Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context

Specific Pedagogical Approach

Muhammad Sadi Adamu

and Philip Benachour

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

Keyword: Multicultural Education, Education Technologies, Blended eLearning, Indigenous Pedagogies.

Abstract: With the surge in information technology globally, recent efforts in sub-Saharan Africa have sought to

decolonise and revitalise the process and practice of using technology for/in education, and specifically the

development of context-specific pedagogies. This paper presents an analysis of the perspectives of students,

lecturers and education managers regarding the blended approach to the use of technology for teaching,

learning and management of educational processes. Using a range of interviews, focus group discussions, and

rapid ethnography, we report on conflicting ideas and issues that point to the motive for blending, the sort of

tools available and adopted, the teaching processes and learning activities the tools support, and where

improvement is needed to drive acceptance and use. Findings indicate the relevance of understanding the

complexities of the mundane practices of using technology in postcolonial education.

1 INTRODUCTION

Research has emphasized the need for a careful

analysis of the assumptions and predictions

associated with technology, especially in education

(Bernard et al., 2018). In postcolonial studies, recent

efforts have shown the implications of decolonising

dominant thought and practices of education in

Africa, specifically through a critical analysis of the

academic identity, processes and practice of

knowledge production, and the associated power

relations involved in the development of educational

practices (Reagan, 2004). Such an effort has

implications for the practice of blended education

repositioning traditional pedagogies and practices in

the development of African knowledge economies.

Regardless of the practical potential of such an

assumption, there is the general belief that most of the

educational systems in Africa are misdirected. This is

primarily due to the ethnocentric assumption that

colonial pedagogies, paradigms, frameworks,

theories, models and curriculums are universal and

applicable to the revitalisation of African education.

However, recent efforts have sought to examine how

new and sustainable practices can be developed when

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2314-7414

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8578-4024

past and present discursive patterns are examined in

light of current educational needs (Shizha and

Makuvaza, 2017). Such a discourse comes with

criticism, as some have called for a total overhaul of

adopted education practice in Africa, arguing that its

indigenous philosophies and traditional thought

systems, epistemologies, knowledge, tradition,

cultural values and language ought to form the basis

for any pedagogical development (Eslin and

Horsthemke, 2016). What this suggests is that the

decolonisation of education is not straightforward– as

it is an ongoing power relation that is determined by

and through a constant struggle between cultural

ethnocentrism and epistemological ethnocentrism.

These demands investigating of the assumptions and

motives shaping the global educational discourse.

It is evident that the common tactic of adopting a

Western approach to education, with the aid of

technology at the expense of indigenous approaches

has positioned most African countries in

circumstances whereby they are jeopardising the

progress made towards a postcolonial educational

discourse (Shizha and Makuvaza, 2017). It is

essential to politicise any project that attempts to

adequately understand the underlying premise

informing the practice of blending learning in higher

188

Adamu, M. and Benachour, P.

Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context Speciﬁc Pedagogical Approach.

DOI: 10.5220/0009576001880199

In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) - Volume 1, pages 188-199

ISBN: 978-989-758-417-6

education. Such a fundamental issue necessitates not

only an examination of how stereotypical theories,

models and frameworks might support the

development of appropriate pedagogical practices in

sub-Saharan Africa but also calls for a critical

examination of the underlying assumptions informing

their advancement within and across emerging

educational requirements and challenges (El Bouhali

and Rwiza, 2017; Shizha and Makuvaza, 2017). What

is at stake is the consequential effect of subjugating

African education to Western ideologies through its

institutional forms of cognitive capitalism, epistemic

metrification and intellectual commodification. It is

through a critical analysis of these underlying

assumptions that motivate and popularise the

adoption of technology, that one can begin to identify

what the use of technology in decolonising education

entails, and how it can be made relevant and

sustainable to the evolving educational demands of

the Nigerian population. Previous studies have yet to

establish whether the blended approach (combining

traditional ways of teaching and the adoption of some

form of technology to assist teaching processes or

learning activities) to education supports and

promotes the practice of decolonising education in

Africa (Olatuboson et al., 2015; Aladejana and

Olajide, 2019; Adeoye, 2020). This paper attempts to

fill such a fundamental gap in our understanding of

the place of technology in Nigerian higher education.

The objective of this paper is to critically examine

the underlying assumptions that promote and

popularise the practice of adopting a blended

approach to higher education in three Nigerian

universities. The analysis identifies a range of issues

around the question: Does using blended approach to

education actually work and support the development

of a context-specific pedagogical approach relevant

to the global praxis of decolonising education? Our

focus on the blended approach provided insights into

both learning, teaching, and the practice of managing

educational processes, which accords with

observations made concerning the emphasis given to

learning while neglecting teaching and management

of educational processes (for example, Bernard et al.,

2018). Our analysis contributes by identifying the

relative importance of a blended approach to the

development of Nigeria-centric educational system.

These perspectives are not entirely new, as the effort

towards decolonisation takes different forms and

directions. What can be considered new is our attempt

to determine how the blended approach can facilitate

the processes of developing a context-specific

pedagogical approach relevant to current and

emerging educational needs across Nigerian sub-

cultures. It also highlights a range of indicators that

emphasise the importance of indigenising educational

practices in Nigeria, thereby moving towards

developing a specifically African trajectory of the

blended approach to teaching and learning.

2 RELATED WORK

This paper draws from the gaps identified by Castro

(2019) and Duval and colleagues (2017) concerning

the research trend of technology-enhanced learning

(TEL). Although the paper is also situated within the

decolonisation of higher education literature, an

emphasis was placed on the practice of how the

adoption and use of technology might support or

challenge different motives for a blended approach to

education in Nigeria.

