. 4.0. MAJOR CONSTRAINTS:
a) Inadequate Lecture Facilities: The numbers of students in Classes for this programme are
increasing from year to year. However, lecture room facilities have remained the same. This has a negative impact as not all students are able to attend lectures.
- 70 -
b) The Department has continues to experience lack of ICT laboratories for the use of its students. However, we would like to thank the Computer Centre for availing the Computer labs though with limited computers to our department.
c) The Department Continues facing problems in placing its students for practicals as there are
few libraries with experienced staff who could supervise our students.
d) The Department continue to face the problem of shortage of office accommodation and furniture for staff. The Department has 11 lecturers and two SDFs. The Following Members of staff share offices.
I. C Hamooya with B Njobvu (304) II. Kaoma Lamba - Daka, Edward Mwalimu, Thabiso Mwiinga, Precious Chitundu
Chisunka-Mwila (105) III. Ketty E Ndhlovu (SDF) Dr Akakandelwa Akakandelwa (515) IV. L Walusiku and (2012) V. Dr Mwacalimba (2015)
5.0. Planned Activities for the next Quarter
Continue teaching, researching and consultancy work.
Process our second issue of the journal
Host the second workshop on pedagogical skills from16th 18th June 2015. T Bwalya
Acting Head of Department-LIS
7. Appendix8: More examples of participatory tools
Social cataloguing: Social cataloguing tools have made the once expert dominated profession or
service open and almost anyone on the virtual community can be able to organise their collection as
the processes have been simplified. Individuals are able to “catalogue their own collections, develop
personal taxonomy and encounter likeminded people” (Kroski, 2004:77). Social cataloguing has
enabled people to make personal catalogues of books, CDs, DVDs, and game collections and also
to share their catalogues. With social cataloguing, members are able to review and share them,
leave comments, put tags, and rate the items. In addition, members can learn about each other and
their interests in collections (Kroski, 2004)
Instant Messaging: Are online platforms that provide real-time exchange of text messages over the
internet. Using instant messaging, short messages are sent “bi-directionally between two or more
parties, when each user chooses to complete a thought and select send". Examples of instant
messaging applications include among others MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, AOL
Instant Messenger, Trillian, Skype, Viber and WhatsApp. Instant Messaging program able to show
users when friends and other users are online and you can be able to see when the other user is
typing, or when the message has been delivered and has been seen.
(http://www.newliteracies.com.au/what-are-new-literacies?/147/). Most instant messaging
- 71 -
applications allow users to send images, videos, locations, contact details and audio media
(Wikipedia, 2015).
Answers Technologies: The participatory tools which allow users to post questions and others
answer the questions. As Kroski (2004) observes these technologies seek to bring the best out of
each one of us “while creating a global dataset of the world‟s knowledge” (p.139). Yahoo, Microsoft
and Amazon are among examples of the providers of answers technologies.
Mashups: Refer to web application in which two or more distinct data sets are combined to create
something new. They are usually a “combination of two existing Web applications”. For example
Google Maps and the real estate listing from Craigslist combined and made a „Mashup‟
“Housingmaps.com”. The increase in the number of Mashups has also been influenced by the
continued growth of “web2.0 applications and the openness feature” that these tools come with.
Other examples of Mashups include Flickrs Geotagging (www.flickr.com/map) which is a Mashup
between yahoo‟s mapping technology and flickers photo sharing.
Photo Sharing: Photo sharing sites are participatory tools that allow users to share photos with
others and people can comment. Various sites and applications provide the services; with some
focusing on hosting the images while other provide more community and interactive features.
Examples of the applications include Photobucket (http://photobucket.com), Instagram
(http://instagram.com), Flickr (www.flickr.com) and Snapfish (www.snapfish.com) owned by Hawlett-
packard. These applications and many more allow users to share, comments and tag images.
Video Sharing: Video technologies allow users to share videos and publish them online hence
adopted and useful interactive teaching and learning. Examples of video sharing technologies
include “YouTube, Vimeo, and Flickr” among others (JISC, 2015; EDJUDO, 2015). The use of
videos sharing has been investigated, for example Guo et al. (2014) explored the use of MOOCs in
Universities with the aim of assessing how video production affects student engagement in online
educational. Student engagement was measured by the length of time a students spent watching
videos and if they made efforts to answer the posted questions. Findings show that the shorter the
video, the more engaging it was. Informal talking head videos were also found to be more engaging
and better than the high quality pre-recorded classroom lectures. Similar studies such as one by
Pan et al. (2012) shows that instructor made videos which involve “demonstrations and presentation
of key terms, skills and resources can help students understand important procedures, and/or
mechanisms” in content that was previously deemed problematic.
- 72 -
Social bookmarking: The focus of social book marking is “managing and sharing information”.
These applications allow uses to organise data and information openly and as they carry out these
activities openly, they “create a repository of user-recommended resources and potentially
likeminded people to be explored by the populace” (Kroski, 2004). The famous social bookmarking
applications including “del.icio.us and Furl” provide the platform for users to bookmark articles,
podcasts, images, and Websites among other. When users save a particular bookmark on one of
the websites, it not only becomes “noticeable and searchable but it becomes publicly open and can
be browsed” by others users wishing to discover new resources (Poore, 2014).
- 73 -
8. Appendix 9: Ethics application Form
- 74 -
- 75 -
- 76 -
- 77 -
Signed by:
Abel M‟kulama C.M
Date signed:
22 June. 2015 at 23:36
- 80 -