University of Nigeria Virtual Library

Serial No.

Author 1

OGBAZI, N.J

Author 2

Author 3

Title

Evaluating Technology Education Programmes in the Nigerian Universities.

Keywords

Description Evaluating Technology Education Programmes

in the Nigerian Universities

Category

Education

Publisher

Publication Date

1985

Signature

EVALITATTNG INDUSTRlAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMMES ;IN THE FEDERAL UNTVERSITIES OF TECHNOLGY IN MGERIA

* N. J. OGBAZI (Ph. D.)

INTRODUCTION E.:cr sincc the I962 /h8 Devel.jprnent Plan period. thc Fedcral Govcmment of Nigcria has bmn

incrcask~ thc cdncation budgct:espcciaIly in the technical ficld. This mcasure was takcn in recognition of thc? facr that technical education forms the basis if Nigeria's tcchnolopical dcvcloprncnt.

in her National Policy on Education, Nigcria made the following dccla-ation: A grcater proportion of educational expenditure will rontinuc to be dwoitd to technical education b!.: govcmrnent at both Fcdcral and State lcvels

(Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1977, p. 20). IJnder thc Fourth National Demlopmnt Plan, file Statc Govcmmcnts allocated a total of over N690 . 6 million out of which N372 . 6 million will be sph t on thc cspanvon of cxisting technical colleges and construction of new oncs (Fedcral Ministry of National Planning, 193 i).

With the huge expenditure on education. it becomes ncccssav to cvaluatc cducational programmes from thc standpoint of accountability. New programmes necd cvcn closer rcvicw in ordcr to makc csscntial ad.iustmcnts in the curricula and instructional emphasis.

Problem of the Study This studv ~vas dcsigncd to invcstigate the programme evaluation components of industrial

tcchnoloq programme within the Nigerian Fedcral Universitics of Technology.

Purpose of the Study Vic studv was conducted for thc purpose of developing a model

plan for use by the educational administrators and planners In upgrading and restructuring the cxisting ~ndustriiil tcchnologv propmmcs in thc Fcdcral Univcrsitics of Tcchnnlop

Questions of the Study 'The following question formed thc basis for the studv: How should thc prograrmnes and or cumculum of industrial technology in the Fedcral Universities

of Tct! ;mlo~ be evaluated?

Limitations of the Study I h c following limitations are inl~crcnt in thc study:

1 . Thc study was limited to'programmes in industrial technolq,~ in the Fcdcral Uniwrsitics of Technology in Nigrria.

. - - - - . - - - - - -. - - - -- -.-

+ Dcpnrtmcnt of Vocational Educatm. Un~vcrs~ty of Ntgena, Nsukka EDIICATIONAL PERSPECTIWAS, LAGOS STATE UNIVERSlTY

2. It \\';is limited to the IS) Statcs of thc Federal Republic of Nigeri:?..

3. T.x findines of this study corrld onk k genemlized to thc 19 stat& of Ni9eria.

~ 4 . Finally. this study was limited to tlie extent to which the mspondents providd honest answers to the items in thc questionnaire and interview.

Popnl~ltian and Smnple Thc population of this study v a s composed of industrial technology faculty members of the

Fdcral Univcrsitics of Tcchnolw in Nigcria. directors of thc Niqerian Industries, administrators of tcchnical d u c a t i m in thc ministries of education of the I P states in Nigcria and the Nigerian graduate sh~rlcmts mrd\in,q indrwtrial tcchnolo.q in the Amcrican Univcrsitvs. Within thc population, thirty unim-sit\. pcrsonncl. hundred in dust^ persnncl. nineteen adminigrators of technical education and forty- onc ,madlmte students were randomly selcdcd for the study. A total of 133 responses wcrc received from the four Froups of respondents.

.Ann!y~i3 of h t n P l n g thc statistical pro_pmmc known as SPSS. statistical Package for thc Social Scicnccs, the

fcllloninf ncre used to analyse and summarize the d&: 1. m a n scores: These were computed for all the four groups in

th: study for a11 itms or factors specifically related to each mscarch qucrtion.

2 Stnndnrd d!:ti;r.tions: These wcrc computcd for the four _goups in :!:: strrdy.

3 Frcqiicncy colrnts wcrc also mploycd in thc analvsis of data. 4. 11 rial!.sis of Vnriancc (ANOVA). Tbcsc w r c computd for cach

:'' fhc rcsirltq o f fhc four proup<. If the: F-\;~l~tc wns si,mi ficnnt at thc 0.0: probnhility Icvcl, thcn Schefl'c's multiplc rnngc tcst wns cnrploycrl a? post tv--- anal!-sis tn find out m-hcrc the diffcrcnccs among goups c\:istcd.

