1

LITERACY LEVEL AND ACCESS RATE OF THE NEW MEDIA

TECHNOLOGY AMONG UNN LECTURERS

OGBODOH, STEVE CHUKWUKA

PG/MA/09/52218

A Research Project Submitted To the Department Of Mass Communication, University Of

Nigeria, Nsukka in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Master of Arts

(MA) Degree in Mass Communication

DEPARTMENT OF MASS COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

FEBRUARY 2012

i

TITLE PAGE

LITERACY LEVEL AND ACCESS RATE OF THE NEW MEDIA TECHNOLOGY

AMONG UNN LECTURERS

OGBODOH, STEVE CHUKWUKA

PG/MA/09/52218

A Research Project Submitted To the Department Of Mass Communication, University

Of Nigeria, Nsukka in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Master

of Arts (MA) Degree in Mass Communication

ii

CERTIFICATION

This is an original work of Ogbodoh Steve Chukwuka

(PG/MA/09/52218) on “Literacy Level and Access Rate of the New Media

Technology Among UNN Lecturers”

It satisfies the requirements for presentation of research report in the

Department of Mass Communication, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

___________________________ ___________________________

Anorue, L. I. Professor Ike S. Ndolo

Supervisor Head of Department

___________________________

Etim, Anim (Ph.D)

External Examiner

iii

DEDICATION

TO GOD, MY HELP AND MY STRENGHT NOW AND ALWAYS

TO DADDY AND MUMMY, FOR EVERYTHING

iv

Acknowledgement

Appreciation is not a mouth organ. It is when the heart sings along with the mouth.

This is why we must sing, from the depths of our hearts the song of thanksgiving.

First and foremost is to God, who gave me the opportunity to embark on this

programme.

Secondly, to my parents and siblings who stood by me and gave me the

greatest support of all time.

On top of the list is my able and humble supervisor, L.I. Anorue, who was

extremely patient with my lazy and non committed attitude towards this research

work. Thank you so much sir. Your eagle eyes saw all the mistakes that would have

garnished this work in my hurried means to beat deadline. You are indeed a brother

and friend.

To a friend, teacher, and brother, Mike Ukonu. You suggested the topic of

this research and also gave guidelines to the research. Thank you so much for your

input.

To my classmates. You guys threw a challenge to me that catapulted me into

embarking on this research. Thank you all. Mentioning your names will not suffice

given the small space meant for this exercise.

Christopher Amah, you are one person that I always look up to his

arguments which threw a lot of lights on the topic of this work. This is it. We have

come to the end of the journey, so to say.

Omotics, you were the one that suggested that I buy this PG form when you

had already submitted yours. Unfortunately, your name was not mobilized with ours.

But, you stood gallantly by me, as always, throughout this journey. Thank you for

showing so much care and concern. You are truly a friend. Words cannot thank you

enough. I only regret that we did not embark on this programme together.

Kolombo (Kpolongo), you are a great man. You handled the type setting of

this work like your life depended on it. I am very grateful.

To all my great friends who encouraged me to keep on keeping on, I say, “We

shall dance again in a wider circle”. Cheers.

v

Table of contents

Title . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . .ii

Certification . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . .iv

Table of contents . . . . . . . . . .v

List of table . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . .viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study . . . . . . . . .1

1.2 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . .8

1.3 Objectives of the study . . . . . . . . .8

1.4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . .9

1.5 Significance of Study . . . . . . . .9

1.6 Operational definition of concepts . . . . . . .10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Focus of Review . . . . . . . . . .12

2.2 The Review Proper. . . . . . . . . .12

2.2 Digital Divide: Conceptual Review . . . . . . .12

2.3. New Media Technology and Learning . . . . . .19

2.4. Students and learning of New Media Technologies . . . . .26

2.5 Constraints to the acquisition of new media technology knowledge in

Nigeria universities . . . . . . . . .33

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design . . . . . . . . .46

3.2. Population of study . . . . . . . . .46

3.3. Sample size . . . . . . . . . .47

3.4. Sampling technique . . . . . . . . .48

vi

3.5. Measuring instrument . . . . . . . . .50

3.6. Validity/ Reliability . . . . . . . . .50

3.7 Limitations of Methodology . . . . . . . .51

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Description of the Sample . . . . . . . .53

4.2 Data Presentation and Analysis . . . . . . .53

4.3 Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . .68

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . .69

5.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . .70

5.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . .71

References

Bibliography

Appendices

vii

List of tables

Table 1: distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their age range

Table 2: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their gender

Table 3: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their Faculties

Table 4: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the grade level of staff members (Lecturers)

Table 5: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their religious affiliation

Q6. Table 6: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to whether they have heard about the existence of any new media technology devices

Q7. Table 7: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to channel through which they heard about the new media technology devices

Q8. Table 8: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the number of new media technology devices the Lecturers know personally.

Q9. Table 9: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to how long they have been using any the new media technology devices that they know

Q10. Table 10: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to those new media technology devices available in the campus

Q11. Table 11: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the use of available devices on campus

Q12. Table 12: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to why they do not use any of the new media technology devices they know of

Q13. Table 13: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to who provides the new media technology devices that they use

Q14. Table 14: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the assessment of their new media technology skills

Q15. Table 15: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to how they acquired the new media technology skills

Q16. Table 16: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the computing/Information Technology qualifications that they have

Q17. Table 17: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the main purpose of using the new media technology devices in school

Q18. Table 18: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to what they use any of the new media technology devices for

Q19. Table 19: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the non availability of the new media technology devices as a barrier.

viii

Abstract

Knowledge gap is occasioned by the literacy level of university lecturers on the use of the

new media while digital divide is brought about by the lack of fund and access to state of the

art internet and satellite network necessary for the use of the new media for teaching and

learning. People, all over the world, must be constantly updated on the latest innovations in

the global media technologies and they must attune themselves to the acquisition and use of

these technologies so that they become more relevant in the ever changing world of

communication.

The study examined the Literacy level and access rate of UNN lecturers to new media

technologies. The study assessed how well UNN lecturers knew about and the actual usage of

the new media technologies in teaching and research.

A survey of lecturers in Nsukka and Enugu Campuses of the University of Nigeria was done.

Stratified and quota sampling technique were applied to get the sample size of this study.

The study found out that 45% of UNN lecturers have access to the technologies and learning.

The remaining 55% know about the new media technology but do not apply them in teaching

and learning. Computers and mobile phones were the most used of the new technologies,

while others such as video conferencing, multimedia projectors, web links, online course

designs etc. were used by 5% of the lecturers. Also, inadequate knowledge, lack of periodic

orientation on the latest innovations, and high cost of this technology constitute the

constraints to the acquisition of the new media by the lecturers.

The study recommended that universities should train and retrain their lecturers on the use

and application of the new media in teaching and learning. Again, Universities should make

the technologies real affordable by partnering with the government to subsidize the cost of

these technologies. They should provide access to these technologies.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Today, a lot of authors are updating their books to include online editions.

Nothing much may change in the book but it has been updated with an online edition.

The need to do this is driven by the fact that most of these authors are lecturers

(teachers) in various fields who desire international recognition.

Webometrics system of ranking world Universities is equally one way of

driving lecturers to update their works to include an online edition. Since

Webometrics judges the universities’ web presence, the academic staff of the

university has the job of improving their web presence. Professors and other members

of the academic units of the university are encouraged to create a website and upload

their academic works online. Although, universities are not only judged by their web

presence, the quality of the things they have online equally matters. Things like, the

richness of the universities’ websites and the richness of the works of their academic

staff on the web.

Also, most universities in the world today develop and update their websites to

meet the growing standard of universities. Universities without an up to date website

is regarded as being backward. From the universities’ websites, one should be able to

view all the programmes offered by the university and also know the teaching staff of

the university. From the websites, one should also be able to apply to any university of

choice, after viewing the necessary things the websites have to offer-the programs run

by the university, duration of those programmes, and the cost of running the

programme.

University of Nigeria, Nsukka has to be part of this global trend of events.

They have to update themselves by educating their teaching staff (especially) on the

use of the new media of communication for teaching and learning. If the world of

today is regarded as ‘knowledge age’ why then are we reluctant to embrace the

knowledge that will help put us in time with our contemporaries. It is time to welcome

the changes that have come to us by giving the lecturers the knowledge and also

2

granting or creating access to the very means that will make it possible for them to use

the knowledge acquired.

Webometrics is the ranking Web of World Universities. It is an initiative of the

cybermetrics lab, a research group which is part of the National Research Council

(CSIC) which is also the largest public research body in Spain.

Cybermetrics lab is devoted to the quantitative analysis of the Internet and web

contents, especially those related to the processes of generation and scholarly

communication of scientific knowledge.

The original aim of the Ranking was to promote web publication since a lot of

emphasis is now laid on the web. So, Webometrics measures world universities’

presence on the web. It is based on the global performance and visibility of the

universities. It shows the many activities of these universities’ Professors and the

activities of researchers.

Web publication is cheaper and it is encouraged by this process because it

maintains and reaches much larger potential readers. According to Webometrics

(2011:2)

This is what prompted the researcher to seek to measure the literacy level and

access rate of these new media among UNN lecturers in order to suggest ways of

improving the university ranking on Webometrics. When we say the new media, we

mean all those technologies that have been now accepted as media which was not

possible in the past. The distinction between old and new media is not exactly clear to

some people. To some, old media are typewriters, vinyl record albums and magnetic

tapes which use analog system. To some others, the old media are the traditional

We intend to motivate both institutions and scholars to have

a web presence that reflect accurately their activities. If the

web performance of an institution is below the expected

position according to their academic excellence, university

authorities should reconsider their web policy, promoting

substantial increases of the volume and quality of their

electronic publications.

3

media of print (newspaper and magazines) and broadcasting (Radio and Television).

While the first group regards radio and television as the new media, the second group

regards all the processes of digitalization and computer mediated communication

associated with the internet as the new media. They regard the Internet as the melting

pot of the new media.

Now, the computer and the internet are just showing a new way of doing old

things through some means that some thought was never possible. In this way, those

‘old’ things are done faster and easier. Wikipedia states, “the term then became far

more widely used as the mass consumer internet began to emerge from 1995 onwards.

The term ‘new media’ can be traced back to the 70s… it is only within the last 25

years that the term has taken on a more advanced meaning.” (2011:4).

In 1984, Rice defined the New Media as communication technologies that

enable or facilitate user-to-user interactivity and interactivity between user and

information. (Quoted In Schorr, Schenk & Campbell, 2003:4)

Digital revolution has given birth to some kind of flux in the media world.

Ukonu (2008:53) avers

To those who delivered newspapers-or what then

passed for one-on horsebacks in the 16th

century, the

wonders of today’s advances in communication

technology would have seemed the plot of a science

fiction. News and information have moved from the

pace of horses to the speed of light, from the tidings

about a neighbourhood to a global information

marketplace, and from announcements to tools of

international power struggle and image making.

4

This revolution has brought the replacement of the traditional means of

communication and what it offers such as, the Internet replacing the ‘one-to-many’

model of traditional mass communication with the possibility of a ‘many-to-many’

web of communication. Any individual with the appropriate technology can now

produce his or her online media and include images, text, and sound about whatever

he or she chooses (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003:303).

In this way, the new media and its technological influx have shifted and are

gradually reshaping the way we interact and communicate in the society. Flew

(2002:13) supports the above view on interactivity and the new media thus;

“Interactivity can be considered as a central concept in understanding new media, but

different media forms possess different degree of interactivity.”

Linking the New Media and Digital Revolution together is what is called

Media Convergence. Castells (2001:2) argues that “interactivity is not an inherent

attribute or characteristics of the new media technology” but I think that the new

media technology used for teaching and learning is interactive. Therefore,

digitalization and convergence make the new media more interactive.

Bailey (2002:16) posits, “In teaching and learning, despite temporal and spatial

boundaries interactivity is seen. These new media now create what is called ‘virtual

realities’ which are extensions of the real world we live in. That is why we have

online education or study which allows one to obtain a degree from a ‘Virtual

University”. In the same way, the new media can afford lecturers the opportunities of

interacting with their students without being in the same class with them-virtual

classroom. Some of the instruments for bringing these to reality as enumerated by

Ukonu (2008:53) include: E-learning, Asynchronous protocol, Synchronous protocol,

Audio conferencing, Video conferencing, E-mail, Instant Message, Usenet Discussion

Group, Virtual Classroom and Virtual library.

The rapid development in the world today has not eluded the world of

communication. The world has seen a huge amount of development coming from this

field since the recognition of the field as a field of study.

5

The advent of electronic communication in the 19th century threw a light to the

vast development in the field of communication. Before then, according to Hoggatt

(1999:152) “Communication technology developed slowly. It took over 4000 years

between the emergence of written language and the coming of printing press”. And

Thompson (1999:15) claims that the inventions and innovation in the communication

technology began in the 21st century.

Hoggatt (1999:153) goes on to say “Modern computer technology lends its

own hand in the transition from analogue to digital transmission. Today,

communication networks are being digitalized which allows compatible standard for

linking digital machines with one another.” Thompson (1999:16) concurs “We live in

a highly technologically advanced world and we cannot afford to be left behind. In

fact, it is called “the digital age.”

Computers have forced a whole gamut of restructuring of media services.

Castells (1996:31) agrees that it has transformed the world from a “manufacturing,

physical-based economy to an electronic, knowledge- based economy. The resources

of the physical-based economy range from coal, oil, steel, to cocoa, cotton, farm

products, but the resources of the knowledge-based economy are brain power and the

sheer ability to acquire, deliver, and process information quickly and effectively.”

Indeed, “cybercafé and other new communication technologies have moved the

world from the agricultural and industrial dominance to information and knowledge-

based. The term ‘knowledge Age’ is a succinct recognition of the powerful influence

of the new media technologies.” (Adoni and Oloto, 2004:38). This makes knowledge

the most priced commodity in the knowledge economy. World Bank Report of 2002

has it that “the accelerated pace of technological development has made access to

knowledge a crucial requirement for participation in the global economy.” (World

Bank, 2002: 4).

