Designing and Evaluating Learning Technology:

An African Dilemma and Approach

Muhammad Sadi Adamu

School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, U.K.

Keywords: Educational Technology, Technology Design, African HCI, Indigenous Research Methodology.

Abstract: This position paper is concerned with understanding, evaluating and designing technologies to support

learning in African higher education. Its central focus is on epistemological and methodological issues and

commitments – specifically whether stereotypical and established Western methodological approaches are

suited for investigating African contexts. Considering various ideas about ‘indigenous knowledge’ and

sensitivities, an eclectic approach is adopted and deployed. The resulting ‘method’ presented can be adopted

by those interested in finding indigeneity in conventional forms of investigation, and those that wish to engage

in having a rather eclectic standpoint in research. This perspective has important implications for those

investigating ‘technology acceptance and adoption’ in Africa; the use and development of learning

technologies and the idea of ‘blended learning’ and those considering ‘post-colonial’ computing.

1 INTRODUCTION

The field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) has

demonstrated that technology design should be

different for different environments, that an

understanding of context is central to the design

effort. Research has often attempted to develop an

understanding of technology across cultures, and how

it can be tailored to meeting the needs of different user

groups. However, most of the technologies used in

Africa might be considered alien - as they might fail

to capture the life and sensitivities of an African

person, his environment and his approaches and style

of knowing. My research focuses on how to design

learning technologies in an African context -

specifically a Nigerian. This position paper presents

the ideation process of my research and the research

approaches, methods and analysis employed, notably

the notion of blending conventional western methods

and more indigenous approaches, and, thereby,

contribute to the developing debate about

epistemology and methodology in conducting

research in technology and education. Whilst research

methodology has long been an area of contention in

HCI and educational research – for example

Buscher’s argument that we mostly attempt to use

methods in understanding the world around us that

are stationary, (in Buscher’s forthcoming ‘Changing

Mobilities’), referred to as ‘mobile imperialism’ (in

Ben-Ghiat and Hom, 2015). I am particularly

interested in advancing an agenda that acknowledges

and recognises some notion of ‘indigenous

knowledge’ and its impact on how we conduct

research and design, deploy and evaluate technology

of all kinds, including educational technology.

2 MOTIVATION, PROBLEM

STATEMENT, AND

QUESTIONS

As an African studying in a former colonial state,

there is some frustration in developing a specifically

African understanding of the purpose of education,

and its use of technology. My understanding is that,

in Hoopers (2000) words, the African Voice of

education is “the voice of wounded healers struggling

against many odds to remember the past, engage with

the present, and determine a future built on new

foundations” (p. 1). In a modern world, technology, if

implemented effectively, offers enormous potential

and prospect for the improvement of education. So

much of the debate around technology and education

is based on the premise that technology is a catalyst

to create change (Marshall, 2018) - change in the

ways we teach and learn. Much attention has been

given on the technology in Nigeria, rather than on its

184

Adamu, M.

Designing and Evaluating Learning Technology: An African Dilemma and Approach.

DOI: 10.5220/0007744901840191

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019), pages 184-191

ISBN: 978-989-758-367-4

implication, on interaction, on engagement, on

experience, and on the development of the

knowledgeable individual, and thus conceals its

education potential. Wa Thiong’o’ noted, “I talk

about the past mainly because I am interested in the

present” (in Gray, 1985 p. 455). I am more concerned

about what we are doing now- the present, and how

we come to be here- the past, in moving towards a

transnational future of using educational technologies

in Nigerian higher education.

My research questions and direction for the

research have been to develop a set of questions that

consider, in a Nigerian context, what exactly might

constitute education technologies design practices

that will foster meaningful interaction, better

engagement, and improve the learning experience in

a blended learning environment.

3 IDEATION PROCESS AND

BACKGROUND WORK: IS IT

RELEVANT?

When I started my research, I was aware, but not

curious enough to ask questions challenging the

conventional methods and approaches I planned to

use. After a literature search and ideation process, I

came to ask myself the following questions: What

worldview would frame the purpose of the study, the

questions to ask, the methods of collecting data,

analysis, and evaluation? Am I going to solemnly use

Western constructs, or can I attempt to view what

indigenous constructs can offer? Can I ensure the

validity and credibility of my work and the

conclusions I can draw by using western or

indigenous standards? Or would be it be possible or

ideal to integrate both standards? How can I bring

about reflecting and reporting the contextual and

cultural contingencies of an African community, and

in which language? These questions were motivated

by Hart’s (2018) claim that “contemporary society is

dominated by information rather than knowledge” (p.

