UTILIZATION OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES BY AGRICULTURAL LECTURERS IN SOUTH- SOUTH TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009239

No of Pages: 119

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦5000

  • $


ABSTRACT

 

The study examined the utilization of web 2.0 technologies by Agricultural Lecturers in South -South tertiary institutions in Nigeria, precisely; UNICAL, UNIUYO and UNIPORT. The specific objectives were to; describes the personal characteristics of the respondents; ascertain respondents perceived benefit of the use of web 2.0 technologies in the study area; determine the effectiveness of web 2.0 technology for delivering web-based instruction in the study area; ascertain the level of web 2.0 technologies utilization by the respondents in the study area; and examine constraints affecting the utilization of web 2.0 technologies by the respondents. Purposive and proportionate sampling techniques were used to select 168 Agricultural lecturers who had undergone training on web 2.0 technology in the study area. Primary data were collected with a well-structured questionnaire. Primary data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts; means scores, percentages (%) and inferential statistics such as t-test of significance at 5% level. The studies revealed that, majority of the respondents were within the age bracket of 45 years old (37.5%) while the 2.4% of respondents were between 55 years. Majority (64.9%) of the respondents were males while 35.1% were females. Majority (84.5%) of the respondents were married while 11.3% were single. A good proportion (50.0%) of respondents earned N200,000 as their salary while few earned N400,000 (2.4%) per month. More than half of the sampled population of the (28.6%) respondents attained the rank of Assistant Lecturer while few (1.2%) attained the rank of professor. The finding of the result also found that, web 2.0 tools on the perceived benefits (indicators) help to improve skills in using web 2.0 Technology ( =3.1); helps me keep updated in my research field ( facilitates collaborative learning ( 2.9)  Wikipedia ( =4.1), You Tube ( =4.0), Blog ( =3.7etc were very effective web 2.0 tools for delivery of web-based instruction in the study area, while few respondents fairly utilized Dropbox ( =2.7), Skype ( =2.5) and Podcast ( =2.0) among others were  fairly effectively use to argument academic activities rather as a social networking platform. More so, relatively high number of respondents utilize Wikipedia ( =4.1), Goggle Apps ( =3.9) and You Tube ( =3.9) among others regularly while Whatsapp ( =2.6), Flickr ( = 2.4) Facebook ( =2.3), were irregularly used in the study area. Majority of respondent strongly that agreed skill and knowledge to use of such technologies ( =4.4), high cost of computer ( =4.1), unstable power supply ( =3.7), poor internet bandwidth ( =3.6influence the integration and utilization of web tools ineffectively. For hypothesis one, the study found no significant relationship between perceptions of web 2.0 technologies and the use of web 2.0 technologies at 5% level of significance. The t-cal (1.895) was higher than t-tab (1.96) on the perceived benefit; null hypothesis was accepted and alternative rejected. For hypothesis two, the study found significant relationship between effectiveness of web 2.o technologies and the utilization at 5% level of significance. The t-cal (166.244) was much higher than t-tab (1.96) on the effectiveness. The null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis accepted. The correlation coefficients of the hypotheses were further subjected to t-test of significance of relationship. The study concluded that there was low level of utilization of web 2.0 technologies by the respondents in the study area. The study recommended that each tertiary institution should provide adequate incentive for in-service training on Web 2.0 tools, reliable power supply and fast internet bandwidth to enable the lecturers to use the technologies fluently.








TABLE OF CONTENTS


Title Page                                                                                                                                i

Declaration                                                                                                                            ii

Certification                                                                                                                           iii

Dedication                                                                                                                             iv

Acknowledgements                                                                                                               vi

Table of Contents                                                                                                                  vii

List of Tables                                                                                                                          ix

List of Figures                                                                                                                         x

Abstract                                                                                                                                 xi

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION

1.1           Background of the Study                                                                                            1

1.2           Problem Statement                                                                                                                5

1.3           Research Questions                                                                                                    7

1.4           Objectives of the Study                                                                                              8

1.5           Hypotheses of the study                                                                                              9

1.6           Justification of the Study                                                                                            9

