Accessibility to Educational Technology and Its Influence on Students’ Academic Achievement in Secondary Schools in Kenya

Accessibility to Educational Technology and its Influence on Students’ Academic Achievement in Secondary Schools in Kenya

Joanne Nabwire Lyanda^{1 *}, Grace A. Koteng², Raphael Odhiambo Ong’unya³

¹PhD. Student Kisii University

²Senior Lecturer, Instruction and Media, Kisii University

³Senior Lecturer of Curriculum Evaluation, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010183 

Received: 07 January 2025; Accepted: 11 January 2025; Published: 11 February 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examined the influence of accessing educational technology on students’ academic achievement in Kakamega County, Kenya. Using a mixed-method approach, data was collected from 77 principals, 461 teachers, 138 heads of departments (HoDs), and 67 technical staff through questionnaires, interviews, observation checklists, and document analysis. Participants were selected through multistage sampling techniques. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression. The findings revealed a significant positive relationship between access to educational technology and improved academic performance. Regression analysis showed that access to educational technology accounted for a substantial proportion of variance in academic outcomes: 65.7% for teachers (𝑅² = 0.657, 𝑝 = 0.032), 81.4% for HoDs (𝑅² = 0.814, 𝑝 = 0.011), and 77.2% for technical staff (𝑅² = 0.772, 𝑝 = 0.017). Schools with access to community resource centers, which had some technology equipment, demonstrated better academic performance compared to school which had no access. The analysis of variance results confirmed that the influence of educational technology access was statistically significant across all categories (𝐹 = 0.554, 𝑝 < 0.05). Interestingly, a unit increase in access to educational technology was associated with variations in performance, ranging from a positive change of 0.011 for HoDs to a negative but marginal change of -0.019 for technical staff, highlighting disparities in access to technology and consequently, utilization. The study underscored the need for equitable access to technology, supported by functional resource-sharing schedules, teacher training, and robust infrastructure. Recommendations included increasing investment in technological resources, especially in under-resourced schools, to foster inclusive and effective learning environments and enhance academic outcomes.

Keywords: Educational technology, Accessibility, Academic achievement

INTRODUCTION

The integration of technology into educational systems has fundamentally transformed the learning environment, improving accessibility to resources and enhancing academic outcomes. With technology continuing to revolutionize various sectors globally (O’Halloran, 2015), the importance of integrating technology into education cannot be emphasized enough. Accessibility to educational technology has emerged as a critical factor in bridging the digital divide and promoting more equitable learning opportunities. Schools must ensure that students and teachers alike have reliable access to technological tools to foster an environment that supports both learning and teaching (Buabeng, 2012). Despite the growing recognition of its significance, many developing nations still face challenges in ensuring that their educational institutions are adequately equipped to incorporate technology into everyday teaching practices (O’Halloran, 2015).

The concept of accessibility extends beyond just having technological tools in place. It involves the availability and effective utilization of these tools by both students and educators. Schools must provide the necessary infrastructure and support systems for technology to be successfully integrated into teaching and learning (Tomei, 2018). While educational technology offers immense potential to enhance learning experiences, accessibility to such technology remains a major barrier in many regions. There still exits significant gaps in technology infrastructure across schools, particularly in rural areas. These disparities hinder the effective integration of technology into the curriculum and ultimately limit students’ ability to fully benefit from technological advancements (Ford, 2007). As Prensky (2001); Suša Vugec and Stjepić, (2022) notes, students are “digital natives,” familiar with technology and its capabilities. For education to remain relevant and meet the demands of the 21st century, it is imperative that schools provide equal access to these tools to teachers and learners, regardless of their geographic location or socioeconomic status.

The importance of ensuring accessibility to educational technology is further emphasized by the global shift towards digital learning environments, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic which occurred between 2020 and 2023. The pandemic reinforced the need for accessible technology in education, as students and educators were forced to adapt to remote and online learning platforms. In many cases, students in underprivileged areas were left behind due to limited access to devices and unreliable internet connections (Kobiruzzaman, 2022). Additionally, accessibility is not solely about having technology available in schools; it also encompasses the training and support needed for effective use. Teachers must be equipped with the skills and knowledge to integrate technology into their teaching methods, and students must be trained to use these tools for academic purposes. As Gatuyu (2020) observes, teacher training is essential to maximize the potential of technology in the classroom. Without adequate preparation, both students and educators may struggle to utilize technology effectively, undermining its potential to enhance the learning experience.