20), and her emphasis that beginner researchers need

to be critical and questioning when conducting

research. As provoking as this seemed, I felt it was

important to begin on such note.

Before looking at related work that has been done

with regards to the general ideas of my work, I asked

myself the simple question that most indigenous

researchers ask; is the existing research literature and

research methodologies the only way to inform or

situate research?, or am I going to use other methods

to justify what I consider worthy or rather

problematic that needs investigation? The question

might seem simple although daunting to argue

further. However, I attempted to situate and inform

my research by identifying a gap in the literature

across the disciplines of Education Technology,

Developmental Studies, and HCI, and also through

brainstorming of my ideas with researchers at

Lancaster (under the theme Value in computing, see

Ferrario et al., 2017) and in Nigeria, and across a

selected few researchers cutting across the areas of

learning technology, African HCI, and indigenous

researcher methodology. My initial ideas and

research direction were altered after the initial

fieldwork in that I discussed the direction of my work

and engaged in some sort of dialogue with those that

I believed are directly or indirectly working in these

areas of research.

However, coming back to the notion of how to

inform or situate my work based on the literature, I

have carried out a substantive review of the literature

across disciplines, namely social science, educational

research, design, and HCI. The literature survey

looked at notions of education in African, before and

after colonization. I was interested in the historical

narrative of Nigerian higher education institutions

and how the use of technology has shifted the

discourse of blended eLearning and mobile learning

in Nigeria and the gap that exists in the literature,

notably the notion of technology design and use and

on why and how adoption and use needed to be

enhanced. I was particularly interested in the

applicability of indigenous and traditional knowledge

(ITK) and relevance of ideas concerning post-

colonial/de-colonial computing in technology design

and in the need to advance the argument about culture

and social norms as key indicators on how technology

should be designed in an indigenous community; the

general argument about the mismatch in

developmental discourses and more importantly

themes about Information Communication

Technology for Development (ICT4D) (see. Unwin,

2009) and Human-Computer Interaction for

Development (HCI4D) (see. Dell and Kumar, 2016).

The literature suggested that the future of

education in Africa, specifically Nigeria, after

colonization might be regarded as some variant of

education elsewhere - either indigenous or colonial.

Formally or informally, the rationale behind

education or learning is to acquire knowledge, skills

or values. Research has shifted our perception of the

fact that what we see as education in Africa is in fact

not African, but rather a reflection of Europe in Africa

(Hopper, 2002; Van Wyk and Higgs, 2004). Pre-

colonial, indigenous education in Africa is generally

Designing and Evaluating Learning Technology: An African Dilemma and Approach

185

ignored and silenced, due mainly to the positioning of

it, by Eurocentric scholars, as irrelevant (Jagusah,

2001). Kay and Nystrom (1971) are of the opinion

that education in post-colonial Africa ought to be a

reflective activity, recapturing the past through

critical analysis and selective use of some form of the

well-suited pre-colonial form of education. Another

popular view is that education in sub-Saharan Africa

is misdirected or at a crossroad (Amukowa and

Ayuya, 2013). Nowadays, technologies (i.e basic

phones, computers, and smartphones) have been

widely adopted in teaching and learning in Africa.

The adage, “education is about moving to the

unknown from the known”, calls for the

transformation of education with technology that is

culturally and developmentally relevant to an African

environment.

Within the African context, HCI and interaction

design see technology in Africa mostly through the

lens of development i.e. HCI4D. This is because most

of the paradigms in these fields are based on western

epistemology and methodologies (Winschiers-

Theophilus and Bidwell, 2013). In recent years, the

perception has shifted as Africa is becoming seen as

a place where exciting innovations are pioneered e.g.

M-PESA mobile payment and the pay-as-you-go

model, and as an emerging market for technology,

mostly mobile phones. This shift thus offers an ideal

avenue for localizing design and research to fit into a

cross-cultural context. This has been achieved by

drawing inspiration from the notion of post-colonial

computing (Irani et al., 2010; Philip et al., 2012), de-

colonial computing (see Ali, 2006), and other

developmental studies (i.e HCI4D). Stakeholders-

Africans and non-Africans- have advocated for

decades that development in Africa ought to be an

African agenda, through a collection of local,

specific, and ongoing concerns and practice of

Africans e.g. (Bidwell, 2016; Winschiers-Theophilus

and Bidwell, 2013).

