Page 1341
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
Time-Management Skills and Lecturer Productivity in Federal Colleges of
Education in South-Western Nigeria.
Osayomwanbor Osemwegie, Ademola Ibukunolu Atanda
Department of Educational Management, Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150500104
Received: 12 May 2026; Accepted: 16 May 2026; Published: 05 June 2026
ABSTRACT
Lecturer Productivity (LP), measured by Research Output (RO) and Teaching Effectiveness (TE), is crucial to
the career progression of lecturers in tertiary institutions in Nigeria, including Colleges of Education (CoEs).
However, literature indicate that LP is low across CoEs, particularly in Federal Colleges of Education (FCEs) in
south-western Nigeria. Prior studies on LP have largely focused on demographic factors, self-esteem,
psychological well-being, and hard skills among university and polytechnic lecturers, with little attention paid
to the relationship between Time Management Skills (TMS) and LP in FCEs in south–western Nigeria. A
descriptive survey design was employed in the study. The four first-generation FCEs (FCE (Special) Oyo, FCE
Abeokuta, FCE Technical Akoka and Adeyemi College of Education (ACE) Ondo) were purposively selected.
One hundred and nineteen Heads of Department (HoDs) were also enumerated. Proportionate-to-size sampling
was used to select 10% of the lecturers and NCE III students, yielding sample sizes of 149 and 803, respectively.
The instruments used were the TMSQ (0.78) and the LPQ (0.82) scales. The quantitative data were analysed
using descriptive statistics and Pearson product-moment correlation. The findings of this study indicated that
TMS (2.65) and LP (3.02) were high against the threshold of 2.50. Time management significantly correlated
with LP in FCEs in south-western Nigeria. The study therefore recommended, among other things, that lecturer
productivity could be increased by organising workshops and seminars for the lecturer on planning, organising,
and time management.
Keywords: Research, Teaching, Time management, Productivity
INTRODUCTION
The decline in productivity among lecturers in tertiary institutions in Nigeria, including Colleges of Education
(CoEs), has a significant effect that extends beyond delayed career advancement to include reputational loss.
This decline perpetuates reliance on outdated concepts, research methods, and skills, leaving students
inadequately equipped with contemporary research techniques. In the same vein, Nuremi, Adigun, and Akinwole
(2024:7) report that “the low ranking of the Federal College of Education (FCE), Ogun State, in the 2024
Webometrics report exemplifies this challenge, largely attributed to limited scholarly visibility and academic
inactivity”. Furthermore, reports consistently indicate poor academic performance among Nigerian Certificate
in Education (NCE) students, compounded by educational institutions' reluctance to employ NCE graduates due
to perceived deficiencies in pedagogical skills (Akpan, 2024).
It is pertinent to note that the unabated decline in lecturer productivity in CoEs in Southwestern Nigeria could
have significant implications on the quality, relevance, and global competitiveness of CoEs, including FCEs.
Empirical evidence shows that lecturer productivity, as measured by teaching effectiveness and research output,
has fallen below established benchmarks, with some studies reporting levels well below normative standards
(Raji & Oyedeji, 2021; Abiodun-Oyebanji, 2023). This decline could undermine knowledge production and
diminish CoEs’ roles in fostering innovation, informing policy development, and supporting socio-economic
transformation. Additionally, reduced research output could also lower institutional visibility and ranking,
restricting opportunities for international collaboration and external funding. At the instructional level, reduced
productivity appears to compromise teaching quality, diminish mentorship, and lead to insufficient student
Page 1342
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
engagement, ultimately affecting graduate quality and employability. The Colleges of Education, including the
FCEs, could face inadequate funding, substandard working conditions, excessive workloads, and limited
research infrastructure, which further intensifies this trend by restricting lecturers’ ability to fulfil their core
responsibilities of teaching and research. Thus, the persistent decline in lecturer productivity will not only
undermine the status of CoEs within tertiary institutions but also pose a broader challenge to national
development, given CoEs' pivotal contributions to human capital formation and intellectual progress.
Previous studies have examined variables that could be responsible for the declines in lecturer productivity in
tertiary institutions, particularly in FCEs. Some of these studies concentrated scholarly efforts on individual
variables such as perception and willingness (Atanda, 2023), self-esteem (Gomez-Jorge & Diaz-Garrido, 2023),
psychological wellbeing (Oluwole, Adeniji, & Abiodun-Oyebanji, 2022), demographic capacity (Akinwumi &
Ayo-Ayinde, 2022), work-life balance (Nurfalah et al, 2022) and self-efficacy (Loughland, 2019), to mention
but a few. Among these scholars, Gomez-Jorge and Diaz-Garrido (2023) posit that lecturers with high self-
esteem are more productive and deal effectively with institutional expectations, but conclude that analyzing
additional variables could be vital to understanding lecturers’ research and teaching productivity.
The search to identify the skills required for a productive workforce in higher education has prompted numerous
studies. These studies have revealed a significant skills gap in higher education. As a result, there is growing
awareness of the value of soft skills, prompting discussions across various research fields. Despite this, the
education system continues to prioritise the development of hard skills and pays little attention to soft skills.