2.1 Studies of Higher Education

An analysis of the practice of education is complex

issue. In undertaking such an analysis, there is the

consideration of how non-western educational

traditions can provide an alternative means of

developing context-specific and generative

educational practices (Reagan, 2004). This is

important as research has pointed to the differences

between stereotypical (often Western) educational

practice and indigenous ones; precisely between

indigenous ‘education’ and globalised ‘formal

school’, the central difference between individualistic

and communalistic approaches to education, and of

the differences in culture of the subject of education

and the context of education (Reagan, 2004; Eslin and

Horsthemke, 2016). So, one might argue that the

entire educational system in Nigeria was modelled

on, and is driven by Western assumptions Such a

critical issue calls for a sensitive re-examination of

the entire Nigerian educational ecosystem to make it

more responsive to immediate needs, become

adaptive to lived conditions, and be made locally

driven and realistically transformative.

However, in attempting to revitalise the Nigerian

educational ecosystem, there is an emphasis on

examining how the multitude of oral and written

traditions, indigenous thought and knowledge

systems, and different languages rules can bring

about a unified paradigm. Such efforts have given rise

to the development of ‘Nigeria-centric’ educational

system (Ovaiwe, 2013). The Nigeria-centric model

can be considered a backwards-forward thinking

framework as it borrows from colonial and

indigenous educational practices, thereby making it

Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context Speciﬁc Pedagogical Approach

189

pedagogically inclusive and diverse, or perhaps

interconnectedly global and local. Although the

educational system has relatively repositioned itself

through the development of relevant policies,

expansion of higher institutions across each state, and

the introduction of private universities, studies have

shown that the fundamental issues of education in the

country remain unsolved (Usoro, 2016; Adeoye,

2020). These issues relate to quality assurance,

governance, lack of funding, systematic corruption,

and the consequential effect of privatisation and the

monetisation of education. Such issues are essential

to the practice of blending as they can either support

or hinder the adoption and acceptance of educational

technologies to be deployed into institutes of higher

education. Incorporating these issues into the framing

of a blending approach to education might provide the

necessary policy directions and guidelines that can

assist in maximising the acceptance of the blended

approach as a practical alternative in higher

education. However, what is relatively lacking is a

critical analysis of how the ‘Nigerian centric’ model

might inform the practices of a blended approach to

teaching and learning. What interest us is not the

analysis of Ovaiwe’s thesis in light of the practices of

adopting and using technology but identifying how

the practices of a blended approach to teaching and

learning can support the requirement for

appropriating dominant models in line with current

and emerging educational needs of the growing

Nigerian population.

2.2 Blended Approaches to Learning

The field of TEL has focused on examining how the

use of technology can improve the process and

practices of teaching, learning, and the management

of education. Research has not always been

supportive (Bernard et al., 2018), complicated by a

range of learning theories, research methodologies,

analytical frameworks, and design perspectives

(Duval et al., 2017). The general premise is that of

seeing technology as an ‘enhancer’, a ‘supporter’, a

‘mediator’, an ‘enabler’, and an ‘aider’ of a subject’s

educational activity or process (Bayne, 2015).

However, the determining question is whether

blended learning is the solution to the lingering

educational challenges in Africa or whether it is a bad

idea that needs redeeming? (Spanjers et al., 2015).

Such questions point to the understanding of the

varied prospect and challenges of blending, but also

emphasise how technicity neither satisfies the

purpose of education nor the subject’s involvement in

the processes and practices of acquiring knowledge.

Regardless of such debates, some have examined

the research methodologies, frameworks, practices,

and focus of blended learning research shown the

evolution and divergence of the field and its

discourses across different regions of the world

(Spring and Graham, 2017). Others have examined

how enhancement is quantified, the various design

approaches used in ensuring and enabling the

adoption and acceptance of technology, and how such

claims can inform the practice of the field (Kirkwood

and Price, 2014). What all these studies have shown

is the implications of issues like pedagogy,

institutional culture, and socio-cultural context to the

processes and practices of adopting and using

technology in higher education. This, we presume,

could precisely bring about a better understanding of

the place and significance of technology in the

renaissance of education in Africa, and specific in

Nigeria.

In addition, research has supported the general

assumption that technology is a catalyst for the

development of communities in Africa (Gulati,

2008). The assumption is that technology can bring

about changes in the way we evaluate education,

changes in the ways we teach and learn, and changes

in the way educational activities and processes are

coordinated and managed. It is commonly agreed that

the use of technology can support the provision of

quality education to the broader population or can

either narrow or widen the digital divide and social

inequality that exist in developing countries. Specific

to Nigeria, the assumption is that the adoption of

technology in education can bridge the gaps that

exists in the system by providing quality education to

all. In clearly articulating the trajectory of such

efforts, a range of studies have analysed the potential

and opportunities of blended learning (Anene et al.,

2014; Adeoye, 2020); the approaches to planning,

integration, and acceptance (Okocha, 2019;

Aladejana and Olajide, 2019; Ukaigwa and

Igbozuruike, 2020), and the conceptual experience of

different stakeholders towards the blended approach

(Olatuboson et al., 2015; Okocha et al., 2017; Yakubu

et al., 2019). However, only a few studies attempt to

examine how the adoption of technology has brought

about stimulating social interaction, facilitated

engagement, and improved instructional processes

and learning outcomes (Olatuboson et al., 2015;

Oyelere et al., 2016; Okocha, 2019).