From my discussions with the set of ‘experts’

identified, I came to gauge the relevance of my work

with regards to education and technology in an

African context. This reflection included the

methodological dilemmas faced by researchers

working in under-served, under-resourced, and

under-represented communities, on how to judge the

credibility of results and disseminate findings so as to

bring changes to the communities, and on how it can

advance the interest of a growing community i.e.

African HCI. This might be considered as another

way of situating one’s work within the context of the

community investigated and the research community

with which one identifies. With regard to my initial

research and methodological questions, in areas

where there is a sense of marginalization or perhaps

rejection of non-conventional approaches by the

academic community, I am not suggesting that we

inform our work based on our own idiosyncratic

assumptions of a problem that needed investigation,

but more of situating our work based on some

sensitivity towards the context investigated even

when the literature offers little with which to work.

So, the arguments that are yet to be fully explored

are, does the innovation we see in African education

fit into the context of creating a knowledgeable

individual and thus developing Africa; and whether

what we see as design and research practices of

computing and related disciplines in Africa should be

regarded as a local agenda or is it perhaps just another

form of modern colonial imposition or phenomenon?

These arguments call for the critical transformation of

both what we see as education and technology and the

ways we conduct research in Africa to be more

indigenously rooted based on socio-cultural

frameworks.

4 APPROACHES AND METHODS

In the anthropology of understanding, Edward Said’s

Orientalism (1979) demonstrates the ontological and

epistemological distinction between the orient and the

occident, how the world is constructed, understood

and shaped by its inhabitants differently. Equally

important is the idea that an understanding of the

world, in its peculiarity and universality is

constructed from the aesthetic viewpoint of the

individual as an entity and as a whole. When one

attempts to understand their physical, social, cultural,

and spiritual world or that of others, one devises

‘with’, ‘through’, ‘by means of’ (Geertz, 1974 p.30)

mechanisms, approaches, concepts, constructs,

methodologies and methods. Due to the differences in

knowing and how one comes to know, understanding

might be regarded as significant from the viewpoint

of the knower. On this premise, the research involves

an interpretive and grounded approach (Glaser and

Strauss, 2017). This pragmatic approach is informed

by both indigenous African notions and empirical

inquiries. It is a deliberately eclectic methodological

approach, not committed to any specific

methodology, western or indigenous, but more of

identifying how different approaches and sensitivities

will assist in bringing about “the qualitative richness

of the phenomenon” (Boyatzis, 1998 p.41)

investigated. Having a rather eclectic focus rather

than ‘decolonized’ as Smith (2006) contends, I

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

186

believe we – as a research community- will come to

see the implication of encapsulating western

approaches and methodologies with indigenous

perspective.

In indigenous research landscape, scholars like

Linda Smith (2006), Shawn Wilson (2008), Margaret

Kovach (2010), and Bagele Chilisa (2012) have

written extensively for, on, and about an indigenous

research methodology. Such methodologies are

informed by indigenous worldviews, values, and

cultures (Wilson, 2008); or consciously driven from

traditional norms and social values. For example, the

Maori research methodology, Afrocentric

methodologies, and medicine wheel methodology

(Chilisa, 2012). Others like Lester Rigney (1999)

have advocated for an indigenous methodology that

will move towards developing indigenous theorists

and practitioners i.e. ‘indigenist research’ (p. 178).

The indigenist research as Rigney (1999) suggested is

an investigation by the indigenous whose goals are to

assist and educate the indigenous through direct

engagement and representation with the indigenous in

an attempt for sovereignty. Others like Asante (1991)

and Reviere (2001) also have called for an

Afrocentric emancipatory methodology.

Afrocentricity is a perspective which allows Africans

to be subjects of their own experience rather than

objects and seek the “appropriate centrality of the

African person” (Asante,1991 p. 171). This form of

inquiry moves beyond the conventional Eurocentric

criterion of objectivity, reliability, and validity

(Reviere, 2001), and allows societal values norms to

be more visible.

