Faculty Adoption and Integration of Technology at East Tennessee State University by Tammy L. Barnes

East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 12-2003 Faculty Adoption and Integration of Technology at East Tennessee State University. Barnes East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.edu/etd Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Barnes, Tammy L., "Faculty Adoption and Integration of Technology at East Tennessee State University. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.edu/etd/823 This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University.

For more information, please contact digilib@etsu. Faculty Adoption and Integration of Technology at East Tennessee State University A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctorate in Education by Tammy L. Barnes December 2003 Dr. Nancy Dishner, Chair Dr.

Harold Daniels, Committee Member Dr. Russell West, Committee Member Dr. Terrence Tollefson, Committee Member Keywords: Technology Integration, Faculty Adoption, Technological Tools ABSTRACT Faculty Adoption and Integration of Technology at East Tennessee State University by Tammy L. Barnes The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the demographic characteristics of faculty related to (1) faculty integration of technology, (2) the use of technological tools, (3) and the knowledge of computers and information technology of full-time faculty members at East Tennessee State University.

Four hundred forty-three full-time faculty members from East Tennessee State University were surveyed. The mailed and e-mailed returned responses for this study were 205. Eighteen hypotheses generated from 3 research questions were tested using Pearson Product-Moment Correlation, Analysis of Variance, Two- Way Analysis of Variance, and Multiple Regression Analysis. This study showed that full-time faculty at East Tennessee State University possessed a positive attitude about the integration of technology and use of technological tools.

The full-time faculty members also possessed a positive attitude towards the knowledge of computer and information technology. Age did not have an impact on the integration of technology but was related to the use of technological tools and faculty knowledge of computers and information technology. No differences were found in the integration of technology, use of 2 technological tools, and knowledge of computers and information technology in gender and ethnicity. The percentage of computer usage in the classroom was related to the integration of technology, use of technological tools, and knowledge of computers and information technology while no relationship was found with tenure status.

Differences were found between academic units and faculty integration of technology however, no differences were found in academic units and the use of technological tools and knowledge of computers and information technology. No relationship was found between faculty integration of technology and the number of years teaching whereas a relationship was found with the use of technological tools and knowledge of computers and information technology. 3 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Albert and Wanda Lyons, and my husband, James Barnes, who have encouraged and supported me with love throughout my educational process. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for all who have spent countless hours to help me make my life-long dream a reality.

I wish to offer my sincere appreciation to my chairperson, Dr. Nancy Dishner, who’s enlightened mentoring and friendship has enabled me to achieve this goal. Her guidance and motivation were of great help to me when I needed to find focus. She is a role model I will emulate as I continue my life-long journey.

Much appreciation is also extended to the members of my committee, Dr. West, and Dr. Their contributions and collective expertise have served as an inspiration throughout my dissertation. I am especially appreciative to Ms.

Melessia Honeycutt and Ms. Pashia Hogan, my friends and colleagues, who willingly offered enthusiasm, experience, and encouragement throughout this undertaking. You will always have a special place in my heart. In addition, a very special thank you goes to Ms.

Donna Townsend, who spent many long hours reading and editing this work. I am so grateful for your assistance and moral support. 5 CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT. 5 LIST OF TABLES.

11 Significance of the Study. 15 Purpose of the Study. 16 Definition of Terms. 18 Overview of the Study.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 20 Evolution of Technology in Education. 20 Prior to the Microcomputer. 24 Faculty and Students.

25 Faculty Adoption of Technology. 26 Institutions and Technology. 30 6 Chapter Page Technology Integration and Productivity. 32 Models of Technology Integration.

37 Motivational Behaviors of the Institution. 40 Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Enhancement. 41 Challenges and Issues of Technology Integration. 43 Changes and Expectations.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES. 49 Population and Sample. ANALYSIS OF DATA. 62 Analysis of Research Questions.

69 Research Question One. 69 Research Question Two. 74 Research Question Three. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

86 Summary of Findings. 87 7 Chapter Page Findings Related to Research Questions. 90 Research Question One. 90 Research Question Two.

92 Research Question Three. 105 Appendix A: Cover Letters. 105 Appendix B: Survey Instrument. 109 Appendix C: Letters of Permission from College Deans.

114 Appendix D: Letters of Permission. 126 8 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Characteristics of Age, Percentage of Time that Computer are used in the Classroom, and the Number of Years Teaching. Demographic Definition of Gender, Ethnicity, Tenure Status, and Academic Units.

Faculty use of Computers at Home, University Network Service, and Home Access to the World Wide Web. Sources of Faculty Training. Faculty Perception Toward Tenure and Promotion. Difference in the Integration of Technology Between Males and Females and Ethnicity Among Full-Time Faculty.

Difference Between Academic Units and Faculty Integration of Technology. Relationship Between Faculty Tenure Status and Percentage of Computer Usage in the Classroom and the Faculty Integration of Technology. Difference in the Use of Technological Tools Between Males and Females and Ethnicity Among Full-Time Faculty. Difference Between Academic Units and Use of Technological Tools.