Meanwhile, evidence indicates that the productivity of hard skills depends on soft skills. Wibowo et al. (2020)
argue that while hard skills are important, strong soft skills are more critical to determining one's productivity at
work. According to the National Soft Skills Association, Harvard University found that 85% of job success is
attributed to well-developed soft skills and interpersonal abilities. In contrast, only 15% of job success is
attributable to hard skills (National Soft Skills Association, 2025). Additionally, researchers at Boston
University's Ross School of Business found that employees who undergo soft-skills training are 12% more
productive than those who do not (Vasanthakumasi, 2019). There is substantial evidence that lecturers with soft
skills demonstrate mastery of student knowledge, teaching methods, materials, and learning support, as well as
the quality of learning implementation (Junaidi & Kemasis, 2022). Therefore, it is evident that developing soft
skills, particularly, time management skills, is essential for any lecturer to be productive in the 21st century.
Effective time management is a key factor influencing lecturer productivity in Nigerian FCEs, as it directly
affects teaching quality and research output (Love Day-Osaro & Uriri,2024). Research in South-Western Nigeria
demonstrates that, while lecturers are generally productive, their effectiveness is frequently limited by heavy
workloads, inefficient time use, and suboptimal work environments (Udeh, Onwuka, & Oti, 2023). Therefore,
lecturers are encouraged to implement proactive time-management strategies, including setting daily, weekly,
and semester-based goals, prioritizing academic responsibilities, and creating structured schedules with planners,
calendars, and to-do lists. These skills enable lecturers to concentrate on high-priority academic tasks and
enhance overall work performance.
Additionally, lecturers should recognize and eliminate time-wasting activities, including unnecessary social
engagements, unscheduled meetings, and extended telephone conversations. Efforts to reduce procrastination
should involve addressing demanding tasks promptly and delegating minor clerical duties when appropriate.
Furthermore, educational institutions are advised to create supportive work environments that facilitate efficient
time use and mitigate work-related stress (Mustapha, Yusuf, Yusuf, and Aloba,2020). Implementing these skills
is expected to improve adherence to deadlines, enhance research and teaching effectiveness, and increase overall
lecturer productivity. However, despite the significance of time management skill, evidence of deficient of these
skills seems to be widespread among lecturers in FCEs.
Given the growing interest among scholars in providing a solution to the issue of low productivity among
lecturers in CoEs as well as establishing conceptual and empirical frameworks regarding variables that could
influence lecturers’ productivity in CoEs, this study, therefore, investigated the relationship between time-
management and lecturer productivity using multi-dimensional evaluations: Heads of Departments, lecturers and
students-based evaluations for assessing lecturer productivity in FCEs in Southwestern, Nigeria.
Page 1343
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
Statement of Problem
Lecturer productivity, encompassing research output and teaching effectiveness, is a critical factor in
individuals’ career progression within higher education institutions, including Colleges of Education in Nigeria.
However, findings from studies discussed in the background revealed that lecturer productivity is relatively low
across colleges of education, including federal colleges of education in Nigeria. The decline in lecturer
productivity has continued to manifest in various critical areas, including low research output and an overall
decline in the instructional process.
Consequently, a growing number of scholarly studies have been conducted by various researchers investigating
a range of different factors that may be contributing to the decline in productivity among lecturers in CoEs. Some
studies focused on variables that could potentially impact lecturer productivity, such as motivation, psychosocial
needs, psychological well-being, demographic factors, job-related stress, work-life balance, and self-esteem.
Despite various interventions and studies aimed at improving the situation, the problem persists, suggesting that
underlying issues may not have been adequately addressed. Hence, this study investigated the relationship
between time management skills and lecturers' productivity in Federal Colleges of Education in Southwestern
Nigeria.
Purpose of the Study : The general
purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between time management and lecturer productivity in
federal colleges of education in South-western Nigeria. Specifically, the study sought to:
i. examine the level of lecturer productivity (research output and teaching effectiveness) in federal colleges
of education in South-western Nigeria;
ii. determine the level of time-management skill of lecturers in federal colleges of education in South-
western Nigeria;
iii. Investigate the relationship between time management skills and lecturer productivity in federal colleges
of education in South-western Nigeria.
Research Questions
The following research questions were raised and answered
RQ1: What is the level of lecturer productivity (research output and teaching effectiveness) in federal colleges
of education in Southwestern Nigeria?
RQ2: What is the level of time management skill among lecturers in federal colleges of education in
Southwestern Nigeria?
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were formulated and tested at a 0.05 level of significance.
H
01
: There is no significant relationship between time management skills and lecturer productivity in federal
colleges of education in South-Western Nigeria.
METHODOLOGY
The study employed a descriptive survey design. The study population comprised 25,018 individuals, including
137 Heads of Departments (HoDs), 1,620 lecturers, and 23,261 students from the Federal College of Education
(FCE), Ilawe, Ekiti State; Federal College of Education (FCE), Abeokuta, Ogun State; Federal College of
Education (FCE) (Special), Oyo State; Federal College of Education (FCE) (Technical), Akoka, Lagos State;
and Adeyemi College of Education (ACE), Ondo State. The purposive sampling technique was used to select
Page 1344
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
the four first-generation federal colleges of education, including FCE Abeokuta, Ogun State; FCE (Special), Oyo
State; FCE (Technical), Lagos State; and ACE, Ondo State. One hundred and nineteen Heads of Department
(HoDs) were also enumerated. Proportionate-to-size sampling was used to select 10% of the lecturers and NCE
III students, yielding sample sizes of 149 and 803, respectively.