The popular view among the proponent of

Indigenous research methodology is that it can be

considered as a paradigm for the decolonization of

indigenous knowledge as it is drawn from indigenous

languages, views, experiences, and philosophies of

the community (Chilisa, 2012). Through this

paradigm, indigenousness is integrated culturally so

that multiple voices can be heard: a liberal,

collaborative, engaging, diverse, accommodating,

self-reflective and transformative approach drawn

from indigenous knowledge. It is argued that such

methodologies allow questioning one’s

epistemological underpinning as to what knowledge

system we identify within the research approach and

challenges a western individuality-bounded view.

What it means is that there is less of terminologies

like ‘subject and objects’ as evident in western views,

but rather a reflection of “the relationship we hold and

are part of” (Wilson, 2008 p. 80). This, I believe

moves towards bringing an end to the popular view of

a western superiority over indigenous ways of doing

and conducting research, or move in finding

indigeneity in conventional research landscapes, or

perhaps finding a balance between those worldviews

- this is the main argument of this short position

paper.

Furthermore, a recent study by Kivunja and

Kuyini (2017) provided an overview of research

paradigms in an educational context and suggested

having postcolonial/indigenous methodology suited

for use in critical paradigm. In the design and

development of learning technologies to fit an

African community, other approaches are applicable,

for example, an indigenous narrative. The indigenous

narrative offers an avenue where stakeholders can

engage local experience and participate in issues

about their knowledge system. African narratives -

for example rituals, myth, metaphor, taboos, folklore,

proverbs, and language e.t.c. - can be considered a

process of structuring information in that we can

understand the relationship between events. It is true

that narratives are believed not because they have

been ‘empirically verified’ or ‘logically proofed’

(Mwewa and Bidwell, 2015 p. 359), but because they

are meaningful by convention. Such a process of

identifying methods that conventionally and logically

fit into the context it references will have an impact

on local practices. It might also inform and provide

an insightful view as to how we can design

technologies to be used in an educational setting that

other data collection techniques might not.

Chilisa (2012) claims that most data collection

methods are “biased and based mostly on a western

individualistic assumption” (p. 161) and calls for a

more culturally appropriate and sensitive approach as

to how we collect data, interpret results, and draw a

conclusion. However, the empirical data was

collected conventionally through, in Traxler’s term

‘the usual suspects’ (private conversation), namely an

interview, focus group discussion and survey in the

Northern and Southern part of Nigeria. These

methods of data collection were selected on the

assumption and requirement for using culturally and

socially sensitive and relevant methods, and not just

for their abstract methodological potential. This

approach also providing rich reporting of the

participant experience- understood in Winch’s term

(Winch, 1964) what Geertz (1973) might term a

‘thick description’. Two of the ‘usual suspects’ were

approached from an indigenous outlook, i.e. talking

circles in focus group discussion and consideration of

cultural and infrastructural barriers in administering

questionnaires. A talking circle is an approach to

conducting focus group discussion where the

dialogue is regarded as a form of giving a voice to all

Designing and Evaluating Learning Technology: An African Dilemma and Approach

187

participants. This form of “reciprocal learning and

sharing of ideas, views, and experiences” (Chilisa,

2012 p. 106) of participants allows a more democratic

way of allowing the participant to have equal chance

to speak and be heard without being judged or

interrupted in the process. The infrastructural

barriers are about accessibility to devices and access

to the internet to fill in the questionnaires, while the

cultural barriers might of the attitude towards creating

rapport and having more responses.

I completed, transcribed, analyzed and interpreted

interviews with students in group discussions; with

tutors; university managers; with developers and

designers in technology companies; and experienced

researchers in the field of computing, distance

learning, and education research in Nigeria – what

might be considered as a dialogue evaluation method

with experts in the community. In recording,

analysing and conceptualizing local experience,

indigenous perspectives demonstrate how knowledge

is articulated and advanced.

Equally important is the practical implications of

using indigenous methodologies or approaches in

developing an understanding of technology design

and development within an educational context.

