Goldberg_Dissertation_WORD - NAU
TEACHING WITHOUT TOOLS: A CASE STUDY OF PART-TIME FACULTY PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES REGARDING TECHNOLOGY TRAINING
By Andra Kellum Goldberg
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
in Curriculum and Instruction
Northern Arizona University
August 2007
Approved:
____________________________
Michael Blocher, Ph.D., Co-Chair
____________________________
Chih Tu, Ph.D., Co-Chair
____________________________
Pat Hays, Ed.D.
____________________________
Frances Riemer, Ph.D.
____________________________
Craig VanLengen, Ed.D.
ABSTRACT
TEACHING WITHOUT TOOLS: A CASE STUDY OF PART-TIME FACULTY PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES REGARDING TECHNOLOGY TRAINING
Andra Kellum Goldberg
This study explores the present opportunities in professional development for faculty to incorporate technology into their courses. While part-time faculty are a large portion of any institution’s teaching force, professional development programs designed to accommodate part-time faculty members are missing from the literature. Part-time faculty are required to have technical skills to use websites and instructor’s materials but are not being trained to use these tools. This case study is designed to gather and analyze data to assist in determining the experiences and perceptions of part-time faculty concerning technology training opportunities. This study discovered several barriers along with incentives involved in part-time faculty being able and willing to adapt technology to their classes. Time constraints and indifference concerning the need for technology in instruction became key factors when part-time faculty voiced their beliefs regarding this college’s push to web-enhance courses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I offer my deepest gratitude and appreciation to the co-chairs and members of my committee who encouraged me and inspired my research with their questions and advice. Thank you Dr. Michael Blocher and Dr. Chih Tu, Co-chairs, Dr. Pat Hays, Dr. Frances Riemer, and Dr. Craig VanLengen for giving me your time and sharing your valuable expertise with me. My sincere appreciation is also extended to Dr. Stephen Lapan for his direction in approaching this research and his tireless efforts on behalf of the program.
Thank you to Dr. Haul Reddick who planted the seed of this adventure during our many trips to various college meetings and to Dr. Mike Ford for his support and confidence in my endeavors. Mike, your door was always open for me even on your busiest days and I thank you. I also want to acknowledge my fellow graduate students who shared their ideas and assistance: Hong Zhan, John Doherty, Mitch Hopewell, Amadou Bako, Shadow W. J. Armfield, and Safari Wa-Mbaleka.
Finally, to my family: Your prayers and support, which often included giving my needs and me your top priority, were much needed and appreciated. Your continual encouragement was wonderful and I will always be grateful to you for your belief in my success. To my husband, Jeff, thank you for your ideas when I had run dry and putting this work and me first – constantly above your own, you are my soul. To my son, Bryan, who was a junior student when I started and a law graduate when I finished, I am so proud of you and extremely pleased that we graduated together – you are always in my heart. And to my Mom, Katherine, and in memory of my Dad, Andy: you two have always made me feel that I could climb any mountain and forge any river, thank you for this confidence, you gave me my spirit.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 9
Importance of the Study 10
Scope of the Study 11
Definition of Terms 12
Researcher Bias 14
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
Current Research in Training Faculty in Higher Education 16
Primarily Positivist Research 19
Interpretive Studies 24
Critical/Postmodern Studies 28
Research Developments 31
Best Practices in Professional Development Programs for Faculty 33
Technology Integration Produces Changes in Instruction 38
Literature Review – Conclusion 38
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 40
The Interpretive Paradigm 40
The Research Questions 41
Data Sources and Data Collection 43
Chapter 4: Findings 54
The College Setting 54
Answering the Research Questions 71
Summary of Findings 111
Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions 113
Themes and Relevance to the Current Literature 113
Literature Comparisons to the Findings 122
Research Questions and Interpretation of the Findings 126
Limitations 128
Subsequent Areas for Future Study 129
List of Tables
Table 1: Positivist Research in Technology training for Faculty Professional Development Programs 22
Table 2: Interpretive and Mixed Methodologies Research in Technology training for Faculty Professional Development Programs 26
Table 3. Research Design Plan 48
Table 4: Comparison of How Information Received and Preferred Communication Methods by Part-time faculty 76
Table 5: Status of Faculty Created Web Sites 77
Table 6: Selected web-enhanced courses based on overall access sorted by student access 79
Table 7: Content Observations of Selected Average Use Web Enhanced Courses 80
Table 8: Best Times, Days, and Semesters for Training Workshops 100
Table 9: Incentives for Part-time Faculty to Participate in Training Workshops 101
Table 10: Comparison of Areas of Part-time Faculty Using Technology and Areas that Part-time Faculty Need Training 106
List of Figures
Figure 1. Participants, processes, and communication involved in training part-time faculty to web-enhance their courses. 46
Figure 2. Revised participants, processes, and communication involved in training part-time faculty to web-enhance their courses. 126
Chapter 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Most professional educators have taught part-time at various points in their careers. The move to employ more part-time faculty has been steadily increasing as institutions of higher education seek to decrease costs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, p. 97). Community colleges typically employ a greater percentage of part-time when compared to full-time faculty than colleges and universities – 65% of the faculty in community colleges were part-time in 1995 (Leslie & Gappa, 2002, p. 59). Milliron & Miles (2000) report that part-time faculty teach more than half of the credit hours taught at community colleges and administrators overwhelming predict that this number will probably increase in the immediate future. Current statistics show that overall, only 55.5% of the faculty in higher education were engaged full-time in 2001 and had decreased to 53.8% in 2003 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). Over a decade ago, these part-time instructors were given labels such as “The Invisible Faculty” by Gappa and Leslie (1993) and, more recently, “Ghosts in the Classroom” by Dubson (2001). The concerns for quality education because of the lack of tenured professors are present in the literature (Flannigan, Jones, & Moore, 2004; Leslie & Gappa, 2002; Schneider, 2003; Schuetz, 2002).
Since part-time faculty are prevalent and a growing part of the instructional arsenal for colleges and universities, one would expect to see increased interest in professional development for these teachers. However, perhaps because of the time commitments required by faculty, most of the research concerned with encouraging and improving instruction, particularly in the area of technological competence, is primarily aimed at full-time faculty (Bryan, Ariza, & Knee, 2001).
Statement of the Problem
Therefore, the issue to be studied involves the increasing numbers of part-time faculty teaching in higher education who may not be supported in learning how to integrate technology into their courses but are expected to incorporate these skills nevertheless. Schuetz (2002) reports that part-time faculty are not as likely to use technology in their courses as full-time faculty. Reasons for this lack of innovation may be the deficit of opportunities for training or the development of appropriate activities for the part-timer (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Wallin, 2004).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to shed light on the experiences of part-time faculty as they teach courses in higher education. Specifically, this project seeks to learn more about their perceptions of the learning opportunities presented to them in obtaining the knowledge and skills necessary to create and use websites and access digitized instructor’s materials.
Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following questions:
1. How is the concept of technology training for part-time faculty defined and implemented at this college?
a. What information about technology training has been communicated to part-time faculty?
b. What is the status of faculty created web sites, i.e. the number and frequency of use of sites that are created and used by students and faculty as web-enhancements to their face-to-face (FTF) classes?
c. Are part-time faculty accommodated, rewarded, or acknowledged for participating in training opportunities?
d. What are the perceptions and experiences of Distance Education personnel regarding training opportunities for part-time faculty to learn about educational technology?
2. What are the perceptions of part-time faculty regarding training opportunities to learn about educational technology?
a. What information about technology training has part-time faculty received?
b. What is the general importance for part-time faculty to learn about technology integration in their courses?
3. What are the experiences of part-time faculty who have chosen to participate in technology training sessions provided by this college?
a. What do part-time faculty believe are the difficulties and/or rewards of participating in technology training sessions?
b. What factors influenced their decision to participate or not participate in these opportunities?
Importance of the Study
To continue to ignore part-time faculty will compromise the future quality of education. The investment of time and interest into professional development opportunities for all faculty reaps long lasting rewards to the institution and the students who receive the benefit of a well-trained instructor in their courses (Carr, 2000; Nicoll & Laudato, 1999).
The overall consensus of the literature supports the need for professional development programs aimed at assisting faculty in developing their skills and confidence in using technology in their courses (Bell & Ireh, 2002; Brown, Benson, & Uhde, 2004; Grant, 2004; Otero et al., 2005). Part-time faculty also need this type of training, however, the literature is mixed concerning part-time faculty and the quality of their instruction (Flannigan et al., 2004; Jacoby, 2006; Leslie & Gappa, 2002; Schneider, 2003; Schuetz, 2002).
Therefore, the need for further research in this area is evident because there is a void in the literature regarding the development, implementation, and evaluation of technical training and other professional development programs for part-time faculty. If part-time faculty desire these types of opportunities, then the institutions that are increasing their numbers are obligated to provide more than a spiral bound handbook for their development as quality instructors.
Scope of the Study
This case study is bounded by one rural community college during the spring semester. The part-time faculty who were interviewed and questioned are teaching a variety of subjects and have been recently encouraged to use websites in their instructional activities. This institution is typical of most community colleges by employing far more part-time than full-time faculty to teach their courses. The county where this college is located has been experiencing rapid growth and the enrollment has been increasing for courses across the board. This college has four campuses that are spread out over a large area. The students range from transfer oriented high school graduates to retired senior citizens seeking classes for enrichment. The average student is employed full-time and attending courses primarily in the evenings. The average part-time faculty is also employed full-time outside of their teaching duties at the college. The college is challenged to staff classes in this rural area in certain disciplines.
Definition of Terms
Adjunct Faculty: These instructors teach less than the full-time load normally carried by full-time faculty. For this study, the part-time faculty teach no more than nine credit hours which is usually about three courses per semester. Some educational institutions refer to these instructors as associate faculty, part-time faculty, or temporary lecturers (Labeouf, 2000). These four terms will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.
Blackboard and WebCT: Commercial course delivery software packages that are hosted on the educational institution’s equipment and accessed by students via the Internet. Recently, Blackboard and WebCT have merged into one company supplying both the web sites and the software needed to create on-line courses (Lederman, 2005).
Face-to-Face (FTF) classes: Classes that are taught in a classroom with the instructor and students physically present together at a predetermined time and place. All projects, assignments, assessments and class discussions take place during the class time as arranged in a schedule. This type of course is also referred to as a ground class by the staff who were interviewed in this case study.
Learner-centered: This term is also known as student-centered and usually relates, in some degree, to the amount of learner-control in determining the level of access and customization to content and instruction (Al-Bataineh & Brooks, 2003; Blocher, de Montes, Tucker, & Willis, 2000; Pallof & Pratt, 1999). Learner-centered instruction is “tailored to meet individual needs” and is proposed by one researcher to be more “authentic because it is not teacher-centered” (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2003, p. 21).
On-line class: All of the course material, assessments, student interaction, and assignments are available via the Internet either using a software package such as Blackboard or WebCT, or the instructor’s web site. Students at this college are usually not required to be physically present during a normal semester when enrolled in an online course. However, some faculty require mid-terms and final exams to be proctored at the college or arranged by the student if they are unable to come to their local campus.
Resident Faculty: These faculty members are full-time instructors contracted to teach 30 – 32 credit hours of instruction over two semesters (College contract with faculty 2006-07) on any of the four campus locations. The additional duties for these instructors include student advising, curriculum updates, and attendance at certain key functions such as staff meetings and graduation ceremonies. The terms resident faculty and full-time faculty are used interchangeably in this paper.
Web-enhanced class: This type of class schedules FTF times for application, practice, student and instructor interaction. Subsequently, lecture information, textbook assignments, and assessments are placed on-line. (Pallof & Pratt, 2001). The class time for a web-enhanced class is reserved for questions and answers, discussion between students, and applied projects. E-mail is used for delivering most assignments and a website is used for students assessments and exploration of related class materials. A web-enhanced course is also referred to as a hybrid course in the literature. The main difference concerning the terms hybrid versus web-enhanced appears to be that a hybrid course actually decreases the time students are required to be in class (Leh, 2002). Because of the common usage in the literature of these two terms interchangeably, I accept either web-enhanced or hybrid as a definition. However, I will use the term web-enhanced for this study.
Researcher Bias
The researcher for this study is also an employee of the college to be studied. I am actively involved in teaching technology courses and I am the course coordinator for the Computer Information Systems program. I did not interview faculty who have a direct relationship with me or the department I direct. However, the bias towards the positive aspects of presenting technical knowledge to faculty is addressed and this disclosure is an important requirement of this study.
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
The research suggests that the comprehensive learning process will probably be compromised when incorporating technology into education without professional development opportunities provided for faculty who teach courses that use these tools (Anastasiades & Retalis, 2001; Brown et al., 2004; Covington, Petherbridge, & Egan, 2005; Debevec, Shih, & Kashyap, 2006; Keefe, 2003). This review of the current literature will focus on college level instructional arenas and will also present themes regarding “best practices” when presenting training opportunities for instructors. Courses that are presented as hybrid or blended courses will also be discussed and defined as well.
In the past, using e-mail, digital presentations, and posting lecture materials were revolutionary in assimilating technology into classes. Presently, most students and faculty appear to embrace most of these innovations as normal activities, but only if they are comfortable and knowledgeable with the tools of technology. This change in using these devices to enhance a student’s learning environment and assist with course management is the heart of the matter regarding technology integration into college level courses.
