Statement of the Problem and Its Significance

 

Is the American system of higher education in trouble?  While Marshall and Tucker (1994) advocate the radical intervention of big government reforms, some educators prefer to use technology as the catalyst to bring about the revolutionary changes needed to transform our schools and provide an adequately trained workforce for our future (Breithaupt, 1997; Lippman, 1997).  In order for this revolution to take hold, however, more teachers need to make use of existing technology by integrating it into their courses.

 Despite the billions of dollars colleges and universities have spent on instructional technology, only a small percentage of the faculty thus far has chosen to integrate any technology into the curriculum (Lippman, 1997).  The Office of Technical Assessment (OTA) (1995) blames this in part on too small a percentage of the total technology funds being spent on educational training programs for teachers.  The OTA also criticizes the training that does occur, complaining that such training often focuses on specific computer skills rather than on how to integrate those specific skills into the teachers' curricula (see also Lippman, 1997; Faison, 1996; Parker, 1996).

The larger problem, however, is that many educators have not yet learned how to redefine their profession when technology is integrated into their curricula (Lippman, 1997).  For example, one of the benefits of using technology in the classroom is that it shifts the focus away from the instructor and teaching and toward the student and learning.  Unfortunately, often those few faculty members who choose to infuse technology into their courses also attempt to sustain their existing curricula instead of using the technology to bring about any change (Lippman, 1997).

Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC), a suburban, multi-campus college, is struggling with some of the same issues as other institutions of higher education: an increasingly diverse student body, new definitions of learning, a growing sophistication about how students learn, and the widespread availability of information technologies.  To overcome this struggle and remain competitive in the higher education market, our institution's educational philosophy needs to change, and technology can act as our change agent if we manage this re-engineering effort correctly. 

According to the 1998-99 NVCC Technology Plan, NVCC plans to spend $2,337,077 on technology during the 1998-99 academic year (Sachs, 1998).  Much of that money will go towards equipment that could remain unused, however, if the faculty does not perceive a need to use technology or if its members cannot see how technology applies to what they teach.  Even the best equipment cannot be effective if most of its intended recipients choose not to use it.

This study examines key factors influencing the integration of technology into the classrooms at the Loudoun campus of NVCC.  By presenting the faculty's perspective, the study reveals potential barriers impeding this effort.  Armed with this knowledge, concerned administrators could devise strategies that specifically address these issues, thereby giving technology a better opportunity to act as a change agent of NVCC itself and other similar institutions of higher education.

Research Question

What are the key factors influencing the integration of technology into the curriculum at the Loudoun campus of Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC), and do these factors differ according to a faculty member's teaching discipline, years of teaching experience, gender, age, faculty rank, or highest degree obtained?

Population

 

The survey was distributed to the entire faculty population of the Loudoun campus of Northern Virginia Community College.  These included 49 full-time faculty members and 143 adjunct faculty members for a total of 192 recipients.

Data Collection/ Instrument

Copies of a Likert survey, along with an accompanying cover letter, were placed in the faculty's mailboxes, and the faculty members were asked to complete the surveys and return them to the researcher's mailbox within two weeks.

The survey was divided into four parts.  The first part gathered the data for the independent variables (age, gender, etc.).  The second part asked the recipients to rate their perceptions of the NVCC technology process using "strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree and strongly disagree" as categories.  Part three used the same categories as part two, but it asked for the faculty's feelings toward integrating technology into the classroom and the relative importance of specific types of applications (e.g. word processing, e-mail, etc.) for students and professors.  Part four asked the faculty for a self-evaluation of the extent to which they had integrated technology into their courses by asking them to choose one of six levels describing increasing technology integration.

Data Analysis

Of the 192 surveys distributed, 30 completed surveys were received at the end of the given two-week time period.  This group can be described as follows:

 

Gender	14 males	16 females
Classification	13 adjuncts	17 full timers
Age	mean 47.5	median 51	mode 51	range 39
Faculty rank	13 instructors	8 asst. professors	3 assoc. prof.	6 professors
Years experience	mean 18.3	median 18.0	mode 15	range 42
Disciplines	Art 1	Accounting 1	Biology 1	Business 1
	Design 1	English 8	ESL 2	Fine Arts 1
	Foreign Lang 2	History 1	Math 6	Music 1
	PE 1	Psychology 1	Speech 2
Highest Degree	Masters 14	Specialist 7	Doctorate 9
Divisions	Humanities 20	Sciences 10

 

For those independent variables divided into two groups, T-tests were run to see if there were significant differences in the way the two groups responded to each of the dependent variables.  If a significant difference was found, cross tabs were run to provide a clearer picture of how each member of the group had voted.  For those independent variables divided into three or more groups (e.g. highest degree obtained, faculty rank, etc.), a one-way ANOVA was run to see if there were significant differences in the way the groups responded to each of the dependent variables. If a significant difference was found, cross tabs were run to provide a clearer picture of how each member of the group had voted.