Khupe and colleague (in Khupe, 2014; Khupe and

Keane, 2017) reflect and contributed to the narrative

of how such approaches or rather processes fit within

the context of indigenous knowledge and education in

Africa. They identify six key aspect of indigenous

methodology within an African context, viz the

people to work with; the physical, mental and

spiritual places/space where those people engage;

negotiating and outlining the expectations of both

researcher and co-researchers; consideration of

frameworks grounding the research; the ethical

consideration both scholarly and locally; the way data

is to be collected analysis and interpreted; how data is

to be represented and disseminated and on the

implications of the research to the share interest of the

community and knowledge. What they highlighted is

an example of how applicable research processes in

education within rural communities in Africa might

inform/aspire the ideas of indigenous methodology

and knowledge. One might argue that these methods

might be considered as befitting to the lived

experience of an African community and how local

knowledge, culture and social norms can be

embedded in forms of informing/ conducting

research. This is exactly what Khupe and Keane

called for, i.e. “developing and applying appropriate

methods for research with, for, and among indigenous

communities” (2107 p. 35). The appropriateness of

this methods might be gauge in how sensitives they

are adopted and employed within a particular context

and on how the members of the community are placed

central regarding their problem. This illustrate how

indigenous African methodology can be applicable to

the design and development of learning technologies

as it compares with the approaches adopted in this

work.

5 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

OF DATA

During the initial analysis of my data, I have

conducted a largely ‘grounded’ approach using the

thematic analysis approach of Boyatzis (1998) and

Nowell et al., (2017). The rationale is that, and as

Wittgenstein argues, description is what is needed

rather than an explanation in providing a critical

social understanding about the world. What I have

tried to do is to bring forth a critical understanding

and solid account of the data collected regarding the

use of technology in education in Nigeria. What I am

after is an approach that would provide me with some

form of understanding of the world of my

participants, and I don’t necessarily need any theory

to develop such an understanding, what I need is a

careful and sensitive description and solid account

about the notion of education with technology in

Nigeria as expressed by the participants. The analysis

and the interpretation drawn, and the quotes of the

actual words of the participants are a powerful and

unbiased form of rhetoric in talking about education

and technology design. This form of description I

believe allowed me to draw and make design and

educational.

I also employed another theortical framework to

contextualize and sensitize the analysis process,

namely the People Activity Context and Technology

(PACT) framework and the the notion of ‘trajectory’

in contemporary HCI – both of which I suggest

developing some sensitivity towards ideas about

indigenous culture and knowledge. PACT was

implemented at the start of the analytic phase. The

PACT framework has been mostly used when

designing user-centered systems (Benyon, 2014).

Using this framework, one will come to think of and

understand the people to use the systems, the

activities they would want to undertake, the context

those activities would take place, and also develop an

understanding of the social and technical aspects and

features of the technologies and on how to design

such systems within a culturally sensitive

environment. It is my understanding, in Wilson’s

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

188

words that “the closer you get to defining or

explaining an idea, the more its losses it

context……the more the context of an idea is

explained, the further you get its definition or focus”

(Wislon, 2008 p. 99). As tricky as it seems, it is hoped

that the PACT analysis might be regarded as part of

the indigenousness as it would allow understanding

the relationality within the analysis undertaken.

There is also the assumption that conducting the

PACT analysis will move towards bridging the

disparity and general misconception of western and

indigenous ways of conducting research and

developing knowledge. This is because, and as a

commonplace it is expected that indigenous

researchers have to explain how different- no matter

how slight that might be- their perspective is to that

of dominant (Western) thought, (dominant scholars

have supposedly needed no such justification and

accountability to indigenous researchers). Then I

thought, why do I have to explain myself to a

community that would predominantly see no need to

justify to a more indigenously community? It’s more

like we – meaning indigenous peoples- “have to

explain ourselves, fight for our way of doing things,

fight off the inevitable attack whenever we try

something that is traditional for us but is ‘new’ to

them and therefore perceived as a challenge

“(Wilson, 2008 p. 104). It is my hope that the PACT

framework will demonstrate how the notion of

education and technology across and within different

and interrelated groups are viewed and expressed, and

also on how to provide a clearer conceptualization of

the analysis process that follows.

I also employed the concepts of trajectories in the

analysis of how concepts regarding the use of

learning technologies are experienced and expressed

by different stakeholders, and on how different and

how similar those experiences and expression are at

different time intervals. A trajectory is simply a path

of a journey. In a recent study, Velt et al., (2017)

presented an analysis of theoretical construct in HCI,

and how trajectories might be considered an

“empirically-driven form of practical theory

development for HCI” (p. 2091) even when it doesn’t

fit into the universal criteria - in science and

humanity- of most theories imported into HCI. Their

analysis showed how trajectory can be applicable in

analyzing, describing and generating user design

experience in cultural context; in evaluating and

suggesting future design; and in how it can assist in

conceptualizing and building concepts and ideas.