1.7           Definition of Terms                                                                                                    11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1       Concept of Web 2.0 Technology                                                                                  14

2.2       Overview of Utilization of web 2.0 Technologies by the Lecturers

            Tertiary Institution                                                                                          18

2.3.      Concept of Web 2.0 and Education                                                                     20

2.3.1    21st century education                                                                                                21

2.3.2    Characteristics of the 21st century teacher and learner                                            22

2.4       Concept of Teaching, Learning and Web 2.0 Technologies                                          23

2.4.1    Benefits of web 2.0 in teaching and learning                                                          24

2.4.2    Purposes for web 2.0 technologies in teaching and learning                                 26

2.4.3    Concept of commonly Web 2.0 tools used for teaching and learning                           28

2.5       Overview of Empirical Studies                                                                                 30

2.6       Factors that Hinder the Use of Web-Based Tools in Nigerian Tertiary Institution        32

2.7       Overview of Web 2.0 and Social Networking                                                              35

2.8       Effective Delivery of Web-based Instruction                                                           36

2.9       Strategies of Implementing Web-based Tools                                                               38

2.10     Concept of Constraints Affecting Integration of Web 2.0 Technology                       40

2.11     Review of Related Theories                                                                                       42

2.12     Theoretical frame work                                                                                                     42

2.13     Conceptual Frame work                                                                                             45

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1       Study Area                                                                                                                         48

3.2       Population of the Study                                                                                              49     

3.3       Data Collection                                                                                                                 49

3.4       Sample and Sampling Procedure                                                                                          49

3.5       Validity of Instrument                                                                                                 50       

3.6       Test of Reliability of Instrument                                                                                  50

3.7       Measurement of Variables                                                                           51

3.8       Data Analyses                                                                                                       53

3.9       Hypotheses Testing                                                                                        54       

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1       Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents                                                 56

4.1.1    Age                                                                                                                             56

4.1.2    Gender                                                                                                                        57  

4.1.3    Marital status                                                                                                              57

4.1.4    Academic attainments                                                                                                58      

4.1.5    Years of working experience                                                                                                59

4.1.6    Monthly income                                                                                                                    60

4.1.7    Rank of   respondents                                                                                                 61

4.1.8    Department of affiliation                                                                                            61

4.2       Perceived Benefits of the Use of Web 2.0 Technologies in the Study Area                65

 

4.3       Effectiveness of Web 2.0 Technologies for Delivery of Web – Based Instructions

by the Respondents                                                                                                     69 

4.4       Extent of Utilization of Web 2.0 Technologies for Academic Activities                           73

4.5       Constraints Affecting the Utilization of Web 2.0 Technologies by Agricultural

Lecturers in the Study Area                                                                                        77 

4.6       Result of Hypotheses Testing                                                                                     81

4.6.1    Hypothesis 1                                                                                                               81

4.6.2    Hypothesis 2                                                                                                               83

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1       Summary                                                                                                                     85

5.1       Conclusion                                                                                                                            89

5.2       Recommendations                                                                                                      90   

References                                                                                                                   92

Appendices                                                                                                                         104

                                                                          






                     


                                                               LIST OF TABLES


3.1:      Sample distribution of respondents                                                                            50

4.1:      Distributions of respondents by their personal characteristics                                           63

4.2       Distribution of the mean- ratings of the responses of the respondent on the

perceived benefits of utilization of web 2.0 technologies for academic activities.    68

4.3       Distribution of mean-ratings of the respondents on the effectiveness of   web 2.0 technologies for delivery of web–based instructions by the respondents                      72

4.4       Distribution of the mean- ratings of the responses of the respondent on the extent

of utilization of web 2.0 technologies for academic activities.                                     76

4.5       Constraints affecting the utilization of web 2.0 technologies by lecturers in the

            study area.                                                                                                                  80

4.6       Correlation analysis showing relationship between perception of

web 2.0 technologies and the use of web 2.0 technologies by Agricultural    

lecturers in tertiary institutions in South-South, Nigeria.                                         82

4.7       Correlation analysis showing relationship between effectiveness of web

2.0 and utilization of web 2.0 technologies by Agricultural lecturers

in tertiary institutions in South-South, Nigeria                                                         84