In this way, knowledge economy being at the helm of global interaction, the

components of the new media technologies get a lot of attention. This is because the

new media technologies are the vehicle that will transport the knowledge economy to

6

its recipient and users. The world today has seen tremendous leap in technological

innovations, not just “a new and better way of doing old things but radically new ways

of doing previously unimagined things.” (Lipsey, 2002:11)

Cairncross (1997:8) claims that “this highly rapid development has not only

sped up global diffusion of knowledge but also shortened the ‘turn around’ period of

knowledge such that knowledge becomes obsolete almost as soon as it is acquired.”

Olakulehin (2007:1) affirms that “the knowledge and capability for new media

technologies have become a common denomination in all human interactions.” This

high speed of development also creates its own gap in the society such that we no

longer concern ourselves with only knowledge gap but also with the components or

instruments that bring about the gap-Digital Divide.

The International Labour Organization’s World Employment Report reveals that

in 2011, barely 6% of people in the whole world had ever logged onto the internet,

and 85% to 90% of this people are in the industrialized countries. World Bank Report

of 2002 seems to give a reason for the above thus, “low education and literacy levels,

lack of awareness about the capabilities of new media technologies, absence of skills

to develop and use these technologies, insufficient telecommunications infrastructure

and inadequate internet connectivity represent a big challenge to potential users in the

developing world.” (World Bank, 2002: 34)

Today, technological advancement and access to these technologies, and

equally the opportunity to gain knowledge of these technologies go hand in hand. As

Taylor and Kramarae (1995:51) observe, “If the future of information is electronic, we

need to ensure access for everyone, not just the elite.” In line with the above is

enshrined in World Bank Report of 2002 which contends that “low education and

literacy level, lack of awareness of the capabilities of the new media technologies,

absence of skills to develop and use these technologies, insufficient

telecommunication infrastructure and inadequate internet connectivity, represent a big

challenge to potential users in the developing world.” (World Bank Report 2002: 34)

7

Therefore, this digital divide brought about by lack of access and inadequate

intellectual knowledge and capital required to acquire and use these new technologies

is very important to be addressed now. In reality, until this knowledge is acquired and

the technologies come to our disposal we cannot compete favourably with the western

world and we cannot partner well with them too.

Succinctly, knowledge gap is occasioned by the literacy level of university

lecturer on the use of the new media while digital divide is brought about by the lack

of fund and access to state of the art internet and satellite network necessary for the

use of the new media for teaching and learning.

People, all over the world, must be constantly updated on the latest innovations

in the global media technologies and they must attune themselves to the acquisition

and use of these technologies so that they become more relevant in the ever changing

world of communication. In this way, knowledge gap will be bridged and the digital

divide will lessen. Okoro (2006:19) summarizes this thus “The rapid development in

the sphere of information and communication technologies are fast redefining access

to skills and knowledge on all fronts of human endeavours.” Today’s world is a

knowledge based world which relies more on information dissemination for its

survival. So, the new media of communication technology brings this information to

us with the speed of light.

The aim of this work is to educate University lecturers on the usefulness and

importance of the new media in teaching and learning. And most importantly, to

evaluate whether they even know about them and how they use them.

8

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Even with the introduction of digital technology, the so called old media have

equally been upgraded. It has gone through some kind of transformation. The new

media are only modifying the old media or doing old things in an entirely new way.

Therefore, the capacity or ability to follow the trend of change in the media world

creates a gap and the problem of this research.

The new media coming together in one source called the Internet makes it

possible for the media to do previously unimaginable things in our time. This has

turned the world from a global village to global family.

Computer related and internet based communication have become the way of

life in the industrialized world. The way people communicate has been drastically

changed. The new media technologies have been highly integrated into their industry

and education system. This has given teaching and learning a new face.

Despite the prevalence of the new media technology in our society today, the

level of knowledge, access, and use in teaching and learning among lecturers is yet to

be determined. This is what necessitated this present study on the level of knowledge

and access rate of the new media technology among UNN lecturers.

1.3 Objectives of the study

This work is going to point out the importance of the new media in teaching in

UNN lecturers:

General Objective is to evaluate the level of knowledge of the new media technology

among UNN lecturers and to also know their access rate to this technology.

Specific Objectives follows thus:

1. To determine the level of this awareness among UNN lecturers.

2. To determine the access rate of the new media by UNN lecturers.

9

3. To determine the ways UNN lecturers apply the new media in teaching and

learning.

4. To determine the constraints to the acquisition of the new media technology

among UNN lecturers.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions shall guide this work.

1. What is the level of awareness of the new media technology among UNN

lecturers?

2. What is the access rate of UNN lecturers to this technology?

3. In what ways do they apply this technology in teaching and learning?

4. What are the constraints to the acquisition of this technology among UNN

lecturers?

1.5 Significance of Study

This study is very significant on three frontiers of knowledge in three distinct

ways- theoretically, academically and professionally. At the theoretical front, it

will provide the basis for further inquiry into the issue of the new media technologies,

their diffusion, adoption and obvious access impediments in Nigerian institutions.

Academically, it will add to the existing literature on the new media technologies and

will serve as future reference material for researchers. This will benefit university

lecturers and obviously, researches as they continue their inquiry into this area. At the

professional front, this study offers background information for funding agencies of

new media technologies for schools in developing nations.

Finally, schools in developing nations should know through this study, that the

existence of the new media need a lot of knowledge necessary for the utilization of its

technologies. Therefore, this knowledge will be provided before the techniques arrive

or the technologies will be used to teach the practical aspect of the knowledge.

10

1.6 Operational and Conceptual Definition

Operational definition explains the key concepts used in this study rather than

their dictionary meaning.

Operational Definition of Access: this is the ability to reach something or someone

without hindrance or much stress.

Conceptual Definition of Access: is defined as the measure or condition of things

and services that can be reached or used (at the physical, visual, auditory

and/or cognitive levels) by people, which could be achieved through design

and/or by adaptation of any existing system.

Operational Definition of Awareness: the knowledge of or the recognition that

something exists around them.

Conceptual Definition of Awareness: is the public or common knowledge and/or

understanding about a social, scientific, or political issue.

Operational Definition of Digital Divide; this is the division brought about by the

ownership and usage of digital technologies. It is considered that access to

these technologies brings about a divide.

Conceptual Definition of Digital divide: refers to the gap between those with

regular, effective access to digital and information technology, and those

without this access. It encompasses both physical accesses to technology

hardware and, more broadly, skills and resources which allow for its use.

Groups often discussed in the context of a digital divide include

socioeconomic (rich/poor), racial (white/minority), or geographical

(urban/rural)

Operational Definition of New Media Technologies: this is seen as those

components that act as media which its acceptance as media is still debatable.

Conceptual Definition of New media Technologies: they are all the information and

communication devices that are based on digital technology.

11

REFERENCES

Adomi, E.E., Omodeko F. S. and Oloto, P. U. (2004) “The use of cybercafé at Delta

State University, Nigeria.” Library Hi Tech 22(4): p 38

Aguillo, I. F.; Ortega, J. L. & Fernandez, M. (2011). Webometric Ranking of World

Universities: Introduction, Methodology, & Future Developments. Higher

Education in Europe, 33(2/3): 234-244

Bailey, S. (2002). Using ICT for learning in Tertiary Education. London Press Inc.

Cairncross, F. (1997). The Death of Distance: How the Communication Revolution

Will Change Our Lives. London: Orion.

Castells, M. (2001). The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy,

Society & Culture. Oxford: Blackwell

Chisenga, J. (2004). The Use of ICTs in African Public Library Services: A Survey of

ten countries in Anglophone Africa. Oxford, UK: International Network for

the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP).

Compaigne, B. M. (Ed.) (2001). The digital Divide: facing a crisis or creating a

Myth? Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. (2003). Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences

(3rd Ed), Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks.

Feldman, T. (1997). An introduction to Digital Media. London: Routeledge.

Flew, T. (2002). New Media: An Introduction. UK: Oxford University Press.

Lipsey, R. (2002). “Technological Shocks: Past, Present and Future”; Available from http://www.sfu.ca/rlipsey/T&G.PDF; accessed 28 August, 2011.

Okoro, N. (2006). “Strategies for remedying poor communication skills of students,” International Journal of Communication, No.6 Nsukka: CSF. pp.14-22.

Schorr, A & Schenk & Campbell, W. (2003). Communication Research and Media

Science in Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Thompson, J. B. (1999). The Media and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ukonu, M. O. (2008). Perspectives in International Communication & Global Media

System. Enugu: Rhyce-Kerex Publishers.

12

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Focus of Review

The review of this work shall focus on:

A. The new media of communication technology,

B. Digital divide,

C. New media technology and learning

D. The constraints to the acquisition of the new media technology in Nigerian

Universities.

2.2 The Review Proper.

2.2.1 New Media Technology

What counts as new media is often debated and is also dependent on the

definitions used. New media could be seen simply as all the information and

Communication Technology devices that are based on digital technology.

Flew (2002:11) connected the new media to globalization when he said that “as

a result of the evolution of new media technologies, globalization occurs”. Croteau

and Hoynes (2003:311) concur “New Media radically break the connection between

physical locations much less significant for our social relationships”. What this means

is that the new media help in the advancement of a global village. In other words, new

media technologies are a powerful drive or a determining factor in the process of

globalization. Through the new media, the world becomes a global village and people

of like minds are connected all over the world.

While some scholars believe that technology drives the society, just as in the

above suggestion, Castells (1996:5) speaks of a ‘soft determinism’ whereby he

contends that ‘Technology does not determine society, nor does society script the

curse of technological change, since many factors, including individual inventiveness

and entrepreneurialism, intervene in the process of scientific discovery, technical

13

innovation and social applications, so the final outcome depends on a complex pattern

of interaction.” Includipedia (2010:8) talks about technological determinism in this

way, “The revolution will affect some countries earlier than it will others. For ICT to

weave its magic, it must find a hospitable social and political environment. New

technologies threaten existing power and economic relationship, and those that benefit

from these old relationships put up barriers to the spread of new technologies.”

Debora Spar (2001:11) concludes thus, “life along the technological frontier moves

through four distinct phases: innovation, commercialization, creative anarchy, and

rules.”

What the above arguments mean is that societal changes are instigated by

technological development, which quickly brings to mind the thesis of Marshall

McLuhan (1967) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McLuhan portrays

the media to the extent of their perceptual interaction with people. Littlejohn

(1988:255) avers “it is important to realize that McLuhan’s use of participation or

involvement does not refer to the degree of interest or time spent attending to a

particular medium of communication. Rather he refers to the completeness (hot) or

incompleteness (Cool) of the stimulus.” In other words, to the extent a medium

interacts with the human society depends on the development of its technology.

Following the above argument is that of the effect of the media on the society.

It is argued that the new media has turned our society into an ‘information society.’

Ukonu (2009:80) supports this idea thus, “Information society theory shows the

emergence of a new kind of society, very different from mass society, one marked by

complex interactive networks of communication.”

The new media are in essence different communication technologies that share

certain features apart from being new, as a result of digital technology. The new media

is equally readily available for personal use as communication device. Manovich and

Castells (2004:41) argue that whereas mass media “corresponded to the logic of

industrial mass society, which values conformity over individuality”; new media

follows the logic of the post-industrial or globalized society whereby “every citizen

can construct her own custom lifestyle and select her ideology from a large number of

14

choices. Rather than pushing the same objects to a mass audience, marketing now tries

to target each individual separately” (Castells, 1996:15).

In this way, interactivity becomes a distinct feature of the new media. It is no

longer the one media-to-many audience as it is in the old media but user interact with

media approach. From the rapid spread of internet access point, the digitalization of

the media, and media convergence, an effulgence of interactivity occurs. In 1984 Rice

defined the new media as ‘communication technologies that enable or facilitate user-

to-user interactivity and interactivity between user and information” (Quoted in Schorr

et al, 2003:57). The appeal of the above statement is that a medium such as the

internet replaces the ‘one-to-many’ web of communication. Any individual with the

appropriate technology can now produce his or her online media and include images,

text, and sound about whatever he or she chooses. In other worlds, the new media with

technology convergence shifts the model of mass communication and radically

reshapes the way we interact and communicate with one another.

New media traces the distinct past of digital computers and the media, and

understanding how these paths come to intersect in the 1980s with the advent of

computers, which were sufficiently powerful to run image manipulation programmes.

Consequently, it has been the contention of Kellner (2002:12) that new media

and particularly the internet provides the potentials for “a democratic postmodern

public sphere, in which citizens can participate in well informed, no-hierarchical

debate pertaining to their social structures”. Contradicting these positive appraisals of

the potential social impacts of new media are scholars such as Herman and

McChesney (2001:33) who suggest that “the transition to new media has seen a

handful of powerful transnational telecommunication corporations that own the

majority of the communications systems that have achieved a high level of global

influence hitherto unimaginable”.

Recent contributors to the field such as Lister et.al (2003) and Friedman (2005)

highlight both positive and negative potentials and implications of new media

technologies. They suggest that some of the early works into new media studies were

15

guilty of technological determinism, whereby the effects of media were determined by

the technology themselves, rather than through tracing the complex social network,

which govern the development, funding, implementation and future development of

any technology.

Croteau and Hoynes, (2003:312) argue that “new media have become a

significant element in everyday life. It allows people to communicate, bank, shop and

entertain themselves with so much ease. The global network of the internet, for

instance connects people and information via computers.” In this way, the internet, as

a communication medium of new media, overcomes the gap between people from

different countries, permitting them to exchange opinions and information. Diverse

means for this exists even within the context of the internet, including chat rooms,

instant messaging applications, forums, email messaging, online video and audio

streaming and downloads, and voice-over-internet telecommunication.

Trevor (2002:5) states “new media are not only communication tools but also

tools for the commercial exchange of goods and services. Consumer goods are for

sale, and personal property may be auctioned, through the internet”. New media is

increasingly ubiquitous in everyday life. To adopt the phrase used by Lister et al.,

(2003) in ‘New Media, a critical Introduction,’ those of us with access to the online

world are now ‘living in the interface.’