What is missing, and what this paper provides, is

an in-depth analysis of how different stakeholders

involved in the process of deciding, adopting and

using educational tools come to examine various

factors that would inform the practices of higher

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

190

education. One might ask whether the use of

technology in postcolonial education brings about an

optimal and sustainable approach to the

understanding of educational practices? Or is the use

of technology merely another ethnocentric

appropriation of technological innovation? These

questions are relevant to developing a context-

specific pedagogy in higher education as they point to

how changes can be made subjectively,

pedagogically, methodologically, theoretically,

policy-wise, and institutionally.

3 CONTEXT AND METHODS

The paper report findings from a project that concerns

the analysis of the design and deployment of

educational technology by a range of stakeholders in

Nigerian higher education. To determine how the

practice of blending can support the requirement for

developing a context-specific pedagogical approach

in Nigeria, we examined the perspectives of students,

lecturers and education managers in three Nigerian

universities. The institutional selection was

purposive, mainly because we were after universities

that have had more extensive access to people from

various cultural background, gender, and ethnicity.

Uni A is a private university, whereas Uni B and Uni

C are public. In all universities, we adopted a

snowball approach to selection, recruiting

participants from departments and institutes that have

adopted a blended approach to teaching and learning.

Full institutional ethical approval was obtained

(FST17133), including informed consent and

participatory information. Obviously, before entering

the field, the first author was adequately aware of how

his positionality as a Nigerian might impact the

research processes in term of accessibility, rapport,

ethics, power relations etc, and practice forms of

reflexivity, relational accountability and reciprocal

engagement.

Due to the nature of education research and the

requirement of using methods that are not only

methodologically relevant but also sensitive to the

context of use, we adopted an eclectic methodological

approach where a range of qualitative methods were

employed. This included interviews, focus group

discussions, and a conversational approach to rapid

ethnography (Beach et al., 2018). During the initial

fieldwork, we conducted three focus group with

eighteen students, five interviews with lecturer’s and

an interview with the director of ICT in Uni A. In Uni

B, eleven students participated in two focus group,

interviewed four lecturers and interviewed the

director of distance learning institute and head of

quality control. In Uni C, we conducted a focus group

with three students (which we discarded due to lack

of richness and diversity of views), interviewed five

lecturer’s and interviewed the director of ICT and

head of learner counselling and support. As we were

after more details about the practice of the blended

approach to education, the first author went back to

the field for two reasons; to reflect on the validity of

the initial themes developed, and to collect more

detail. For three weeks, we focused on Uni A and Uni

B – considered a perspicuous setting – mainly

because of the rapport developed during the initial

fieldwork.

For the participatory observation, we were

interested in the teaching processes undertaken by

lecturers’ and the learning activities carried out by

students through the eLearning system. We examined

how they undertook specific instructional operations,

thereby providing an understanding of present level

of engagement and conceptual experiences of use. In

each of Univ A and B, two students and two lecturers

were observed while using the eLearning system

(mostly Google classroom, Moodle and Canvass) and

conversation made about their actions and activities.

Our conversations were audio-recorded, while field

notes and field photographs are taken.

For analysis, we adopted a grounded approach to

thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). Our focus was not

to develop a theory of blended learning nor adopt any

theory in our analysis, but of reporting on what the

data might suggest the blended approach. The

interview and discussion transcripts were analysed,

and common themes are identified and agreed upon.

The ethnographic data, consisting of conversation

transcript, field notes and photographs were analysed

to develop descriptive and interpretive stories. We

also validated data through member checking of

transcript, interpretative discussion of initial themes,

and a dialogical approach to developing member

meaning from ethnographic stories.

With regards to the issues of the generalisability

of ethnographic account (Crabtree et al., 2013), the

synthesis of both themes and interpretive stories

provide evidence to provide an adequate

understanding of the context which we sought to

describe maybe be generalizable to other similar

educational African settings (Petticrew et al., 2013).

These methodological practices can support the

process of developing research approaches that are

appropriate to the decolonisation of education in

Africa.

Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context Speciﬁc Pedagogical Approach

191

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this section, we summarise and discuss our

findings, highlight themes that adequately describe

the practice of a blended approach to education across

three universities. We also identify specific ideas

relevant to each institution, thereby pointing to where

differences occur. From the interpretive stories, we

briefly outline specific ideas that might suggest the

level of engagement with the learning management

systems (LMS), and their relative experience of use.

This provides an adequate description of their

everyday practices, and also our understanding of

what they say they do and how they go about doing

that they say they do.

4.1 Education Managers

The role of education managers is primarily to

manage the processes and activities of an educational

institution that adopts technological innovation in

their everyday practices. Our focus was on the people

that guide the practices of using technology in

different part of the universities; those that decide on

or influence the policies, strategies and

implementation mechanisms to be adopted for

blending; and those that ensure quality is maintained

and necessary support is provided. We also

understood that they were the people in charge of

providing or articulating the requirements needed for

any innovation. This makes education managers as

one of the more important stakeholders in the

Nigerian educational system. From the analysis of

educational managers’ data, four themes emerged;

consisting of: those that relate to the learning culture

and orientation that necessitated the adoption of a

blended approach; the difference in end user’s sub-

cultures and how they influence the pedagogical

approach adopted; the different technologies diffused

into their mundane institutional practices; and the

mechanism adopted in ensuring adherence to

educational best practices. The assumptions and

motives guiding the adoption of a blended approach

in both private and public universities are relatively

common. They share common insights into how the

use of technology can bring about optimal ways to the

development of an educational practice that takes into

greater account the difference in lectures instructional

approaches and learners learning preference, thereby

emphasising earlier findings concerning the potential

of blended approach to teaching and learning (Anene,

et al., 2014; Aladejana and Olajide, 2016; Adeoye,

2020). What differentiates the two is the sort of

challenges they faced (specifically with issues of

infrastructure, the number of students, and the

orientation of students and lecturers) and the

institutional policy directions and implementation

strategies in places to minimise those challenges.