An instrument titled ‘Time Management Skills Questionnaire’ (TMSQ) and ‘Lecturer Productivity
Questionnaire’ (LPQ) were used for data collection. The TMQ was divided into two sections: A and B. Section
A contained the demographic information, and Section B examined TMSQ items as perceived by the lecturers.
The respondents rated their competencies using a four-point Likert Scale: Very High Extent (VHE) = 4, High
Extent (HE) = 3, Some Extent (SE) = 2, and Low Extent (LE) = 1. The LPQ was also divided into two sections:
A and B. Section A contained demographic information, while Section B assessed the LPQ items as perceived
by the HoDs, Lecturers, and NCE III students. Respondents rated their contributions according to the following
scale: NIL = Very Low, 1-10 = Low, 11-20 = High, and >20 = Very High.
The questionnaires administered and retrieved were 1036 in total, including HoDs, 144 lecturers and 764 NCE
III students. The instruments were face- and content-validated by test experts, and the Cronbach’s Alpha
reliability coefficient was utilised by subjecting the data obtained to a reliability test. The instruments yielded
the following coefficients: TMSQ 0.78 and LPQ 0.82, indicating reliability. The data gathered were analysed
using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Frequency counts, simple percentages, mean, and standard
deviation were used to answer research questions 1 and 2. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used
to test Hypothesis 1 at a 0.05 significance level. The data gathered was processed using IBM
®
SPSS
®
(Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences), an advanced statistical tool for social science analysis.
RESULTS
RQ1: What is the level of lecturer productivity (research output and teaching effectiveness) in federal colleges
of education in Southwestern Nigeria?
Research Question 1
What is the level of lecturer productivity (research output and teaching) in federal colleges of education in
Southwestern Nigeria?
Table 1a: Level of Lecturer Productivity as Rated by NCE III Students
Supervision of Project
S/N
Items
VH-4
H-3
L-2
Mean
S.D
1
Students' accessibility to lecturers
during project supervision in your
department.
438
(57.3)
210
(27.5)
89
(11.6)
3.39
0.826
2
The level of mentorship provided by
lecturers to students in your
department during project writing.
178
(23.3)
460
(60.2)
110
(14.4)
3.05
0.678
3
The level of assistance from
lecturers in your department in
resolving difficulties students
encounter during project writing.
236
(30.9)
287
(37.6)
207
(27.1)
2.95
0.870
4
The level of knowledge of scientific
research of lecturers in your
department.
176
(23.0)
377
(49.3)
158
(20.7)
2.88
0.838
Page 1345
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
5
The level of interest of lecturers in
students’ project supervision in your
department.
231
(30.2)
265
(34.7)
210
(27.5)
2.88
0.931
6
Lecturers know the area of discipline
they supervise
205
(26.8)
340
(44.5)
157
(20.5)
2.90
0.889
N = 764; Average Mean = 3.00
Teaching Practice Supervision
S/N
Items
VH-4
H-3
L-2
Mean
S.D
1
Lecturers’ knowledge of the purpose
of teaching practice.
256
(33.5)
285
(37.3)
181
(23.7)
2.99
0.890
2
Lecturers' level of confidentiality of
student-teacher personal
information.
177
(23.2)
342
(44.8)
194
(25.7)
2.84
0.854
3
The level of fairness in awarding
marks for lesson note preparation
and teaching.
186
(24.3)
338
(44.2)
181
(23.7)
2.85
0.877
4
Quality feedback on errors identified
after the teaching practice exercise
to the student–teachers.
204
(26.7)
273
(35.7)
215
(28.1)
2.80
0.941
5
Lecturers’ willingness to spend
appropriate time with student-
teachers during teaching practice
exercises.
182
(23.8)
294
(38.5)
217
(28.4)
2.77
0.917
6
The supervisory performance of
lecturers during teaching practice.
204
(26.7)
259
(33.9)
224
(29.3)
2.77
0.955
N = 764; Average Mean = 2.84
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Items
VH-4
H-3
L-2
Mean
S.D
1
Knowledge of the subject matter.
268
(35.1)
325
(42.5)
131
(17.1)
3.07
0.853
2
Knowledge of communicating the
subject matter for clear
understanding.
199
(26.0)
318
(41.6)
211
(27.6)
2.89
0.757
3
Knowledge of suitable teaching
materials to deliver the content.
231
(30.2)
279
(36.5)
197
(25.8)
2.90
0.924
4
Knowledge of students’ learning
difficulties.
167
(21.9)
363
(47.5)
203
(26.6)
2.87
0.794
5
Knowledge of evaluation.
209
(27.4)
278
(36.4)
218
(28.5)
2.83
0.917
6
Improvisation of teaching strategies
to suit the subject matter and context
213
(27.9)
310
(40.6)
151
(19.8)
2.85
0.964
Page 1346
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
N = 764; Average Mean = 2.91
Classroom Management
S/N
Items
VH-4
H-3
L-2
Mean
S.D
1
Lecturers encourage mutual respect
among all students.