According to Plomp, Law, Anderson, and Quale, 2015; Balanskat et al. (2018), one of the biggest obstacles to educational technology adoption in schools is limited access to various technological resources such as broadband, hardware, updates, and technical assistance among others. Teachers cannot use educational technology resources if they are not accessible to them. According to Yildrim (2021), one of the best ways for instructors to incorporate technology into their lessons is for them to have access to technical resources. Hennessy (2010) observed that a huge population in sub-Saharan Africa do not use technology because of inadequate hardware, software, and internet access. According to studies on the use of educational technology in Kenyan secondary schools, the biggest obstacles to implementation are the differences in infrastructure and access between rural and urban areas, particularly with regard to technologies and electricity (Mingaine (2018), Manduku et al, Laaria, 2021). Albirini (2006) found that teachers lacked access to computers at schools which curtailed their use. Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah, and Fooi’s (2009) report highlighted in the National Centre for Education Statistics’ 2000 report, stated that equitable and more accessible digital resources for educators, students, and administrative personnel is crucial. With access to the right technology, teachers can carefully evaluate the affordability and limitations of any technological tool before integrating it into instruction (Friedhoff, 2008; Tondeur, & Braak, 2008). Dexter & Reidel (2003) observed that teachers have greater access to computers than learners.

Accessibility to educational technology influences students’ ability to develop important skills needed in the modern workplace, such as problem-solving, collaboration, and creativity (Shubina & Kulakli, 2019). By integrating technology into education, schools can foster an environment where students engage in active, self-directed learning which helps prepare students for the demands of the 21st-century job market, where technology skills are increasingly essential. For students to develop these skills, they must have access to technological tools that allow for personalized learning and collaboration without which, it would be impossible to fit in. This study highlights that improving accessibility to educational technology is key to ensuring that all students benefit from the transformative power of technology in education.

METHODOLOGY

The study adopted a descriptive survey research design to gather data on the state of access to educational technology in secondary schools in Kakamega County. This design was chosen as it allows for the collection of accurate data from multiple cases at a given time and also facilitates the drawing of reliable general inferences. Stratified sampling technique was used to get respondents who included principals, heads of departments, teachers, and technicians thus ensuring a representative sample. A total of 794 respondents were sampled, with 743 providing valid responses. Data was collected using a mix of research instruments: questionnaires, interview schedules, observation schedules, and document analysis. These tools were designed to capture a comprehensive range of information regarding participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and practices related to educational technology. The collected data was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics to summarize and interpret the findings, allowing for an in-depth understanding of the status of educational technology in the region. The methodology ensured the validity and reliability of the results, contributing to a robust analysis of the research problem.

FINDINGS

This study explored how access to educational technology influences student’s academic achievement. In this study, access to educational technology was equated to use since one can only use that which they can access. Data was collected from HODs, Teachers, Technicians and principals. Data collected was cross tabulated and presented in table format.

Learners access to Educational Technology resources

The teachers and HoDs were asked whether learners have access to available educational technology resources in schools. The responses were as is recorded in table 1.

Table 1: Accessible Educational Technology and academic achievement (n=599)

From the data on table 1, it can be observed that while most (223, 48.4%) teachers disagreed with learners accessing cameras. The majority of the HODs mostly disagreed to students accessing the listed technology resources across board.it can also be observed that most (241, 52.3%) teachers and (69, 50.0%) HoDs of schools with an academic mean of between 4 and 8 agreed to learners accessing radio. Interestingly, none (0, 0.0%) of the HoDs are aware of learners accessing LCD projectors. This seems to imply that the LCD projectors are not available for learning purposes.

 During the interviews, one of the principals had this to say:

 ‘…. Technology plays an increasingly important role in education at all levels. For example, schools and colleges commonly use computers in traditional classrooms, electronic book readers supplement or replace paper textbooks, online classes are coming up, online registration, class or school attendance and class scheduling are being done using technology. Having learners access and use technology in learning enables them to mirror the work environment to which they are headed to. It also makes them enjoy learning….’

Dexter and Reidel (2003) report that teachers had more access to technology than students. This limited the use of the technology to teachers. It is important that teachers prioritize technology use beyond access to supporting broad engagement in the use of educational technology (Rectanus, K 2020). Most of the items listed in the observation schedule were not available in schools and hence not accessible for use in learning.

A cross tabulation between student academic achievement and school administration support to access educational technology was run from the HODs responses. The academic achievement was graded using averages ranging from 1 (lowest) to 12 (highest). The results was as presented in table 3.