4.1.1 Educational Culture in Nigeria

With the advancement of technology globally, the

practice of education in most of Africa is a reflexive

activity between well-established educational

paradigms and well-suited practices of education

relevant to the intellectual and material need and

socio-cultural context of Nigeria. In the Nigerian

educational ecosystem, there is no specific

institutional culture as people have different

orientations towards making meaning and sense of

their immediate environment and that of others. What

such an ambiguous account might suggest is that the

institutional culture is a combination of both western

adopted practices and pre-colonial practices (mostly

driven by religious and traditional beliefs). All

participants promoted the ideas of how the blended

approach might be considered relational to the socio-

cultural norms and context of the environment. There

was an explicit emphasis on how the use of

technology can drive pedagogical practices,

specifically by pointing to how educational tools can

support the activities that are to be carried out in

developing the competence and learning of a

phenomenon. In a participant’s words: “we came up

with pedagogical assumptions and develop models

that can upscale the development of employability

skills” (Admin1). This indicates two different ideas;

the educational culture in Nigeria might not be variant

of educational practices elsewhere, and that the effort

towards developing context specific pedagogical

practices are ideal to the decolonisation of

educational praxis and practices in Nigeria, with or

without technology.

4.1.2 Pedagogy in Cross-cultural Context

From the previous theme, the general emphasis was

that education is ‘a nomadic process’ where different

agents employ a range of approaches and methods

that fit the context of their immediate environment.

The more common pedagogical approach is one that

emphasises the need for human engagement and

interaction. This is achieved through an examination

of the context of education and the practical outcome

of the knowledge to oneself and one’s immediate

environment. Such assumption has also brought

about taken into account learners’ demography,

learning style and preference, and thus necessitate the

development of a unified pedagogical approach that

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

192

meet to those varied needs. This is due to an

understanding of people’s orientation of developing

competence through practical forms of doing and

knowing, either individually or collaboratively. The

pedagogical practice of all the universities is one that

suggests a deeper level-sensitive towards the plurality

of different stakeholders, be it students or lecturers.

4.1.3 Technology Use in Education

Naturally, people appreciate an innovation when they

deem it relevant, valuable, and interesting to their

practice of acquiring knowledge. The adoption and

acceptance of technology in education is not only

about improving the ways we teach and learn, but also

the processes of managing an educational institution.

For managers, the emphasis was on how

technological advancement has brought about a

rethink of education. For example, a participant

pointed that “the technology has been a key factor to

adoption as it has streamlined our operations, reduce

cost, improve transparency, and speed up operational

processes” (Admin1). The tools mostly used among

the three universities include different LMS’s

(Moodle, google classroom, blackboards and

canvass), open education resources (OER's),

integrated library systems (e.g. Koha), plagiarism

detection application (e.g. Turnitin), and other

Google services. Dedicated labs and computer-based

training centres for computer-based test and other

relevant educational requirements are also available.

However, due to prevailing issues of connectivity,

lack of basic training and know-how, and people’s

attitude towards change and new technology, the

adoption of educational tools in the universities is

minimal. There is also the issue of how the number of

students, specifically in public universities, might

have negatively influenced the perception towards

education technologies. Regardless of the issues

identified above, all participants were totally in

support of the need for appropriating the frameworks

and models that inform the planning, integration, and

evaluation of blending, therefore complimenting

Ukaigwe and Igbozuruikwe’s (2020) findings

towards ways for sustainable integration and further

improvement.

4.1.4 Effective Educational Practices

From the analysis, all managers expressed their firm

commitment towards adhering to guidelines and

regulation laid out by the relevant regulatory

agencies. Such policies emphasise the training of staff

with the necessary skill to do their job, the

development of learning content based on the

curriculum outline (and to be reviewed periodically)

and ensuring that learner have a satisfactory learning

experience. In ensuring that their everyday practices

are up to the standard, relevant quality control and

support service directorates are established. The

directorates identify strategic action plans and

institutional instruments that could bring about

developing educational models that are responsive

and relational to the peculiarity of the environment. A

manager suggested that they achieve reasonable

results through their timely use of learning analytics

in reducing attrition rate, the incubation of research

ideas and projects into the immediate environment,

and the continuous engagement with the relevant

stakeholder in developing learner’s employability

and entrepreneurship skills. From our understanding,

this moves towards the development of the

capabilities and capacities of the future generation,

therefore presenting the call for making the Nigerian

education system to be context-specific timely and

necessary for the sustainable development of any

well-meaning and futuristic community. From the

perspective of educational managers, one can

appreciate the different assumptions and ideas that

have popularise the adoption of technology in the

postcolonial practice of education, not entirely a

decolonisation concept but a technological necessity

for the development of the Nigerian knowledge

economy. The analysis of the perspective of lecturers

thus offer insights that affirm Castro’s (2019)

multiple accounts about the organisational,

pedagogical and technological potentials of blended

learning in higher education.

4.2 Lecturers

For lecturers, we interviewed those that we learnt are

active users of the LMS adopted in their institution.