Flew (2002:11) stated that as a result of the evolution of new media

technologies, globalization occurs. Globalization is generally stated as “more than

expansion of activities beyond the boundaries of particular nation states.”

Globalization shortens the distance between people all over the world by the

electronic communication (Carely 1992 in Flew 2002) and Cairncross (1998)

expresses this great development as the “death of distance.” New media “radically

break the connection between physical place and social place, making physical

location much less significant for our social relationships” (Croteau and Hoynes

2003:311).

16

“Virtual communities” are being established online and transcend geographical

boundaries, eliminating social restrictions. Rheingold (2000:8) describes these

globalized societies as self-defined networks, which resemble what we do in real life.

“People in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and

argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, make plans, brainstorm,

gossip, feud, fall in love, create a little high art and a lot of idle talk” (Rheingold cited

in Slevin 2000:91). For Sherry Turkle “making the computer into a second self,

finding a soul in the machine, can substitute for human relationships.” (Holmes

2005:184). Communication technology sets this era of globalization apart from any

other. The internet, mobile phones and satellite networks have shrunk space and time.

Bringing together computers and communication unleashed an unprecedented

explosion of ways to communicate at the start of the 1990s.

Furthermore, Flew (2002:12) argues that new media rely on digital

technologies, allowing for previously separate media to converge. Media convergence

is a phenomenon of new media and it is explained as a digital media. Flew (2002:11)

continues that “the idea of ‘new media’ captures both the development of unique

forms of digital media, and adapt to the new media technologies.” Convergence

captures the future of development from old media to new media. For example, we

can easily see that people watch movies in their homes on Digital Video Device

(DVD) these days instead of cassette players. The most prominent example of media

convergence is the Internet, whereby the technology for video and audio streaming is

rapidly evolving.

While the term New Media is disputed-the technologies involved are now up to

25 years old, and therefore not new in the sense of recent innovations. Theorist

Manovich (2001:21) has argued forcefully against the alternative term digital media in

his work, ‘The Language of New Media.’(2001). Manovich contends that a digital

process is one which is based on sampling a continuous (analog) one from the real

world in order to represent it. While computer based media fit into this description, as

data is converted into binary code, so too does cinema-which functions by sampling

time into a series of discrete images, which are then played in rapid succession.

17

Consequently, the term digital media signifies too broad a range of technologies for

Manovich to consider it to be any value within academic discourse.

Shapiro (1999) argues that the “emergence of new digital technologies signals

a potentially radical shift of which is on control of information, experience and

resources” (Shapiro cited in Croteau & Hoynes 2003:322). Neuman (1991) suggests

that whilst the “new media” have technical capabilities to pull in one direction,

economic and social forces pull back in the opposite direction. Thus, although social

changes will occur, they “will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.” According to

Neuman, “we are witnessing the evolution of a universal interconnected network of

audio, video and electronic text communication that will blur the distinction between

interpersonal and mass communication and between public and private

communication” (Neuman cited in Croteau & Hoynes, 2003:322)

Neuman argues further that new media:

In place of the vague, hype infused terms that is often used to describe new

media such as digitality, hypertextuality and interactivity, Manovich (2001:4) present

what he purports to be the principles of new media, which are not to be understood as

fixed as laws but general ways in which media function. These principles are listed as:

Numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability and transcoding.

Additionally, new media technologies have changed the flow of

communication from a linear to a three-dimensional form of information. Bolter and

Grusin (1999:272) argue that “the root of this change lies in hypertext, which is a

method of organizing and presenting information on a computer in an order at least

Will utter the meaning of geographic distance; allow

for a huge increase in the volume of communication;

provide the possibility of increasing the speed of

communication; provide opportunities for

interactive communication; provide opportunities,

and allow forms of communication that were

previously separate to overlap and interconnect.

18

partially determined by electronic links (hyperlinks) the user chooses to follow.”

Thus, mass media grow from one way communication to incorporate interactive

communication. Interactivity allows feedback to enter the system at every stage of the

communication process, from acquiring and processing to storing and distributing.

Interactivity has become a key term for number of new media use options

evolving from the rapid dissemination of internet access point, the digitalization of the

media, and media convergence. Schorr, A & Schenk, M & Campbell, W. (2003:12)

see the new media as communication technologies that enable or facilitate user-to-user

interactivity and interactivity between user and information, such as internet, which

replaces the “one-to-many” model of traditional mass communication with the

possibility of “many-to-many” web of communication. Any individual with the

appropriate technology can now produce his or her online media, which include

images, text and sound about whatever he or she chooses (Croteau & Hoynes,

2003:303). So the new media with technology convergence shifts the model of mass

communication and radically shapes the ways we interact and communication with

one another.

According to Flew (2002:11) interactivity can be considered as a central

concept in understanding new media, but different media forms possess different

degree of interactivity, even some forms of digitized and converged media are not in

fact interactive at all. This argument is put in proper perspective by Feldman

(1997:25) who considers digital satellite television as an example of a new media

technology that uses “digital compression to dramatically increase the number of

television channels that can be delivered, and which changes the nature of what can be

offered through the services, but does no transform the experience of television from

the users’ point of view, as it lacks a more fully interactive dimension.” It remains the

case that interactivity is not an inherent characteristics of all new media technologies,

unlike digitization and convergence.

In that sense, Bolter and Grusin (1999:244) explain that interactivity allows the

user to have control over how and what content is viewed. Note how even the role of

the audience has changed as reflected by the term “user.” This operational freedom is

19

significant to our culture because it corresponds “to various attitudes about the role

and value of the individual while media do not determine cultural or individual

identity, the technology influences how we see ourselves and the world we live in.”

Obviously, the rapidly evolving new media technology has wide ranging

impacts on information and communications experience in the world. Reflecting on

this, Markoff (2001:1) argues that “the new media technologies are altering the nature

of our communication experiences.” The content of the media influences our thoughts

and feelings about the world we live of course, large number of us no longer rely

merely on the more traditional media of television, music, radio, film, and print for

information about ourselves, each other and our world. Millions of us now also

interact with each other in cyber space. Thus, the new media technologies are bringing

us new ways of discovering ideas and information, new ways of relating with friends

and strangers, and new ways of learning about their world, our identities, and our

collective future. The new media technologies are also causing us to reexamine our

relationships and redefine our nations of effective and meaningful communication.

Sherry (1995) notes that the presence of new media technologies in our lives have

made us think differently about ourselves, one another, and the society in general.

New media technologies have the ability to influence our perceptions of

communication, alter our interaction preferences, and reformulate our ways of

thinking and knowing. Lipsey (2002) captures this thus; new media technologies

transform our lives “by inventing new, undreamed of things and making them in new,

undreamed of ways.”

2.2.2 Digital Divide

The term digital divide came into regular usage in the mid-90s. President of the

United States Bill Clinton and his Vice President Al Gore used the term in a 1996

speech in Knoxville (Williams, 2002) though the term has appeared in several articles

and political speeches as early as 1995, Larry Irving, a former United States head of

the National telecommunication Infrastructure Administration (NTIA at the

Department off Commerce, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Technology

20

Adviser to the Clinton Administration, noted that a series of NTIA surveys (1995),

(1998), (1999) and (2000) were “catalysts for the popularity, ubiquity, and redefinition

” of the term, and he used the term in a series of later reports.

Digital divide is a term that is self explanatory. It came into regular use

in the mid 90s. The then President of the United States of America, Bill Clinton and

his Vice Al Gore used the term in a speech in 1996 at Knoxville, though the term had

appeared in several new articles and political speeches as early as 1995. Larry Irving,

a former United States Head of the National Telecommunication Infrastructure

Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce, noted that a series of NTIA

surveys 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000 were “catalysts for the popularity, utiquity and

redefinition of the term,” and he used the term in a series of later reports.

Digital divide, according to Sonaike (2004:42) is a term that is often used in

describing “disparities in access to, and usage of, the telephone personal computers

and the internet across demographic groups, within the same country, or between

countries.” The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines digital divide

as “the division between countries and people within countries who have real access

to new media technologies and are using it effectively, and those who do not.”

(Quoted in Gurstein, 2003:13). African countries provide a perfect example of this

divide within a country and between countries.

Echoing the above definitions is Wilson (2004:199), “the term digital divide is

a perceived inequality in access to, distribution, and of information technology

between two or more populations’. From the foregoing, digital divide include the

imbalances in physical access to technology, as well as the imbalances in the

resources and knowledge required to effectively participate in this digital age. Little

wonder Mehra (2004:782) sees digital divide as “the troubling gap between those who

use computers and the internet and those who do not.”

21

Providing a different view is Compaine (2001:133-134) when he argues that:

The above definition throws more light to the different areas and degrees to

which digital divide could be ascribed. In other words, digital divide is not only on the

possession of computer accessories and internet services but it includes other things

like the knowledge of computer and the resources to acquire them. When we look at

access to computer hardware and access to the internet we equally see the lack of

resources and knowledge to even use computer and the internet.

Ukonu states that “Digital divide in ICTS” (2010: 60) Information and

communication Technology is fast becoming a foundation of the human society.

Every possible human activities seem to resolve around ICT and according to the

editor of Bridges Org, “digital divide mean that information “have-nots” are denied

the option to participate in new ICT –based jobs, e-government, ICT improved

healthcare and ICT-enhanced education. More often than not, the information “have-

nots” are in developing countries and in disadvantaged groups within those countries”

(Quoted in Ukonu, 2008:81)

In essence, digital divide separate the information rich and information poor:

lack of ICT and its services poses social and economic disadvantages. It is becoming

very clear to developing countries that they cannot compete favourably in the new

global market unless they are atuned to ICT revolution.

Nevertheless, it is generally agreed among information technology and

developing experts that disparities between the information “haves” and the “have

nots” is growing, and the likely impact on society-whether good or bad will be

aggravated by technology. It is obvious that Africa has poor internet connectivity and

The term connotes gaps in the ownership of, or regular

access to, a computer, as internet access came to be seen as

a central aspect of computing, the term’s usage shifted to

encompass gaps in not just computers but also access to the

internet. Recently, some have used the term to refer to gaps

in broadband network access. The term can mean not only

unequal access to computer hardware, but also inequalities

between groups of people in the ability to use information

technology fully.

22

they are at the bottom of the new communication technology acquisition. And digital

divide makes this gap more glaring. This is because African is compared to those

developed nations that are in full swing in the use of the components of ICT.

Therefore, digital divide seem to limit the global imbalance to just ICT. Ukonu

(2008:81) supports this notion thus, “It is also agreed that the digital divide is a

complex problem, which takes different shape in different countries. This means that

what works in one country may not work in another country.” But most importantly,

countries that do not take measures to enhance their ICT infrastructure risk not just

being marginalized but also being completely by-passed in this ‘global village.’

ICT has created an information society-completely new world, and all other

nations have to be part of this new world if globalization is to achieve a global village.

Ukonu (2008:79) posits “It is becoming increasingly difficult to locate Africa on the

map of global socio-cultural and economic advancement.” He argue further that “the

fart-pace development of new digital technology and the growth of industrialized

structures which extend their grasp over culture, the economy as well as over

information, introduce problems and dangers for African development.”

From the foregoing, globalization brought about ICT which assists in its

progress but is also brought a divide-gap. This gap is so glaring that it needs redress.

Therefore, digital divide presents both practical and policy challenges. A researcher

for United Nations Information and Communication Technologies (UNICT) Task

Force summarizes it thus:

Real disparities exist in access to and use of information and

communication technology (ICT) between countries (the

“international divide”) and between groups within countries

(the “domestic digital divide”). There is a wealth of real and

anecdotal evidence to support this statement. The volume of

statistics is impressive. The volume of statistics is impressive

and persuasive: in the entire continent of Africa, there are

mere 14 million phone lines-fewer than in Zither Manhattan

or Tokyo. Wealthy nations comprise some 16% of the world’s

population, but command 90% of internet host computers. Of

all the internet users worldwide, 60% reside in North

America, where a mere 5% of the world’s population resides.

One in two Americans is online, compared with only one is

250 Africans.

23

The digital divide is a term that is often used in describing “disparities in access

to, and usage of, the telephone, personal computers and the internet across

demographic groups, within the same country, or between countries” (Sonaike,

2004:42). The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (as cited in Gurstein,

2003) defines the digital divide as “the division between countries and people within

countries who have real access to new media technologies and are using it effectively,

and those who do not of course the continent of Africa provides ample evidence of the

digital divide the same country and between countries.”

According to Wilson (2004: 199) “the term digital divide is a perceived

inequality in access to, distribution, and of information technology between two or

more populations.” It includes the imbalance in physical access to technology, as well

as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital

citizen. This coheres with the view point of Mehra (2004: 782) who states that digital

divide “is the troubling gap between those who use computers and the internet and

those who do not.”

Providing a different point of view, Compaine (2001, p. xi) argues that the term

connotes gaps in the ownership of, or regular access to, a computer. As internet access

came to be seen as a central aspect of computing, the term’s usage shifted to

encompass gaps in not just computers but also access to the internet. Recently, some

have unequal access to computer hardware, but also inequalities between groups of

people in the ability to use information technology fully (Wilhlem, 2004, p.133-134).

Due to the range of criteria which can be used to assess the imbalance .And

lack of detailed data on some aspects of technology usage, the exact nature of the

digital divide is both contextual and debatable. Criteria often used to distinguish

between the “haves” and the “have nots” of the digital divide tend to focus on access

to hardware, access to the internet, and details relating to both categories.

According to UNDP (2001), it is not unheard of that in most African countries

significant numbers of people living outside the capital cites or metropolitan cities

have not made a phone call in their entire lives. It is more than 50 times likely that

24

people in the rural areas will be without a telephone, let alone an access to the internet

that can be prohibitively expensive. It costs at least $65 per month for internet access

in most Africa, and this cost of internet access “could exceed $100 when the cost of

telephone calls is added” (Panos 1998 cited in Melkote & Steeves, 2001).