293
(38.4)
300
(39.3)
132
(17.3)
3.11
0.866
2
Lecturers organise a comfortable
environment for all students.
181
(23.7)
380
(49.7)
168
(22.0)
2.93
0.797
3
Lecturers allow student
contributions to the lesson
209
(27.4)
272
(35.6)
232
(30.4)
2.84
0.905
4
Lecturers keep to the lesson plan.
212
(27.7)
295
(38.6)
211
(27.6)
2.88
0.884
5
Lecturers maximise instructional
time.
192
(25.1)
280
(36.6)
228
(29.8)
2.79
0.916
6
Lecturers arrange the classroom to
minimise crowding and distraction.
207
(27.1)
271
(35.5)
174
(22.8)
2.75
0.731
N = 764; Average Mean = 2.88
Grand Average Mean = 2.91
Note: 0.00 – 1.49 = Very Low; 1.50 – 2.49 = Low; 2.50 – 3.49 = High; 350 – 4.00 = Very High.
Answer to research question one on the level of lecturer productivity in federal colleges of education in
Southwestern Nigeria was tested on NCE III students, heads of departments and lecturers as well. Table 4.2.1a
presents the response of students on the level of lecturer productivity based on supervision of project, teaching
practice supervision, pedagogical content knowledge and classroom management. The following emerged as the
responses of the students on supervision of project: Student's accessibility to lecturers during project supervision
in your department (mean = 3.39); The level of mentorship provided by lecturers to students in your department
during project writing (mean = 3.05); The level of assistance from lecturers in your department in resolving
difficulties students encounter during project writing (mean = 2.95); The level of knowledge of scientific
research of lecturers in your department. (mean = 2.88); The level of interest of lecturers in students’ project
supervision in your department (mean = 2.88); Lecturers know the area of discipline they supervise (mean =
2.90). The average mean of project supervision as an indicator of lecturer productivity as rated by students is
given as 3.00, which indicates the lecturer productivity in terms of supervision of project is high.
The following emerged as responses of students on teaching practice as an indicator of lecturer productivity:
Lecturers’ knowledge of the purpose of teaching practice (mean = 2.99); Lecturers' level of confidentiality of
student-teacher personal information. (mean = 2.84); The level of fairness in awarding marks for lesson note
preparation and teaching. (mean = 2.85); Quality feedback on errors identified after the teaching practice exercise
to the student–teachers (mean = 2.80); Lecturers’ willingness to spend appropriate time with student-teachers
during teaching practice exercises (mean = 2.77); The supervisory performance of lecturers during teaching
practice (mean = 2.77). The average mean of teaching practice supervision as an indicator of lecturer productivity
as rated by students is given as 2.84, which indicates the lecturer productivity in terms of teaching practice
supervision is high.
On pedagogical content knowledge, the following emerged: knowledge of the subject matter (mean = 3.07);
knowledge of communicating the subject matter for clear understanding (mean = 2.89); knowledge of suitable
teaching materials to deliver the content (mean = 2.90); knowledge of students’ learning difficulties (mean =
2.87); knowledge of evaluation (mean = 2.83); and improvisation of teaching strategies to suit the subject matter
Page 1347
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
and context (mean = 2.85). The average mean of pedagogical content knowledge, as an indicator of lecturer
productivity as rated by students, is given as 2.91, indicating that lecturer productivity in terms of pedagogical
content knowledge is high.
Measurement of lecturer productivity based on classroom management as measured by students is as follows:
Lecturers encourage mutual respect among all students (mean = 3.11); Lecturers organise a comfortable
environment for all students (mean = 2.93); Lecturers allow student contributions to the lesson (mean = 2.84);
Lecturers keep to lesson plan (mean = 2.88); Lecturer maximiSe instructional time (mean = 2.79); Lecturers
arrange the classroom to minimise crowding and distraction (mean = 2.75). The average mean of classroom
management as an indicator of lecturer productivity as rated by students is given as 2.88, which indicates that
lecturer productivity in terms of classroom management is high.
The grand average mean of the table is 2.91, which implies that students rated the level of lecturer productivity
in terms of project supervision, teaching practice supervision, pedagogical content knowledge, and classroom
management in federal colleges of education in Southwestern Nigeria as high.
Table 1b: Level of Lecturer Productivity as Rated by Heads of Departments
Setting of Examination Questions
S/N
Items
VH-4
H-3
L-2
VL-1
Mean
S.D
1
Lecturers focus on the recall of only the
material covered during lessons.
30
(30.6)
58
(59.2)
7
(7.1)
3
(3.1)
3.17
0.689
2
Lecturers use easily understandable language
to set the question.
26
(26.5)
63
(64.3)
8
(8.2)
1
(1.0)
3.16
0.604
3
Lecturers guide the students toward
understanding the concepts in the questions.