In ordcr to makc the final judyernent about which of the vr,~inbles ta bc idcntifid for emphasis, h s d I:,;: +hc spccificd ratings of the four groups, thc over-all means of the four p u p s were cansidcred. The cl i t4f p in t was set at 3.99, and only t lmc miahlcs that were rated by the four groups as "highly iwprtmt" and ahvc were identified for emphasis in the industrial technology programmes.

Tables tvcrc prcsentcd to clarifi. discussicjrts and findin2s.

Finding '

f~inrlinq~ Rcrmlinq ihc ~vallintivc Pmcticcr;. Prwdrircs, Proccws n:rd Guidclincs that Will Contribute to thc Success of the Industrial Technolop Progmmcs:

In ordcr to m s w r thc qucdon of tlw studv, a list of cvaluntivc practim. pmccdnrm. ptoccsses and y~idclincs m s prcscntcd to t.hc mpondcnts. They wcrc askcd to ratc each itcm to indicatc the impnrtnnrc nf its cmtrih~itim to thc qriccc,ss of proqnmmc plnnniny in industrial technology in the Y ia:crim !-~rlcnl IJni\vr.;~tics vf Tcchnoloyy.

Vinc itcms cmcqcrl as 'arms of si,mificant diffcrcnccs among the four groups. while seven arcas vm-r f,-!lnrl to hc npn:cd upnn by Ihc ~.r;poncirnts ns n~nltinf: n contrib~~ticm nt diflcrmt Icvcls. In othcr nnrclq. +rrc was conscqsus amon? thc four groups with y a r d to thcsc smen varinbles.

Tnble 1 rcvcals the overall means. standard deviations and thc analysis of variances da t ing to the et ~!uat i~m of thc industrial technolog p ropmmcs

It xis found that only two ttcrnc received relatively low rating (less than 3.9) from the four groups cf rcspcndcnts. Thew itcms were ( I ) The promotion of faa l ly 'md support personnel should be bascd on thc out cclmc nf thcir own actwities (X = 3 8 1) and (2) A cost-dated cvaluation or assessment should bc undcrtden by thc department in cdlahoration with in dust^ in relation to progmmc attributes and ol.~+come ( X = 3.65). J l e rcsponscs to these hilo items by each groups were fifurthcr consrdcrcd to find out how mc+ group rcadcd to thc it&s. Tables Il and ill show the means, standard deviations and analvses of viriance bi groups m relation to the two items in question.

Tahle I: Means. Standard Deviations. and Analyses of Variances Relating to the Evaluation of Industrial T c c h n o l o ~ Progmmes

Evnlnntic.ln Components Overall Std. F- Areas O F ? i ~ i f i c 8 n t difference mean dm, value

- - -- - -- 1 Industnd technology

:rn-mmmes should be c\-:hated with rcspcct to i.drrcatinnal reyources, n~rnculum. and faditics to determine limrtations and pm.r;ibil~tm nm-liul to <assess thc Mcnt to which they meet the goals. philosophy and objectives of thc department and instruction.

--- - - - -

2. Evaluation of thc programmes and fkilitics shcn~ld be ~ ~ r r i c d 4.17 0.82 5.77** out annunlly to gcncrate data n c d d by thc Universities to dacrminc the worlh of the cukting programmes.

7 - . Tl~r prnqrnmmc~ nnd Fncilitics

r- . ; h ~ ~ l d bc assessed in order to make decisions regarding the asciqment of teaching pcrsonncl, srrpport personnel and studmt selection. 4.17 0.79 . 3.33*

-- 4 Annual ~valuation of the

prcmmmc should bc carried O ~ I !;cr the dcp~rtmcnt adm~nistmtim to make dcfcnsivc d ~ . ~ s i o n s m_snrdinr! prclgnmrnc c l~nn~cs . additions or dclctions

5 . . Tl~c dcparimcnt should 'cm bark on a comprchcnsive cvalwtion system in ordcr to idcntifi m q t h s and dcficiencics of faculty perf'orrnancc, thus lidpin5 thcm to improve upon their pcrfonnancc. ' 4.3 1

6. Faculty members should bc invoIved in evaluation in order that t h ~ gain evaluative expcrtisc that will hclp them plan and evaluate their own activities. . 3.95

--- - 7. Thc proe,ramme should be

evaluated to insurc xcot~ntrlbili~v of mpcnditures

throush tthc of progmmmc rcsults. 3 .PO

%. A cnct-related cvaluntion or xwmment should bc under- taken by thc department in

, c u l l a ~ n t i m with industry. in rclatian to proqmmmc attrihutcs and outcomes. 3.65 1.03 3.17*

o A team nf c~Temnl cuyerts. iiitcmnl prwnncl, cornmunit\ 'viwtcsws. t n d u q ~ pcnonncl and c m c Inv cltizens should be ~ n v o l v d in r c ~ i c ~ w r q the dcpartmmt's ol~icctivcs. c~aluation proccdu rcs contmt, pcrsonncl and programme contcnts and makc rccommmd- .irons for brinyny: thc pror.ran.~~nr:c clow to mcctinq the nccds of studcnts anll thc* cornmunit! 3.99 116 4.44'