 







 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

1.     Conceptual  Framework on the utilization of web 2.0 technologies by Agricultural

Lecturers in South-South Tertiary Institution in Nigeria                                         46                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                   


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1           BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In the 21st century, countries across the globe are increasingly relying on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to address a wide range of issues (Athanassios et al., 2013). Video conferencing, e-banking, e-government, e-learning, e-agriculture and mobile technologies are some of the ICT types and promises that have triggered processes of change in both, the public and private sectors. The progressive increase in the use of ICT in education has drastically changed the teaching/learning process (Echeng et al., 2014). A great deal of research has proven its benefits in educational quality (Shuaibu et al., 2014).

The term ‘ICT’ is used almost interchangeably with the Internet (Beebe, 2004). Thus, Internet is an interconnected network of networks and it helps to connect millions of computers and users around the world or hyper linking and book marking to the web pages (Tatnall et al., 2003). The Internet together with its applications has proven to be remarkably convenient, cheap and thereby enlarging the range of human capabilities, and up-to-date current information. The emergence of the Internet as a veritable instrument for educational development has equally compelled the stakeholders in education to incorporate the Internet as a major source of information. This has greatly assisted academics by modernizing the process of teaching, learning and research (Kumar et al., 2005). According to Sadanand et al.(2008), the Internet has become a valuable tool for teaching/ learning and a wide usage in almost every field of human endeavor with meaningful effect on the whole aspects of our lives, which includes tertiary institutions such as universities, polytechnics and colleges of education.

Sadanand et al.,(2008), stressed that the use of Internet, social networking or web technology is a direct medium of enhancing academic activities in Nigerian’s tertiary institutions as it plays a pivotal role in meeting information and communication needs of institutions and individuals. It makes it possible to access a wide range of information, such as journals, articles and papers from anywhere in the world. For decades now, internet has remained as an umbrella for networking and a key information platform where students and lecturers acquire relevant educational contents as well as share important information (Echeng et al., 2014). More recently, a new wave of internet technology called web 2.0 technologies which capture a combination of innovations on the Web in recent years had emerged and are widely perceived as having potentials to enhance further learning and sharing of information among learners and teachers (Hartshome et al., 2009).The emergence of web 2.0 technologies coupled with their subsequent adoption by universities has indisputably brought about appealing and efficient ways of carrying out teaching and learning activities as well as enhancing students’ interaction with their lecturers, course mates, lecturers in other schools and experts from outside their academic environment (Sarrafzadeh, et al., 2011).

However, the term Web 2.0 was first coined in a conference between O’Reilly and Media Live International (O’Reilly 2005) in December 2003 with the title "Fast Forward 2010, where technical issues that border on principles and practices of the entire web and its services were discussed (Rogers, 2009). More so, the advent of Web 2.0 technologies by Kwanya, et al., (2012) has been a sort of breakthrough in the sharing and dissemination of information among various individuals and groups while the impact is also felt on intellectual interactions most especially among the end users. This technology provides online users with interactive services and control over their own data and information (Madden et al., 2006; Maloney 2007).

Web 2.0 is an umbrella term which describes several new web 2.0 social networking technologies and tools, also its foundation encompasses a number of web based services and applications which ideally are not technologies themselves but mostly used in educational forum (Salehe, 2008), of which its role in the teaching and learning process cannot be over emphasized. Therefore, social networking is gradually integrating with every other aspect of web 2.0 activities like job searching, blogging, activism etc. while education and online learning are no exemption (Godil, 2013). Generally, some refer toWeb 2.0 technologies as the ‘‘read/write Web’’ since users could easily access and update information (Maloney, 2007).  Godil et al. (2013) stressed that it has transformed not only the people’s perception of the use of the internet, but also the way information is organized on the web (Leung et al., 2009).The social networking made use of all aforementioned techniques in one single site based on its mode of operation, for instance, it allow real time communication, sharing of visual media and sharing of files, communication and sharing most especially in the area of learning and teaching among students and Lecturers in Nigeria tertiary institutions (e.g National Open University of Nigeria and other related universities mostly in South-South regions) based on its methods and application.