28
(28.7)
61
(62.2)
7
(7.1)
2
(2.0)
3.17
0.643
4
The time allotted to the questions is
considerable
29
(29.6)
54
(55.1)
13
(13.3)
2
(2.0)
3.12
0.707
5
The mark allocated to each question is
appropriate
33
(33.7)
52
(53.1)
11
(11.2)
2
(2.0)
3.18
0.709
6
Questions set by lecturers are clear,
unambiguous and error-free.
23
(23.5)
62
(63.2)
9
(9.2)
4
(4.1)
3.06
0.701
7
Lecturers ensure that syllabus contents are
covered in question papers.
29
(29.6)
54
(55.1)
15
(15.3)
–
(0.0)
3.14
0.658
8
Lecturers' knowledge of setting examination
27
(27.6)
57
(58.2)
12
(12.2)
2
(2.0)
3.11
0.687
N = 98; Average Mean = 3.14
Marking of Examination Scripts
S/N
Items
VH-4
H-3
L-2
VL-1
Mean
S.D
1
Assessment criteria of the lecturer
26
(26.5)
54
(55.1)
15
(15.3)
3
(3.1)
3.05
0.737
2
Fairness in assessment.
24
(24.5)
60
(61.2)
11
(11.2)
3
(3.1)
3.07
0.6.92
Page 1348
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
3
The outcome of the marking demonstrates the
learning experience of the students.
20
(20.4)
58
(59.2)
15
(15.3)
5
(5.1)
2.95
0.751
4
Marking is consistent with the college policy.
20
(20.4)
65
(66.3)
11
(11.2)
2
(2.0)
3.05
0.632
5
Sensitive to the student’s difficulties.
19
(19.4)
60
(61.2)
16
(16.3)
3
(3.1)
2.97
0.695
6
Scripts are moderated before recording
30
(30.6)
53
(54.1)
12
(12.2)
3
(3.1)
3.12
0.736
7
All answer Scripts are labelled and stored in a
safe place
30
(30.6)
57
(58.2)
7
(7.1)
4
(4.1)
3.15
0.723
8
Lecturers understanding of examination’s
scripts marking
28
(28.5)
52
(53.1)
15
(15.3)
3
(3.1)
3.07
0.750
N = 144; Average Mean = 3.05
Grand Average Mean = 3.10
Note: 0.00 – 1.49 = Very Low; 1.50 – 2.49 = Low; 2.50 – 3.49 = High; 350 – 4.00 = Very High.
Table 1b presents the level of lecturer productivity as rated by heads of departments, the rating was in terms of
prompt setting of examination questions and prompt marking of examination scripts. The following emerged:
Lecturers focus on recall of only the material
covered during lessons (mean = 3.17); Lecturers use easily understandable language to set the question (mean =
3.16); Lecturers guide the students toward understanding the concepts in the questions (mean = 3.17); The time
allotted to the questions is considerable (mean = 3.12); The mark allocated to each question is appropriate (mean
= 3.18); Questions set by lecturers are clear, unambiguous and error-free (mean = 3.06); Lecturers ensure that
syllabus contents are covered in question papers (mean = 3.14); Lecturers' knowledge of setting examination
(mean = 3.11). The average mean of setting of examination questions as an indicator of lecturer productivity as
rated by heads of department is given as 3.14, which implies that the lecturer productivity in terms of setting of
examination questions is high.
Responses of lecturer productivity in term of marking of examination scripts by heads of departments are as
follows: Assessment criteria of the lecturer (mean = 3.05); Fairness in assessment (mean = 3.07); The outcome
of the marking demonstrates the learning experience of the students (mean = 2.95); Marking is consistent with
the college policy (mean = 3.05); Sensitive to the student’s difficulties (mean = 2.97); Scripts are moderated
before recording (mean = 3.12); All answer Scripts are labelled and stored in a safe place (mean = 3.15);
Lecturers understanding of examination’s scripts marking (mean = 3.07). The average mean of marking of
examination scripts as an indicator of lecturer productivity as rated by heads of department is given as 3.05,
which implies that the lecturer productivity in terms of marking of examination scripts is high.
The grand average mean of the table is given as 3.10, which implies that heads of departments assessed the level
of lecturer productivity in terms of prompt setting of examination questions and prompt marking of examination
scripts in federal colleges of education in Southwestern Nigeria high.
Hence, the grand average mean of teaching as rated by NCE III students (2.91) and HoDs (3.10) in the sampled
FCEs was 3.01, which implies that the students and HoDs rated teaching high.
Page 1349
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
Table 1c: Level of Lecturer Productivity based on Research Output
African-Centric Research Indexing Databases Publication Checklist
S/N
Items
Nil
1-10
11-20
Above 21
Mean
S.D
1
Scopus
7
(4.9)
9
(6.3)
75
(52.1)
53
(36.7)
3.21
0.765
2
Google Scholar
8
(5.6)
18
(12.5)
79
(54.8)
39
(27.1)
3.03
0.788
3
Web of Science
8
(5.6)
8
(5.6)
53
(36.7)
75
(52.1)
3.35
0.823
4
Cross Ref.
