Antecedents to teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of ICTs for business education classroom instructions in Nigerian tertiary institutions

Abstract

This study investigated the antecedents to Nigerian business education teachers' perceptions of the usefulness of technology in the classroom. Theoretical support for the study was based on the work of Venkatesh and Bala's (Decis Sci 39(2):273-315, 2008) Technology Acceptance Model III where computer self-efficacy and perceived enjoyment were identified as antecedents to perceived ease of use of technology while subjective norm was identified as an antecedent to perceived usefulness. The study proposed a structural model to investigate whether computer self-efficacy, perceived enjoyment, and subjective norm were antecedents to teachers' perceived usefulness of ICTs in Business Education classrooms of Nigerian tertiary institutions. The study was a survey research involving 212 teachers sampled from the Business Education faculties of 13 tertiary colleges in Northwestern Nigeria, sub-Sahara Africa. The research instrument for data collection was a structured questionnaire using items adapted from previously validated studies. The questionnaire yielded high-reliability coefficients both at the pilot and actual study stages. SPSS version 22 was used for descriptive statistics analyses, and AMOS 22 was used for structural equation modeling. The study model explained about 33% of the variance in teachers' perceptions of the usefulness of ICTs in the classroom. Two of the hypotheses of the study were statistically significant. Teachers' computer self-efficacy and perceived enjoyment of ICTs were found to significantly influence their perceived usefulness of ICTs. The study recommends that Nigerian teachers should be trained to integrate ICTs in the curriculum and be provided with ICT support services in order to help them with ICT difficulties in the classroom.

Faculty Perceptions of Smartphones and Smartphone Integration in Faculty Development and the Classroom: A Case Study

“…As the learning environment and the needs of learners are changing (Isiyaku, Ayub, & AbdulKadir, 2018;Khaddage et al, 2015;Watty, McKay, & Ngo, 2016), so, too, are the discussions surrounding learning theories. By considering the various approaches of conceptual change theory, Jonassen and Easter (2014) explored the ways in which a learner's knowledge itself changes.…”

“…It has been noted that the ability to bridge formal and informal learning spaces is a distinct affordance of smartphones (Gikas & Grant, 2013). Similarly, the ability to offer ubiquitous learning opportunities such as collecting in-the-moment feedback (Havel et al, 2017), enhancing instructor-learner interactions (Isiyaku et al, 2018), and enabling learner reflections (Ng'ambi & Lombe, 2012) are all characteristics of smartphone-based mobile learning.…”

“…As noted earlier, the smartphone's ubiquitous nature and readily-available technology (Havel et al, 2017;Kearney & Maher, 2013; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012) make it ideal for allowing learners to focus on the task at hand, rather than on the device itself (Koole, 2009). When instructors use smartphones to diversify content and to promote innovation and participatory, collaborative, and contextual learning (Hsu et al, 2014;Isiyaku et al, 2018), they can impact course interactions, information processing, lifelong-learner skill sets, and the roles of teachers and learners (Koole, 2009).…”

“…Some mobile learning barriers can be grouped into similar categories, such as access to technology, while others stand alone, like cell phone providers requiring extra fees for increased usage of internet data plans (Marinagi, Skourlas, & Belsis, 2013). Another example could be the rate of change with smartphone technology and faculty who are not familiar with quickly evolving Web 2.0 and mobile applications (apps) (Bennett et al, 2012;Isiyaku et al, 2018). Additionally, the disruptive and pervasive nature of smartphones raises concerns about classroom management and ethical considerations (Hsu et al, 2014;Peng, Su, Chou, & Tsai, 2009).…”

“…Additional access barriers include connecting to a wireless network and concerns of an institution's broadband infrastructure (Isiyaku et al, 2018). Likewise, the limitations of a mobile device's screen size (Cochrane & Bateman, 2010;Gikas & Grant, 2013), battery life, or memory capacity (Power & Thomas, 2007) can be a barrier to access.…”