10, Thc promotion of hcult\. and cupport pcrsonncl shot~ld bc: hnscd on rhc outcome of thcir ctlnlr13tion. +:, .# 1 1.01 1.92

1 1 . Evaluntion shrrr~ld bc usccl nc a tool to dctcrminc prograrnmc cbficicncies with a view to t;l.kin~ correction action. 4.26

12. R e tcacliing methods should be evaluated to insure that the ranye of students' learning cnpahiiitics are accomrnodatsd. 4.14

13. T!?c department adminifintm in co-opcmtion nith industry should conduct a fillow-up -tudy of _mduntes to dctcrniine sttcnyths and wcztknesses of ~hci r job prcparatim and wavs to improve the programme. 4.20

14. Utilizing a competency modcF dcvclopcd by the department ,and industry. both a p c i e s shmld evaluatc thc cniploycs' r>crformmcc on the job in order .

to m d i f v the training proipmmcs whcn nccessan..

1 5 . Thc programme should be cvaluatcd to mwrc that they are conwtcnt with the occllpatimal n c d s or thc county. 4.50

16. Thc dcpnrtntcnt and industy should ~vnrk tomhcr to devclop ndm~nistcr and intcrprct forms for on-the-job traininz evn'untions 4.37

Tahle 11: Mean ratings. standard deviation and analysis of variancc bv poup in rclation to the degrec of cmtrihution of the promotion of univcrsit!: pcrsonncl bascd on their cvaluation to the succcss of thc indu~rri al technd0.q programmes.

4 [ 4.13 1 l .H .1 1 --

*Si,pificant at the 0.05 Icvel.

. As can hc sccn in Tahlc 11. thc thrcc groups, the Universip personnel. thc industry personnel and thc: tcc'lnicnl education administrators. ntcd thc item rclativcly lowT.', indimtins that thc promotion of thc uniwrcit?. pcrscmncl b a d on thc mitcltcnmc of their evaluation will (13t c ~ n t + m much to the success of the ~nduqrial tcchnolc?~ pro~mmmes. Group 4 (shidcnts) rated thc itcm thc highcst (4.13) in thc four groups. ni.: w a n t t h t they saw nnivcrsi@ t~crl:onncl promotion bascd cm the outcome of their evaluation as con2rhtin.q hir,hly to the success of icdustrial technology pro_pmmes.

Tahle In: Mean. standard deviation and analvsis of variance in I-ciation to g o u p responsc to conducting a coq-rclatcd maluation o f p r o p v m e attrihutcs and outcome.

*Si,tyr=nifrc~mt at thc 0.05 lcvcl. A sirnrlar rcxlrlt was found in the area of conducting cost-related cvaluation or asscssmcnt in

relation to proymmme attrihutcs md outcomes. Milt the student group considered thc conducting of cost- rclztd c~nli~ation of programme attributes and outcomes as highly important for the success of the induarial tcrhnaloqv p roymmm. thc crtlicr thrcc &pups had d i f f m t views. The). did not considcr such c n d i tntion impnrtnnt nough as to cnntributc to thc succcss of thc industrial tcchnolog progxmmcs, Tablc nl indrcatm that t thc univcrsi5 pcncmncl ntcxl thc item 3.70. thc ind~~stry pcrsonncl 3 -38. and thc technical &IC:I~ ion administrators 3.30.

It i~ intcrcsting to notc that the four groups agreed that evnluation shonld bc uscd more as a tool for idmt ifiiny . - *myths and deficiencies of faculty performance than for the promotion of faculty and stipport pcrromcl.

Thc diffcrcndes in the ratings bmwcn the student group and the other three groups in relation to the usc of maluntion for thc promotion of the univmsip staff and for the dctmination of programme at t l7Wcs and miicomcs througb cost-hcncfit analysis could b.= duc tr, :hc rliffercnces in geographical lw-nt~m cvf ihc v u p s at thc timc of thc study. Thc student group sccmcd ro perceive all thc itcms or l b n ~ ~ h l c r : rrlntcrl to thc occi~pnt~mal a r m s nnd cwlontion cnmpncnts as hcinp, hiyhly important. Rcsidcs. thc +lldcnt. p u p q rcsiding in thc U+:,.d Stntcs at thc timc of the study might havc bccn grcatlv influcncd hv the United Stntcs educational s!-stcrn in which the usc of cvaluntion for staff promotion and for the just-ti~ntion of educational cspmdihrrm and fundin? is cmpha.;i,:d. Of course. onc would havc mpcctd thnt thc univcrsic pcrsonnel by lrirtuc of thcir profession wo111d ratc thc two variables highest among the

Find ilidgement recarding the cva l rhon components of the industrial technotow proErammes in order to finally idcntifv thc cvaluation components to bc included in t l ~ c industrial technology

prqrammcs. the ovcmll groups means fur each variable relatcd to question 3 of thc study were plotted on a graph. %e cut-off point w m cstahlished at 3,99. The following list of evaluation components emer3ed in ordcr of import,mcc for the evaluation of the industrial technolop p r o g a m e s .