10
(6.9)
7
(4.9)
38
(26.4)
89
(61.8)
3.43
0.874
N = 144; Average Mean = 3.26
African-Centric Research Indexing Databases (Citation Checklist)
S/N
Items
Nil
1-10
11-20
Above 21
Mean
S.D
1
Scopus
7
(4.9)
16
(11.1)
58
(40.3)
63
(43.7)
3.23
0.834
2
Google Scholar
7
(4.9)
16
(11.1)
64
(44.4)
57
(39.6)
3.19
0.819
3
Web of Science
8
(5.6)
17
(11.8)
16
(11.1)
103
(71.5)
3.49
0.908
4
CrossRef.
7
(4.9)
23
(16.0)
41
(28.5)
73
(50.6)
3.25
0.897
N = 144; Average Mean = 3.29
Paper-Based Journal (Publication Checklist)
S/N
Items
Nil
1-10
11-20
Above 21
Mean
S.D
1
Colleges of Education-based Journal
37
(25.7)
53
(36.8)
49
(34.0)
5
(3.5)
2.15
0.847
2
University-based Journal in Nigeria
11
(7.6)
35
(24.3)
90
(62.5)
8
(5.6)
2.66
0.701
3
Association-based journal in Nigeria
7
(4.9)
28
(19.4)
90
(62.5)
19
(13.2)
2.84
0.706
4
Polytechnic-based journal in Nigeria
10
(6.9)
14
(9.7)
76
(52.8)
44
(30.6)
3.07
0.825
5
Monotechnic-based journal in Nigeria
6
(4.2)
9
(6.3)
55
(38.2)
74
(51.3)
3.37
0.782
6
International-based journal.
14
28
73
29
2.81
0.869
Page 1350
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
(9.7)
(19.4)
(50.7)
(20.2)
N = 144; Average Mean = 2.82
Scholarly Contributions
Items
Nil
1-10
11-20
Above 21
Mean
S.D
1
Number of NCE 3 projects overseen
as main supervisor
87
(60.4)
16
(11.1)
36
(25.0)
5
(3.5)
1.72
0.958
2
Number of conference papers
delivered
18
(12.5)
38
(26.4)
78
(54.2)
10
(6.9)
2.56
0.800
3
Research work that has an impact on
the government
9
(6.3)
14
(9.7)
77
(53.4)
44
(30.6)
3.08
0.806
4
Number of research awards received
7
(4.9)
6
(4.2)
75
(52.1)
56
(38.8)
3.25
0.753
5
Research grants obtained
6
(4.2)
7
(4.8)
95
(66.0)
36
(25.0)
3.12
0.674
6
Participation in the editorial board of
scientific journal (s)
7
(4.9)
14
(9.7)
89
(61.8)
34
(23.6)
3.04
0.728
7
Number of book chapters edited in
monographs
11
(7.6)
19
(13.2)
89
(61.8)
25
(17.4)
2.89
0.777
8
Technical Reports
7
(4.9)
10
(6.9)
101
(70.1)
26
(18.1)
3.01
0.669
N = 144; Average Mean = 2.83
Note:0.00 – 1.49 = Very Low; 1.50 – 2.49 = Low; 2.50 – 3.49 = High; 350 – 4.00 = Very High.
The level of lecturer productivity, as rated by lecturers based on research output, is presented in Table 1c. The
following are the responses from lecturers: the African-Centric Research Indexing Databases Publication
Checklist has an average mean value of 3.26; the African-Centric Research Indexing Databases (Citation
Checklist) has an average mean value of 3.29; the Paper-Based Journal (Publication Checklist) has an average
mean value of 2.82; while the Scholarly Contributions have an average mean score of 2.83. The grand average
mean of the table is given as 3.05, which implies that the level of lecturer productivity in terms of research output
in federal colleges of education in Southwestern Nigeria is high.
Table 1 d.: Summary of the level of productivity as rated respondents
Lecturer Productivity
Grand
Average
Mean
Teaching
Level of lecturer productivity as rated by HoDs
2.91
Level of lecturer productivity as rated by NCE III students
3.10
Research Output
Level of lecturer productivity as rated by lecturers
3.05
Lecturer Productivity (3.02 > 2.50) was high
Page 1351
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
The results in table1d shows mixed perceptions among the groups of respondents on lecturer productivity in
FCEs. Students rated lecturers' teaching productivity at a mean score of 2.91, while HoDs rated lecturers for
teaching performance at 3.10. In addition, lecturers rated their productivity in terms of research output at a mean
value of 3.05. When these indices were aggregated, the overall grand mean score was 3.02 for lecturer
productivity.
Since the benchmark beyond which the level of productivity is considered positive is 2.50, the obtained grand
mean of 3.02, being way above the cutoff, indicates that lecturer productivity across the sampled FCEs in
southwestern Nigeria is generally high. This means that lecturers are perceived to perform well in both their
teaching and research responsibilities. Additionally, with three respondent groups displaying rather similar
means, this shared perception that lecturers meet expected standards of productivity is consistent across these
respondents.
RQ2: What is the level of time management skills among lecturers in federal colleges of education in
Southwestern Nigeria?
Table 2: Summary of the level of time management skills rated by the Lecturers
Note: 0.00 – 1.49 = Very Low; 1.50 – 2.49 = Low; 2.50 – 3.49 = High; 350 – 4.00 = Very High.
