IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i20p8878-d1498042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appraising Education 4.0 in Nigeria’s Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of Built Environment Programmes

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Ebekozien

    (Sustainable Human Settlement and Construction Research Centre, Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2008, South Africa
    Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Quantity Surveying, INTI-International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia
    School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden 11800, Malaysia
    Department of Quantity Surveying, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi 312101, Nigeria)

  • Mohamed Ahmed Hafez

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Quantity Surveying, INTI-International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia)

  • Clinton Aigbavboa

    (Sustainable Human Settlement and Construction Research Centre, Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2008, South Africa)

  • Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan

    (School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden 11800, Malaysia)

  • Abubakar Zakariyya Al-Hasan

    (Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi 312101, Nigeria)

  • Angeline Ngozika Chibuike Nwaole

    (Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Nekede 460113, Nigeria)

Abstract

In the era of digitalisation, the construction industry is fast embracing digital technology, which evolved from Industry 4.0 (fourth industrial revolution [4IR]). Built environment programmes (BEPs) are expected to meet the needs of the digitalisation era via Education 4.0. Education 4.0 aims to transform education’s future with diverse digital automation and innovative paedagogical procedures. Studies concerning Education 4.0 in Nigeria’s BEPs are scarce. Hence, this study aims to appraise Education 4.0 and investigate the perceived issues facing implementing Education 4.0 in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), using BEPs as a case study. The findings intend to improve Education 4.0 implementation practices in BEPs. Data were sourced from 40 participants across Nigeria for better coverage and representation via a semi-structured interview approach. The participants were knowledgeable about Education 4.0 and Nigeria’s BEPs. This study adopted a thematic analysis of the virtually collected data and presented the findings in themes. This study shows that Education 4.0 implementation in Nigeria’s BEPs is lax and should be overhauled to improve achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4)—quality education—and other related SDGs. The findings reveal that improved Education 4.0 can enhance the achievement of SDG 4. The findings cluster the perceived 18 hindrances facing Education 4.0 implementation into three main groups. Also, the findings proffer feasible measures to improve Education 4.0 implementation in Nigeria’s HEIs, using BEPs as a case study, via improved transformative competencies, technological advancement, innovative paedagogical procedures, and stakeholders’ collaboration to improve achieving SDG 4. The proposed framework could assist in creating new values and transforming the students’ BEP competencies via stakeholder collaboration and Education 4.0 for the private sector (future talents’ beneficiary), thus fostering their employability.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Ebekozien & Mohamed Ahmed Hafez & Clinton Aigbavboa & Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan & Abubakar Zakariyya Al-Hasan & Angeline Ngozika Chibuike Nwaole, 2024. "Appraising Education 4.0 in Nigeria’s Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of Built Environment Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:20:p:8878-:d:1498042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/20/8878/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/20/8878/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Strand & R. Freeman, 2015. "Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 65-85, March.
    2. Robert Strand & R. Freeman, 2015. "Erratum to: Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 87-87, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hildegunn Mellesmo Aslaksen & Clare Hildebrandt & Hans Chr. Garmann Johnsen, 2021. "The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR: towards a more comprehensive emphasis on sustainability," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Mariusz Zielinski & Izabela Jonek-Kowalska, 2020. "Profitability of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities from the Perspective of Corporate Social Managers," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 264-280.
    3. Araniyar C. Isukul & John J. Chizea, 2017. "Corporate Governance Disclosure in Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis in Nigerian and South African Banks," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(3), pages 21582440177, July.
    4. Erick Auma Omondi, 2024. "Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategies on Sustainability of Cement Industry in Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(3s), pages 1945-1968, March.
    5. Luigi Nasta & Veronica Cundari, 2024. "Aligning multinational corporate strategies with Sustainable Development Goals: A case study of an Italian energy firm's initiatives in developing markets," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 3902-3915, September.
    6. Mähönen Jukka, 2020. "Integrated Reporting and Sustainable Corporate Governance from European Perspective," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-40, July.
    7. Sharon Kwaramba & Stanley Murairwa, 2022. "Enhancing the quality of decisions by administrators: A framework for identifying, classifying and engaging primary school stakeholders in Harare, Zimbabwe," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(1), pages 46-56, January.
    8. Wendy Phillips & Elizabeth A. Alexander & Hazel Lee, 2019. "Going It Alone Won’t Work! The Relational Imperative for Social Innovation in Social Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 315-331, May.
    9. Melsa Ararat & Asli M. Colpan & Dirk Matten, 2018. "Business Groups and Corporate Responsibility for the Public Good," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 911-929, December.
    10. Rebecca Chunghee Kim & Akira Saito & V. Mohan Avvari, 0. "Interpretation and integration of “creating shared value” in Asia: implications for strategy research and practice," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-28.
    11. Diego F. Uribe & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Ángel Uruburu, 2018. "What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    12. Indrawati Yuhertiana & Maheran Zakaria & Dwi Suhartini & Helmy Wahyu Sukiswo, 2022. "Cooperative Resilience during the Pandemic: Indonesia and Malaysia Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Olivia Aronson & Irene Henriques, 2023. "Shared Value Creation in Equivocal CSR Environments: A Configuration Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(4), pages 713-732, November.
    14. Veronica, Scuotto & Alexeis, Garcia-Perez & Valentina, Cillo & Elisa, Giacosa, 2020. "Do stakeholder capabilities promote sustainable business innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence from Italy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 131-141.
    15. Polterovich, Victor, 2022. "Конкуренция, Сотрудничество И Удовлетворенность Жизнью. Часть 2. Основа Лидерства – Коллаборативные Преимущества [Competition, Collaboration, and Life Satisfaction Part 2. The Fundament of Leadersh," MPRA Paper 113053, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Kim, Rebecca Chunghee & Yoo, Kate Inyoung & Uddin, Helal, 2018. "The Korean Air nut rage scandal: Domestic versus international responses to a viral incident," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 533-544.
    17. Andersen, Sophie Esmann & Høvring, Christiane Marie, 2020. "CSR stakeholder dialogue in disguise: Hypocrisy in story performances," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 421-435.
    18. Ana Nave & João Ferreira, 2019. "Corporate social responsibility strategies: Past research and future challenges," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 885-901, July.
    19. Jose Luis Retolaza & Ricardo Aguado & Leire Alcaniz, 2019. "Stakeholder Theory Through the Lenses of Catholic Social Thought," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 969-980, July.
    20. Alipranti, Maria & Manasakis, Constantine & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2024. "Corporate social responsibility and bargaining in unionized markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 949-965.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:20:p:8878-:d:1498042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.