Age

·         The independent variable of age was separated into two groups using the mean age of 47 as the cut point.  Significant differences between younger and older professors were found within the following dependent variables:

 

Dependent variable	P value
Equity in technology within disciplines and across campuses	0.024
Integrating technology improves learning	0.001
Individual discipline instructors should not have to teach technology	0.021
Importance of word processing for students	0.035
Importance of word processing for professors	0.035

 

·         In terms of equity in technology within disciplines and across campuses, cross tabs revealed that younger professors tended to agree that equity existed, whereas older professors were more neutral or disagreed.

·         With the statement, "Integrating technology into the curriculum improves learning," younger professors tended to agree or agree strongly while older professors agreed or had no opinion.

·         With the statement, "Individual discipline instructors should not have to teach technological skills," younger professors tended to disagree with the statement while older professors agreed or agreed strongly.

·         In reference to the importance of word processing for both students and professors, almost all the younger professors strongly agreed that it was a necessary skill whereas older professors simply agreed.

Classification

·         The independent variable of classification was divided into full-time instructors and part-time instructors (adjuncts). Significant differences between the two groups were found within the following dependent variables:

Dependent variable	P value
Faculty are given opportunities to develop comfort with technology	0.010
Faculty have input into purchase, distribution and training in technology	0.041

 

·         In reference to the statement, " Faculty are given opportunities to develop comfort with technology," cross tabs revealed that many more adjuncts than full-timers disagreed or had no opinion.

·         When presented with, " Faculty have input into purchase, distribution and training in technology," the same beliefs existed.

Gender

·         The independent variable of gender was divided into males and females. Significant differences between the two groups were found within the following dependent variables:

Dependent variable	P value
Importance of word processing for students	0.025
Importance of word processing for professors	0.025
Importance of Internet searching for students	0.025

 

·         Cross tabs revealed that more females felt word processing was a very important skill for students and professors than males did.

·         The same could be said for the importance the women attributed to students' learning how to search the Internet for quality information.

Division

·         The independent variable of division was divided into the two divisions found at Loudoun Campus: Communications and Human Studies and Natural and Applied Sciences. Significant differences between the two groups were found within the following dependent variable:

Dependent variable	P value
Importance of e-mail for professors	0.027

 

·         According to cross tabs, all faculty in the Natural and Applied Science division strongly agreed that e-mail was important for professors, while many of those in the Humanities and Communications division simply agreed.

Years Teaching Experience

·         The independent variable of years of teaching experience was separated into two groups using the mean of 18 as the cut point.  Significant differences between professors with more/less experience were found within the following dependent variable:

Dependent variable	P value
Importance of students knowing how to build Web pages	0.006

 

·         Cross tabs revealed that a larger number of those professors with more teaching experience agreed that students needed to know how to build Web pages than did those professors with less experience.

Highest Degree Obtained

·         The independent variable of highest degree obtained was separated into three groups: master's, specialist and doctorate.  Significant differences among the three groups were found within the following dependent variable:

 

Dependent variable	P value
Integrating technology into the curriculum improves learning	0.031

 

·         Cross tabs revealed that those professors with master's degrees strongly agreed with the statement, " Integrating technology into the curriculum improves learning," while those with specialists' degrees tended to simply agree.

Implications and Conclusions

The most important implications coming from this study are the significant differences between the perceptions of the full-time and part-time faculty members in terms of developing a comfort level with technology and having input into the purchase of, distribution of, and training in technology.  Administrators should address these perceived inequalities by ensuring that all adjunct faculty members are kept better informed with regard to the technology process (e.g., opportunities for training).  With the adjunct faculty currently teaching approximately half the courses offered each semester on most community college campuses, their comfort with and acceptance of technology would be key to ensuring a successful re-engineering of teaching and learning.