The result in table 2 shows that time management skills has the following as the responses of lecturers: Lecturers
meet the deadline for setting examinations; (mean = 2.69); Lecturers meet the deadline for submitting marked
scripts (mean = 2.64); Lecturers are proficient in scientific study software (mean = 2.67); Lecturers allocate
sufficient time for teaching (mean = 2.67); Lecturers engage in multiple academic activities within a short time
(mean = 2.67); lecturers’ time management in the college (mean = 2.53). The mean was 2.65, implying that time
management, as an index of lecturers' soft skills in federal colleges of education in southwestern Nigeria, is high.
H
01
: There is no significant relationship between time management skills and lecturer productivity in federal
colleges of education in South-Western Nigeria.
Time Management Skills
S/N
Items
VHE-4
HE-3
SE-2
LE-1
Mean
S.D
1
Lecturers meet the deadline for setting
examinations.
17
(11.8)
75
(52.1)
42
(29.2)
10
(6.9)
2.69
0.771
2
Lecturers meet the deadline for
submitting marked scripts
13
(9.0)
77
(53.5)
43
(29.9)
11
(7.6)
2.64
0.754
3
Lecturers are proficient in scientific
study software
14
(9.7)
79
(54.9)
41
(28.5)
10
(6.9)
2.67
0.746
4
Lecturers allocate sufficient time for
teaching
15
(10.4)
78
(54.2)
40
(27.8)
11
(7.6)
2.67
0.765
5
Lecturers engage in multiple academic
activities within a short time
10
(6.9)
89
(61.8)
32
(22.2)
13
(9.1)
2.67
0.739
6
Lecturers’ time management in the
college
9
(6.3)
74
(51.3)
45
(31.3)
16
(11.1)
2.53
0.775
N = 144; Average Mean = 2.65
Page 1352
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
Table 3: Relationship between time management skills and lecturer productivity
Variables
Lecturer Productivity (LP)
Time Management Skills
(TMS)
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Lecturer Productivity (LP)
1.00
45.10
5.89
Time Management (TMS)
0.147*
1.00
16.15
3.47
Sig. value
0.014
Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 3 presents the analysis of the relationship between time management skills and lecturer productivity,
revealing a correlation coefficient r = 0.147 with a p-value of 0.014, based on the null hypothesis H
01
: p = 0. The
results indicate that p is less than 0.05, demonstrating a significant association between the two variables. It can
therefore be interpreted that time management skills are associated with lecturers' productivity at FCE in
southwestern Nigeria. The strength of this relationship is minimal, as indicated by a correlation coefficient of
0.147, suggesting a weak link between lecturer performance and time management. Time management, in this
context, is related to increased productivity among well-timed lecturers. Nevertheless, their productivity cannot
be relied on to reflect their time-management skills. Intangible skills or institutional support must be in place.
Lecturer productivity had a mean of 45.10 and a standard deviation of 5.89, with time management having a
mean of 16.15 and a standard deviation of 3.47. This suggests that lecturers generally demonstrated measurable
productivity and time-management skills, while there were obvious variations in other areas. From all this, it
seems that time management skills are not the only variable that can positively impact lecturer productivity,
suggesting they are just one aspect.
DISCUSSION
The findings of research question one revealed that the level of lecturer productivity in terms of research output,
such as publications and citations in African-Centric Research indexing databases and Paper-Based Journals, as
well as scholarly contributions and effective teaching, including supervision of projects, teaching practice
supervision, pedagogical content knowledge, classroom management, setting of examination questions and
marking of scripts was high.
This study aligns with Raji and Oyedeji (2021), who reported that research output among academic staff at the
University of Ibadan was high. This study also aligns with Asubiano and Onaolapo (2023), which assessed the
representation of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. The researcher's findings indicated
that Nigeria accounts for 44.5% of all journals from Africa. Additionally, a related study by Loveday-Osaso and
Uriri (2024) on effective teaching found that lecturers' instructional delivery in Nigeria is notably high.
Conversely, the findings of this study contradict several empirical studies. For example, Abiodun Oyebanji
(2023) analysed the research output of lecturers in Colleges of Education across Oyo, Ogun, and Lagos States,
revealing low research productivity. Furthermore, Idhalama, Osawaru, Igbinouia, and Nwachukwu (2023) found
that the overall research output of Nigerian lecturers was relatively modest. Observations from the researchers'
study suggest that Nigerian lecturers face significant challenges in publishing in reputable journals, including
high costs, prolonged review processes, high rejection rates, and complex online submission procedures.
The findings of the study likewise support the submission of Love Day-Osaro and Uriri (2024), who found that
time management was high in tertiary institutions in Rivers State. However, observations from this study
contradict the findings of Udeh, Onwuka and Oti (2023), who found that the majority of university lecturers do
not utilise time-management skills. The findings of this study also confirm those of Adiele (2017), who revealed
a significant positive relationship between time-management practice and job effectiveness. This study also
corroborates the findings of Mustapha, Yusuf, Yusuf, and Aloba (2020). The researchers used a descriptive
research design and reported a significant relationship between time-management strategies and lecturers’ job
performance in Colleges of Education in Kwara State.
