Technology Adoption into Teaching and Learning by Mainstream University Faculty: A Mixed Methodology Study Revealing the “How,When,Why,and Why Not”

Abstract

This mixed methodology study was designed to examine the factors and the process by which mainstream university faculty members adopt and implement technology in teaching and learning. Data were collected through a survey administered to faculty from 3 academic colleges (N = 117) and interviews of selected survey respondents (N = 9). Path analysis of survey data resulted in path coefficients indicating relationships between variables and significant direct effects to variables. Interview data were analyzed through constant comparative analyses. Patterns of perceptions and usage among participants emerged, providing rich data that triangulates with survey and path analysis findings. The results suggest that peer interactions and collegiality are significant direct effects in helping faculty members learn new innovations and strategies. The findings have important implications for informing the design of professional development for faculty adoption of technology.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

(2002). Educational computing concerns of postsecondary faculty. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 285–303.

Anderson

C. L.

, & Starrett

(2001, March). A response to technology integration in teacher education for merit, tenure, and promotion. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.

Baldwin

R. G.

(1998). Technology's impact on faculty life and work. In Menges

R. J.

& Svinicki

M. D.

(Series Eds.) & Gillespie

K. H.

(Vol. Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: Vol 76. The impact of technology on faculty development, life, and work (pp. 7–21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bentler

P. M.

, & Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

Bogdan

R. C.

, & Biklen

S. K.

(1982). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brill

J. M.

, & Galloway

(2007). Perils and promises: University instructors' integration of technology in classroom-based practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 95–105.

Camblin

L. D.

, & Steger

J. A.

(2000). Rethinking faculty development. Higher Education, 39, 1–18.

Celsi

R. L.

, & Wolfinbarger

(2002). Discontinuous classroom innovation: Waves of change for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 64–72.

Christensen

(1997). Effect of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and their students. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.

10.

Collins

M. P.

, & Berge

Z. L.

(2003). Using instructional design for faculty development in a post-secondary, technology-enhanced environment. Educational Technology, 43(6), 21–27.

11.

Crawford

(2003). Web-enhancing university coursework: An innovative professional development model to support a step-by-step approach towards web-enhancing courses and empowering instructors. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(1), 5–13.

12.

Davidson-Shivers

G. V.

(2002). Instructional technology in higher education. In Reiser

R. A.

& Dempsey

J. V.

(Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 256–268). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

13.

Dick

, & Carey

(1985). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

14.

Dusick

D. M.

(1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members' use of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(2), 123–137.

15.

Ertmer

P. A.

(1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47–61.

16.

Gall

M. D.

Borg

W. R.

, & Gall

J. P.

(1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

17.

Glaser

B. G.

, & Strauss

A. L.

(1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

18.

Graves

W. H.

(2001). Transforming traditional faculty roles. In Barone

C. A.

& Hagner

P. R.

(Eds.), Educause leadership strategies: Vol 5. Technology-enhanced teaching and learning (pp. 35–43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Groves

M. M.

, & Zemel

P. C.

(2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57–65.

20.

Hagner

P. R.

, & Schneebeck

C. A.

(2001). Engaging the faculty. In Barone

C. A.

& Hagner

P. R.

(Eds.), Educause leadership strategies: Vol 5. Technology-enhanced teaching and learning (pp. 1–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Hall

G. E.

Wallace

R. C.

, & Dossett

W. A.

(1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas.

22.

Hartman

J. L.

, & Truman-Davis

(2001). The holy grail. In Barone

C. A.

& Hagner

P. R.

(Eds.), Educause leadership strategies: Vol. 5. Technology-enhanced teaching and learning—Leading and supporting transformation on your campus (pp. 45–56). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Holland

P. E.

(2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 245–267.

24.

Howland

, & Wedman

(2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing technology learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 239–263.

25.

Jacobsen

D. M.

(1998). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Paper presented at the meeting of the ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98 World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freiburg, Germany.

26.

Jöreskog

K. G.

(1993). Testing structural equation models. In Bollen

K. A.

& Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Jöreskog

K. G.

, & Sörbom

(2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

28.