In Uni A, the lectures are from the department of

computing (2), library science (2), and mathematics

department (1). In Uni B, they are from the

department of library science (2) and computing (2),

while in Uni C from the distance learning institute

(the institute operates a blended mode). The selection,

even when diverse, was purposively snowballed.

During the ethnographic observation, we were after

understanding the various activities and actions they

used the LMS for. The fieldworker allowed a natural

occurrence of events, asking a question where

necessary and appropriate. The universities are using

three different LMS’s (Uni A uses Google classroom,

Uni B uses Moodle and Canvass, and Uni C uses

Moodle). With the differences in the social and

institutional context, the activities carried out are

Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context Speciﬁc Pedagogical Approach

193

relational, whereas their experience might be

relatively different (depending on course, level of

engagement, attitude towards use, and so on). From

the analysis of the data, three themes emerged;

consisting of those related to the understanding of

what the blended approach entails, their activities and

experience of engagement; the instructional approach

adopted and its impact to the students learning

process and outcome, and issues that might have

promoted or hindered adoption and acceptance.

4.2.1 Towards a Unified Blended Language

First, we attempted establishing participants

understanding of what blended learning is. Among

the fourteen participants, ten gave a decisive

definition about what blended eLearning can be using

a range of terminologies like ‘electronic, technology,

virtual learning, and online learning’ to express the

form it takes, while also using terms like ‘effective,

quick, improve, learn easily, and convenient’ to

demonstrate the relevance of this form of learning.

From the analysis, it is to deduce that the medium of

instruction and the benefit that comes with using the

tool to teach or learn signifies how blended eLearning

is understood and expressed by the participants. Such

an analysis might bring about a shared language in

describing and understanding the practice of a

blended approach to education in Nigeria. In addition,

lecturers’ use the LMS to undertake a range of

activities, from uploading and disseminating learning

content and recommended text, to downloading

submitted assignment, grading and assessment (tutor

marked, computer-based quizzes and reflective

project work), providing learning support, and also

engaging in discussions with students. Some see the

advantage of the LMS as compared to when they were

not using it – suggesting that it is ‘fun to use, simplify

assessment, it is faster as compared to conventional

ways, convenient, interesting and open at all time’.

Apart from their subjective experience, we establish

the challenges that might have warranted or limited

the adoption of educational tools. The facilitating

issues include the limitation of infrastructure, the

incompatibility of hardware, the issues of

connectivity, the lack of awareness of the advantages

of adoption, and the lack of adequate training and

guidelines towards integration and utilization.

From the analysis also, we understood that the

LMS is underutilised by even those that are using it.

For example, lecturers don’t utilise the live streaming

functionality and the discussion forum where they can

engage students in a range of learning activities or

dialogue. The level of engagement with the tools

among all participants is fairly laudable, ranking form

5 using it daily during multiple instances, 5 using it

around 3-4 times weekly (mainly due to the structure

of their course), while the remaining 4 using it

averagely twice a week. Their minimal use was

supported by some suggesting that due to the number

of students that they handle, using the LMS adds extra

workload, therefore justifying their minimal use.

When asked of their experience of using the LMS to

support their pedagogical processes and activities, all

lecturers expressed a positive attitude towards the use

of the LMS’S as compared to conventional methods

of instruction. Twelve among them pointed out that it

is ‘easy, complimentary, save time, reduce the burden

on us, ease academic work, and feel at ease while

using it’. The other two lecturer’s felt that it is ‘not

that responsive and user-friendly’ (Lect10) and that

‘it is really tasking’ (Lect11), thereby providing a

varied and important perspective. However, the two

participants that made such a remark are from Uni C,

which might suggest the indifference between

lecturers towards the adoption and use of LMS’s, be

it in private or public universities.

4.2.2 Impact of Instructional Approaches

This theme carries ideas about how the instructional

approach adopted by lectures might have been

supported by the educational tools deployed in their

institution. Among the fourteen lectures, seven adopt

a didactic approach while the remaining seven adopt

a user-centred approach. This is supported by a

remark that “the user-centred approach gives some

control to the user as they can engage in other forms

of individual and collaborative learning. It is more

like people don't harness the full potential of the LMS,

and if they do, the effect on their learning experience

will be enormous” (Lect10). On whether the use of

educational tools assist in actively administering the

instructional approach they choose, all participants

except one suggested that the use of the LMS does

complement their teaching style. The outlier was

supported by the participants level of

underutilization. Also, there is a general agreement

among all participants, regardless of them being from

a private or public university that the use of the LMS

does have an impact on the students learning

experience and not learning outcome. Although some

have pointed to how specific indicators like the

course of study and the orientation of student might

have had an impact on the level of engagement, other

factors like the level of student-lecturer interaction

slightly influence learning outcome. The assumption

is that the more the students engage with the tools

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

194

deployed, the more they develop an interest in the

subject and the more they develop new skills. To

emphasise the impact of instructional approach on

student level of engagement, a participant suggested

that ‘students are excited about using Moodle because

it gives them a completely different experience of

learning from what they are used to’ (Lect4), which

might suggest that the use of the LMS supports the

pedagogical approach widely adopted by lecturers.

4.2.3 Issues of Acceptance and Use

The generic assumption facilitating the adoption and

acceptance of technology is that of the availability

and accessibility of technology, the relative

characteristic of the innovation, the pedagogical

relevance and advantage of use, and other forms of

social influencers. In public universities, the major

factor hindering adoption is the orientation of people

towards technology, the limitation of infrastructure

and connectivity, the uneven ratio of student to

available resources, and the unawareness of the

prospect and potential of the adopted technologies.