“Many college instructors are struggling to learn new technologies and to see how they might be useful to them as teachers” (Debevec et al., 2006, p. 294). This quote is not from 1995, but a recent article in one of the many educational technology journals that have proliferated in recent years. The fresh new faces sitting in our classrooms have grown up with instant messaging (IM), Google, and iPods and these students are not shy in requesting digital materials to aid them in preparing for courses. A traditional lecture using transparencies on an overhead projector seems out of place in a modern classroom and the use of e-mail, Internet, and web pages has dramatically increased in the last ten years (Duhaney, 2005). Duhaney also noted the challenges associated with these new innovations that appear to have resulted in a greater competition for students and Epper (2001) would agree with this observation. Not constrained by distance, students can now choose colleges that provide a variety of choices and alternatives to FTF courses. Therefore, faculty are pulled by the administration and pushed by their students to keep pace with technological advances regarding communication and course resources. In addition, instructors are no longer the sole information source in a classroom as their roles have changed – with or without their consent. Many professors have learned painful and embarrassing lessons when presenting less than current materials only to be corrected by a student who has accessed the latest information online.
Current Research in Training Faculty in Higher Education
Professional development for faculty is generally intended for the betterment of the institution by producing better-qualified instructors with current knowledge and practices. In the past, typical activities would include discussions regarding increasing student retention, improving learning situations, and expanding the instructor’s knowledge in their content area. Required training sessions were, and still are, presented in sexual harassment and accommodations for disabilities policies. However, the first item to currently surface when referring to training and/or professional development usually regards some aspect of educational technology.
Research in these areas overlap but rarely address all three and the terminology is sometimes ambiguous in the literature. Often the terms “training” and “professional development” are used interchangeably in current research. For this discussion, teacher training will generally refer to sessions focusing on technical skills while professional development programs, inclusive of training, will have a broader base that incorporates these skills into instructional applications. Murray (1995) cynically deemed training to be better suited for household pets. She believes that teachers needed more than these types of sessions to accomplish technical integration into courses. She writes:
Educational practitioners, researchers, and reformers agree that effecting change and infusing technology in schools cannot be accomplished through simple skill training. Professional development must be grounded in interdisciplinary curriculum which is locally and personally relevant, staffed by experienced teachers who are patient mentors willing to provide ongoing support, and flexibly structured to allow for independent exploration as well as cooperative learning activities. Genuine rather than simulated research of meaningful questions which use technology as an essential tool rather than the goal of instruction will provide the basis for effective professional development (para 66).
Therefore, the research and evaluation of these types of programs is essential in developing and improving professional development opportunities for faculty in higher education. The structure and methodology used in these studies can be categorized into two broad paradigms, positivist and interpretive. Regardless of the structure, deMarrais & Lapan (2004) stated that the intent of researchers should be “to understand a phenomena or a problem and to contribute our learning to an already existing knowledge base in a particular discipline or across disciplines” (p. 2).
Positivist research typically uses quantitative data searching for causes and effects of experiments and applications. This use of “hard” data uses statistical methods “in an attempt to explain, to predict, and to control phenomena” when researching hypotheses (Onwuegbuzie, 2000, p. 3).
Interpretive studies would seek emerging patterns from the data rather than test a hypothesis (Creswel, 1994b). Patton (1987) also agrees by saying, "The cardinal principle of qualitative analysis is that causal and theoretical statements be clearly emergent from and grounded in field observations. The theory emerges from the data; it is not imposed on the data." (p. 158, italics by the author). While there has been much debate concerning the reliability and theory basis of this type of research (Eisner, 1992; Schrag, 1992), for the most part, educators have reached some consensus and regard this methodology to be valid (Creswel, 1994b; deMarrais & Lapan, 2004). Mixed methodologies have also gained favor as a way to validate and bring greater credibility to the analysis (Creswel, 1994a).
Nevertheless, the terms for paradigm discussions are often disputed. For this discussion, I will use qualitative and quantitative to refer to the type of data collected and analyzed. Methods are the instruments used to gather the data and the methodology is the approach to the research (deMarrais & Lapan, 2004). However, several researchers use the term survey to refer to the methodology and also the instrument used in gathering data (O'Quinn & Corry, 2002) which would contradict the use of the terms by other theorists (deMarrais & Lapan, 2004). In the following literature review, I use the terms presented by the authors especially in the case of reporting survey as a methodology and also as the method of collecting data.
To complicate matters even further, Dirkx and Barnes (2006) cautioned that a number of studies that are deemed qualitative (their term for interpretive) may be founded on veiled hypothesis testing and data coding that only reflects the interviewer’s model or desired answers. Therefore, simply naming a study as “qualitative” is no guarantee that the methodology was in the interpretive paradigm even when researching peer reviewed journals.
In the following discussion, a review of the literature regarding the research in professional development and training in web technology for faculty in higher education will be presented and categorized as positivist, interpretive, or critical/postmodern paradigms. A great deal of the empirical research has focused on the training of teachers to use technology in K-12 classrooms (Weston, 2005). For this review, I have intentionally selected literature focused on higher education professional development programs although there is some overlap in elementary and post-secondary teacher graduate training curriculum. Generally, the paradigm of inquiry and framework of the discussions is indicated by the questions asked, how they are posed, and who is asking the questions.
Primarily Positivist Research
The research involved in technology training and professional development for faculty is well represented by positivist studies that can be broadly grouped into two categories. The first category focuses on how faculty training affects students and usually involves an analysis of learning outcomes and/or student satisfaction when compared to face-to-face (FTF) courses (Agee, Holisky, & Muir, 2003; Monaghan & Santiago, 2001; Nicoll & Laudato, 1999). The other emphasis in these studies assessed faculty approval and/or implementation as a result of the training in technology (Belcheir & Cucek, 2002; Covington et al., 2005; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002; Trentin, 2006) . These studies are summarized in Table 1 as to their methodology, method, and general findings. This list is not exhaustive but representative of the research currently being conducted in this area.
Several of these and related articles find that teacher preparation is essential for successful student learning experiences when presenting online materials or converting FTF courses into a web environment (Carr, 2000; Nicoll & Laudato, 1999). Other researchers found that peer mentoring in faculty training sessions was a key component in successful technology integration which was usually measured in the number of courses developed or web-enhanced (Agee et al., 2003; Covington et al., 2005). Overall, the studies indicated that professional development that includes teacher training in web technologies is beneficial to higher education.
Surveys and questionnaires were helpful in determining that the faculty participants also needed to see the relevance of the training to student learning situations and be rewarded in the form of stipends and release time (Frey & Donehue, 2003). The time required to learn and implement technology into courses was often cited as a disincentive (Belcheir & Cucek, 2002).
The strength of these studies is the documentation and systematic analysis contained in their research methodology. Another positive feature was the general consensus that successful training programs require an institutional effort to provide faculty with incentives, technical support, and resources when adding web-enhancing courses or converting FTF classes to online delivery. A staged approach when introducing new tools was also found to be helpful rather than converting a FTF course to a completely online class all at once (O'Quinn & Corry, 2002; Trentin, 2006).
