ABSTRACT
This study determined Physics lecturers’ self-efficacy and use of Information and Communication Technology for research activities. Self-efficacy and use of ICT for research activities by the Physics lecturers was investigated. 32 numbers of Physics lecturers were selected as sample from two tertiary institutions obtained by means of purposive sampling technique. The two tertiary institutions were assigned because of the fact that they are the schools within Minna metropolis where Physics lecturers can be found, they are: Federal University of Technology, Minna and Niger state College of Education, Minna. The research design adopted for this study was cross sectional survey design. The research instrument used for the study was questionnaire (QPSUICT) of twenty eight items employed for the study. The instrument was validated by two Educational technology experts from Science Education department, two Computer experts from Computer Science department, and two Physics lecturers from the department of Physics. Pilot study was conducted for testing of the reliability of the research instrument and IT method was used to define the reliability coefficient of the instrument at the value of 0.85. The data collected was analyzed using mean and standard deviation of which decision were made at 2.50 and above was considered agree and below was considered disagree. Six research questions was analyzed; Physics lecturers agreed to use ICT tools to perform research tasks at an average mean response of 2.79 above 2.50 respectively. Physics lecturers agreed that Information and Communication Technology tools are beneficial for carrying out research task at 2.60 above level of decision. Physics lecturers disagreed that ICT facilities are not at their disposal with an average mean value of 2.31 below 2.50. Physics lecturers are competent for use of Information and Communication Technology tools for research activities with an average mean value of 2.72. Physics lecturers agreed for utilizing ICT tools for research activities at an average mean value of 2.71. Physics lecturers disagreed on how often they utilize the ICT tools for research activities at an average mean value of 2.49 below 2.50. Based on the findings, it was recommended among others that ICT facilities should be at the Physics lecturers’ disposal for carrying out research activities, and Tertiary Institutions management should encourage the Physics lecturers on often use of the Information and Communication Technology tools for research activities.
TABLE OF CONTNENTS
Cover Page Page No
Title Page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements v
Abstract vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Aims and Objectives 4
1.4 Research Question 5
1.5 Scope and Limitation 5
1.6 Significance of the Study 5
1.7 Operational Definition of Terms 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual Framework 8
2.1.2 Nature of Physics Course of Study in Tertiary Institutions 8
2.1.3 Competence and Level of ICT Utilization 8
2.2.0 Educational Research in Tertiary Institutions 12
2.2.1 Role of Utilization of ICT for Educational Research Activities in the Capacity of the 13
Physics Lecturers in Tertiary Institutions
2.2.2 Problems in the Introduction and Utilization of ICT tools by Lecturers for Educational Research tasks in Nigeria Tertiary Institutions (case study Minna, Niger state.) 14
2.3.0 Theoretical Framework 15
2.3.1 Construction 15
2.3.2 Application of Constructivist theory (Papette) 16
2.3.3 ICTs Strategic Cycle Model 17
2.3.4 Knowledge/Information Utilization Model 17
2.3.5 Teacher Pedagogy Content Knowledge Model 18
2.4.0 Empirical Studies 24
2.4.1 Competence and Level of ICT Utilization by Physics Lecturers in Research Activities 25
2.5 Appraisal of Literature Review 28
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design 30
3.2 Population of the Study 30
3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique 30
3.4 Research Instrument 31
3.5 Validity of Research Instrument 31
3.6 Reliability of the Research Instrument 32
3.7 Method of Data Collection 32
3.8 Method of Data Analysis 32
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.0 Introduction 33
4.1 Presentation of Results 33
4.8 Summary 39
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction 40
5.1 Summary 40
5.2 Major findings of the study 41
5.3 Implication of the Major findings 42
5.4 Conclusion 42
5.5 Recommendations 43