Keller

J. M.

(1984). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. In Shaw

& Trott

A. J.

(Eds.), Aspects of educational technology, Vol. XVII: Staff development and career updating. London: Kogan Page.

29.

Knezek

G. A.

Christensen

R. W.

Miyashita

K. T.

, & Ropp

M. M.

(2000). Instruments for assessing educator progress in technology integration. Denton, TX: Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning, University of North Texas.

30.

Lan

(2001). Web-based instruction for education faculty: A needs assessment. [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 385–399.

31.

Laurillard

(2002). Rethinking university teaching—A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

32.

Lincoln

Y. S.

, & Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

33.

MacCullum

R. C.

(1995). Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 16–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

McKenzie

(1999). How teachers learn technology best. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press.

35.

Mehlinger

H. D.

, & Powers

S. M.

(2002). Technology & teacher education—A guidebook for educators and policymakers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

36.

Mertler

C. A.

, & Vannatta

R. A.

(2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

37.

Mitra

Steffensmeier

Lenzmeier

, & Massoni

(1999). Changes in attitude towards computers and uses of computers by university faculty. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 189–202.

38.

Neal

(1998, June 19). Using technology in teaching: We need to exercise healthy skepticism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(41), B4–B5.

39.

Padgett

D. L.

, & Conceicao-Runlee

(2000). Designing a faculty development program on technology: If you build it, will they come? [Electronic version]. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2), 325–334.

40.

Pedhazur

E. J.

(1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

41.

Quinlan

, & Åkerlind

G. S.

(2000). Factors affecting departmental peer collaboration for faculty development: Two cases in context. Higher Education, 40, 23–52.

42.

Rogers

E. M.

(1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

43.

Rogers

E. M.

(2002). The nature of technology transfer. Science Communication, 23(3), 323–341.

44.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

45.

Rogers

E. M.

(2004). A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 13–19.

46.

Sahin

, & Thompson

(2007). Analysis of predictive factors that influence faculty members' technology adoption level. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 167–190.

47.

Sandholtz

J. H.

(2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of teacher development programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 349–374.

48.

Schwieso

(1993). Staff usage of information technology in a faculty of higher education: A survey and case study. Educational & Training Technology International, 30(1), 88–94.

49.

Scientific Software Development. (2004). Atlas.ti, Version 5.0 [Computer Software]. Available from http://www.atlasti.de/index.shtml

50.

Sherry

(1998). An integrated technology adoption and diffusion model. International Journal of Educational Communications, 4(2/3), 113–115.

51.

Smith

K. B.

(2000). Higher education culture and the diffusion of technology in classroom instruction. In Patrides

L. A.

(Ed.), Case studies on information technology in higher education: Implications for policy and practice (pp. 144–156). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

52.

Smith

P. L.

, & Ragan

T. J.

(1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Education of Prentice Hall.

53.

Spradley

J. P.

(1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. SPSS for Windows, Rel. 4, Sept. 2003 (2003). Chicago: SPSS Inc.

54.

Strudler

, & Wetzel

(1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 63–81.

55.

Ullman

J. B.

(1996). Structural equation modeling. In Tabachnick

B. G.

& Fidell

L. S.

(Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.; pp. 709–819). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

56.

Unwin

(2007). The professionalism of the higher education teacher: What's ICT got to do with it? [Electronic version]. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 295–308.

57.

Valente

T. W.

(1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

58.

Valente

T. W.

, & Rogers

E. M.

(1995). The origins and development of the diffusions of innovations paradigm as an example of scientific growth. Science Communication, 16(3), 242–273.

59.

Wenger

E. C.

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

60.

Wenger

E. C.

, & Snyder

W. M.

(2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.

61.

White

J. T.

, & Myers

S. D.

(2001). You can teach an old dog new tricks: The faculty's role in technology implementation. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(3), 95–101.

62.

Windschitl

, & Sahl

(2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (1), 165–205.

63.

Woodell

, & Garofoli

(2003, January). Faculty development and the diffusion of innovations. Syllabus, 16(6), 15–17.

64.

Yin

R. K.

(1994). Case study research—Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.