Table 2: School administration support to access educational technology and academic achievement (n=138)

From the data in table 2, it can be observed that most HoDs (44, 31.9%) in schools with academic mean of between 4 and 8 agreed to being supported to access educational technology. It can be observed that those who agreed to receiving support from the school administration were more than those who disagreed. The average academic achievement of the schools that agreed to receiving support from school administration to access educational technology was ranging between 4 and 8 which is fairly good.

During interviews one of the principals said that any project spearheaded by the school administration and with no support for teachers was bound to fail. Efficient school administrative support results to adoption of educational technology which consequently lead to improved academic achievement. This is supported by Zaman et al, (2018) who stated that school readiness is a key process that could lead to the adoption of technology in schools. Some teachers and learners are unable to access the available technology since the resources are restricted for use by school administrations (Albirini, 2006, Makhanu, 2018, Manduku et al, Laaria, 2021). The lack of technological infrastructure is an obstacle towards access to educational technology for learners in developing nations (Areba, 2021). Accessing educational technology is supported by Yildrim (2021) who asserts that one of the best methods for instructors to incorporate technology into their lessons is for them to access it.

Access to Internet Services

The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether schools have access to internet resources. In addition, there was need to find out whether the schools paid internet subscription fees to ensure uninterrupted connectivity. This information was cross tabulated against academic achievement and the results were as shown in 4.

Table 3: Internet availability and academic achievement (n=138)

The data in table 3 indicates that most schools 18(13.0%) with a mean of above 8 rarely had internet due to inconsistent internet subscription. It is interesting to note that schools that never had internet had their mean academic achievement mostly below 4. Only a small number of schools (7, 5.4%) had prompt internet subscription and a mean of above 8. This data points to the fact that availability of stable internet in schools can be good or bad depending on usage. Schools showed better academic achievement without internet than with internet.

Most schools had internet but non-payment of subscription fee led to the school being without internet services. Schools in poor nations frequently face a lack of internet connectivity (Mingaine, 2018). According to Bates (2020) technology is unlikely to be a feasible option for instructors until there is a fundamental and trustworthy infrastructure in place. Furthermore, Laaria (2021) asserts that a prerequisite for technology adoption is affordable, dependable internet connectivity. By helping teachers and students communicate with one another and with a wealth of helpful information in an effective manner, internet enhances the teaching process (Ajuoga, 2020). Utilizing technology, which includes electronic media, internet platforms, and cutting-edge educational technologies, yields multiple advantages: greater accessibility to a wider range of learning resources; improved explanations and insights into the subject matter taught through the use of numerous presentation tools, thereby promoting participatory pedagogies (Granić, A. 2022).

During interviews, one principal said:

‘Failure to pay for internet subscription by schools is something that could easily be avoided if the government funds for schools were relayed to schools on time. This would allow smooth running of school activities and functions. The blame then falls squarely on the government and not schools.’

Availability of Technology Laboratories

The study sought to find out the number of technology laboratories available in schools. The responses received were cross tabulated against the academic achievement and results were as presented in table 5.

Table 4: Availability of Educational Technology Laboratories and Academic achievement (n=138)

From the data on table 4, most (71, 51.4%) schools with mean of below 4 had one to two technology laboratories while only (14, 10.1%) of schools with a mean of above 8 had above five educational technology laboratories. The data points to the fact that schools having technology laboratories facilitated access to educational technology and consequently their use thereby enhancing student academic achievement.

The heads of departments were required to state whether there was a schedule for shared educational technology resources to increase access of educational technology for learning, their responses were cross tabulated with the mean academic achievement and results were as displayed in table 6.

Table 5: Schedule for Shared Technology Resources (n=138)

From the data on table 5, it can be observed that most (39, 28.3%) HoDs from schools with a mean below 4 disagreed that there was a schedule for sharing the available educational technology resources. However, 22(15.9%) of the HoDs were unsure of whether their schools had a schedule for shared resources and the academic achievement of these schools was ranging between 4 and 8. This implies that by schools not having a schedule to enable equitable access to available resources could lead to a lot of confusion among teachers who would want to use them. Thus, teachers would shy away from using them to avoid conflict and time wastage.

A schedule for shared educational technology resources in schools is meant to create order and increase equitable access and use of the available resources (Thomas, 2016). By not having a functional schedule, schools were hindering proper and equitable access of the available educational technology resources leading to low use of technology in instruction process.

The study sought to find out whether there was a community resource Centre which would increase access to educational technology resources, their responses were cross tabulated with the mean academic achievement and the results were as presented in table 7.