Franda (2002: 12) reports as follows that: as of 2000, 38 of 54 countries in

Africa have less than 250, 000 fixed telephone lines. Only Algeria, Egypt, Morocco

and South Africa have more than one million fixed lines. For instance, “in East Africa

in 2000, where 49% of the population was below the poverty line established by the

United Nations, there was one telephone line for every 1,000 persons.” In fact, there

are some cities within countries in Africa where telephones and other forms of new

media technologies are “simply no existent let alone making it work for human

development” (Sonaike, 2004: 51).

It is obvious that Africa has poor internet connectivity and it is at the periphery

of new media technology development. But the digital divide, as it is currently

conceptualized in most discourses on new media technologies for development, has

trivialized global imbalances in access to new media technologies. It has limited the

global imbalances in the access to new media technologies, which I contend should be

seen within the overall context of socio-economic imbalances, to technical access (that

is physical access to computers internet connectivity, and telecommunication

infrastructures and services). As Jenkins (cited in Warschauer, 2002:22) puts it, “The

rhetoric of the digital divide holds open this division between civilized tool-users and

uncivilized nonusers. As well meaning as it is a policy initiative, it can be

marginalizing and patronizing in its own terms.”

As a result of these flaws in the conceptualization of the digital divide, social

dimensions such as access to education and content are often ignored or given less

attention in most media technology initiatives that are aimed to bridge the digital

divide. Hence, the complex problem of access to new media technology is simplified

and thus the provision of computers and access points such as telecenters are

prescribed as solutions.

25

Alhassan (2004:6) argues that the digital divide is more than just technical

access. It should also include social access, which includes literacy. Before the arrival

of digital technologies, there have been various forms of ‘divides’ such as literacy. In

addition to the digital divide, these earlier ‘divides’ still exist in own way or the other

in our various geopolitical locations. This is why it is important to emphasize that

global imbalances in access to new media technology should be viewed within overall

context of global socio-economic imbalances.

Thus, to address the problem of imbalance in access to media technology,

Mansell (2001) and Shade (2003) suggest adopting a social capabilities approach.

“these capabilities include general education and technical competencies, the

institutions that influence abilities to finance and operate modern organizations, and

the political and social factors that influence risks, incentives, and personal rewards

including social esteem” (Mansell, 2001:56).

Kling cited in Patterson and Wilson (2000:22-36) argues that:

The bottom line is that there is no binary divide, and no single overriding factor

for determining such a divide. New media technologies do not exist as an external

variable to be injected from the outside to bring about certain results. Rather, it is

woven in a complex manner in social systems and processes.

From a policy standpoint, the goal of using new media technologies with

marginalized groups is not to overcome a digital divide but rather to further a process

of social inclusion. To accomplish this, it is necessary to “focus n the transformation,

not the technology” (Jarboe, 2001:31). For all these reasons, the research joins with

The big problem with the digital divide framing is

that it tends to connote digital solutions, that is

computers and telecommunication without

engaging the important set of complementary

resources and complex interventions to support

social inclusion, of which new media technology

applications may be enabling elements but are

certainly insufficient when added to the status quo

mix of resources and relationships.

26

others (for example Dimaggio & Hargattai, 2001; Jarboe, 2001) in recognizing the

historical value of the digital divide concept. (That is that it helped focus attention on

an important social issue) while preferring to embrace alternative concepts and

terminology that more accurately portray the issues at stake and the social challenges

ahead.

2.2.3 New Media Technology and Learning

Within the literature of learning and technology, there is a debate raging among

researchers and theorists concerning the effectiveness of using technology to help

students learn. Generally speaking, there is an assumption that technology fosters

learning merely by its use in the educational process.

Ehrmann (1999:32) sums up this assumption very nicely “technologies such as

computers (pencils) don’t have predetermined impacts; it’s their uses that influences

outcomes.” This statement seems obvious, but many institutions act as though the

mere presence of technology will improve learning. They use computers to teach the

same things in the same ways as before, yet they expect learning outcome to be better.

However, not all researchers, evaluators, or theorists agree that simply the presence of

technology helps the learning process. As such, two camps have formed in regard to

this issue.

Richard Clark is probably the most outspoken researcher who argues against

the view that media by themselves influence the learning process. In his

groundbreaking essay, Clark (1983:445) said succinctly, “…media are mere vehicles

that deliver instruction but do not influence student’s achievement any more than the

truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition.” When this article

was published, media was the term used for various technology applications; however,

the term technology could be easily substituted in place of media (Clark, 1994: 26).

In essence, Clark (1994:26) believes that media do not help students to learn in

any circumstance and that the instructional method is the source of the learning. I

accept the point that whenever learning occurs, some medium or mix media must be

present to deliver instruction. However, if learning occurs as a result of exposure to

27

any media, the learning is caused by the instructional method embedded in the media

presentation. Further, he posited that different types of media could be substituted for

each other, because media are not responsible for any learning that might take place.

Media are not the causal agents in the learning process: rather, instructional method is

the active ingredient or catalyst that causes learning to take place.

Clark is not alone in his stance that media technologies do not influence

learning. Thomas Russell’s (2001:11) comparative annotated bibliography, The No

Significant Difference Phenomenon, catalogs 355 distance education studies in which

researchers found that learning outcomes from distance education did not differ

significantly from traditionally-taught courses. Based on these results, the author made

the case that both methods are equally effective and one could be substituted for the

other depending upon the situation. Russell (2001:11) did not conclude that distance

education should be eliminated. However, he did make the point that having students

learn solely by using distance courses is a very costly alternative to traditional courses.

In contrast to Clark’s argument, Kozma (1994:7) believes that the more

appropriate question was not whether media do influence learning, but will they

influence learning. He also contended that simply because we have not established a

relationship between media technologies and learning does not mean that one does not

exist. He believed that, we have yet to measure it, and the failure to establish this

relationship is caused in part by our theories of learning or more specifically,

behviourism, with its basic assumption that a stimulus causes a response. Therefore, if

the stimulus is not present, there is no possibility for response.

Kozma (1994: 8) explains that in Clark’s view media technologies are simply

“mere vehicles” or conduits for an instructional method (stimulus) that elicit a

response (learning). Kozma argues that learning is a much more complex process than

just a series of stimuli-response connections. Learning in his view, is defined as “an

active, constructive, cognitive and social process by which the learner strategically

manages available cognitive, physical; and social resources to create new knowledge

by interacting with information in the environment and integrating it with information

already stored in memory.”

28

Thus, in Kozma’s view, since the definition learning has evolved to embody

more of a constructive process, our measurement of this process must evolve as well.

Still, other has argued for a complete reframing of the debate over technology and its

effect on learning.

Jonassen, Campbell and Davidson (1994:11) believe that the Clark/Kozma

debates focused too much on instruction and media technologies and not enough on

the attributes of the learner who ultimately constructs the knowledge. They proposed

that researchers examine how media can support the learning process. To accomplish

this goal, they suggested that learning be treated as situational dependent by taking

into account the context in which knowledge is constructed. For example, we know

from learning theory that learning is most effective when it is situated within the

context of a meaningful, real-world activity or task (Jonassen et. al., 1994:7).

Moreover, the authors also suggested that we study how to support maximizing

the human information processing system. One example of this maximization is

capitalizing on the limited capacity to process information (attention). Technology can

be used to design a specific lesson that reduces the cognitive load on a student while

freeing up resources for higher-level thinking (Jonassen et. al., 1994:7). In sum,

Jonassen et. al., (1994) argued that the focus of the debate should be turned to the

learner rather than remain on methods or attributes of media. With all the various

opinions on the relationship between media technologies and learning, it begs the

question: who is right? It appears that each theorist brings an important perspective to

the table.

Clark is correct that media technologies have not necessarily revolutionalized

the process of learning. Media technologies have not helped humans develop a new

way to learn. Learning is still something that is perfumed by the individual. However,

in Clark’s view, all an instructor would need to do is embed the appropriate

instructional method into his/her lesson and learning should take place. We know,

however, despite many instructor’s best efforts and superior teaching abilities,

learning does not always take place. Kozma is also correct that we must examine

technology and learning beyond a behaviourist context. Learning is an intentional act

29

(Jonassen et. al., 1994:8) and the human being doing the learning should not be

discounted.

Owston (1997:5) suggested three advantages of integrating the World Wide

Web and by extension, other new media technologies-into teaching and learning. First,

the web appeals to students’ mode of learning. He describes internet use as being

“integral to their world” and thus it a preferred tool for learning. Students start very

young using computers and the Web in school. By using the web, an instructor is

tapping into a student’s current context for exploring the world. Second, the web

provides for flexible learning. Students have access at their convenience. The lack of

face-to-face contact can help shy students participate in the learning process.

Moreover, asynchronous and synchronous communications are possible. Third, there

is renewed demand for skills that can be acquired by using the web in the learning

process. In today’s global economy, skills such as critical thinking, problem solving,

writing, and working collaboratively are required of everyone. While these technically

are not new skills, there is renewed demand for their development.

Owston (1997:6) argues that the web is a natural tool for the development of

these skills, because students have to turf sites and judge their content and

authenticity, compare differing viewpoints, analyze and synthesize vast amounts of

information, and construct their own understanding of a topic. Students can also gain

practice at writing to a key audience using the web. Moreover, group projects can be

designed for publishing on the web thereby, encouraging collaboration among

students.

The introduction of computing and internet technologies into universities

clearly changes the way education is conducted. Not only it is possible to work with

distance learning and achieve a closer collaboration between different universities,

computing technologies are also paving way for a new pedagogical approach where

students are expected to play a more active role than before. Using these technologies

as tools in education, students should be able to communicate, create presentations in

PowerPoint, and interact with colleagues and teachers using technology and so on.

30

Haddad & Draxler (2002:12) in their study of communication technologies

argue that they can contribute to effective learning through expanding access,

promoting efficiency, improving management systems. New technologies of

communication also offer possibilities for lifelong learning. New media technologies

have the potential not only to enhance the quality of teaching and learning but also to

promote the sharing of knowledge and information in learning situations.

Educators (Jonassen, 1996; Salaberry, 1999; Rost, 2002) argue that the current

computing technologies have many advantages for second language learning.

Computer and its attached language learning programs could provide second language

learners more independence from classrooms and allowing learners the option to work

on their learning material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be

expected that the cost for computer technology is considerably lower than for face-to

face classroom teaching, and when used in conjunction with traditional second

language classroom study, students can study more independently, leaving the teacher

more time to concentrate effort on those parts of second language teaching that are

still hard or impossible by the computer, such as pronunciation, work on spoken

dialogue, training for essay writing and presentation.

Lee (2000:45) in his reflections on the relevance of computer technologies to

second language learning states that the reasons for the application of computer

technology in second language instruction, include computer and its attached language

learning programs can (a) provide practices for students through the experimental

learning, (b) offer students more the learning motivation, (c) enhance student

achievement, (d) increase authentic materials for study, (e) encourage the individual

needs (g) regard independence from a single source of information and (h) enlarge

global understanding.

Taylor (1980:23) also expressed that computer assisted learning programs can

be wonderful stimuli for second language learning. Currently, computer technology

can provide a lot of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning

stresses and anxieties, and provide separate lessons as often as necessary. Those

abilities will promote second language learner’s learning motivation. Through various

31

communicative and interactive activities, computer technology can help second

language learners strengthen their linguistic skills, affect their learning attitude, and

build their self-instruction strategies and self-confidence.

According to Robertson et. al., (1987:5), the participants who joined computer-

assisted language learning program also had significantly higher self-esteem ratings

than regular students. Today, with the high development of computer technologies,

computers can capture, analyze, and present data on second language students’

performances during the learning process. As we know, observing and checking

students’ learning progress are very important activities to help students achieve their

second language acquisition. When teachers attempt to assess students learning

progress, they can get the essential information from a well-designed computer

language learning programs and then offer feedback tailored to student’s learning

needs (Taylor & Gitsaki, 2003:10).

In addition, students can get various authentic reading materials either at school

or from home by connecting to the internet. And those materials can be accessed 24

hours a day. In a word, computer technologies also provide the interdisciplinary and

multicultural learning opportunities for students to carry out their independent studies.

For learning interaction, Warchauer (2004:7) indicates that the random access

to Web pages would break the linear flow of instruction. By sending E-mail and

joining newsgroups, second language learners can also communicate with people they

never met before and interact with their own teachers or classmates.

Nunan (1999:26) reported that “interactive visual media which computers

provided seem to have a unique instructional capability for topics that involve social

situations or problem solving, such as interpersonal solving, foreign language or

second language learning.” Both cognitive theorists and humanists all pointed out that

practice experience is a very important factor for people’s learning. Experimental

theory educators believe that learning is about making sense of information, extracting

meaning and relating information to everyday life and that learning is about

understanding the world through reinterpreting knowledge (Ormod, 1999:4).

32

When computer technology combines with internet, it creates a channel for

students to obtain a huge amount of human experience and guide students to enter the

“Global Community.” In this way, students not only can extend their personal view,

through and experience but also can learning to live in the real world. They become

the creators not just the receivers of knowledge.

The use of internet has revolutionized access to information for the business

world, libraries, education and individuals. A few of the most popular include E-mail

(electronic mail), World Wide Web, FTP (File Transfer Protocol), Usenet, and Telnet,

the internet and its technology continues to have a profound effect in promoting the

sharing of information especially in academic world, making possible rapid

transactions among businesses, and supporting global collaboration among individuals

and organizations. The internet offers promise for improving education worldwide.

In a survey of the role of the internet on education, innovation and global living

standards carried out by Princeton Survey Research Associated (PRSA) (2001), 74%

of the subjects studied believe that educating students via a virtual classroom will

provide effect on improving education, 69% say that the internet will play a sizeable

role in improving educational systems so that children and adults can get the best

education regardless of their economic background or geographic location, and 93%

say that the internet will be valuable in providing students with greater access to

libraries, information, and teachers around the world.