With a few exceptions (Belcheir & Cucek, 2002; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002), the weaknesses usually involved the limited number of participants in the study and the lack of input from faculty who chose not to participate in the training sessions. Also, the researchers have not addressed any bias issues that may be present in their assessment of technology integration into courses. As is indicated in many of the titles of these articles, the goal is to determine why faculty are not embracing these changes rather than the merit of the assumed improvements to teaching and learning (Agee et al., 2003; Bett, French, Farr, & Hooks, 1999; Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003; Covington et al., 2005; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002).
Therefore, characteristic of this paradigm, these studies were testing hypothesis and/or searching for a cause and effect pattern resulting either from experimental design or introducing a treatment. In these particular articles, the treatment is the training classes or professional development program to assist faculty in converting courses from FTF to online or integrating technology into their courses. Most of the findings are reported as numerical data – an increase in courses developed or in the use of online materials by faculty.
Similar studies related to this area of web technology compare student performance in courses and assessments delivered online versus FTF and use comparable methods to arrive at their conclusions (Alexander, Bartlett, Truell, & Ouwenga, 2001; Alexander, Truell, & Bartlett, 2002; Granger & McGarry, 2002). In these studies, students indicated that they benefited from the flexibility of online testing while test scores appeared to be comparable to FTF courses. Analogous to the research in analyzing technical integration programs for faculty, various data is noticeably absent from the inquiries. For example, missing from these studies is data regarding student withdrawal rates that may correlate to the challenges of completing online assessments. These studies appear most concerned with preventing cheating on quizzes and course management issues with little or no mention of the impact on student retention in their courses (Olt, 2002). Comparable to the research concerning professional development programs, the research does not address the faculty who, voluntarily or unwillingly, leave teaching due to their resistance to technology integration.
Table 1: Positivist Research in Technology training for Faculty Professional Development Programs
|Positivist Studies |Methodology |Methods - Instruments |Brief Findings |
|Emphasis: Faculty Training affecting Student Learning |
|Agee, Holisky, & Muir, 2003 |This paper is the prequel to the|Student assessment data (test |By requiring student competency |
| |actual study that will correlate|scores) correlated to faculty |in technology at a curriculum |
| |student success to faculty |participation in workshops |level, faculty were motivated to |
| |development in technology | |participate in technology |
| | | |workshops |
|Nicoll & Laudato, 1999 |Evaluation – formative and |Student surveys, help desk |Online learning materials |
| |summative – on professional |reports, and web server |increased student’s time on tasks|
| |development program to |statistics – hits on online |and, therefore, learning; faculty|
| |web-enhance courses |materials and quizzes, where |training should include course |
| | |students accessed the web site |design competencies; the use of |
| | |(home, computer lab, etc.), |formative evaluations increased |
| | |written comments from students |the success of the program. |
|Monaghan & Santiago, 2001 |Compared three courses to |Student pre and post-surveys, |Online technology did not improve|
| |evaluate a faculty training |faculty responses and multiple |higher scores in interaction and |
| |program based on student |choice questions, syllabi, and |teamwork due to lack of |
| |satisfaction |course development proposal |implementation by instructors. |
| | | |Instructors need additional |
| | | |support to implement educational |
| | | |technology and evaluate online |
| | | |enhancements. |
|Emphasis – Faculty Approval and/or Implementation |
|Belcheir & Cucek, 2002 |Comparison of delivery methods |Survey for faculty concerning |Faculty were satisfied with |
| | |their reasons for teaching |training and technical support, |
| | |distance education and their |faculty needed to change the |
| | |satisfaction with training, |process of courses converted to |
| | |numerically scaled |online delivery, disincentives |
| | | |were time involved, lack of |
| | | |recognition and compensation. |
|Covington et al., 2005 |Limited evaluation of faculty |Pre and post questionnaire to |Increased number of courses |
| |technology training program |faculty participants, number of |delivered online with an |
| | |courses converted from FTF to |increased number of students, |
| | |online, survey of faculty, plan |faculty need support of peers and|
| | |to assess student performance in|technical staff for successful |
| | |upcoming evaluation of the |online course implementation. |
| | |program | |
|O'Quinn & Corry, 2002 |Survey to determine the barriers|Surveys quantified with numeric |This study indicates that web |
| |that restrict community college |scaling, limited open-ended |enhancing is desirable for |
| |faculty from teaching distance |questions |faculty when they are learning to|
| |education courses. While the | |teach online courses. |
| |study presents survey results, | | |
| |the open-ended question | | |
| |discussion is limited. | | |
|Trentin, 2006 |Survey |Pre and post surveys, |Gradual training in stages is |
| | |interviews, meetings with |more effective for faculty to |
| | |faculty, measuring faculty use |integrate technology into |
| | |of technology during each phase |courses, graduate assistants |
| | |of training |found to be helpful addition in |
| | | |providing support after training |
| | | |sessions. |
Interpretive Studies
The faculty experience is the primary theme in the interpretive research in this area. This paradigm is also well represented in the literature and is usually focused on faculty perceptions and experiences when presented with changes and challenges regarding educational technology. Case studies dominated the research which involved interviews, open-ended questionnaires, and observations as the primary data collection methods (Ali, 2003a; Blocher, Echols, de Montes, Willis, & Tucker, 2003; Brown et al., 2004; Grant, 2004; Otero et al., 2005). Research using mixed methodologies were based primarily on the interviews and observations using quantitative data to validate findings (Bell & Ireh, 2002; Blocher et al., 2000; Tearle, 2003).
Indicative of this paradigm, the themes and conclusions emerged from the data analysis. Rather than attempting to determine if professional development training was beneficial or detrimental, most of the research focused on the individual dynamics involved in the process. As indicated in Table 2, several areas were studied: the attitudes and perceptions of faculty, the change (or lack of adjustment) in pedagogy resulting from technology integration, and/or the interactions of the training program participants.
The findings in the interpretive studies reflect a need for professional development opportunities to be customized, convenient, and relevant to classroom instruction and practice (Ali, 2003a; Grant, 2004; Otero et al., 2005). Autonomy and discretion in allowing faculty the freedom to choose how technology is implemented and the consideration of faculty self efficacy are also dominant themes in this paradigm (Ali, 2003a; Blocher et al., 2000; Blocher et al., 2003). The instructional design of the program may require different approaches in presenting the basic technical skills than when allowing a more constructivist’s approach as participants gain confidence in using these new tools (Blocher et al., 2003). Technical support is essential in any successful program and will require the commitment of resources at an institutional level (Ali, 2003a; Tearle, 2003; Weston, 2005).