Relationship Between Faculty Tenure Status and Percentage of Computer Usage in the Classroom and the Use of Technological Tools. Difference in the Knowledge of Computers and Information Technology Between Males and Females and Ethnicity Among Full-time Faculty. Difference Between Academic Units and Faculty Knowledge of Computers and Information Technology. Relationship Between Faculty Tenure Status and Percentage of Computer Usage in the Classroom and the Faculty Knowledge of Computers and Information Technology.

83 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Higher education has always sought out new and innovative technological ideas. These innovations produce and drive the global marketplace. This quest for advancement has allowed higher education institutions to be at the forefront of technological advances. However, the birth of a new century and the development of new technological tools have created an increased pressure on college and university faculty members to integrate new technologies into the classroom and to produce students prepared for the technology-based environment they will be entering.

The word “technology” was once defined as a basic calculation performed on a simple slide rule (Green & Gilbert, 1995). Today the word “technology” refers to technological tools that are used by many anyplace and anytime. These innovations have allowed faculty members to extend their instruction far beyond the traditional classroom. Instruction can be a learning experience encompassing the world.

Programmed instruction, computer-assisted instruction (CAI), and instructional systems were the some of the first types of technology used in the classroom. Computers were first placed in college classrooms in the 1970s, and the personal computer became a reality (Sharp, 2002). The 1990s were the beginning of the information age, which brought about the onset of the microcomputer. Colleges and universities were then faced 11 with an information-rich environment that supported educational activity, collaboration, and student/teacher interactivity (Trentin, 1999).

Today, distance education has opened the door for teaching and learning anywhere, anytime, and anyplace in the world (Dubois, 1996). College and university administrators are now confronting one of the most challenging issues in higher education: how to assist and support faculty with the integration of technology into the curriculum. Teachers are thought of as “Dispensers of knowledge,” “information giver,” “facilitators of learning …” (Leh, 2002, p. 44), in the education system of today.

Today the classroom teacher must have a new attitude toward technology, a new understanding of the tools, and new approaches in teaching to adapt to the advantage of technology for instruction. Throughout history, the teacher has been the person who provided information and knowledge to the students. However, with the onset of technology entering the educational arena, the role of instructor, teacher, facilitator, or faculty member has drastically changed. This paradigm shift has placed enormous pressures on teachers from administrators, students, and society to integrate new technologies into the curriculum.

Changing familiar teaching practices and strategies are daunting tasks for many educators. Inadequate training, students with an array of technological skills, privacy and personal safety issues, and standards and autonomy are just a few complexities that faculty now endure (DeVoss & Selfe, 2002). While many educators are reluctant to accept innovations in 12 teaching at the post-secondary level, others have valid concerns regarding technological advances in the classroom. Institutions must constantly undergo change in order to remain on the cutting edge.

Part of this process includes the way administration allocates resources, the instructional role of the faculty, the use of time, and the mission statements of colleges and universities. These constant comparisons aid universities in identifying areas for continuous improvement (Van Dusen, 1998). Purchasing and placing computers in a classroom is not true technology integration (Dockstader, 1999). True integration happens when technology is effectively applied to a curriculum and to the students’ learning.

Educational researchers have designed many models of integration. These models describe steps or stages in incorporating technology into the curriculum and into student learning. Furthermore, Dockstader wrote that the teacher is an integral part of the integration. College and university administrators, faculty, and staff have come to the realization that technology integration is inevitable.

Technological skills are needed to succeed in the marketplace. Schools and teachers are called upon to educate a new technical workforce (Nisan-Nelson, 2001). However, the economic woes that besiege institutions of higher learning place them at a disadvantage. According to Pratt (2003), the institutions that rely heavily on state sales and federal income tax revenues are those that are feeling the greatest impact.

13 Some of the wealthiest private universities have already announced budget cuts, with others likely to follow. Funding for higher education is on the decrease, while student enrollments are on the increase. One projected enrollment for postsecondary institutions by the year 2010 is 17. The financial difficulties of colleges and universities have affected both the faculty and the students at most higher education institutions.

The reality encountered by faculty members includes larger teaching loads, larger class sizes, and less research support, because of an economic crisis. According to Pratt (2003), students may be confronted with program elimination, higher tuition, and increased competition for courses and programs. Furthermore, post-secondary institutions must continue to operate during difficult financial times; and many have been striving towards new and innovative ideas to help alleviate the budget crunch. Kezar (2000) suggested several examples of how institutions were adjusting in these tough financial times.

Profit-sharing, outsourcing, marketing, grant writing, and new revenue generations were the positive financial strategies that institutions were using to continue higher education operations. These strategies allow colleges and universities to continue their quest for offering quality education, which in turn means implementing new technologies and true integration. No discussion of technology integration is complete without considering future technological innovations.