Furthermore, the Web in the 90s helped to reduce the barriers regarding time, place and cultural boundaries, and contributed in the effective user communication and access to information (Constant et al., 2015). This technology is fundamentally reshaping and realigning many aspects of the communication loop: the people with whom teachers, students, and parents communicate; how they communicate; what they communicate about; and where and when they communicate (Dearstyne, 2007). These ongoing processes bring to the fore exciting opportunities and novel challenges for educators (Centre for Children and Technology, 2010). Thus, facilitate a change of paradigm in learning; from a top-down system focused in teachers and established knowledge to a networked approach where faculties should change their roles to become coaches and facilitators of the learning process. The needs of our contemporary societies pay special attention to innovation and entrepreneurship as basic abilities for the future of our graduates. Learning by doing and applying methods for collaborative and active learning are essential approaches and the Web 2.0 could be an instrumental and strategic tool in their development (Freire, 2007). With evolution of these tools, Web 2.0 is much more than just pasting a new user interface onto an old application and not only do they function in effective communication but also in the development of collaboration and networking of the users which led to social networking to form a broader computing platform (O‘Reilly, 2006).

Web 2.0 is known by various names which fundamentally emerged as a result of its characteristics and some of them include “participatory media” (Bull et al., 2008), “social digital technologies” (Palfrey et al., 2008) and “second wave of the World Wide Web” (Azab, et al., 2013). Web 2.0 basically referred to the transition of static Web 1.0 (examples: e-mails, goggles,) hypertext make-up languages (HTML) web pages to a more dynamic web that is more organized and is based on serving web application to users with the main goal of facilitating the use of the web as a development platform, flexibility in the learning processes and enhance easy sharing, creation, and re-use of study contents that are managed by the instructors and students (Anderson, 2007). Thus, these technologies enhance learners not to only download pre-packaged content but also empowering them to become active contributors, publishers and affordances such as the ability to network, communicate, collaborate, co-create and aggregate knowledge offer significant opportunities for learning and teaching in tertiary institutions (Narayan et al.,2010).

 It has been observed that social networking sites or Web 2.0 tools have been found to be very useful to professionals in the developed world. Conversely, the use of these ICT tools is not prominent in the developing world, including in Nigeria and Africa as a whole. For instance, Lemley et al. (2008) in his study on Web 2.0 tools discovered that in medical and nursing school curricula, the extent to which social networking tools are being used in the curricula of medical and nursing schools is quite proficient. As new Internet technology tools are introduced, educators in health-related disciplines have the opportunity to incorporate these new tools into the curriculum to enhance instruction and the learning process.

 In other words, Web 2.0 tools and other related social networking tools could also be used both to augment the educational method and to increase its efficacy. However, these could also be significantly applicable to the college of agriculture curricula to enhance proficient and flexible academic system (from the grassroots), communicational linkages, activities, tools and environment in replacement of analog or19th century educational methods or concept of teaching and learning as well change the entire face of agricultural colleges or faculties to a digital age one specially through incorporating effective use of web 2.0 technologies. Hence, society is rapidly and constantly changing, so also are the available communication methods (Nwachukwu, 2013). Due to this, there is a need to incorporate Web 2.0 technologies into Agricultural curricula also create an awareness and utilization of the new wave technologies to enhance 21st century both teaching and learning activities on the entire Nigeria’s educational system precisely in the selected study area. Though the academic environment in Nigeria differs considerably and a study of this nature is important.

1.2     PROBLEM STATEMENT

The capacity of admission offered in tertiary institutions across the country as at 2003 was about 500,000 students (Afinsulu et al., 2013). This shows that there is indeed a need for other alternatives to the conventional mode of education, that is, the traditional method of teaching.