The strength of this type of research is answering the questions that were not asked in the previous statistical based studies. The findings do not necessarily refute the positivist research but, instead, can be added to their conclusions by offering insights beyond statistical calculations. For example, Otero et al. (2005) used a case study and used data collected over a 3-year review of a technology-training program for faculty. The methods used were field notes when contacting faculty, interviews with faculty, and minutes from the technology support staff meetings. The findings indicated the need for faculty to understand the need for technological improvements before wanting to implement it into their courses. Although this study agrees with Nicoll and Laudato (1999), a positivist study, this outcome was discovered and not a predetermined hypothesis to be tested.
Each of the studies that were characterized as interpretive presented findings and conclusion that were specific to the case that was presented. Many positivist researchers would site this inability to generalize and replicate treatments as a weakness of this type of study. Accordingly, these studies were subject to the researcher’s interpretation of the events and not all of the studies indicated triangulation of their data. A limitation of all research maybe even more evident in this paradigm and that is the effect on the data and conclusions because the research is occurring. Interviews and observations require the researcher to be present and interacting with the participants and this aspect is difficult to avoid or account for in the findings.
Table 2: Interpretive and Mixed Methodologies Research in Technology training for Faculty Professional Development Programs
|Interpretivist’s Studies and |Methodology |Methods - Instruments |Brief Findings |
|Mixed methodologies | | | |
|Ali, 2003 |Limited case study for a |Interviews, observations |Training needs to be tailored to|
| |formative evaluation of a | |individual faculty needs, |
| |faculty training program | |technology support is essential,|
| | | |faculty need freedom in choosing|
| | | |implementation methods. |
|Blocher, Echols, de Montes, |Case study of one teacher’s |Reflective summary of this |Instructors appear to function |
|Willis, & Tucker, 2003 |experience with integrating |teacher which included her |well in learning under a |
| |technology |observations and narrative |constructivist’s model but may |
| | | |have a difficult time teaching |
| | | |their students using this |
| | | |approach. |
|Brown, Benson, & Uhde, 2004 |Case study of three faculty |The methods are not indicated in|Professional development is |
| |members as they learn new |this narrative type article but |needed in technology for college|
| |technology skills. |implied as interviews and |faculty. |
| | |observations | |
|Grant, 2004 |Case study of a teacher |Interviews both in person and |Found that institutional |
| |education department’s |through e-mail |pressure to develop distance |
| |professional development program| |education courses and |
| |targeting distance education | |convenience were among the |
| |training | |factors that influenced teacher |
| | | |participating in program. |
|Otero et al., 2005 |Case study of a 3-year review of|Field notes, faculty interviews,|Faculty need an understanding |
| |a technology-training program |minutes from the technology |concerning the need for |
| |for faculty |support staff meetings |technological improvements |
| | | |before wanting to implement it |
| | | |into their courses. |
|Weston, 2005 |Comparative case study of 13 |Interviews, observations, field |Faculty attitude caused some |
| |instructors over 2 years while |notes, surveys with closed and |delay in integration, but |
| |they integrated a software |opened responses |biggest hindrance was lack of |
| |program into their courses | |student access to computers. |
|Mixed |
|Bell & Ireh, 2002 |Mixed: Evaluation of a new |Interviews, questionnaires, |Training improved faculty |
| |program that improved curriculum|number of courses developed and |efficacy, faculty noted improved|
| |and integrated technology to |repackaged |student performance but this |
| |address uneven test scores in | |information was anecdotal |
| |teacher certification exams | | |
|Blocher, de Montes, Tucker, & |Mixed: Case study using the |Interviews, observations, self |An important component to |
|Willis, 2000 |participant’s own action |report instruments |consider in training was |
| |research which included journals|(quantitative), observations, |building confidence in the |
| |and her recorded experiences |group meetings, notes during |participant’s ability to learn |
| |along with statistical analysis |sessions questionnaire |the technical aspects of the |
| |of questionnaires to analyze the|(quantitative) |tools being taught. Faculty and |
| |use of constructivist’s | |pre-service teachers were better|
| |principles to teach technology | |able to incorporate the |
| |to education students and higher| |constructivist’s learning |
| |education faculty | |methodology if they felt |
| | | |confident in their technical |
| | | |abilities. |
|Tearle, 2003 |Mixed: Case study to help |Interviews, documents, |Integrating technology will be |
| |determine why some schools are |observations, and questionnaires|successful if approached from |
| |more successful in integrating |(quantitative) |more comprehensive attitude of |
| |technology. This school is a | |change in the broader school |
| |British secondary school, which | |setting. |
| |includes grades 11 –18. | | |
Critical/Postmodern Studies
The literature characteristic of critical and postmodern positions is very limited when considering professional development and training in higher education to implement technology into courses. Many of the articles in this area are general critiques of educational technology and not specifically addressing training or professional development. However, Moore (2003) is one of the exceptions as he recommends policy changes to further technological advances in education. Moore advises, “[t]he need to plan and create more sophisticated systems for design and delivery of distance education at all levels, institutional, state, and national” (p. 41). He also recommends training of faculty to use technology and emphatically states, “[t]hat program MUST NOT be primarily focused on how to add new technology to existing pedagogy, but MUST focus on new organization structures and new roles of the teacher” (p. 41, capitalization by the author).
Given the lack of literature in this specific area, the general research in instructional technology is greater than eleven years ago when Reeves (1995) reported finding none. Nichols (1997) later questioned technical training as paralyzing new teachers who might not perform well without it. Other researchers reveal the marginalization of content and difficulty with the forced change in pedagogy when technology is implemented without due consideration (Lears, 2000; Robertson, 2003; Spitz, 2000). Oppenheimer (2004b) and Healy (2005) critique public education’s infatuation with technology that robs resources from other instructional programs and makes educators subservient to these tools. Oppenheimer’s writing is critical of the failure of schools in general when he says, “the prevalence of computers is simply an outgrowth of a school’s general academic breakdown. In that respect, technology serves an oddly useful purpose – as a kind of red flag warning of deep, fundamental decay” (p. xiii). He and others have indicated the problems associated with the often under compensated and increased work load on faculty and the frustration of teacher displacement when technology is substituted for instruction (Goldberg & Riemer, 2006; McWilliam & Taylor, 1998; Oppenheimer, 2004a).
Several studies have also emerged that analyze groups who may not want to participate in integrating technology into their classrooms or their way of life (Congdon, 1997; Resta, Christal, & Roy, 2004). This technology intrusion into religious and Native cultures is another area of critical discussion and debate. Therefore, the literature in this paradigm indicates the conflicts, exploitation, and power structure involved in assimilating technology into education. Their focus is K-12 public education with commentaries concerning the training of these teachers (Healy, 2005; Nichols, 1997; Oppenheimer, 2004a). However, a direct critique of professional development programs in higher education targeting technology training is somewhat lacking in the literature for this area.