The progmmmcs should bc evaluated to ensure that they arc consistent with thc occupational nccds of the country.

Thc department should fmltlcntly evaluatc ducational resources. progarnmcs and facilities to d e t m ~ n c lirnit~tions and pmsib~litics n d e d to assesc the cvtent to which they meet the gods, ph~losophy and objectives of the department and instnictiun

?'-he dcpartmmt and industn x: t \J!A work t o g d ~ c r to dcvelf~p. adminigcr and interpret forms for cm-thcjob training cvaluation~;.

Thc dcpartmcnt should embark on a comprchensivc cvaluar ion systrrn in ordcr to idcntie strcn@hs and dcficiencies of faculc performance, thus helping them rmprow upon thcir performance.

Emluation should he uscd as a tool to ddcrminc programme ddiciencics with a view to takining carrcctivc action.

The dcpartmcnt administration in cwq~;at ion with indnstq should conduct a follow-up studv of p d u a t c s to dcfcrmlnc strcnflhs and weaknesses of thcir j d 7 preparation and ways to improvc thc prorpmrncs.

The prommmcs and facilities should be nsscswd in order to make decisions regarding the wsivrnent crf tcachrng pcrlronncl, s11lp~1-t personnel and student selection.

Fwl~rntinn o T thc pror:rammc and fki l i t ics should hc cnrrirtl out annually to Rcncntc dntn nccdcd by thr tinivcmitics tn determine thc worth of the misting programmes.

Thc teachinq methods sl~auld be evaluated to insurc that the range of students' learning capabilities arc accommodated.

Utili7inq a compctcncv model dcvelopcd by thc department and industry. both agencies should cv;rll~ntc ihc rmplovccq pcrformmcc on thc job in ordrr to mndifv thc tnrninq proqrammcs whmc ncccssny

A tcani of c ~ t crml eupcrts. inlmm?l pcrsmncl, commrinity husincsscs, industp pcrsonnel and some In? cititcns 'should Ilc involvc;~ rn rcnimvink the department's objectives, cvaluation proccdurcs, contmt. pcmlronncl and prqpmrncs and make mcommcndations for bringing thc programmes closer to mccting the rids of thc studcnts and thc cornmlrtiw.

S w n r n ~ r y and Conclusions Thc strrd:. rcvcalcd that eleven cmluation components shoukl be emphasised in the evaluation of .

the ind.~~f-inl terhnoloc~ prq-ammcs in the Nigcrian Fcdcral Univcrsitics of Technology. The cvaluation fmuscs mainly on the curriculum. facilities. goals, phiiosophy and objectives of the department, the cmmuni& and thc cmintry at largc.

Prognmme evaluation at all levels of schooling, especially at the university Icvcl, is v e y important in odcr to ins~~re that progamme ccmntcmts arc rccponsive to the cwr-changing technolw. Programme cvaluation is also nccessa? from the stand point of accountability. As stated in the Fourth National Dcvelopmnt Plan ( 1 QR 1-85) (Fdcnl Ministry of National Plmniitg, 1981, pp. 259-260), the Federal Ciovcmmtmt of Ni~cria has invcstd h c sum of M O . 2 million naira whilc the state govcrnmcnts invested the srlm of 736.649 million nain in technical cduwtion. Also, thc pl,mned capital mpmdihirc for thc univcmihv waq cstimatcd at 1.250 billion n a h which represents 50% of the total investment in the dumt im sector. It is therefore, almost imperative that the educational progmmmes be evaluated occnsionally to insure accountability of expenditures as indicated in this study. The areas of cmphasis idcntificd in this study will help to monitor and evaluate the industrial educatiodtcchnology pro_yammcs to insurc t5at t h p kcep abrcast of tcchnolo~ical changes in the world of work.

REFERENCES

Federal Mini s t y of National Planning. First National Development Plan. National Pl arming Office, Federal Ministn of National Planning. Lagos, 1062.

- Fcdcnl Ministrv of National Planning. Fourth National Development Plan (1 98 1-83) National Planning Office. r-den1 Ministry of National PI.?~iling, Lags, 198 1 .

F ~ d m i Yepublic of Ni~eria. Natlonal Policy on Education. Fedcral Ministry of education, Printing D~visim, Lagos. 1977.