Currently, there is much discussion and excitement about Web 2.0 in education, but with very little idea about how these tools actually work in the classroom or tertiary institutions to enhance flexible learning (Centre for Children and Technology, 2010). Moreover, the perception of these web 2.0 technologies and its utilization by lecturers to enhance these alternative methods teaching greatly affect learning outcome, time constraints for students who are working and on the other hand lecturers who are building up their educational careers as well, where distance usually stand as a barrier for achieving their goals also pose as a problem. This calls for urgent attention by the government and the National University Commission (NUC) to ensure that web 2.0 technologies are incorporated or implemented into the university system to enhance access to distance education, proficiency of e-learning and teaching academic environment.

According to Schlenkrich et al. (2012), fast internet links should be used to access Web 2.0 tools and facilitate large volumes of information transfer. Poor infrastructure including low Internet bandwidth, lack of technical support and high cost of internet connectivity are the major barriers to using Web 2.0 tools in learning and teaching arena (Lwoga, 2012). Though, web 2.0 technologies being a relatively young technology apparently has other number of issues that are yet to be resolved, which are awareness, perception, acceptance and use for teaching and learning (Franklin et al., 2007). Also, today’s students are digitally exposed and make increasing use of Web 2.0 technologies in their lives but vast majority of educators (teachers) still have little or no experience with these new tools, inadequate knowledge and skills required for effective web 2.0 instructional delivery.

A lot of research works have been conducted (Atsumbe, 2012; Greenhow et al., 2009; Ugwoke,2012; IIechukwu, 2013; Ofoegbor, 2013; Agbulu et al., 2010; Akinnagbe et al., 2011; Shuaibuet al., 2014) in Akwa ibom, Niger, Rivers, Enugu, Kwara, Ondo and Delta states respectively. Furthermore, according to Orehovacki, et al.,(2009), there are several factors that influence the  utilization of Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning which include perceptions on Web 2.0 technologies, organizational culture, individual competencies including hardware and software incompatibility, inadequate knowledge by the lecturers as well as technological experience (Yoo et al., 2011). However, there is insufficient information on the use of web 2.0 technologies in teaching and learning among agricultural lecturers in tertiary institutions in the study area.

Due to this wide gap in literature, the problem this study addressed was that, the extent current status of web 2.0 technologies utilization by agricultural lecturers in the study area for educational purposes was relatively unknown. Therefore, it is against this backdrop that the study sought to examine the extent to which agricultural lecturers in tertiary institutions utilized web 2.0 technologiesas the problem addressed by this studyand the perceived benefits of integrating web 2.0 technologies in other to abridge information and knowledge sharing gap in teaching and learning in the tertiary institutions.

1.3    RESEARCH QUESTIONS

It is against this background that this study was conducted to address the following research questions:                       

i. What are the personal characteristics of agricultural   lecturers in selected tertiary institutions in the study area?

ii. What are the respondents’ perceived benefits of the use of integrating Web 2.0 technologies in teaching and learning in the study area?

iii. How effective is web 2.0 technology for delivery of web-based instructions in the study area?

ivWhat is the level of utilization of Web 2.0 technologies by the respondents in the study area?

v. What are the constraints affecting utilization of web 2.0 technologies by respondents in the study area?

1.4     OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The broad objective of the study was to examine the utilization of Web 2.0 technologies by Agricultural Lecturers in tertiary institutions in South-South, Nigeria.                                                                                                   The specific objectives of the study were to:

i. describes the personal characteristics of the Agricultural lecturers in the selected tertiary institutions

ii. ascertain respondents perceived benefits of the use of web 2.0 technologies in the study area.

iii.determine the effectiveness of Web 2.0 technology for delivering web-based instruction in the study area.

iv. ascertain the level of web 2.0 technologies utilization by the respondents in the study area

v. examine constraints affecting the utilization of web 2.0 technologies by the respondents in the study area.

 

1.5      HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

The following hypothesis guided the study:

HO1: There is no significant relationship between the perceived benefit and utilization of web 2.0 technologies by the Agricultural lecturers in the selected tertiary institutions

HO2: There is no significant relationship between the effectiveness and utilization of web 2.0 technologies by the Agricultural lecturers in the selected tertiary institutions

1.6      JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

The importance and role of modern innovations in our life, is reflected by the boundless research studies in these modern innovations. Since this study is to examine the utilization of the Web 2.0 technologies by the agricultural lecturers in tertiary institution in South-South, Nigeria, it is considered to be significant for several expedient reasonsFirstly, in most predominantly urban areas, it is assumed that the level of awareness and utilization of Web 2.0 technologies among the respondents in tertiary institutions in South-South, Nigeria would be high compared to Northern States, however research works to back-up this assumption is still very scanty in the study area and therefore the challenge to fill this gap.