Inclusions and Exclusions
Most of the research, whether positivist or interpretivist, included data to ascertain what training was found beneficial to faculty and ultimately to student learning in their courses. The studies were also involved in determining the challenges in implementing technology into FTF courses – the focus usually involved faculty perceptions and resistance due to the lack of support or improper training.
Missing from these studies is research that targets the compromises and standardization of curriculum because of technology adjustments. Basically, what are we no longer teaching because it does not accommodate a PowerPoint presentation or an online course? Testing and assessments may have changed because of web-enhancements, but are these new quizzes and exams really indicating learning objectives free from unethical conduct? Few, if any studies, are being conducted regarding part-time faculty and full-time faculty who do not participate in technology training. Accordingly, self-efficacy issues concerning faculty attitudes are often passed over. While most of the research agrees that adding technology into curriculum changes the dynamics of the classroom interactions, few studies target this sweeping change in pedagogy.
Occasional opinion papers are available that address the inclusion of part-time faculty into training programs. However, hardly any studies concerning professional development opportunities are available for almost half of the faculty who are currently teaching in higher education – the part-time faculty (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). Over a decade ago, these instructors were labeled “The Invisible Faculty” by Gappa and Leslie (1993) and the concerns for quality education because of the lack of tenured professors are present in the literature (Fagan-Wilen, Springer, Ambrosino, & White, 2006; Flannigan et al., 2004; Leslie & Gappa, 2002; Schuetz, 2002; Schneider, 2003). Milliron and Miles (2000) indicated the need to address this issue with regards to technology training of all faculty when they say, "[a]n equally pressing concern is how community colleges will develop the skills of the growing number of part-timers who increasingly are being called on to fill the gaps created by retiring faculty and budget cuts" (p. 24).
Research Developments
The studies using empirical data will continue to be a major presence in the research concerning professional development. As institutions of higher education strive to comply with accountability mandates from policy makers, the least complicated method is usually number based. As in the two examples that will be discussed in answering the second set of questions for this paper, the least intrusive method is the first example using numbers and statistical analysis. In gathering data, there would be little need for scheduling interviews, transcribing, coding, and interpreting data, and the Institutional Review Board would not need to be consulted. The costs in terms of time and manpower are usually less with empirical data analysis and probably a major reason for this trend in research to continue.
Another possible reason for the lack of studies regarding part-time faculty may be due to political reasons. Many colleges are reluctant to advertise the large numbers of part-time faculty employed by their institutions. To fund research in this area may not be well accepted in the community and would possibly bring negative perceptions from potential students and alumni contributors. Interviewing part-time faculty is also challenging because of their schedules and outside commitments. Full-time instructors routinely hold office hours while part-time faculty are usually not required to have these campus hours and often lack office space.
Regarding the lack of critical and/or postmodern studies, the metanarratives regarding the mass acceptance of technology into higher education is well grounded. Administrators and policy makers who have approved technology as a large part of their budget probably do not want these conflicts and power struggles disclosed. The mass marketing of software and hardware into colleges and universities is difficult to refute at best. Faculty who bring up the negative aspects of technology are quickly quieted by their colleagues and categorized as somewhat old fashioned or backward concerning their views of progress (Nichols, 1997).
Best Practices in Professional Development Programs for Faculty
Therefore, present in the literature regarding professional development opportunities for faculty, the following best practices appear to be emphasized in successfully integrating technology into learning environments:
1. Customize the learning activities to be relevant to the courses that faculty teach and involve these participants in the development of the program (Bush, 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Gess-Newsome, Blocher, Clark, Meansco, & Willis, 2003; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Santovec, 2004).
2. Provide reliable technical and administrative support (Bell & Ireh, 2002; Brown et al., 2004; Covington et al., 2005; Weston, 2005).
3. Encourage interaction between the participants (Covington et al., 2005; Santovec, 2004).
4. Value the time and efforts of the participants, i.e. provide fellowships, certificates, or stipends (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Hartman & Truman-Davis, 2000; Moon, Michelich, & McKinnon, 2005; Santovec, 2004).
5. Use discretion when discussing needs assessments and provide a self-esteem safe learning environment when presenting new concepts to faculty which builds confidence based on their prior skills (Fuller, 1999; Hartman & Truman-Davis, 2000; A. H. Moore, 2001).
Customize Learning Activities
Part-time faculty, similar to their full-time colleagues, are interested in training that applies directly to classroom activities including the use of classroom management technology and “web-based course development software” (Wallin, 2004, p. 387). Customizing these activities focuses on the participants rather than the needs of the workshop designer or the institution’s criteria for professional development. This learner-centered approach began to emerge as technology created opportunities for this type of instruction during the early to mid 1990s (Al-Bataineh & Brooks, 2003). Leading authors include Rena Pallof and Keit Pratt (1999) and Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek (2003). The current research supports the use of technology to enable the development of courses that reflect a constructivist’s methodology or learner-centered attitude (Blocher et al., 2000; Chou & Liu, 2005; Kanuka, Collett, & Caswell, 2002; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002; Tu, 2005). Also, faculty need to know the purpose of the technology being integrated into a course when presented with professional development opportunities (Ali, 2003a, 2003b; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Otero et al., 2005; Weston, 2005). Ali (2003a) reports his observations after a six-month faculty training program: “As faculty occupy a central position in educational settings, their views and ideas pertaining to technology integration are important. There is a need to justify the suitability of technology before it is embraced” (p. 51).
Mishra and Koehler (2006) have developed a new framework concerning the integration of technology into pedagogy, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). They believe the focus should be on how the technology is used and the development of theories to integrating these tools into instruction. Mishra and Koehler added technology to be interwoven into the mix of instructional expertise, knowledge of the subject matter, and practice to develop their model. TPCK has merit in assisting researchers to make sense of the complex interactions taking place in classrooms everyday. Further development and application of their theory is warranted to determine if adding technical expertise to the study of instructional methods is deserving of this special treatment.
Therefore, with few exceptions, the research in technology training does not appear to have changed to a great extent in the last 20 years. Successful training should endeavor to avoid the reasons Fullan (1982) lists for the failure of other professional development programs, i.e. topics not selected by the participants; the content not addressing “individual needs and concerns”; and lack of planning and implementation (p. 263). Fullan would advise that if the instruction were deemed valuable then the facilitators would set the training and time necessary to implement these tools as a priority. Failure of training programs is almost guaranteed if the ideas are “imposed on teachers on a top-down basis by ‘experts’ from outside their own schools” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992, p. 3). For faculty, hands-on learning activities appear to be an ideal way to not only become skilled at how to use the technology tools, but a practical method for designing projects for students in their courses (Christensen, 2003; Goldberg, 2005a). The challenge is to customize the training to be as concise as possible with the time spent in learning the technology be perceived as worthwhile to the participants (Irani & Telg, 2001).