Trajectory here acts as a sensitization toolbox that

will aid in identifyinging the disconnect between

ideas expressed regarding the same concept by

different participants. It also helped in demonstrating

the relationship that existss between those ideas

regarding technology design in an African context,

and on how such a relationship might be viewed in an

indigenous form of understanding reality. It is the

assumption that the framework, as informative as it

is, would specifically show how an African HCI is

different to contemporary HCI due to its differences

in epistemology and methodologies, and the

implication of some kind of methodological synergy

in advancing discussions about an African HCI and

the design, deployment and evaluation of technology.

6 CONCLUSIONS: TOWARDS AN

AFRICAN HCI

In ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’ Peter Winch

points to some of the conceptual difficulties in

simplistically applying predominantly Western

notions to the analysis of other cultures and thereby

producing interpretations and understandings that are

simplistic (and wrong) at best and borderline racist at

worst. This is not an argument about relativism,

Winch is pointing to a conceptual mistake. The

argument is that due to the different nature of western

and indigenous thoughts, there is the possibility,

likelihood even, of making a conceptual mistake in

understanding and using social science methods and

applying them uncritically to other societies and

cultures, as they have their own ontology (i.e.

assumption about nature of existence or reality) and

epistemology (i.e. nature of knowledge). It might be

logical to say that we tend to misunderstand and

ignore the ontology and epistemology of research

methods when conducting research in indigenous

communities or communities that are culturally or

socially sensitive. We view and understand the world

differently – not enormously differently (this is not a

case of ‘Wittgenstein’s lions’ - “if a lion could speak,

we could not understand him” (Wittgenstein, PI 2009

p. 223) but different enough and subtle enough that

we should be aware of it as we embark on research,

design, deployment and evaluation. Even when and if

this might be a popular view, we still tend to make a

comparison of research findings that come out of

using those methods, even when the epistemologies

in the societies they are used might be different. What

we need is to understand the different context of those

societies and use methods and approaches that might

be considered sensitive and culturally or socially

relevant to how the societies view and understand the

world around them. It is to pose the issue that we need

Designing and Evaluating Learning Technology: An African Dilemma and Approach

189

to critically question all those methods used, not

necessarily in the sense of “decolonizing” as Smith

(2006) puts, but more of a careful and sensitive

outlook to other forms of conducting research. In

some ways I am suggesting an ‘African Standpoint’

methodology based on an approach to research and

specifically HCI in Africa that considers the social

world, and how that world is constructed and shaped,

from the view or standpoint of Africans, and the

perhaps inevitable conclusion that research should

move away from what might be termed

‘eurosplaining’ to a form of research and analysis that

acknowledges indigenous knowledge and

viewpoints.

What I have presented here is a range of ideas and

procedures applied (and to be applied in my research),

and methods used and argued for, alongside some

logical evidence and reasoning to support my

arguments. What I have argued is for an

acknowledgement that research in any culturally and

socially embedded society, be it in the global south or

global north is different due to (unacknowledged and

unrecognised) differences in ontology, epistemology,

and methodology. What we need are approaches and

methods that will assist us in providing a descriptive

and solid account of the world around us and on how

we come to develop that understanding. We ought to

look outward.

To conclude, I believe I have contributed to the

developing argument about the appropriate ways of

conducting research. There clearly isn’t any single

candidate – there is no panacea for the problems of

research methodology. We have a bunch of

approaches and methods, and each has its particular

limitations. What I offer might be considered a

different and new - specifically African - perspective

regarding some general ideas about epistemology and

methodology, and an attempt to echo the voice of the

‘wounded healer’ in why and how educational

research should/can be carried out in a conventional

landscape, indigenously.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to extend his gratitude to his

supervisors, Dr. Mark Rouncefield and Dr. Philip

Benachour for their constant encouragement and

guidance. This research is funded by the Petroleum

Technology Development Fund (PTDF), Nigeria.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. M., 2016. A brief introduction to decolonial

computing. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for

Students, 22(4), pp.16-21.

Amukowa, W. and Ayuya, C. V., 2013. The 21st Century

Educated African Person and the Loss of Africans’

Educational Identity: Towards an Afro Education

Model. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies,

2(1), p.269.

Asante, M. K., 1991. The Afrocentric idea in education.

The journal of negro education, 60(2), pp.170-180.

Ben-Ghiat, R. and Hom, S. M. eds., 2015. Italian mobilities.

Routledge.