For the private university, the major issue is the

mentality of people towards new development and

change. To bring about more adoption and

acceptance, it is presumed that developing an

awareness of the prospect and potential of blending

would inform the perception, intention, and eventual

use among prospective adopters. planning, framing

and integration of technological innovation in the

processes and practices of higher education. There is

also the requirement for developing sustainable

planning directions and practical implementation

strategies that could inform the framing and decision

of future blend. It is through the analysis of what

might work (and not) that one can begin to examine

how context-specific pedagogical approaches can be

generatively developed.

4.2.4 Engagement and Experience

From the analysis of the ethnographic data of

lecturers using Google classroom (two lecturers from

computing in Uni A) and Moodle/Canvass (two

lecturers from distance learning institute in Uni B ),

we briefly attempt to established lecturer’s level of

engagement, what’s they like and dislike about the

tool, and where improvement is needed.

Consequently, those in Uni A were more enthusiastic

with the whole idea of using the LMS to complement

their instructional process and activities. While

observing the two lecturers’, the fieldworker noticed

how they navigate with the platform, through the

utilisation of universal design features (icons and

buttons), suggesting how intuitive, integrative and

adaptive the platform is and can be. What they like

the most about the Google classroom is its ‘simplistic

outlook’, how it allows ‘scheduling of instructional

activities’, how it provides ‘storage space’, and the

ways it integrates with their email. The two

participants also expressed displeasure towards the

way changes are made to the platform periodically,

suggesting that they prefer the older version as the

updated version is not personalised or tailored to the

context of the environment, making it harder to

navigate for new users. It is our understanding that

their experience and perception towards the platform

might influence the behavioural intention and attitude

of a new adopter, thereby providing insight into how

adoption can be encouraged and upscaled.

For the two lecturers from Uni B, their level of

engagement was relatively low as compared to their

colleagues in Uni A. This might be due to the laid-back

attitude of most lecturer’s in public universities to change.

The data suggested that their engagement with the platform

is occasional, mainly for disseminating learning materials

to students and for carrying out different form of

assessment. However, they suggested that they mostly

engage their student in discussions through a WhatsApp

group they created, mainly because it is more handy and

convenient, allowing a seamless means of engaging with

students at any time. When asked what they like about their

use of either Moodle or canvass, a lecturer replied by

asking: ‘Do I even like anything about it? There isn’t

anything special’. The participants also expressed

displeasure with the interface (suggesting that it is not

mobile-friendly) and the inactivity of the instant messaging

functionality.

To sum up, the analysis suggests that

lecture’s in Uni A have had a relatively satisfactory

experience of their use of Google classroom through

a blended mode, whereas those in Uni B might have

struggled with a range of issues that negatively

impact on their experience of use and intention

towards continual use.

4.3 Students

Here, we conducted a range of discussion regarding

their use of the LMS as part of their learning

processes. In Uni A, eighteen students participated in

three discussions – two groups from computing (2

and 3

year) and a group (1

year) from General

studies department. In Uni B, the two groups

consisted of 3

-year computing and 4

-year library

science students. As for the ethnographic observation,

we wanted to develop a better understanding of the

various activities and actions they undertake with the

LMS. Although the universities use different LMS’s,

we were after understanding what the reality is and

what can be considered ideal usage. Out of the focus

Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context Speciﬁc Pedagogical Approach

195

discussion analysis came about three themes;

consisting of those related to their activities and level

of engagement; the kind of support provided through

the LMS’s (what is ideal and the reality of what they

are getting), and the sort of challenges they face and

suggestions for what they might want to see shortly.

4.3.1 Learner Activities and Level of Use

Although the student in public and private

universities use different LMS’s, the activities that

they use the tool for are the same. The activities range

from downloading and submitting assignments,

downloading learning materials and other learning

resources, checking notifications about classes,

assessments, result notification, and deadlines; taking

assessment and engaging in collaborative forms of

learning and discussion via group chats. In Uni A, the

LMS sends a notification to their email or a pop-up

notification through their mobile app. All students

suggested that they either use their laptop or mobile

phone to access the LMS. The level of engagement

with the tools and the reflection on the experience of

use is different between the two universities,

primarily because in Uni A, students were more liking

(using terms like interesting, user-friendly,

responsive, and straightforward) of the flexibility that

comes with the LMS and of what they could achieve

using the tools. In Uni B, students were less

appreciative of the LMS, mainly because not all

lecturers use it as part of their learning processes. This

might suggest the willingness of students to adopt and

use of the tools deployed in their institutions.

However, students are not particularly concerned

with what it can do or what it cannot do but are willing

to use it whenever they are asked. This raises

questions concerning the subjectivity of adopters and

users’ as they are ‘required’ and ‘compelled’ to

accept and use deployed tools, regardless of their

subjective perception, attitude or behaviours towards

what was deployed, thereby negating conflicting

conclusion drawn by Okocha and Colleagues (2016,

2019). There is no correlation between learning style,

preference or adopter’s characterisation towards

adoption and use, but merely on the influence of the

power’s exercised by both manager and lecturers on

students.

4.3.2 Learner Support

Adding onto learner’s activities and level of usage is

the degree to which academic support is provided

through the LMS’s. It is our understanding that when

students are actively engaged in their academic

activities through the LMS, there is the possibility of

a better level of satisfaction when the tool is

‘interactive, easy to use, faster, and available at all

times’. Specific to learner support through the LMS,

there is a distinction between what is idle (a support

system that would help in harnessing the potential of

collaborative learning and continual engagement with

peers and lecturers) and what they are getting. The

reality in both universities is that students are aware

of the functionality for individual or collective

support through chat forums and discussion boards.