Page 1353
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
CONCLUSION
It was concluded that lecturer productivity is high across the four sampled federal colleges of education in South-
Western Nigeria. The differences between this study and those of other researchers may be attributed to the fact
that most respondents in this study were from the first generation colleges of education. The study also
established that time management skills had a positive relationship with lecturer productivity in federal colleges
of education in South-western Nigeria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings, the following recommendations were made:
1. Lecturer productivity could be increased by offering more help to faculty in planning, organizing, and
time use, with no improvement if nothing else were done differently, through professional or institutional
strategies.
2. This study has substantiated that the cultivation of time management skills significantly enhances lecturer
productivity. Consequently, the assessment of time management skills should be incorporated into the
evaluation criteria during employment interviews for prospective candidates, alongside traditional
measures of academic intelligence
REFERENCES
1. Abiodun-Oyebanji, O. J. (2023). Teamwork and lecturer research output in Colleges of Education in
Southwestern Nigeria. American International Journal of Business Management 6.9:21-29
2. Adiele, E. E. (2017). Time management practices and job effectiveness among university lecturers in
Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Evaluation, 3(2), 34–42.
3. Akinwumi, F. S., & Ayo-Ayinde, A. I. (2022). Resource allocation policy and the needs of higher
education institutions for the implementation of proactive teacher training during national emergencies.
Nigerian Journal of Education Administration and Planning, 22(3), 199–220.
4. Akpan, S. (2024). Low enrollment in colleges of education. Retrieved on April 2, 2024,
from
https://www.thecable.ng.
5. Asubiaro, T. U., & Onaolapo, S. (2023). A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web
of Science, Scopus and Cross Ref. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
2.4:23-34.
6. Atanda, A.I. (2023). Academic staff’s perception and willingness to participate in collaborative research:
implications for the development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Book of Conference Proceedings in NAEAP,
381-413.
7. Gómez-Jorge, F. & Díaz-Garrido, A. (2023). The relationship between self-esteem and productivity: An
analysis in Higher education institutions. Journal of Frontiers in Psychology 10.22:24-37
8. Idhalama, O.U., Osawaru, K.E., Igbinovia, M.O., & Nwachukwu, P.I. (2023). Scholarly research outputs
and vulnerability of Nigerian lecturers to predatory journals—World Journal of Educational Research
10.1.
9. Junaidi, J. & Kemasis, I. R. (2022). Determining the quality of educators and teacher work productivity:
Competency and soft skill analysis. Dinasti International Journal of Education Management and Social
Science, 3(6), 867–880.
10. Loughland, T. (2019). The relationship between teacher adaptability, self-efficacy, and autonomy and their
adaptive practices. In: Teacher Adaptive Practices. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from
http://www.reserchgate.net
11. Loveday-Osaro, P., & Uriri, C. (2024). Managing Time Resources for Lecturers’ Instructional Delivery in
Rivers State Universities. African Journal of Information, Economics and Management Research 2.1
12. Mustapha, A.I., Yusuf, S., Yusuf, L.I., & Aloba, F.M. (2020).Time Management Strategies as
Determinants of Lecturers' Job Performance in Colleges of Education in Kwara State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Educational Management 6.2: 45-52
Page 1354
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue V, May 2026
13. National Soft Skills Association. (2025). The real skills gap. National Soft Skills Association. Retrieved
on 12
th
August, 2025 on hpps;//hbr.org/2025/08/
Soft Skills Matter Now More Than Ever, According to
New Research
14. Nureni, Y., Adigun, O., & Akinwole, A. (2023). Empirical analysis of webometric ranking in the Nigerian
polytechnics education sector. Information and Control Systems 6.10:39-43
15. Oluwole, A. D., Adeniji, E. O., & Abiodun-Oyebanji, O. J. (2022). Presumptive behavioural indices and
psychological well-being of academic staff in tertiary institutions in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of
Humanities Therapy, 13(2), 147–178.
16. Nurfalah, D., Supendi, M., Waruwu, N., Hia, A. K., & Sartono, L. N. (2022). Effectiveness of work-life
balance on lecturers’ productivity in higher education during COVID-19. Psychology and Education,
59(1), 168–175.
17. Raji, I. A. & Oyedeji, A.A. (2021). Institutional support and research output in the University of Ibadan,
Nigeria. Achiever Journal of Scientific Research 3.2:124-136
18. Udeh, P. C, Onwuka, J. O., & Oti, E. O. (2023). Time management and job performance of lecturers in
state universities across southeast Nigeria: A stress management approach. International Journal of
Development Strategies in Humanities, Management and Social Sciences 13.2: 274-285
19. Vasanthakumari, S. (2019). Soft skills and their application in the workplace. World Journal of Advanced
Research and Reviews, 3.2: 066–072.
20. Wibowo, T.S., Badi’áti, A.Q., Annisa, A.A., Wahab, M., Jamaludin, M.R., Rozikan, M., Mufid, A., Fahmi,
K., Purwanto, A., & Muhaini, A. (2020). Effect of hard skills, Soft skills, Organizational Learning and
Innovation Capacity on Islamic University Lecturers’ Performance—a Multifaceted Journal of Pharmacy,
University of Bath 11.7:556-569.