Table 6: Access to Community Resource Centre and Academic Achievement (n=138)

Form the data on table 6, it can be observed that most (89, 64.5%) hods of schools with a mean of below 4 indicated they do not have a community resource center. Only 9(6.5%) of the HoDs agreed that their schools had access to a community resource center and the school mean academic achievement was above 8. This implied that schools accessing educational technology resources from community resource centers was a challenge that negatively affected the overall academic achievement of the schools.

To establish the extent of access to educational technology and its influence on students’ academic achievement, the following null hypothesis was tested at an alpha level of 0.05 using Regression analysis.

Ho₃ Access to educational technology has no influence on students’ academic achievement in Kakamega County,

The study investigated whether teachers’ use of educational technology has influence on students’ academic achievement. A linear regression analysis was carried out at 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 8 – 10.

Table 7: Model summary for teachers’ data

The source of the variance, regression, residual, and total are displayed in Table 4.47. The variation that is not explained by the independent variables (Residual) and the variance that is explained by the independent variables (Regression) make up the total variance.

Table 8: ANOVA for teachers’ data

Predicting the dependent variable from the independent variable using a regression equation is illustrated by the numbers in Table 9.

Table 9: Regression Coefficients for Teachers’ Data

In 7-9, a multiple linear regression was fitted to explain student academic achievement based on access to educational technology. Every regression analysis premise was satisfied. The entire model is highly helpful in describing the variation of student academic achievement, accounting for 65.7% of the variation, 𝐹 (1, 66) = 1.062, 𝑝 < .05. With one-unit increase in access to educational technology, student academic achievement decreases by -.004, which was found to be a significant change, 𝑡(459)= .229, 𝑝 < .05. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that access to educational technology has influence on students’ academic achievement.

To find out from HODs whether accessing educational technology has influence on students’ academic achievement, a linear regression analysis was carried out at 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 11 – 13.

Table 10: Model summary for HODs data

The source, regression, residual, and total variance are displayed in Table 4.49. The variance that can be accounted for by the independent variables (regression) and the variance that cannot be accounted for by the independent variables (residual) make up the total variance.

Table 11: ANOVA for HODs data

Table 11 shows the values for the regression equation for predicting the dependent variable in this case, student academic achievement from the independent variable which is the access to educational technology.

Table 12: Regression coefficient for HODs data

In Table 10-12, a multiple linear regression was fitted to explain student academic achievement based on access to educational technology. Every regression analysis premise was satisfied. The total model is very helpful in describing the variation of student academic achievement, accounting for 81.4% of the variation, 𝐹 (1, 136) = 0.554, 𝑝 < .05. With one-unit increase in access to educational technology, student academic achievement increases by .011, which was found to be a significant change, 𝑡(136)= .745, 𝑝 < .05. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that access to educational technology has influence on students’ academic achievement.

The researcher sought to find out from technical staff whether use of educational technology has influence on students’ academic achievement. A linear regression analysis was carried out at 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 14-16.

Table 13: Model summary for technical staff data

The source of the variance, regression, residual, and total are displayed in Table 15. The variation that is not explained by the independent variables (Residual) and the variance that is explained by the independent variables (Regression) make up the total variance.

Table 14: ANOVA for technical staff data

Table 15 shows the values for the regression equation for predicting the dependent variable from the independent variable.

Table 15: Regression coefficients for technical staff data

In Table 13-15, a multiple linear regression was fitted to explain student academic achievement based on access to educational technology. The total model is quite helpful in explaining the variation in student academic achievement, accounting for 77.2% of the variation, 𝐹 (1, 66) = 0.153, 𝑝 < .05. With one-unit increase in access to of educational technology, student academic achievement decreases by -.019, which was found to be a significant change, 𝑡(66)= .017, 𝑝 < .05. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that access to educational technology has influence on students’ academic achievement.

These results imply that accessing available educational technology resources is vital to enable their use in the classroom process thereby enhancing overall academic achievement of learners.

CONCLUSION

Although various technologies exist in schools, their use is often confined to administrative tasks such as record-keeping, communication, and general operations. Access to educational technology influences students’ academic achievement since its use affects the teaching and learning process. Shared resources in schools did not have a schedule to ensure equitable access to all. Internet availability was sporadic due to subscription issues. Schools are willing and are supporting access and subsequent use of educational technology despite the myriad of challenges they experience. Access to technology in schools is vital for enhancing the learning experience and fostering a technologically adept generation. By enabling access and use of technology, educational institutions will not only modernize the learning process but also bridge the gap between academic knowledge and real-world applications, preparing students for a technologically driven future.