Technical and Administrative Support
Weston (2005) discovered that the greatest impediment in incorporating educational technology was not faculty’s uncertainty and lack of self-efficacy regarding the implementation of these tools, but the lack of student computers. Therefore, many academic departments must work together to develop a productive and successful training program – faculty, administration, and technical support services.
Evident in the literature is the need for technical support when training faculty. Bell and Ireh (2002) evaluated a program that incorporated technical training into a larger package to assist university education faculty by presenting a series of workshops on curriculum alignment. Technical assistance was found to be an important aspect in the success of this program, as also indicated in a study by Brown, Benson, and Uhde (2004).
Peer Support
Adding peer support was a recommended component in several faculty-training programs (Bush, 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Pittinsky, 2005). Participants commented that they enjoyed learning from other educators and the collaborative effort involved in the process. While support, both from peers and technical personnel, must be addressed to insure the success of any faculty development plan, the instructional design of these programs must also be considered. Blocher, de Montes, Willis, and Tucker (2003) explored the constructivist’s approach to teaching and learning when training faculty to use technology using case study methodology. Their findings indicated that instructors function well in learning under a constructivist’s model but may have a difficult time teaching their students using this approach. This study highlights the challenges teachers may have when adapting new teaching methods.
Incentives
In addition to providing support from peers, incentives to learn new tools and improve instructional techniques should be offered to compensate the participants for their efforts. Enhancing the performance of any student, whether young or old, teacher or administrator, involve providing these participants with rewards (Irani & Telg, 2001). For faculty, intrinsic rewards include perceptions of improvements in student learning, their teaching presentations, and the ability to better use electronic instructional materials (Debevec et al., 2006). Extrinsic rewards may include stipends, release time, certificates, and other tangible benefits, as previously mentioned under best practices (Agee et al., 2003; Frey & Donehue, 2003; Irani & Telg, 2001; Murray, 1995).
These modifications in faculty development programs need to not only include the rewards of learning new technology skills but also the address the changes that result in instructional design. Another aspect that should be addressed when identifying the tasks to help enhance instructor performance is the pedagogy of teaching adult learners. Andragogy is the study and development of the adult learning model popularized by Malcolm Knowles (Wentland, 2001). Adults bring more experience to a learning situation, approach training with a problem-solving attitude, work best when given relevant projects to perform, and are usually more self motivated than other groups of learners (Lawton, 2001). As recommended previously, traditional FTF instruction appears to be preferable in the beginning of technical training with subsequent online supporting materials and discussions available afterwards (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Hunt, 1986; Irani & Telg, 2001; Murray, 1995). Once faculty are comfortable with the technology, then professional development can continue using the online environment for convenience and flexibility (Pittinsky, 2005).
Discretion in Determining Prior Skills
Therefore, before providing workshops that address not only the technology but also the changes in instructional design, a needs assessment of what skills they already have and what skills they need to develop is a logical starting place (Frey & Donehue, 2003). As mentioned previously, this assessment should be managed with diplomacy as many faculty may fear their lack of knowledge in this area (Epper, R. M., 2001; Fuller, 1999). After the appropriate content area is identified for a particular group, then tasks and competencies can be presented. An important area not to be overlooked is the staffing of these sessions. The relevance and credibility of these workshops are strengthened when presented by fellow colleagues rather than outside staff or technicians (Murray, 1995; Pittinsky, 2005).Training should be focused, using readily available technology and software, with “the emphasis on practical issues of teaching and learning and not on technology” (A. H. Moore, 2001, p. 82).
Technology Integration Produces Changes in Instruction
Years later, Fullan (1999) continues to advise the need to change the environment if the implementation of technology is to succeed: “If you can’t grow roses in concrete you need to change the concrete” (p. 74). As previously mentioned, if technical support and administration does not help facilitate the training and the necessary support, then the program will probably be unsuccessful. This type of training cannot be done in a vacuum and the need is to secure the support of the college as a whole for the transferability to take place from the workshops to the classroom. Hord (2004) would agree, and recommends a shared vision to changing school environments and the bonus is developing better instructors: “Through their participation in a professional learning community, teachers become the first learners, continuous learners, and more effective teachers” (p. 14).
Literature Review – Conclusion
Distinctive to technology training is that the tool to be learned is often the tool that is used in the instruction of the course, i.e. handouts are posted on a website and online resources supplement a typical faculty training workshop. A needs assessment is essential in developing the appropriate task analysis to facilitate and improve performance in the training and the subsequent application into the classroom. Certainly, faculty will be challenged when incorporating these changes into their instruction. Just as they demand openness, cooperation, and perseverance from their students, hopefully, they will also require these attributes from themselves.
As is evident in the literature, faculty training programs are more successful when the sessions are tailored to faculty schedules, customized to the goals of the participants, and the technology is seen as “a tool, not a cure-all”(Hutchison, 2001, p. 111). As discussed in this section, the literature explores the complexities of adding technology to FTF courses. Therefore, we should all take comfort in Taylor’s (1980) observations twenty seven years ago, “technical innovation has come so fast in computing that even the expert can barely keep up with it” (p. 1). His apprehension - voiced before the widespread use of the Internet, before on-line courses, and before projectors and slide presentations - is still a legitimate concern for educators today. Faculty will need to be somewhat adaptable and broadminded when they support student-learning activities that require some aspect of technology.
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
The Interpretive Paradigm
This case study will explore the perceptions and experiences of part-time faculty regarding educational technology training opportunities. The institution chosen for this study is a rural community college and the data collection methods will include interviews, a questionnaire, observations, web-enhanced course analysis, and archives. This study will take place over the course of one semester and will collect data from three of the four campus locations at this college. The approach to this research is associated with the interpretive paradigm in answering the questions concerning technology training and the part-time faculty at this college.
Overall, the faculty experience is the primary theme in the interpretive research in this area of professional development opportunities for faculty in higher education. This paradigm is well represented in the literature and is usually focusing on faculty perceptions and experiences when presented with changes and challenges regarding educational technology. Case studies dominate the research which involve interviews, open-ended questionnaires, and observations as the primary data collection methods (Ali, 2003a; Blocher et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2004; Grant, 2004; Otero et al., 2005).
Research using mixed methodologies were based primarily on the interviews and observations using quantitative data to validate findings (Bell & Ireh, 2002; Blocher et al., 2000; Tearle, 2003). For this particular case study, the interpretive research paradigm has the advantage over a positivist view that would probably seek to determine the causal relationship between faculty training and some type of output, i.e. student success, websites developed, or student retention. Therefore, these research questions were best situated in an interpretive paradigm.