Secondly, the study was considered useful to Agricultural lecturers, students, educational Administrators/instructional designers, and the entire society at large. Whereby the lecturers will benefit by appreciating the importance of web 2.0 technology and thereby be motivated to acquire training for better application and production of knowledge for the real world. It will also facilitate teaching and learning. The findings will also provide the lecturers with a feedback on assessment of the performance of students as a basis for improvement in their technological practice in order to enhance ICTs performance of students. Also, lecturer - student contact can be maintained and strengthened based on academic conversation, and this will improve educational experience and performance of students in the agricultural faculty. It will also decrease work load for the lecturers as they can upload their lecture materials and ask students to access it themselves even before the lecture time, this will enable them to accommodate more students and less stress.

Thirdly, for educational administrators, the study will enable them to plan and integrate web 2.0 Technologies instruction in the university curriculum. This will also help them to assess the importance of web-based instructional-techniques towards the performance of students, and the extent to which courses are effectively taught in Nigerian Universities and indeed, provide insight into the extent to which the objectives of teaching these courses in the universities are being realized. It is important, especially in instructional technology to create a bridge between the theoretical and the practical approach to create web-based instruction that will add value in terms of quality and effectiveness to teaching and learning. This will also enable Educational Administrators to rise to their responsibilities through the supply of resources in the universities thereby helping educational policy makers to evaluate electronic media and overcome the obstacles for optimal utilization.

Finally, even though a lot of information on ICT is available in the literature and internet, yet there is still a glaring lack of awareness and utilization of Web 2.0 technologies in tertiary institutions as it relates the Agricultural environment.  The result of this study will serve as a good basis for forthcoming researchers who which to replicate similar or related studies in other parts of Nigeria, disciplines or elsewhere. Also, the entire society will benefit from an increased rate of literacy and opportunity for lifelong learning, communication and information exchange which is essential to democratic living and the creation of a pool of globally competitive human resources, improve access to tertiary institution and enhance effective digital learning and teaching atmosphere for the future leaders and also provide directions for the sectors of libraries and learning to support and increase the rate of Web 2.0 adoption and use in both sectors.

1.6        DEFINITION OF TERMS

Web 2.0: According to Varinder et al., (2012), Web 2.0 known as social networking or interactive media, refers to “all web- based applications which allow for creation/exchange of user generated content and enable interaction between the users.

Blogs:  According to Doctorow (2002) as cited in Salehe (2008), “the term blog originally comes from the phrase ‘web-log’, which refers to a simple webpage containing paragraphs of opinion, information, personal diary entries, or links arranged in a chronological order with the most recent entry first in the style of an online journal.”

Wiki: means essentially a full editable web site for example Wikipedia which allow several users to contribute in the creation of content collaboratively (Venkat, 2010). Therefore, a wiki refers to a site that anyone to add, modify, edit and update its pages

Social Networking Sites: SNS as proposed by Boyd et al., (2007), are ‘web-based services which allow individuals to create a public profile within a bounded system, come up with a list of fellow users with whom they share a connection, and survey their list of connections within the system. Example are: whatsapp, facebook and twitter etc.

Video Sites: Video sites allow for the creation and sharing of videos. YouTube is a well-known implementation of video sites. Such sites have opened new opportunities for users to impart visual stories rather than textual ones (Venkat, 2010).

World Wide Web: The World Wide Web which is also known as the Web, refers to computer-based network of resources of information that combines text and multimedia. The information on the web can be accessed via the Internet (Vassiliki et al., 2011).

Internet: Refers to a computer-based worldwide information system; the Internet is made up of many interlinked computer networks. Each network links computers and enables them to share information and processing power (Vassiliki et al., 2011).


Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.

Review


To Comment