RECOMMENDATIONS

School administrations play a critical role in ensuring that the available educational technology resources are accessible to both teachers and learners. Granting such access is fundamental, as it is only through active engagement with technology resources that their potential to enhance the teaching and learning process can be fully realized. Schools must prioritize making available technologies accessible to both teachers and learners to maximize their potential in the educational process. It is therefore recommended that schools should support access to technology for teaching.

Learners should be enabled to access educational technology so that they attain opportunities for independent study, collaboration, and skill-building. Teachers and students should be encouraged to embrace these tools, which will lead to their sustained use and optimization. Schools should encourage access to educational technology thereby unlocking the transformative potential of educational technology and ultimately contributing to a more dynamic, efficient, and effective learning environment. Ultimately, fostering the use of technology among both teachers and learners will increase its adoption levels across schools.

REFERENCES

1. Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communication technology. International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 77–104.
2. Albirini, A. (2006). Cultural perceptions: The missing element in the implementation of ICT in developing countries. International Journal of Education Development, 26(4), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.08.004
3. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2018). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet.
4. Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(1), 136–155. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1084227.pdf
5. Dexter, S. L., & Reidel, E. (2003). Why improving preservice teacher educational technology preparation must go beyond the college classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 334–346.
6. Ford, M. (2007). Internet adoption in developing nations: Bridging the digital divide. Global Education Perspectives, 18(3), 77–94.
7. Friedhoff, J. R. (2008). Using technology in the classroom: Pedagogical concerns. Educational Technology, 38(2), 34–43.
8. Gatuyu, K. (2020). Teacher training as a tool for successful technology integration in classrooms. Journal of Educational Change, 15(3), 231–246.
9. Granić, A. (2022). Participatory pedagogies and technology-enhanced learning environments. Education Research International, 2022(5), 1–13.
10. Hennessy, S., Harrison, D., & Wamakote, L. (2010). Teacher factors influencing classroom use of ICT in Sub-Saharan Africa. Itupale Online Journal of African Studies, 2(1), 39–54.
11. Kobiruzzaman, T. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and technology gaps in education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 1093–1110.
12. Laaria, M. (2021). Infrastructure challenges in implementing ICT in schools. ICT in Education Review, 14(2), 45–67.
13. Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2007). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504534
14. Makhanu, F. M. (2010). Overcoming challenges to ICT integration in rural schools. In Mingaine, E. (Ed.), Bridging the Digital Divide in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 145–168). Nairobi: African Education Press.
15. Manduku, J., Kosgey, A., & Sang, H. (2010). Adoption and use of ICT in enhancing management of public secondary schools in Kenya. International Journal of ICT Research and Development in Africa, 1(1), 1–13.
16. Mingaine, E. (2013). Challenges in the implementation of ICT in public secondary schools in Kenya. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 4(1), 224–238.
17. O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475.
18. O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., & E, M. K. L. (2017). Multimodal analysis for critical thinking. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 147–170. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1142443
19. Plomp, T., Law, N., Anderson, R. E., & Quale, A. (2015). Cross-national information technology policy and practices in education. Information Age Publishing.
20. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
21. Reid, D. (2014). Building infrastructure for ICT in education: Best practices. Journal of Educational Infrastructure, 9(2), 36–49.
22. Rectanus, K. (2020). Expanding student-centered learning through technology. Journal of Technology Integration, 8(4), 11–29.
23. Shubina, I., & Kulakli, A. (2019). Pervasive learning and technology usage for creativity development in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 14(1), 95.
24. Suša Vugec, D., & Stjepić, A. M. (2022). Digital literacy of digital natives. In Technological Challenges: The Human Side of the Digital Age(pp. 61-91). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
25. Thomas, D. (2016). Resource-sharing frameworks for equitable technology access in schools. Technology & Education Quarterly, 22(1), 7–15.
26. Tomei, L. A. (2018). Integrating technology in the classroom: Tools to meet the needs of every student. IGI Global.
27. Tondeur, J., & Van Braak, J. (2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational beliefs and technology use. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 227–243.
28. Yildirim, S. (2021). The importance of access to educational technology for teachers. Educational Review, 73(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1756604
29. Zaman, T., Yue, W., & Hashim, H. (2018). School readiness in adopting ICT tools for education. Journal of Educational Development, 12(2), 56–78.