Overall, the research findings of PRSA affirm that universal access to the

internet would bring about enormous benefits and improvements to the educational

system because of the Internet’s unparalleled ability to spread knowledge and

disseminate information it would allow getting points of view that are not imposed on

them by their country; it would help education of countries where education is poor; it

would open up new fields of everyone, as well as ideas and thoughts not normally

available; it would mean an enormous advance in education has taken place and will

speed up the process of disseminating information to people; and knowledge is the

most powerful device to solve problems (Princeton Survey Research Associated,

2001).

33

The Internet technologies have the potential to develop “virtual campuses” and

thus increase student’s access and participation. Also, they provide access to

mainstream materials and enables students to express their thoughts in words, designs

and activities despite their disabilities. World Wide Web can be described as a library

of resources available to computer users through the global internet. It enables users to

view a wide variety of information, including magazines, archives, public and college

library resources, and current world and business news.

2.2.4 Constraints to the acquisition of new media technology knowledge in

Nigeria universities

Whatever may be the advantage of the new media technologies, the problem of

access remains a major concern. Just as access to the mass media is limited in rural

areas of developing countries, so too is access to the new technology limited to a few

affluent people, due mainly to the high costs of the new media technology. On this,

Lennine (1993:8) observes that “potential questions about its (digital video

communication) use as a new form of interactive television and associated home

information services have risen as a result of the anticipated high cost of DVC or

domestic consumption and the increasing privatization of such services.” This implies

that disadvantaged groups could have reduced access to information and other needed

essential services. At stake here are questions concerning access to and uses of the

new media technology, the ability or inability of average citizens to acquire them vis-

à-vis the high cost of the new media technology.

On the subjects of language, Lambert (1996:33) observes that “access to the

internet depends not only on ready access to terminals, efficient phone lines and

telecoms infrastructure but also on a working command of English, the language of

cyberspace…Without this, negotiating one’s way through all the various interfaces on

the internet and accessing information is very difficult.” He noted how lack of

familiarity with English, the major language of the internet, has affected the extent to

which the Japanese use of the internet compared to the massive use of the internet in

Singapore- ‘where English is an official language.” Abidi (1991:7) argues that “the

use of dominant language not only in the internet but also in the new mass media,

34

indigenous languages are suppressed and hence local cultures and traditions are

rendered subordinate to the cultural images that are depicted in powerful foreign

media.” In this context, media audiences in developing societies are turned into

passive participants. Of course, there is considerably more freedom in new media

technologies since the net is decentralized, allowing individuals from all over the

world to have a website. However, having a website should not be a replacement for

structural inequity in the world system.

This point bears some resemblance to the core argument of Jegede (1995:221),

More importantly, DiMaggio and Harggitai (2001:11) argue that other barriers

beyond affordability of computers (or of the broader computing package) will

continue to play major role in fostering digital inequality. These barriers include:

“differential access to broadband telecommunications; differences in knowledge and

skills in using computers or in attitudes towards using them; inadequate online content

available for needs of low-income citizens, especially in diverse languages; and

governmental controls or limitations on unrestricted use of the Internet in many parts

of the world.”

What is most important about new media technologies is not so much the

availability of the computing device or the internet line, but rather the people’s ability

to make use of that device and line to engage in meaningful social practices. Those

people who cannot read, who have never learned to use a computer, and who do not

know any of the major languages that dominate available software and internet

Three quarter of African population is illiterate (so

hooking them to the internet is out of the question);

three quarter of Africa is rural without basic facilities

of electricity and telephone (so hooking up in the

internet can only be restricted to the urban areas).

Three quarter of universities in Africa have depleted

library resources, have overworked academics and

run computer science departments without

computers…and there are currently 200 million

personal computers worldwide but less than one

percent of them are located in Africa…

35

content will have difficulty even getting online much less using the internet

productively.

Summary of the Literature

From the foregoing, there is evidence that a few of these studies discussed the

issue of awareness and access to and the learning of new media technologies among

people living in developing countries of the world, especially among lecturers of

higher institutions. Also, some of the studies discussed computer and/or Internet

awareness and use among lecturers of Nigerian Universities; however, there has not

been any systematic and elaborate study that measured the level of awareness and

knowledge of new media technologies among lecturers of Nigeria universities,

particularly University of Nigeria Nsukka.

It is against this backdrop that the present study focused on the lecturers of

University of Nigeria Nsukka as a case study to access the degree of their knowledge

of the new media technology. Also this study sought to fill the gap that exists in the

literature.

2.3 Theoretical frameworks

The theories that best explains this study are the Knowledge Gap theory and

Diffusion of Innovation theory. This is because their basic tenets or assumptions are

fundamental to the understanding of the research problem under study. Another reason

is that, since the study is on the knowledge of a new advancement in technology and

its integration into the society, knowledge gap theory and the diffusion of this

technology theory is apt to this study.

Knowledge Gap Theory Knowledge gap theory was first proposed by

Tichenor, Donohue and Olien at the University of Minnesota in the 70s. They believe

that the increase of information in society is not evenly acquired by every member of

the society. Weng (2000:12) portends that “people with higher socio-economic status

tend to have better ability to acquire information.” This automatically leads to a

36

division of two groups: a group of better-educated people who know more about most

things, and those with low education who know less.

The propounders of this theory (1970) gave five reasons for justifying the

knowledge gap.

1. People of higher socio-economic status have better communication skills,

education, reading, comprehending and remembering information.

2. People of higher socio-economic status can store information more easily or

remember the topic form background knowledge.

3. People of higher socio-economic status might have a more relevant social

context.

4. People of higher socio-economic status are better in selective exposure,

acceptance and retention.

5. The nature of the mass media itself is that it is geared towards persons of

higher socio-economic status.

From the above, we find out that education level or socio-economic status

made a big difference in knowledge. From the many studies on the knowledge gap

theory, we find that there is indeed a positive relationship between socio-economic

status and the level of knowledge for all issues. On various levels, knowledge gap

either widens or narrows between socio-economic status. This is because of the

greater value placed on knowledge as a valuable resource, which determines who has

access to it or not. Access to new media also helps to create this gap. (UNESCO,

37

2005: 160). New media have potentially increased the dissemination of information on

a global scale, and the way people assimilate knowledge and information has resulted

in potentially expanding gaps in knowledge (UNESCO, 2005:159).

McQuail (2005:492) identifies two main aspects to the knowledge gap

hypothesis: One deals with the general distribution of information in the society

between social classes while the other relate to specific subjects or topics on which

some are better informed than others. The concern of this research is on the second

aspect which has many possibilities for opening and closing gaps, and it is likely that

the media do close some and open others. In other words, a study on their literacy

level and access rate of UNN lecturers should belong to this second frontier. This is

because the new media under study “operates to close gaps on the issues that are of

wide concern to small communities, especially under conditions of conflict, which

promote attention and learning.” (Donohue, et. al., 1975:12).

Tichenor et al. (1970) wrote of the ‘knowledge gap hypothesis’ that it “does not

hold that lower status population segments remain completely uninformed (or that the

poorer in knowledge get poorer in an absolute sense). Instead the proposition is that

growth of knowledge is relatively greater among the higher status segments.” (Quoted

in McQuail, 2005:492).

New media technology brings together these two theories-knowledge gap and

diffusion of innovation. Since the coming of computer mediated communication, these

technologies diffuse into the society to bring about knowledge gap-either narrowing it

down or widening it. Katz and Rice (2002:10) claim that “the differential diffusion of

38

new computer-based information technology also works towards increasing the

division between the information rich and information poor.” In other words, the

diffusion of innovation brings about knowledge gap. This is the simple link between

the two theories. Norris (2002:62) sums up thus, “the debate has been given a fresh

life and urgency by the arrival of the Internet, with its great informative potential but

variable diffusion and actual use. It has led to the coining of a new expression – that of

the ‘digital divide’ – in place of the older term ‘knowledge gap’.”

Diffusion of Innovation Theory

Diffusion of Innovation Theory was elaborated by Everett Rogers in 1962, and

it became one of the most influential modernization theories. It is common saying that

Rogers’ model has ruled development communication for decades and became the

blueprint for communication activities in development. Roger’s intention was to

understand the adoption of new behaviours. The premise was that innovations diffuse

over time according to individual stages.

Rogers and Shoemaker (1973) developed a four stage-based theory to explain

how new ideas or innovation are disseminated and adopted at the community and

population levels. They identified four distinct stages in the process of diffusion of

any new initiative or innovation. These are information, persuasion, decision or

adoption, and confirmation. (Quoted in McQuail,2005:490) Other important

influences on the diffusion process are said to be complexity, triability, and

observability, with innovations, which are of low complexity, easily observed, and

that are able to be adopted on a trial basis, being associated with greater and swifter

diffusion.

Rogers defines “relative advantage” as the degree to which an innovation is

perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. Relative advantage can be measured in

economic terms, by social prestige, convenience and satisfaction. The most important

aspect of relative advantage is whether an individual over the previous product.

39

Rogers (1995: 213) argues that the perceived relative advantage is directly related to

its rate of adoption.

However, some scholars often criticize that this theory may not provide a

causal explanation of why and how people adopt certain technologies. Nevertheless,

when it comes to the use choice and use of old or new media, diffusion theory will be

suited for explaining some conceptual guidance for understanding the adoption of new

technologies or innovations.

40

REFERENCES

Abidi, Syed A. H. (1991). Communication, Information and development in Africa.

Uganda: Bano Abidi Publications.

Alhassan, A. (2004). Development Communication Policy and Economic

Fundamentalism in Ghana. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

Chisenga, J. (2004). The use of ICTs in African Public Library Services: A Survey of

ten countries in Anglophone Africa. Oxford, UK: International Network for the

Availability of Scientific publications (INASP).

Clark, R. E. (1983). “Reconsidering Research on learning from Media,” Review of

Educational Research, 54 (4), 445-459.

Clark, R. E. (1994). “Media will never influence learning.” Educational Technology

Research and Development, 42 (2), 21-29.

Compaigne, B. M. (Ed.) (2001). The digital divide: facing a crisis or creating a Myth?

Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Croteau, D & Hoynes, W. (2003). Media Society: Industries, Images and Audience

(3rd ed), Pine Forge Pres. Thousand Oaks.

Digital Opportunity Task Force, Report Card: Digital Opportunities for all, Retgrieved

on 31st August, 2007, from

http://www.dotforce.org/reports/documents/04/general_report_e.

DiMaggio, P. J & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to digital inequality:

Studying Internet use as penetration increases, “Working Paper 19, Center for

Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School. Princeton, N. J.

Dooling, J. O. (2000). “what students want to learn about computers.” Educational

Leadership, 53, 20-24.

41

Ehrmann, S. C. (1995). What does research tell us about technology and higher

learning? Change, 27 (2), 20-27. Retrieved October 15, 2003 from

http://www.learner.org/edtech/rscheval/rightquestion.html

Feldman, T. (1997). An introduction to digital Media, London: Routeledge.

Fiddler, R. F. (1997). Mediamorphosis: Understanding New Media, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Pine Forge Press.

Flew, T. (2002). New Media: An Introduction, UK: Oxford University Press.

Franda, M. (2002). Launching into Cyberspace: Internet Development and Politics in

Five World Regions Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.

From http://www.4english.cn/englishstudy/xz/thesis/barrir.

Gurstein, M. (2003). “A community Informatics Strategy beyond the Digital divide.”

First Monday, 8 (12). Retrieved on July 27, 2007, from

http://firstmonday.org/issues8_12//gurstein/index/html

Harrison, C. R. (1999). “Spinning a web around forensic science and senior Biology.”

Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45 (August), 17-20.

Holmes, (2005). “Telecommunity,” in Communication Theory: Media, Technology

and Society, Cambridge: Polity.

Jarboe, K. P. (20010. “Inclusion in the Information Age: Reframing the debate,”

Retrieved on 15 December 2007, from

http://www.athemalliance.org/inclusion.html.

Jedede, O. J. (1995). “From talking drums to electronic networking: Africa’s

Snailmobile through the cyberspace,” FID New Buletin, Vol. 45. Nos. 718,

July/August, pp. 218-228.

Jonassen, D. (1991). “Objectivism vs. Constructivism.” Educational Technology

Research and Development, 39 (2), 5-14. Retrieved October 9, 2001, from The

Association for Educational Communication & technology.

42

Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom. Engelwood cliffs, NJ: Merill.

Kellner, Douglas and Durham, M. (2001). Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks

malden, Ma and Oxford, U.K: Blackwell Publishing.

Lambert, A. (1996). “How the world’s rules in telecommunication and media are

shaping up in cyberspace: North Asia generally and Korea as a case study.”

Paper presented at a forum of the International Institute of communications

(Australian chapter): How the world’s rules in telecommunication and media

are shaping up in cyberspace, 14 May.

Lee, K. W. (2000). “English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer assisted

language learning,” Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved June 25, 2006

Lipsey, R. (2002). “Technological shocks: past, present and future.” Retrieved on 28

August 2007, from http://www.stu.cal~RLIPSEY/T&G.

Lister, M. Dovey, Jon, Giddins, Seth. Grant, Iain & Kelly, Kieran(2003). New media:

A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.

Lister, Martin, Dovey, Jon, Giddins, Seth, Grant, Lain & Kelly, Kieran. (2003). New

Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Routeledge.

Mansell, R. (2001). “The Deep structure of knowledge societies.” In Liss Jeffrey (ed)

Vital Links for a knowledge Culture: Public Access to New Information and

Communication technologies.(55-73). Strasbourg: Council of Europe

publishing.

Markoff, J. (2000). “A newer, lonelier Crowd emerges in internet study.” New Jersey

Times, February 16, 2000.

Mehra, B; Merkel, Cecilia & Bishop, A.P. (2004). “The Internet for empowerment of

minority and marginalized users,” New Media and Society 6:781-802.

Merkel, Cecelia & Bishop, Ann, P. (2004). “The Internet for empowerment of

minority and marginalized users,” New Media and Society 6: 781-802.