Administrators can take other steps to increase adjunct faculty technology awareness.  They could develop a mandatory technology orientation and distribute a faculty technology manual.  Both of these could provide an overview of the existing technologies on campus, and the manual could contain basic operating instructions as well as suggestions for campus/college-specific sources of information (e.g., names, phone numbers, Web page addresses).  If the manual is available on the Web, it could be easily updated and readily available.  Hard copies of the manual could then be printed out for each semester's faculty orientation

Instituting a system of faculty technology mentors might provide timely help and faculty role models and could increase the enthusiasm of others for integrating technology.  Although most campuses have instructional technologists, the technologists sometimes have a hard time relating to faculty members.  Furthermore, since technologists do not teach within the usual subject disciplines, they may have a difficult time offering suggestions on how a new application could best be used within the discipline.  In an ideal world, faculty mentors would be located on each campus and given administrative release time to allow them to provide individual assistance as needed.

Those differences in perceptions found between the younger and older professors on Loudoun campus are not so surprising.  The statement that produced the greatest difference in response (p = 0.001) was, "Integrating technology into the curriculum improves learning," where the responses from the older instructors tended to be less enthusiastically affirmative or simply neutral when compared to those of the younger instructors.  Interestingly enough, the differences in the responses from the two groups did not vary as much (p = 0.021) with the statement, "Individual discipline instructors should not have to teach technology."  The results from these two questions could imply that although younger professors might believe integrating technology into their courses benefits student learning, fewer of them want to teach technological skills within their disciplines.

This view could be problematic since many students could need further training in technology literacy skills.  While individual discipline instructors should not teach technology skills for the sake of teaching technology in isolation, they should expect to encounter students whose basic skills in technology are lacking, just as they might find students whose basic skills in writing or critical thinking are lacking.  If an instructor elects to integrate technology into the classroom, he/she should plan on spending a portion of the class time "teaching" some students the skills they need to accomplish the discipline-related task using the appropriate technology tools.

In comparing instructors with more experience to those with less experience, the researcher was a bit surprised to find that professors with more experience tended to feel building Web pages was more important for students than their less experienced colleagues did (p = 0.006).  Since more experienced professors are usually older than less experienced professors, this finding seems to contradict the results about age and technology discussed in the above paragraph.  Because building Web pages requires divergent thinking (as opposed to the linear thinking normally employed in writing), experienced instructors may choose to include building Web pages in their curriculum to improve their students' abilities in this skill so crucial to an Internet-based society. Instructors with more teaching experience may also realize the importance of the Internet to most businesses and industries today.  Perhaps they feel exposing a student to this skill could vastly increase his chances for obtaining a job in the future.

Finally, as large numbers of the current community college faculty members retire within the next five years, new faculty members that are hired may bring new paradigms to the campus community.  In fact, a quick glance at recent issues of The Chronicle of Higher Education reveals that most faculty and administrative jobs currently require at least proficiency with technology.  We might therefore expect that the coming century will bring great changes to the community college.  In the meantime, however, administrators need to nurture this change within their existing faculty, particularly with the adjuncts.

Suggestions for Further Research

When the results of this study were presented to the campus Teaching and Learning Technology Roundtable (TLTR), the committee members found the statistical information interesting, but most of those present wanted to know more. In particular, they wanted to know why the adjunct faculty members feel differently about technology integration than the full-time staffers do and why older professors may feel that integrating technology into the curriculum does not improve learning.  Obviously, the need for an in-depth qualitative study is evident.

Further research also needs to be done at other campuses to see how their faculty members feel about the use of instructional technology and its effect on student learning.

 References

 

Breithaupt, D. (1997). Collaborative Curriculum Development: An instructional technology integration model for school-university partnerships. (Doctoral dissertation: Brigham Young University, 1997).

Faison, C.L. (1996). Modeling instructional technology use in teacher preparation: Why we can't wait. Educational Technology, 36(5), pp. 57-59.

Lippman, E. (1997). A study of the factors that influence the level of integration of technology in "technology rich" schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Widener University, 1997).

Marshall, R & Tucker, M. (1992). Thinking for a living: Education and the wealth of nations.  New York: Basic Books.

Parker, D.R. (1996). Integration of and roadblocks to the use of technology in teaching and teacher education. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Technological University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 956).

Sachs, S. (1998). Northern Virginia Community College 1998-99 technology plan.  Available: http://www.nv.cc.va.us/itc/98-99_NVCC_Tech_Plan.htm