This study adhered to the same ethical standards as those of the universities it analyzed. Ethical approval was received from all six institutions (see appendix for letters from university gatekeepers) (see appendix). Everyone who took part in the study knew what it was about and what its goals were. So, they took part in the study because they knew why it was being done. Protecting the participants' right
to remain anonymous was very important, so they were told they could keep certain details to themselves. Participants' privacy was protected with passwords and other security measures, and they remained anonymous by not giving out their names.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results from the statistical analyses with the interpretation of the same. This chapter is organised as follows. The first and second sections covered respondents’ demographic profiles. The third and fourth sections covered assessment of availability of technologies, learning environment and teaching strategies for skill training from the Lecturers’ and students’ perspectives, respectively. The fifth section focused on lecturers perceived acceptance and usage of technology for mechanical engineering training. The sixth section focused on three path models which are examined using PLS-SEM. The last section focused on the findings from interview and focus group discussions.
This segment reports the respondents’ demographic profile. Table 4.1 offers an overview of the lecturers’ demographics, while Table 4.13 presents a similar breakdown for students. By examining the profiles of both lecturers and students, this analysis aims to better understand the perspectives of these two key stakeholders in the educational process. The diversity in age, gender, educational background, and marital status among the respondents ensures a comprehensive representation of opinions and experiences within the study.
Share with your friends: |