43

National Telecommunication and Information Administration (2000). Falling through

the Net Towards Digital Inclusion. Washington, DC: NTIA.

Norris, P. (2002). Digital Divide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Onadri-Okenwa, E. (2004). “Impediments to promoting access to global knowledge”

in Pavlik, J. V. (1998) New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial

perspectives, (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Owston, R. D. (19970. “The World Wide Web: A Technology to enhance teaching

and learning?” Educational Researcher, 26 (2), 27-33.

Panos, (1998). “The Internet and Poverty: Real Help or Real Hype?” Briefing No.28.

London: Panos.

Patterson, R & Wilson, E.J. (2000). “New IT and Social inequality: Resetting the

research and policy agenda,” Information Society, Vol 16, No.1, pp. 77-86.

Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA) (2001). “Education, Innovation &

Internet: Noble Laureates Look to the future.” Prepared by Princeton Survey

Research Associates for CISCO Systems, Inc.

Rheingold, H. (2003). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA:

Perseus.

Riel & Fulton, K. (2001). “The Role of technology in supporting learning

communities.” Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (March), 518-523.

Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of Access. New York: Penguin Putnam.

Robertson, E. B. Ladwig, B. H., Strickland, M. P. & Boschung, M. D. (1987).

“Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted

instruction.” Journal of Educational Research, 80 (5), 314-316.

Rost, M. (2002). “New technologies in language education: Opportunities for

professional growth.” Retrieved June 28, 2006, from

http://www.longman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/MikeRost.

44

Ruggles, R. & David H. (1999). The knowledge advantage. Dover, NH: Capstone

Business Books.

Ruminay, D. (2007). “Reading the global digital divide in Sub-Saharan Africa.”

retrieved on 8 June, 2007, from Global Envision

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afreec/vol.7no.3

Saikaiya, T. (1991). The knowledge-value Revolution. New York: Kodansha

International.

Salaberry, R. (1999). “Call in the year 2000: Still developing the research agenda.”

Language Learning and technology, 3 (1), 104-107

Schorr, A & Schenk, M. & Campbell, W. (2003). Communication Research and

Media Science in Europe, Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.

Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (1998). Self-regulated learning: from teaching to self-

reflective practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

Sewart, T. A. (1997). “International Capital. Bantam Doubleday Dell, New York.”

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/knlwldge_Revoltuion.

Sherry, T (1995). Life on the Screen. New Jersey: Simon and Schuster.

Sofres, T N. (2001). “Adults who have Internet Access in selected countries I the

Asia-Pacific Region, in e-marketer,” retrieved on 24 June, 2007 from

http://www.emarketer.com/estatnews/estats/easia/200/0508_tns_asia.html?

Sonaike, S. A. (2004). “The Internet and the dilemma of Africa’s development.”

Gazette, 66 (1): 41-61.

Taylor, R & Gitsaki, C. (20030. “Teaching well and loving it,” In Fotos & Browne

(Ed.), New perspectives on CAL for second language classrooms (pp.131-

147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Taylor, R. (19800. The computer in the school: Tutor, tool and Tutee. New York:

Teachers College Press.

45

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2000). “What is the

digital Divide?” retrieved on august 8, 2007, from

http://www.bridges.org/digitaldivide/index.html.

UNDP (2001). Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work

for Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Venetucci, D. (2001). “Using video production to teach higher level thinking and

technical skills.” United Visual, Home. Retrieved Oct 15, 2001 from

http://www.icdnow.com/2edu/2ed101.asp.

Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2000). “Bridging the boundaries

of compartmentalized knowledge; student learning in an integrated

Environment.” Research in Science & Technological Education, 18, 23-35.

Walker, K. (2005). http://ijedict.dec.uni.edu/viewartide.phd?Id=194 (layout=htm/.

Retrieved on 13th March, 2007.

Warschauer, M. (2002). “Reconceptualizing the digital divide,” retrieved 28 May,

2007. http://www.firstmonday.org/issue/issue-9/warschauer.

Warschauer, M. (2004). “Technological change and the future of CALL,” In Fotos &

Browne (Ed.), New Perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms

(pp. 15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wilheim, A. G. (2004). Digital Nation: Towards an inclusive information society,”

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Williams, R. (1974). Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London: Routledge.

Wilson, E. J. (2004). The Information Revolution and Developing Countries. MIT

Press, pp. 299-307.

Young, J. R. (2004, November 9). “Does Digital Divide Rhetoric Do more than

good,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 48: 1-5, retrieved on 21 Nov,

2007, from http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i11/11ao5/01.htm)

46

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

This research will adopt the survey method of research. This is because it is

testing the opinion of the audience over an issue that affects their lives. This research

is seeking to know the literacy level and access rate of the new media technologies

among UNN lecturers as it concerns teaching and learning.

Surveys according to Bittner (1996:441) “can measure such things as public

attitudes, opinions and behaviour, are usually more detailed and in-depth than public

opinion polls.” Ohaja (2003:11) supports the above assertion thus, “a survey is a study

of the characteristics of a sample through questioning that enables a researcher to

make generalization concerning his population of interest.” Okoye (2004:97) lays

credence to the above statements as he submits that “most of the classical studies of

the uses and gratifications research tradition employed the survey method.” This is

why this research which is on the literacy level and access rate of the components of

the new media by UNN lecturers will adopt the survey research methods.

3.2. Population of study

The population of this study extends to all UNN lecturers from the 15

faculties of both Nsukka and Enugu Campus. According to a report gotten from the

Personnel Department of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka of 2011, the total

population of UNN lecturers is about two thousand, (2,000). And based on the

calculation gotten from University of Nigeria 2007 – 2009 calendar, the number of

lecturers is 1439. In this way, the researcher used the estimation given by the

personnel Department which is more recent and more reliable. According to Ohaja

(2003:75) “the population for a study refers to all those persons or things that fall

under the umbrella of the topic or that can be examined to address the research

problem or meet the research objectives”. UNN is believed to be a great citadel of

learning where you can find the greatest and finest scholars in Nigeria. Therefore, the

result of this research could cut across all the other universities in the country as UNN

is used as a focal point.

47

3.3. Sample size

Sample size refers to a selection of a number that will represent the entire

population. A good technique is normally used to achieve this goal in order to avoid

errors. Okoro (2001:8) sees sample as “a quantity of something or portion of

something which has been selected as representative of the population or universe of

study.”

The sample size of this research is 333 derived from the 2000 lecturers of the

University through the use of a reliable statistical formula. The choice of the sample

size is based on the need to reduce within manageable degree the expenses and time

consuming nature of the research.

This sample size was determined by using the Taro Yamene Formula. This is a

statistical formula formulated by Taro Yamene in 1967. Ti states thus;

n=

n = sample size

N = Population size

1 = constant

E= error margin of 0.05

n= 333

48

3.4. Sampling technique

Stratified sampling technique together with quota sampling technique was

used in selecting the sample size of this study. This was done not only to ensure

unbiased sample but also to obtain the views of the lecturers from the fifteen faculties

of the University.

To obtain a stratified sample, the population was divided into fifteen (15) strata

to reflect the fifteen faculties of both Nsukka and Enugu campuses of UNN.

Typically, stratified sampling involves the same percentage of participants but not the

same number of participants drawn from each stratum. For example, some faculties of

the University have more departments than others, while some have more lecturers

than the others. In this way, they will not get equal number of participants. This is

why quota sampling technique was applied to select the number of lecturers sampled

from each stratum. The use of quota sampling was to give the faculties and

departments with more number of lecturers more chance of participation. Quota

sampling gives the researcher the opportunity to choose according to his own

discretion in other for each element in the stratum to be well represented.

In UNN the questionnaire was distributed across the fifteen (15)

faculties of the institution, both in Nsukka and Enugu campuses namely; Faculty of

Agriculture (7 Departments), Faculty of Arts (9 Departments), Faculty of Biological

Sciences (4 Departments), Faculty of Business Administration (4 Departments),

Faculty of Dentistry (4 Departments) Faculty of Education (7 Departments), Faculty

of Engineering (6 Departments), Faculty of Environmental Studies (4 Departments),

Faculty of Health Sciences and Technology (5 Departments), Faculty of Law (3

Departments), Faculty of Medical Sciences (19 Departments), Faculty of

Pharmaceutical Sciences (6 Departments), Faculty of Physical Sciences (6

Departments), Faculty of Social Sciences (9 Departments), and Faculty of Veterinary

Medicine (10 Departments).

49

A distribution of the questionnaire among lecturers from each faculty of the

University is clearly represented in the table below.

School Sampled Faculties in UNN (15) Number of Lecturers

sampled from each

faculty

University of Nigeria,

Nsukka. Both Nsukka

and Enugu Campuses.

Agriculture 33

Arts 39

Biological sciences 30

Business Administration 6

Dentistry 3

Education 34

Engineering 30

Environmental Studies 3

Health Sciences and Technology

5

Law 10

Medical Sciences 15

Pharmaceutical Sciences 20

Physical Sciences 29

Social sciences 48

Vetinary Medicine 28

Total 333

50

3.5. Measuring instrument

Questionnaire was the measuring instrument for this study. Its objective is for

quick and reliable gathering of information from a large group. There are a number of

advantages for the use of questionnaires; one, according to Wikipedia (2010), they are

less expensive as they are administered to a large number of people at one place and at

same time. Again, it ensures anonymity and privacy is guaranteed. Also, there is lack

of bias and it ensures speedy administration and analysis.

The questionnaires consist of closed and open ended questions. The former was

to enable respondents to choose from among various possible answers to a question,

while the latter was aimed at gaining unrestricted opinions of the respondents.

3.6. Validity/ Reliability

An instrument is valid if it measured what it was intended to measure and

accurately achieved the purposes for which it was designed. The research instrument

was content-validated. The content-validity of the instrument was re-verified by

experts in the department of Mass Communication, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Their critical and professional review of the questionnaire ensured not only the proper

wording of the items of the instrument but also modified it be consistent with the

objectives of the study.

The questionnaire was pre-tested on 20 respondents from Mass

Communication Department of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka to determine the

time required for completing the survey, whether the respondent understands the

questions and whether the questions elicit the information for which they were

designed. The researcher used the pretest to ensure that the questions do not contain

any bias or error. Based on the feedback received from the respondents of the pilot

study, the questionnaire was modified in order to improve on its content validity.

51

3.7 Limitations of Methodology

Although this study may add to the existing literature on the subject of

discussion in several important ways, it is important to recognize its limitation. As

with all questionnaire-based surveys, there is the possibility that not all questions will

be answered with due care, because reluctance and time pressure might have

influenced some of the respondents when responding to the questionnaire.

In this study, only new media technology devices like Internet, Mobile Phones,

Laptops, Digital Video Device, and Personal Digital Assistant, MP3, iPods etc, were

studied; so not all the new media technology devices was studied. The results could be

different if the same research design were applied to other devices.

Besides, while this study provided valuable insights into the importance of new

media technology knowledge, further research will be needed to obtain a deeper

understanding of the relationship between new media technologies knowledge and the

student’s achievements in the university. Accordingly, future research should target a

more general population and other new media technology devices.

52

REFERENCES

Akuezuilo, E.O. (1990). Research Methodology and Statistics for Beginning

Research Students. Awka : Christon Printing and Publishing Company.

Bittner, J. R. (1996). Mass Communication (6th

ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, A Simon

& Schuster Company.

Ohaja, E. U. (2003). Mass Communication Research and Project Report Writing.

Lagos: John Letterman Ltd.

Okafor, F. O. (2002). “Communication Research” In Okunna, C. S. (ed). Teaching

Mass Communication: A Multi-Dimensional Approach. Enugu: New

Generations Book.

Okoro, N. (2001). Mass Communication Research: Issues and Methodologies.

Nsukka: AP Express Publishers.

53

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Description of Sample

In this chapter, the data obtained through the questionnaire were presented and

analyzed in order to answer the research questions, frequency distribution and

percentages and mean were the statistical tools used in the analysis. The method used

to draw the sample size is a scientific method called Taro Yamene formula which has

a very minimum error margin of 0.05. This method drew a sample size of 333 from a

population of 2000.

The questionnaire was distributed through a stratified random sample and a

simple random sampling technique. Out of the 333 respondents sampled, 217 were

males which give a percentage of 65.16% while 116 were female with a percentage of

34.84%. Some faculties have more departments than others which give them more

lecturers than the others. In this way, some faculties got more questionnaires than

others. It is based on these figures that data were gathered and analysed.

4.2 Data Presentation and Analysis

The data gathered from this research work which in turn answered the four

research questions are presented and analysed through a frequency table.

54

SECTION A: BIO DATA OF THE RESPONDENTS

Table 1: distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their age range

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 21-25 70 21.02

2 25-30 110 33.03

3 30-40 138 41.81

4 40-50 9 2.7

5 50 and Above 6 1.8

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 1 indicate that the respondents that are within the age range

of 30-40, have the highest frequency with 138 (41.81%), followed by those within 25-

30 with 110 (33.03%), 21-25 with 70 (21.02%), 40-50 with 9 (2.7%), 50 and above

with 6 (1.8%). The majority of the respondents are the age range of 30-40 and 25-30.

Table 2: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their gender

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Male 217 65.16

2 Female 116 34.84

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 2 show that 217 (65.16%) of the Lecturers are male while 116

(34.84%) are female. This means that the majority of the respondents are male.

55

Table 3: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their Faculties

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Arts 39 12

2 Social sciences 48 14.5

3 Engineering 30 9.0

4 Agriculture 33 10

5 Vetinary Medicine 28 8.5

6 Physical Sciences 29 8.8

7 Pharmaceutical Sciences 20 6.0

8 Biological sciences 30 9.0

9 Education 34 10.3

10 Business Administration 6 1.8

11 Dentistry 3 0.9

12 Environmental Studies 3 0.9

13 Health Sciences and Technology 5 1.5

14 Law 10 3.0

15 Medical Sciences 15 4.5

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 3 show the respondents that belong to the faculty of Social

Sciences have the highest number with 48 (14.5%); followed by Arts 39 (12%);

Education with 34 (10%). Agriculture with 33 (10%), Biological Sciences and

Engineering with 30 (9.0%), Physical Sciences with 29 (8.8%); Veterinary Medicine

with 28 (8.5%) and Pharmacy with 20 (6.0%). The majority of the respondents was

from faculty of the Social Sciences and followed by Arts and Education.