But due to an awareness of certain limitations, both

technical and educational, the perception of students

towards support is that the system is not responsive

and timely. We understood that the necessary support

is said to be available to the student, either through

the platform or in-person. However, we couldn’t

develop whether the student utilises such provisions

and its impact on their learning engagement and

conceptual experience.

4.3.3 Challenges and Needed Improvement

Regardless of their positive experiences, all students

narrated of the sort of challenges they mostly face;

which are relational to the issues raised by lecturers –

either technical or educational. The technical

challenges are about infrastructure, connectivity, and

accessibility, whereas the educational challenges

concern the lack of awareness about services

available and the orientation of students towards

learning. The consequential effect of such a challenge

is that people have different learning culture and

preference, therefore making the adoption of a

particular pedagogical approach suitable to the

educational needs of some while unsuitable to others.

This is why the requirement for developing a

generative pedagogical approach that takes into

account the different sub-cultures and language

requirement in the context of learning is important.

For improvement, Uni B students are interested in

having a mobile, whereas students in Uni A wanted

their LMS to be able to have a real-time assessment

function and a redesign of its feature to be accessible

without internet connectivity.

4.3.4 Engagement and Experience

Here, the analysis seeks to discuss how the LMS

design features might have facilitated (or not) their

level of interaction and engagement. All students

suggested a relatively positive perception and attitude

towards the tools deployed in their university. This is

gauged through how the LMS allows access to

learning materials, communication with lecturers and

peers through discussion forums, and how flexibility

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

196

is incorporated in the processes of use. One of the

features that they find interesting is the ‘to-do list’

where all new update and upcoming deadlines are

listed out. For Uni A, they receive email notification

of any update to the LMS, therefore constantly

drawing their attention towards the platform and

which can prolong level of engagement and improve

their overall learning experience. The students that

use the Google classroom app felt that it is simple,

user-friendly, and integrates well with other Google

services. The students from Uni B suggested their

experience of using canvass by suggesting that it is

easy to navigate and use. However, one of the

students point out that newcomers might find it

difficult to navigate as some of the quick links are not

intuitive enough for one to find them readily easy to

use. In a nutshell, although the analysis is relatively

brief, one can appreciate how the observatory

perspective adds to the insights developed from

earlier themes.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we examine the extent to which the

practices of a blended approach to education in three

Nigerian universities, support developing a context-

specific pedagogical approach relevant to the praxis

and practice of decolonising education. We analyse

data collected from students, lecturers, and education

managers through a range of qualitative methods. The

analytic themes developed, and the interpretive

stories highlight a range of ideas with regards to the

cross-cultural practice of using educational tools for

teaching and learning. We not only provide an

account of mundane educational practices but also

highlight specific issues relevant to Nigerian higher

education. We suggest further examination of how

the use of technology can support the process of

decolonising education; identifying ways to delink

from ethnocentric perspectives and moving towards

developing alternative and generative means of

articulating a ‘Nigeria-centric’ community of

educational practice. This would provide an

alternative approach to well-known theories,

paradigms and models that have directed the

development of education globally and need to be

reassessed and relived in line with the pedagogical

requirements of Nigeria. As such, the ideas presented

in this paper are relevant to policymakers and

government agencies as they consider the

implications of digital technologies within the

broader context of higher education.

Although our focus is primarily on identifying the

implications for the process of developing a context-

specific pedagogical approach, our analysis also

points to important ideas about the need to develop

eLearning systems that stimulate interaction,

facilitate engagement, and provide a meaningful

learning experience, thereby emphasis issues often

neglected in the literature (Olatuboson et al., 2015;

Oyelere et al., 2016; Okocha et al., 2017; Yakubu et

al., 2019; Okocha, 2019). We believe this is

significant, as the analysis of the data has shown that

the adoption of technology through a blended

approach is not merely about how the technology can

support the practice of education, but also about how

the use of the technology can bring about a shift in

our theoretical and conceptual formulations

concerning non-western educational processes and

practices (Reagan, 2004). Decolonialism is an

optional project concerned with inverting modern

conventions and structures shaping the practices,

theories, and methodologies of subjectivity. So, the

decolonisation of education is about imagining and

developing alternative and liberative forms of ethical

subjectivity. Our analysis has shown that the practice

of adopting eLearning systems through a blended

approach support the appropriation and the

development of context specific and emerging

pedagogical approaches and strategies relevant to the

educational needs of different Nigerian sub-cultures.

However, our analysis has not shown significant

implications concerning the pedagogical and socio-

cultural sensitivities practiced by educational

managers in the process of blended education support

for the decolonisation of education.

As decolonialism is a continual process, providing

conclusive answers towards the practices of

decolonising blended education might wrongly

suggest an ethnocentric ideology. We emphasise and

encourage a critical analysis of established

assumptions in line with emerging educational

conditions and needs in Nigeria. This can be achieved

either through the problematization of what can be

regarded as an oppressive pedagogy that has moulded

the educational development of the community

(Friere, 2018) or through the method of

pedagogization at a crossroad of other related

technological issues (Alexandra, 2006). Future work

would attempt to examine how the ‘problematisation

of the pedagogy’ and the ‘crossroad pedagogization’

concepts can bring about alternative means for

developing indigenous pedagogies and the practices

of designing, evaluating and deploying education

technologies in Nigeria.

Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context Speciﬁc Pedagogical Approach

197

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Mark Rouncefield for

comments on earlier draft and our anonymous

reviewers for the critical and insightful feedback on

this work. This paper is part of a project funded by the

Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF),

Nigeria.

REFERENCES

Adeoye, B. F. (2020). The Era of Digital Technology in

Teaching and Learning in Nigeria Educational

Institutions. In the Roles of Technology and

Globalization in Educational Transformation (pp. 43-

51). IGI Global.

Aladejana, F. O., & Olajide, S. O. (2019). Assessment of

Opportunities and Implementation of Blended Learning

Strategies in Nigeria Higher Education: A Case Study

of Obafemi Awolowo University. In Handbook of

Research on Challenges and Opportunities in

Launching a Technology-Driven International

University (pp. 279-298). IGI Global.

Alexander, M. J. (2006). Pedagogies of crossing:

Meditations on feminism, sexual politics, memory, and

the sacred. Duke University Press.

Anene, J., Imam, H., & Odumuh, T. (2014). Problem and

prospect of e-learning in Nigerian universities.

International Journal of Technology and Inclusive

Education (IJTIE), 3(2), 320-327.

Bayne, S. (2015). What's the matter with ‘technology-

enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology,

40(1), 5-20.

Beach, D., Bagley, C., & da Silva, S. M. (2018).

Ethnography of Education: Thinking Forward, Looking

Back. The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of

Education, 513-532.

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2018).

The State of Research on Distance, Online, and Blended

Learning: Meta-Analyses and Qualitative Systematic

Reviews. In Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 92-

104). Routledge.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative

information: Thematic analysis and code development.

sage.

Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education:

Trends and capabilities. Education and Information

Technologies, 24(4), 2523-2546.

Crabtree, A., Tolmie, P., & Rouncefield, M. (2013). “How

Many Bloody Examples Do You Want?” Fieldwork

and Generalisation. In ECSCW, 21-25 September 2013,

Paphos, Cyprus (pp. 1-20). Springer, London.

Duval, E., Sharples, M., & Sutherland, R. (Eds.). (2017).

Technology-enhanced learning: Research themes.

Springer.

El Bouhali, C., & Rwiza, G. J. (2017). Post-millennium

development goals in sub-saharan Africa: Reflections

on education and development for all. In Re-thinking

Postcolonial Education in Sub-Saharan Africa in the

21st Century (pp. 13-31). Brill Sense.

Enslin, P., & Horsthemke, K. (2016). Philosophy of

education: Becoming less Western, more African.

Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(2), 177-190.

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury

publishing USA.

Gulati, S. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning in

developing nations: A review. IRRODL, 9(1).

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced

learning and teaching in higher education: what is

‘enhanced' and how do we know? A critical literature

reviews. Learning, media and technology, 39(1),6-36.

Okocha, F. (2019). Acceptance of Blended Learning in a

Developing Country: The Role of Learning Styles.

Library Philosophy and Practice.

Okocha, F., Eyiolorunshe, T. A., & Oguntayo, S. A. (2017).

Student Acceptance of Blended Learning in Nigeria: A

Case Study of landmark University Students. Advances

in Multidisciplinary and Scientific Research, 3(1).

Olatubosun, O., Olusoga, F. A., & Samuel, O. A. (2015).

Adoption of elearning technology in Nigerian tertiary

institution of learning. Current Journal of Applied

Science and Technology, 1-15.

Oviawe, J. O. (2013). Appropriating colonialism:

Complexity and chaos in the making of a Nigeria-

centric educational system (Doctoral dissertation,

Washington State University).

Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., Shonola, S. A., & Joy, M. S.

(2016). Discovering students mobile learning

experiences in higher education in Nigeria. In 2016

IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-

7). IEEE.

Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Noyes, J., Higgins, J. P.,

Mayhew, A., Pantoja, T., ... & Sowden, A. (2013).

Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how

meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method

approaches can contribute. Journal of clinical

epidemiology, 66(11), 1230-1243.

Reagan, T. G. (2004). Non-western educational traditions:

Alternative approaches to educational thought and

practice. Routledge.

Shizha, E., & Makuvaza, N. (Eds.). (2017). Re-thinking

Postcolonial Education in Sub-Saharan Africa in the

21st Century: Post-Millennium Development Goals.

Springer.

Spanjers, I. A., Könings, K. D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D.

M., de Jong, N., Czabanowska, K., & van Merrienboer,

J. J. (2015). The promised land of blended learning:

Quizzes as a moderator. Educational Research Review,

15, 59-74.

Spring, K., & Graham, C. (2017). Thematic patterns in

international blended learning literature, research,

practices, and terminology. Online Learning Journal,

21(4).

Ukaigwe, P. C., & Igbozuruike, I. U. (2020). Planning and

Integration of Technologies for Effective

Implementation of Blended Learning in Universities in

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

198

Rivers State, Nigeria. Advances in Social Sciences

Research Journal, 7(1), 452-462.

Usoro, E. B. (2016). Towards transformation of higher

education in Nigeria: A practical reality. Journal of

Pristine, 12(1), 1-12.

Yakubu, M. N., Kah, M. M., & Dasuki, S. I. (2019, April).

Student’s Acceptance of Learning Management

Systems: A Case Study of the National Open University

of Nigeria. In International Conference on Sustainable

ICT, Education, and Learning (pp. 245-255). Springer.

Blended eLearning Systems in Nigerian Universities: A Context Speciﬁc Pedagogical Approach

199