Benyon, D., 2014. Designing Interactive Systems: A

comprehensive guide to HCI, UX and interaction

design, 3/E.

Bidwell, N. J., 2016. Decolonising HCI and interaction

design discourse: some considerations in planning

AfriCHI. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for

Students, 22(4), pp.22-27.

Boyatzis, R. E., 1998. Transforming qualitative information:

Thematic analysis and code development. sage.

Chilisa, B., 2011. Indigenous research methodologies. Sage

Publications.

Dell, N. and Kumar, N., 2016, May. The ins and outs of

HCI for development. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

(pp. 2220-2232). ACM.

Ferrario, M. A., Simm, W., Whittle, J., Frauenberger, C.,

Fitzpatrick, G. and Purgathofer, P., 2017, May. Values

in computing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI

Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in

Computing Systems (pp. 660-667). ACM.

Geertz, C., 1973. Thick description. The interpretation of

cultures, pp.3-30.

Geertz, C., 1974. "From the native's point of view": On the

nature of anthropological understanding. Bulletin of the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences, pp.26-45.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L., 2017. Discovery of

grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.

Routledge.

Gray, S., 1988. South African fiction and a case history

revised: an account of research into retellings of the

John Ross story of early Natal. Research in African

Literatures, 19(4), pp.455-476.

Hart, C., 2018. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the

Research Imagination. Sage.

Hoppers, C. A. O., 2000. African voices in education:

retrieving the past, engaging the present and shaping the

future. African voices in education, pp.1-11.

Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K. and Grinter, R.

E., 2010, April. Postcolonial computing: a lens on

design and development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI

conference on human factors in computing systems (pp.

1311-1320). ACM.

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

190

Jagusah, O. I., 2001. Educational policy in Africa and the

issue (s) of context: The case of Nigeria and South

Africa. International Education Journal, 2(5), pp.113-

125.

Kay, S. and Nystrom, B., 1971. Education and colonialism

in Africa: an annotated bibliography. Comparative

education review, 15(2), pp.240-259.

Kivunja, C. and Kuyini, A. B., 2017. Understanding and

Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts.

International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), pp.26-

41.

Khupe, C., 2014. Indigenous knowledge and school science:

Possibilities for integration (Doctoral dissertation).

Khupe, C. and Keane, M., 2017. Towards an African

education research methodology: decolonising new

knowledge. Educational Research for Social Change,

6(1), pp.25-37.

Kovach, M., 2010. Indigenous methodologies:

Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University

of Toronto Press.

Marshall, S. J., 2018. Technology as a Catalyst for Change.

In Shaping the University of the Future (pp. 147-166).

Springer, Singapore.

Mwewa, L. and Bidwell, N., 2015. African Narratives in

Technology Research & Design. At the Intersection of

Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge and

Technology Design, p.353.

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E. and Moules, N.

J., 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the

trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, 16(1), p.1609406917733847.

Philip, K., Irani, L. and Dourish, P., 2012. Postcolonial

computing: A tactical survey. Science, Technology, &

Human Values, 37(1), pp.3-29.

Reviere, R., 2001. Toward an Afrocentric research

methodology journal of Black Studies, 31(6), pp.709-

728.

Rigney, L. I., 1999. Internationalization of an Indigenous

anticolonial cultural critique of research

methodologies: A guide to Indigenist research

methodology and its principles. Wicazo sa review,

14(2), pp.109-121.

Smith, L.T., 2013. Decolonizing methodologies: Research

and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd.

Unwin, T., 2009. ICT4D: Information and communication

technology for development. Cambridge University

Press.

Van Wyk, B. and Higgs, P., 2004. Towards an African

philosophy of higher education: perspectives on higher

education. South African Journal of Higher Education,

18(3), pp.196-210.

Velt, R., Benford, S. and Reeves, S., 2017, May. A survey

of the trajectories conceptual framework: investigating

theory use in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

(pp. 2091-2105). ACM.

Wilson, S., 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous

research methods.

Winch, P., 1964. Understanding a primitive society.

American Philosophical Quarterly, 1(4), pp.307-324.

Winschiers-Theophilus, H. and Bidwell, N. J., 2013.

Toward an Afro-Centric indigenous HCI paradigm.

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,

29(4), pp.243-255.

Wittgenstein, L., 2009. Philosophical investigations. John

Wiley & Sons.

Designing and Evaluating Learning Technology: An African Dilemma and Approach

191