56

Table 4: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the grade level

of staff members (Lecturers)

S/N

Response Frequency Percentage

1 Graduate Assistant 119 35.74

2 Assistant Lecturer 110 33.03

3 Lecturer II 83 24.92

4 Lecturer I 15 4.51

5 Senior Lecturer/Professor 6 1.80

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 4 show that graduate assistants respondents have the

highest number with 119 (35.74%); followed by assistant lecturers with 110 (33.03%),

and lecturer II with 83 (24.92%); lecturer I have just 15 frequency (4.51%), and

Senior lecturers and Professors make the lowest number of 6 (1.80%). The majority of

the respondents are Graduate Assistants.

Table 5: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their religious

affiliation

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Christianity 293 87.99

2 Islam 17 5.11

3 Traditional religion 23 6.91

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

57

The results of table 6 show that the respondents that are Christians have the

highest responses with 293 (87.99%); 17 (5.11%) are traditional religion faithful and

23 (6.91%) are Islamic faithful. The majority of the respondents are Christians.

SECTION B

THE MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THIS STUDY

Research Question 3: In what ways do they apply this technology in teaching and learning?

Q6. Table 6: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to what ways

they apply the new media technology devices in teaching and learning?

Response Frequency Percentage

Teleconferencing 23 7%

Course websites 57 17%

Videoconferencing 7 2%

Internet chatting 133 40%

Multimedia Projectors 83 25%

Online Interaction with students (Virtual

Teaching)

17 5%

e-mailing 13 4%

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The result of table 6 show that 133 (40%) of the respondents use the new media

technology for internet chatting while 83 (25%) use it for multimedia projections. The

58

lowest number is 7 (2%) who use it for video conferencing. 57 (17%) of the

respondents use it to create course websites.

Q7. Table 7: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to channel

through which they heard about the new media technology devices

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Television 64 19.22

2 Radio 66 19.82

3 Newspaper/magazine 34 10.21

4 Internet 76 22.82.

5 Interpersonal communication 93 27.93

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 7 indicate that lecturers who heard about the existence of

any new media technology devices through interpersonal communication have the

highest number with 93 (27.93%); followed by Internet with 76 (22.82%); Radio with

66 (19.82%); Television with 64 (19.22%) and Newspaper/Magazine with 34

(10.21%) of the sample population. The majority of the respondents came to know

about the new media technology device through inter-personal communication and the

broadcast media, hence emphasizing the place of interpersonal communication and the

broadcast media in the diffusion and adoption of the new technologies.

59

Q8. Table 8: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the number

of new media technology devices the Lecturers know personally.

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Internet 58 17.42

2 Mobile phone 110 33.03

3 Laptop computer 83 24.93

4 DVD 41 12.31

5 PDAs/MP3/Webcam 41 12.31

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 8 show the respondents know how to use mobile phone

sets more, with 110 (33.03%); followed by laptop computer with 83% (24.93%);

internet with 58 (17.42%), DVD with 41 (12.31%) and PDAs/Webcam with 41

(12.31%) of the sample size. The majority of the respondents know how to use mobile

phone.

Research Question 2- What is the level of awareness of the new media

among UNN lecturers?

Questions 9, 10, 11, and 12, from the questionnaire answered this question.

60

Q9. Table 9: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to how long

they have been using any the new media technology devices that they know

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 1-5years 274 82.28

2 6-10 years 40 12.01

3 11-15 years 19 5.71

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 9 show that the respondents who have been using any of

the new media technology devices for a period of 1 through 5 years have the highest

responses with 274 (82.28%); followed by 6-10 years with 40 (12.01%); 11-15 years

with 19 (5.71%) and 15 and above has no response. The majority of the respondents

have known and been using of any new media technology devices.

Q10. Table 10: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to those new

media technology devices available in the campus

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 PDAs 58 17.42

2 Internet Services 83 24.92

3 Wireless Mobile Phone 120 36.04

4 Laptop Computer 72 21.62

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 10 show that the responses to availability of wireless phone

in the campus have the highest frequency with 120 (36.04%); followed by internet

with 83 (24.92%), laptop computer with 72 (21.62%) and Personal Digital Assistants

61

(PDAs) with 58 (17.42%). This means that wireless phone that GSM

Telecommunication and internet facilities are most readily available in the campus.

Q11. Table 11: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the use of

available devices on campus

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Yes 247 74.17

2 No 85 25.83

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results in table 11 show that 247 (74.17%) of the respondents know how to use

any of the available new media technology devices on campus while 85 (25.83%) do

not know how to use any. This indicates that the majority of the respondents know

how to make use of any of the new media technology device.

Q12. Table 12: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to why they

do not use any of the new media technology devices they know of

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Do not know them 45 13.51

2 Do not know how 29 8.71

3 None available 57 17.12

4 Too expensive 165 47.75

5 No time 37 11.11

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

62

The results of table 12 show that the respondents who do not use any of the

new media technology devices because of high cost have the highest in number with

165 (47.75%); followed by non availability of the devices with 57 (17.12%), those

that do not know them with 45 (13.51%); no time with 37 (11.11%), and do not know

how with 29 (8.71%). This means that the high cost of some of these new media

technology devices and/or the high cost of their services constitute a constraint to the

use of the device by the respondents.

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: What is the access rate of UNN lecturers to the new

media technology?

Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 tackled this question.

Q13. Table 13: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to who

provides the new media technology devices that they use

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Myself 124 37.24

2 Institution 72 21.62

3 Commercial 93 27.93

4 Public access (Library and

Resource Centre)

44 13.21

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 13 show that the new media technology devices used by the

respondents are provided by themselves with the highest frequency of 124 (37.24%);

followed by commercial with 93 (27.93%), institution with 72 (21.62%) and public

access with 44 (13.21%) of the sample size. This means that the majority of the

63

respondents of the respondents use new media technology devices provided by

themselves.

Q14. Table 14: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the

assessment of their new media technology skills

Response None Basic Average Advanced

Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %

Teleconferencing 127 42.3 107 35.7 36 12.0 30 10.0

Teletexting 40 13.1 131 43.7 52 17.4 77 25.8

Videoconferencing 158 52.7 52.7 26.6 35 11.7 27 9.0

Internet chatting 31 10.3 10.3 44.7 87 29.0 69 23.0

Internet surfing 75 25.0 25.0 24.7 87 29.0 64 21.3

Programming 170 56.6 56.6 21.7 37 12.3 28 9.3

e-mailing 28 9.3 9.3 31.4 95 31.7 83 27.7

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 14 show that the competence level of the respondent’s new

media technology skills is in this order. Teleconferencing- none 127 (43.3%); basic

107 (35.7%), average 36 (12%) and advanced 30 (10%); teletexting-Basic 131

(43.7%), advanced 77 (25.8%), average 35 (11.7%), advanced 27 (9%); Internet

chatting – Basic 113 (44.7%), average 87 (29%), advanced 69 (23%), none 31

(10.3%); Internet surfing – average 87(29%), none 75 (25%), basic 74 (24.7%),

advanced 65 (21.7%); programming – none 170 (56.6%), basic 65 (21.7), average 37

(12.3%), advanced 28 (9.3%) and e-mailing –average 95 (31.7%), 94 (31.4%),

advanced 83 (27.7%), none 28 (9.3%). These results indicate that the respondents

64

have none competence level in teleconferencing and programming, while they have

basic skills internet chatting, e-mailing and teleconferencing and average skill in e-

mailing.

Q15. Table 15: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to how they

acquired the new media technology skills

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Formal training 138 41.44

2 Self-taught 102 30.63

3 Taught by friends 70 21.02

4 Experimentation 23 6.91

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of the table 15 show that the respondents who acquired their new

media skills through formal training have the highest frequency with 129 (43.0%);

Followed by self-taught with 94 (31.3%), taught by friends/relations with 62 (20.7%)

and experimentation with 15 (5.0%). This means that the majority of the student

acquire the skills though formal training and self teaching.

65

Q16. Table 16: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the

computing/Information Technology qualifications that they have

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Yes 125 62.46

2 No 208 37.54

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 16 show that the respondents who do not have any computing/information technology qualification are more than who have with 208 (37.54%) and 125 (62.46%), respectively. The majority of the respondents do not possess any qualification.

Q17. Table 17: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the main

purpose of using the new media technology devices in school

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Easy communication 121 36.34

2 Easy access to academic materials 98 29.43

3 Storing data/information 88 26.43

4 Blogging 26 7.81

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of Table 17 show that the main reasons of the respondents for using

of any of the new media technology devices are in these orders: easy communication

with 121 (36.34%); Easy access to academic materials with 98 (29.43%); storing of

data/information with 88 (26.43%) and blogging with 26 (7.81%) of the sample size.

This means that respondents use any of the new media technology devices mainly for

easy communication among peers/relations and access to academic materials.

66

Q18. Table 18: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to what they

use any of the new media technology devices for

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Exchange of information 134 10.21

2 Academic research 84 25.26

3 e-commerce 16 4.80

4 Entertainment 44 13.21

5 News update 52 15.62

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results of table 18 show that the respondent who use the new media

technology devices mainly for exchange of information/communication have the

highest frequency with 137 (10.21%), followed by academic research with 84

(25.26%), news update with 52 (15.62%), entertainment 44 (13.21%) and E-

commerce with 16 (4.80%) of the sample population. This mane that the respondents

use the new media technology devices mainly for information exchanged

communication and academic research.

67

RESEARCH QUESTION 4: What are the constraints to the acquisition and use

of the new media technology among UNN lecturers?

Q19. Table 19: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the non

availability of the new media technology devices as a barrier.

Source: Analysis of field survey

S/N Response Frequency Percentage

1 Yes 247 74.17

2 No 85 25.83

Total 333 100

Source: Analysis of field survey

The results in table 19 show that 247 (74.17%) of the respondents said yes to non

availability as a constraint to the acquisition and use of the new media technology

devices while 85 (25.83%) said no. This indicates that majority of the respondents

know how to make use of the new media technology device but cannot acquire and

use them.

68

4.3 Discussion of Findings

1. Some of the respondents have fair knowledge of the new media technologies,

especially the internet, laptop, computer and mobile telephone.

2. The Internet facilities and mobile telephone infrastructure are available in the

university, commercially.

3. Some of the respondents make use of the new media technologies for wide range

of digital activities ranging from information and communication exchanges,

entertainment to academic research.

4. There is still gap in access (in respect of the requisite skills and knowledge) to the

new media technologies among the lecturers.

5. New media technologies are good to the respondents, in respect of information

gathering and news update, communication with colleagues as well as other

spheres of social interactions and sourcing of academic research materials.

6. Inadequate knowledge, lack periodic orientation of the over evolving new media

technologies and lack of media exposures constitute the main constraints to the

lecturers’ acquisition of new media knowledge.

69

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary

This work is a study that could be said to still be in progress. It is a work in

progress because UNN is just a small unit in the evaluation of the access rate and

usage of the new media technology among lecturers; although, it is an eye opener on

the real situation among Nigerian universities’ lecturers.

From the research questions we were able to find out that there is indeed the

basic knowledge of the New Media technology among UNN lecturers. But the

constraint ranges from having access to it and the actual usage. The new media

technology that is common among these lecturers is their mobile phones and laptops

connected to the Internet.

This new media technology helps the lecturers a lot in providing a vast wealth

of information sources to improve their knowledge which they in-turn share with their

students. Haddad and Draxler (2002:17) agree with the above in their study of

communication technologies that “new media technologies can contribute to effective

learning through expanding access to information, promoting efficiency of teaching

and learning processes.”

New media technology has the potential not only to enhance the quality of

teaching and learning but also to promote the sharing of knowledge and information.

From the interaction with some of the respondents, we found out that although most of

the lecturers know about the new media, they have different levels of knowledge.

Majority has knowledge of the new media but do not have the basic skills to use some

70

of them. The ones they often make use of are their mobile phones and laptops, which

when connected to the Internet they could only check their mails and source for

materials. Beyond these, they know nothing else. The use of the new media

technology requires intensive knowledge and skill, guided training and constant

practice.

The implication of the above findings is that this basic knowledge should be

provided for the lecturers while access to the actual usage should be made available.

When these are provided in Nigerian universities, both lecturers and the students

would benefit immensely from it. Fortunately, UNN is doing beautifully well in

providing these trainings to its staff and the access also. This is a great step into the

future. This should be an offshoot of a partnership between the university authority

and the federal government to put in place some modalities that would enable

lecturers, and even the students to acquire both the knowledge and components of the

new media. It could come at a very subsidized rate to make it affordable to them.

5.2 Conclusion

Chinua Achebe (1964:45) in his epic novel Arrow of God said it through the

voice of Ezeulu, “The world is changing. I do not like it… I shall send one of my sons

to the ‘Whiteman’ to be my eye…” Even an ordinary chief priest in the colonial era

saw the speed of the changing world and wanted to be on board by sending one of his

sons. The complexities of the changes brought about by the new media of

communication technology are such that we cannot just overlook. In fact, we even

become part of it, no matter the degree of our participation, involuntarily.

71

The new communication media technology puts us on board this very fast

moving train. If the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the genocide of Rwanda, the terrorist

attack on America and its reprisal war, and even some natural disasters were brought

to us live by television, what are we going to say about the components of the new

communication media? It simply puts us in the “pilots’ cockpit.” Through the new

media, we create, edit and deliver our own messages. They are the medium

themselves. So, whether we study the new media simply to gain knowledge or to be a

more intelligent user of the new media, or in pursuing a career, we will still find the

experience very rewarding and interesting.

