Table 2.

Based on the result from Table 2.1, In terms of Ownership of devices, Smartphones have the
highest ownership rate of 98.45%, Laptops are the second most common device, with a
ownership rate of 38.86%. In contrast, desktop computers and tablets seem to have relatively
low ownership rates, with 81.35% and 71.5% of the respondents, respectively, reporting no
plans to acquire these devices.

When examining access to ICTs, the data suggests that desktop computers are primarily
provided by the universities, with 50.52% of the respondents indicating that they have access to
these devices through their institutions. However, the majority of mobile phones used by the
university population are personal devices, accounting for 85.75% of the total. Regarding
laptops, personal access is relatively low, with only 4.92% of the respondents having access to
these devices through their universities and 3.63% using them for personal activities. This
indicates that a significant proportion, around 91.45%, do not have access to or permission to
use laptops. Similarly, tablets have limited use, with 67.36% of the respondents reporting no
access or allowance for these devices (Kobus et al., 2013)(Skiba, 2018)(Brooks & Pomerantz,
2017).

Table 2.2

In Table 2.2, the data that was presented brings out relevant information concerning how
university students use internet and connectivity trends with their lives. This is shown by the
fact that it is possible for anyone to connect to the internet using their mobile device (90.05%),
which is a portable thing since it can be moved around by carrying it in one’s hand or pocket.
Moreover, most of the students have access to Wi-Fi or wireless internet on campus as
revealed by this data which stood at 99% responses. Similarly, majority of respondents go
online every day as illustrated by the information given here (Butt, 2020).

Table 2.3 A

From Table 2. 3 A, it can be seen that average weighted mean for all the skills is
3.2(Meirinhos et al., 2020), which lies between “Can use it satisfactorily” and “Can
use it well”. Skills exhibit significant differences with the lowest being
spreadsheets (2.25) and the highest being search engines (4.56)(Yang et al.,
2022). The distribution appears to be slightly skewed to the right, indicating that
there are more skills at lower levels of proficiency than higher ones. The fact that
a negative kurtosis is found implies that the distribution is relatively flat
(platykurtic) compared to a normal one, hence suggesting wider dispersion of skill
levels.(Yang et al., 2022)

These findings are consistent with past studies on teachers’ digital competences,
which have shown their variance in terms of technical and pedagogical abilities.
(Meirinhos et al., 2020)(Husain et al., 2012)(Erratum, 1999). This emphasizes the
need for comprehensive frameworks as well as guidelines for improving
educators’ digital competence as stated in literature.(Meirinhos et al., 2020)
(Fraile et al., 2018)(Lowry et al., 1951). Some teachers may be very good at using
some digital tools or technologies but others could struggle thereby necessitating
specific professional development or training programs targeting this
group(Srivastava & Dangwal, 2021).

Table 2.3 B

Table 2.3 provides an insight into the different applications between different computing skills,
based on the information presented in B. The findings reveal a complex picture of teachers’ ICT
capabilities, with greater proficiency in some areas compared to others. Email ranks at 74.8%,
reflecting teachers’ comfort with its primary communication channel in the digital age.
(Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation, 2016) Word processor and spreadsheet
skills also rank at 73.2% and 65.2%, respectively, of these key business tools It shows strong
retention.(Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation, 2016)

But the data also highlight areas where teacher skills are very limited. Web design ranks highest
at 41.2%, indicating the need for additional training and support in this area.(Buenvinida &
Crisologo, 2017) So do multimedia writing (52.4%) and digital audio (48.6%) skills background,
which can develop these for a rigorous learning experience Challenges in implementing
technology.(Avila et al., 2021)

Table 2.4

Table 2.4 shows students’ and teachers’ access to social media. The table shows
that the majority (100%) of respondents (386) have social media profiles, with
Facebook and Twitter being the most popular platforms. While many users
update their status frequently, a significant number do not frequently. Most of
the students spend 3-5 hours a day on social media 66.32%. Statistics show that
students and teachers are more engaged with social media, preferring general
content to primarily educational communication.

Table 2.5 A

The available technological resources and services provided to students have been researched
and analyzed.(Albinson et al., 2020)(Rodríguez & Moriña, 2017). The data presented in the
table, providing insight into the availability and perceived quality of various technology-related
resources offered in an academic institution. The table shows that the topmost factor is
“Computer labs”, with a weighted average of 4.48(Gillespie, 1987), which has been described as
“good” and ranks first.(Lei & Zhao, 2007). This means that the institution places a strong
emphasis on providing students with access to high-quality computers, which is consistent with
the findings of systematic reviews that identified the importance of technology in improving
student feedback and grades.( Reck, 2020). The second factor “eClassroom facilities,” which has
a weighted average of 4.(Gillespie, 1987)20 and is described as “Good,” emphasizes the
institution’s investment in technology-assisted teaching and learning environments However,
most items were described as “neutral”, with weighted averages ranging from 2.63 to 3.29,
indicating that there is room for improvement in the quality and availability of these items.
( Ariffin et al., 2014). The lowest item, “e-books,” with a weighted average of 2. 63 and a
“neutral” description indicates that the institution may need to reassess its digital offerings and
ensure that reaching a large number of students electronic learning materials.
Table 2.5 B

The analysis of the table reveals an interesting picture of technology integration in the learning
environment. The top category is Wi-Fi access, rated “good” with a score of 3.43 (Pittman &
Gaines, 2015). This means that the organization gives priority to providing reliable wireless
connectivity, which is a necessity in modern teaching and learning(ChanLin, 2007)(Banas, 2010).
Interestingly, most of the products and services are rated as “neutral”, meaning that technology
integration is easy(Studley et al., 2014). Three areas have been highlighted as being considered
particularly “relevant”: eportfolios, online/virtual technologies, and access to software(Bhat,
2023). The overall coefficient of 2.79 falls within the “neutral” range, further supporting the
idea of declining technology-related integration in learning environments(Pittman & Gaines,
2015). The data further reveals that network bandwidth/speed and eClassroom facilities are the
next most adopted factors after Wi-Fi installation, indicating that integrating technology into
learning environments is easier(Studley et al., 2014). These findings indicate that there is room
for improvement in a number of areas, such as increasing integration of internet/virtual
technologies, improving software usage, and information that can overcome issues related to
network bandwidth and e- . management of classroom facilities(Bhat, 2023).