Today, due to so many means of gaining knowledge and acquiring

information, information became stale almost as soon as it is acquired. In this way, the

university authorities should endeavour to make access to the new media technologies

available to its staff especially the lecturers and students to enable them participate

effectively in this our knowledge based society.

5.3 Recommendations

From the foregoing of the findings of this research work, we make the

following recommendations:

The world is changing and it is information that wrought this change.

Therefore, Nigerian universities should position themselves to be able to gather,

process and consume these information with the same speed as others from the

western world. They should do this by training and retraining their lectures who will

in turn train their students on the technologies that power the knowledge society. In

72

other words, something like information literacy programme could be incorporated in

the university curriculum.

Following the provision of this knowledge is the provision of the access to the

real technologies. Internet access should be made free for all and access to computers

and laptops should be made real affordable. This will then be a case of placing the ball

on the court of the lecturers for them to start playing. Concurring with the above is

UNESCO (2002:5) “keeping pace with the technological development and the

changing competencies required of both students and their teachers require a state-of-

the-art curricula and appropriate capacity building.” The appeal of the above quote is

that Nigerian University lecturers need to be equipped with the skills and knowledge

for using the new media technologies in teaching their students.

73

REFERENCES

Achebe, C (1986) Arrow of God (2nd

ed). Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Haddad, Wadi, D & Draxler, Alexander (2002). “Technologies for Education: Potential, Parameters and Prospects.” United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, p.3-17. www.knowldgeEnterprise.org.

Opeke, R. (2004). “Information for Education and Development in Nigeria: A Compendium of papers presented at the 2004 NLA Annual National Conference/AGM Akure, June 41-47.

UNESCO (2002). “Harnessing Information Technology for Development in Africa,” Retrieved on 2nd Feb. 2011, from www.unesco.org/education/educprog/iwf/doc/IAI.html

74

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Abidi, Syed A. H. (1991). Communication, Information and Development in Africa. Uganda: Bano Abidi Publications.

Comapine, B. M. (Ed.) (2001). The digital divide: facing a crisis or creating a Myth?

Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Croteau, D & Hoynes, W. (2003). Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences

(3rd

ed.). Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks.

De Fleur, M & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1988). Theories of Mass Communication. New York: Longman.

Feldman, T. (1997). An introduction to digital Media. London: Routeledge.

Fiddler, R. F. (1997). Mediamorphosis: Understanding New Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Flew, T. (2002). New Media: An Introduction. UK: Oxford University Press.

Franda, M. (2002). Launching into Cyberspace: Internet Development and Politics in

Five World Regions. Denver, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.

Haywood, T. (1995). Info-rich, info-poor: Access and Exchange in the Global

Information Society. London: Bowker Saur.

Headrick, D. R. (1981). The Tools off Empire: Technology and European Imperialism

in the nineteenth Century Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holmes, (2005). “Telecommunity,” in Communication Theory: Media, Technology

and Society, Cambridge: Polity.

Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom. Engelwood cliffs, NJ: Merill.

Kellner, Douglas and Durham, M. (2001). Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks

malden, Ma and Oxford, U.K: Blackwell Publishing.

Lister, Martin, Dovey, Jon, Giddins, Seth, Grant, Lain & Kelly, Kieran. (2003). New

Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Routeledge.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd Edtiion). Upper Sadle River, NJ: Merill Prentice Hall.

75

Purves, Alan. C. (1998). The web of text and the web of god, New York: Guilford Press.

Rheingold, H. (2003). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus

Rifkin, J. (2000). The Age of Access. New York: Penguin Putnam.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.

Ruggles, Rudy & David Holsthouse (1999). The knowledge advantage. Dover, NH: Capstone Business Books.

Sakaiya, T. (1991). The knowledge-Value Revolution. New York: Kodansha International.

Schunk, D & Zimmerman, B. (1998). Self-regulated learning: from teaching to self-

reflective practice. New York: The Guildford Press.

Schorr, A & Schenk & Campbell, W. (2003). Communication Research and Media

Science in Europe, Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.

Servon, L. (2002). Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community and Public

Policy, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Severin, W & Tankard, J. (1988). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, Uses.

New York: Longman.

Sherry, T. (1995). Life on the Screen. New Jersey: Simon and Schuster.

Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool and Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

Taylor and Kramarae quoted in Fuss, Karen, A., Foss, Sonnja K. and Griffin, C. L. (1999)

Tichenor, P., Donhue, G and Olien, C. (1970). Community conflicts and the Press Beverly Hills, C. A: Sage.

Thompson, J. B. (1999). The Media and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.

UNDP (2001). Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work

for Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

76

JOURNALS

Adomi, E.E. Omodeko F. S. and Oloto, P. U. (20040. “The use of cybercafé at Delta

State University, Nigeria.” Library Hi Tech 22 (4): 38-85.

Berenfeld, B. (1999). “The Internet in our classrooms: Teaching Tomorrow’s skills for

tomorrow’s World.” In Sylva, Awares (Ed.) Science and environment

Education views from Developing Countries Washington DC: The World

Bank, 215-234.

Chew, F and Palmer, S. (1994). “Interest, the knowledge gap and Television

Programming.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38 (3), 271-

287.

Chisenga, J. (2004). The Use of ICTs in African Public Library Services: A Survey of ten countries in Anglophone Africa. Oxford, UK: International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP).

Clark, R. E. (1983). “Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media,” Review of Educational Research, 54 (4), 45-459.

Clark, R. E. (1994). “Media will never influence learning.” Educational technology research and Development, 42 (2), 21-29.

Dervin, B. (1980). “Communication gaps and Inequalities: Moving Towards a Reconceptualization.” In Dervin, B. and Voight, M (Ed.0, Progress in Communication Sciences Vol. 11, New Jersey: Ablex, 73-113.

Dooling, J.O. (2000). “What students want to learn about computers.” Educational leadership, 53, 20-24.

Eveland, W. and Scheufele, D. (2000). “Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation,” Political Communication, 17 (3), 215-237.

Folorunso, O. Ogunseye, O. S. & Sharma, S. K. (2006). “An exploratory study of the critical Factors Affecting the acceptability of E-learning in Nigerian Universities.” Information Management and Computer Security Journals, 14 (5), 496-505.

Gazino, C. (1984). “Neighbourhood Newspapers, Citizens Group and Public Affairs Knowledge gaps.” Journalism Quarterly, 61, 556-559.

Gazino, C. (1997). “Forecast 2000: Widening knowledge gaps” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 237-264.

Haddad, Wadi, D. & Draxler, A. (2002). “Technologies for Education: Potential, Parameters and Prospects.” United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, p.3-17. www.knowledgeEnterprise.org.

77

Harrison, C. R. (1999). “Spinning a web around forensic science and senior Biology.” Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45 (August), 17-20.

Jedede, O. J. (1995). “From talking drums to electronic networking: Africa’s Snailmobile through the cyberspace,” FID New Buletin, Vol. 45. Nos. 718, July/August, pp. 218-228.

Jones, M. C. & Berry, R. L. (2000). “Knowledge about information technology-a cross-cultural comparison.” Journal of Education for business, 75 (Jan/Feb), 173-177.

Jonassen, D. H. Campbell, J. P. & Davidson, M. E. (1994). “Learning with media: Restructuring the debate.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 31-39.

Kozma, R.B. (1991). “Learning with media,” review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 179-211.

Kozma, R.B. (1994). “Will media influence learning? Refraining the debate.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 7-19.

Liverpool, L. S. O. (2002). “Information and communication Technology in Teacher Education, in Teacher Education in Nigeria: Past, Present and Future”- Proceedings of the First Teachers’ Summit. Kaduna: NTI.

Manjulika, S & Reddy, V. V. (2002) “The changing Context of Higher Education in the 21st century,” In V. V. Reddy and S. manjulika (Eds) Toweards Virtualization-Open and Distance learning, pp. 1-47. New Delhi: Kogan Page.

Mansell, R. (2001). “The Deep structure of knowledge societies.” In Liss Jeffrey (ed) Vital Links for a knowledge Culture: Public Access to New Information and Communication technologies.(55-73). Strasbourg: Council of Europe publishing.

Masting, T. (1998). “Employees” Understanding of Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans, a knowledge gap perspective. Public Relations Review, 24 (4), 521-534.e

Mehra, B; Merkel, Cecilia & Bishop, A.P. (2004). “The Internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users,” New Media and Society 6:781-802.

Merkel, Cecelia & Bishop, Ann, P. (2004). “The Internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users,” New Media aand Society 6: 781-802.

Ojedokun, A. A. and Owolabi, E. O. (2003). “Internet access competence and the use of the Internet for Teaching and Research Activities by University Botswana academic staff, “African Journal of Library, archives and information Science, 130 (1043-53.

78

Onadri-Okenwa, E. (2004). “Impediments to promoting access to global knowledge” in Pavlik, J. V. (1998) New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial perspectives, (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Owston, R. D. (19970. “The World Wide Web: A Technology to enhance teaching and learning?” Educational Researcher, 26 (2), 27-33.

Patterson, R and Wilson, E. J. (2000). “New IT and social inequality: Resetting the research and policy agenda,” Information Society, Vol. 16, No.1, pp.77-86

Panos, (1998). “The Internet and Poverty: Real Help or Real Hype?” Briefing No.28. London: Panos.

79

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE

Department of Mass Communication

University of Nigeria

Nsukka

August, 2011

Dear Respondent,

I am a post graduate of the above mentioned department currently carrying out a

research for the award M.A. in Mass Communication.

This study centers on an investigation into literacy level and access rate of the new media

technology among UNN lecturers: a reappraisal of the knowledge-gap theory. I would greatly

appreciate your help by filling in this questionnaire.

Your anonymity and confidentiality will be strictly preserved. Thus, all information

supplied by you will strictly be used for academic purpose.

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance in completing the questionnaire.

Yours sincerely,

Ogbodoh, S. C.

PG/M.A./09/52218

80

SECTION A

Bio-data information

Instruction: Please tick (√) in one of the boxes provided to indicate your answer.

1. Age Range

(a) 21-25 (b) 26-30 (c) 31-35

(d) 36-40 (e) 40 and above

2. Gender

(a) Male (b) Female

3. Your Faculty and Department

4. Level

(a) Graduate Assistant (b) Assistant Lecturer (c) Lecturer II

(d) Lecturer I (e) Senior Lecturer/Professor

5. Religious Affiliation

(a) Christianity (b) Islam (c) Traditional Religion

SECTION B

Instruction: Please kindly tick (√) as the best option that explains your disposition to the

questions.

Research Question 1: What do UNN lecturers know about the new media of

communication technology?

6) Have you heard about the existence of any new media technology devices?

(a) Yes (b) No

7) Through which channel of communication did you hear about any of the new media

technology devices?

(a) Television (b) radio (c) Newspaper/Magazine

(d) Information booklet (e) Interpersonal communication

8) Which of the New Media Technology devices do you know personally?

81

(a) Wireless phone (b) Laptop (c) Personal Digital Assistants

(d) Digital Video Devices (e) Internet

Research Question 2: What is the level of awareness of the new media among UNN

lecturers?

9) For how long have you been using any of the new media technologies that you know?

____________________________

10). How many of them are available in the campus? (a) Internet (b) Laptop

(c) Wireless telephone (d) DVD

11) Do you make use of any of the available devices in the school? (a) Yes (b) No

12) Why don’t you make use of these technologies? (a) Do not know them (b) Do not know

how (c) None available (d) Too expensive (e) No time

13) Who provides the new media technology devices that you use? (You may indicate more

than one choice) (a) Myself (b) Institution (c) Commercial

(d) Public Access (Library, Resources center etc)

(e) Others, please specify_______, __________, ________, ________

14) Assessment of your new media skills (please complete the table below by ticking I the

appropriate boxes)

(Tick One Box for each skill)

None Basic Average Advanced

Teleconferencing

Teletexting

Videoconferencing

Internet chatting

Internet surfing

Programming

e-mailing

15) How did you acquire the new media skills?

(a) Formal Training (b) Self Teaching (c) Taught by friends

82

(d) Experimentation

16) Do you have any computing/Information Technology (IT) qualification?

(a) Yes (b) No

If yes, give name of course or qualification____________________________________

17) Do you use any of the new media technology devices in teaching a course in the

University?

(a) Yes (b) No

18) What are the main purposes for which you use any of NMT devices? (you may indicate

more than one choice)

(a)Exchanging academic info

(b) Academic Research (c) E-Commerce (d) Entertainment

(e) News Update

(f) Others, specify _______, __________, ________, ________

19. What are the main purposes of using the new media devices?

20. Does access to the new media technology enable you to interact with your colleagues across the globe? Yes No

21. Does access to the New Media technology especially the Internet increase the academic

abilities of your students in carrying out research and doing their assignments?

Yes No

22. Is non availability of the new media technology on campus a barrier?

Yes No

23. Is high cost of the new media devices also a barrier?

Yes No

24. What other constraints do you have to the acquisition of both the knowledge and access to

the new media technology? Yes No

83

List of tables

Table 1: distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their age range

Table 2: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their gender

Table 3: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their Faculties

Table 4: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the grade level of staff members (Lecturers)

Table 5: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to their religious affiliation

Q6. Table 6: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to whether they have heard about the existence of any new media technology devices

Q7. Table 7: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to channel through which they heard about the new media technology devices

Q8. Table 8: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the number of new media technology devices the Lecturers know personally.

Q9. Table 9: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to how long they have been using any the new media technology devices that they know

Q10. Table 10: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to those new media technology devices available in the campus

Q11. Table 11: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the use of available devices on campus

Q12. Table 12: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to why they do not use any of the new media technology devices they know of

Q13. Table 13: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to who provides the new media technology devices that they use

Q14. Table 14: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the assessment of their new media technology skills

Q15. Table 15: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to how they acquired the new media technology skills

Q16. Table 16: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the computing/Information Technology qualifications that they have

Q17. Table 17: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the main purpose of using the new media technology devices in school

Q18. Table 18: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to what they use any of the new media technology devices for

Q19. Table 19: Distribution of the respondent’s responses according to the non availability of the new media technology devices as a barrier.