The findings in the interpretive studies reflect a need for professional development opportunities to be customized, convenient, and relevant to classroom instruction and practice (Ali, 2003a; Grant, 2004; Otero et al., 2005). Autonomy and discretion in allowing faculty the freedom to choose how technology is implemented and the consideration of faculty self efficacy are also dominant themes in this paradigm (Ali, 2003a; Blocher et al., 2000; Blocher et al., 2003). The instructional design of the program may require different approaches in presenting the basic technical skills than when allowing a more constructivist’s approach as participants gain confidence in using these new tools (Blocher et al., 2003). Technical support is essential in any successful program and will require the commitment of resources at an institutional level (Ali, 2003a; Tearle, 2003; Weston, 2005).
The Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of part-time faculty as they choose to participate in opportunities for professional development that focuses on learning to utilize educational technology. This study used a case study methodology and was positioned in an interpretive paradigm using both qualitative and quantitative data to facilitate the research questions. As indicated in the introduction of this study, these questions are:
1. How is the concept of technology training for part-time faculty defined and implemented at this college?
a. What information about technology training has been communicated to part-time faculty?
b. What is the status of faculty created web sites?
c. Are part-time faculty accommodated, rewarded, or acknowledged for participating in training opportunities?
d. What are the perceptions and experiences of Distance Education personnel regarding training opportunities for part-time faculty to learn about educational technology?
2. What are the perceptions of part-time faculty regarding training opportunities to learn about educational technology?
a. What information about technology training has part-time faculty received?
b. What is the general importance for part-time faculty to learn about technology integration in their courses?
3. What are the experiences of part-time faculty who have chosen to participate in technology training sessions provided by this college?
a. What do part-time faculty believe are the difficulties and/or rewards of participating in technology training sessions?
b. What factors influenced their decision to participate or not participate in these opportunities?
The case study approach has been used in various research concerned with faculty training in educational technology (Ali, 2003a; Blocher et al., 2003; Lane-Kelso, 2000; Otero et al., 2005). Since this case study is being used to gather data to describe what the faculty experience is concerning their training in educational technology, Yin (1989) would categorize it as exploratory and would recommend this methodology because of the focus on the participant’s experiences and perceptions. The researcher’s role was as an interpreter who “has recognized a problem…hoping to connect it with better known things” (Stake, 1995, p. 97).
Data Sources and Data Collection
Therefore, the data gathered for this study came from many sources and involved interpretations and descriptions that were connected and interrelated within this college setting. Wolcott (2001a) represents this complex process of collecting qualitative data as a metaphor of a tree with many branches in the following description:
A major branch especially dependent on archival sources for its data is dedicated to the examination of materials made by others (searching documents or studying artifacts). Another branch emphasizes observation (as with human ethnology or non-participant observer studies). Another relies essentially on interviewing (biography, journalism, narrative, oral history) (p. 88, bold words by the author).
Wolcott (2001a) also addressed the case study approach in his research strategy as to its location in this image of a growing tree. “I was also surprised to discover that I had trouble finding a suitable place for case study on the tree. My problem was not that it did not fit anywhere, but that it seemed to fit everywhere” (p. 91, italics by the author). Therefore, the data for this study was collected in several ways to create a strong and vibrant tree of data for this case study: 1) administered a questionnaire to part-time faculty targeting their attitudes about technology training opportunities; 2) gathered quantitative data from BlackBoard websites developed by faculty to determine the frequency of areas that were used by students and faculty and to provide a description of the various resources provided in these websites such as links to other sites, exams, supplemental lecture material, etc.; 3) observed a training session in technology for full-time and part-time faculty 4) observed Distance Education (DE) and technical support services (TSS) staff as they interact with faculty involved in development opportunities; 5) interviewed DE and TSS personnel to determine the present state of the faculty training program; 6) through interviews, ascertained the incentives and/or motivation for technology training as viewed by the part-time faculty participants; and 7) examined archives and documents to help further determine how the concept of training was being presented at this college.
The participants included: the part-time faculty at a community college for the questionnaire; and interviews with six part-time faculty (a minimum of two from each of the main campus locations), three staff members of Distance Education; and one TSS facilitator of DE online courses at this college.
The companion websites for the FTF courses are required for the full-time faculty at this college and optional, but encouraged, for part-time faculty. The websites were categorized as varying degrees of Low, Medium, and High use depending on the areas created on these sites. “Low” indicated the availability of announcements, faculty contact information, a posted syllabus, and a grade book. The items available in Low are the required items for full-time faculty teaching FTF courses. “Medium” indicated the items available in Low plus the addition of course documents and links to other sites. “High” included these items plus online testing and quizzes and any other course supplements.
Hays (2004) asserts that, “[t]he case study researcher as a qualitative researcher needs to provide for triangulation (e.g., multiple sources of data and multiple methods for each question)” (p. 228). To aid in verifying the data for this study, quantitative and qualitative data was collected concerning the number of times web resources were accessed by students for all web-enhanced sites. This information was then analyzed to determine the average access by students during a semester and if any significant differences occurred for different areas of the website. The items listed in these websites were also described and categorized as Low, Medium, or High levels. As mentioned previously, all FTF courses presented at this college have a website template on the Blackboard server that includes a link to course announcements, faculty contact information, course syllabus, and a grade book for students to check their progress in the course. Any other supplements are optional - created and posted by the instructor at their discretion. The quantitative data collected from web site access was analyzed to determine if certain areas have more contact than other areas.
I observed one faculty training session. This observation included the collection of supplemental handouts and the report of the types of questions asked, the status – part-time or full-time – of the faculty attendees, and the questions that arose during the training sessions. Furthermore, this activity incorporated the observation of the DE/TSS staff interaction with faculty while learning to use technology.
As approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), interviews with the participants were audio taped and evaluated using content analysis to develop several emerging themes. The content analysis included a coding procedure that looked for topics and key themes throughout the discussion with the participant. I used a coding software package and created several categories to help organize this data. I shared some of the interview data with a colleague and had her review the data and compare her themes and coding with mine to assist in validating my findings and conclusions. Creswell (1994c) outlines this type of coding and several other procedures involved in this complex process of coding qualitative data.
I also kept a list of quotes that were useful in the narrative report of the findings, which Creswell also advises. Grouping the results based on campus locations did not factor in for questionnaires, observations, and interviews, as they did not indicate any patterns based on locality.
To help visualize the possible interactions involved in providing professional development opportunities for part-time faculty, I have created the following diagram (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Participants, processes, and communication involved in training part-time faculty to web-enhance their courses.
[pic]
Unique Information, Validity, and Representation
This research study provides information concerning part-time faculty perceptions and experiences concerning technology training and faculty development opportunities. This type of information is not present in other studies and was validated by archives, access rates, and use of websites, and interviews with DE and technical support staff. The themes emerging from the data gave insight to how these different factions were interacting and the attitudes that were involved in these relationships.
To further validate the findings, the interview questions were revised after piloting and field-testing. The interview transcripts were returned to the participants for member checking. As previously mentioned, a colleague was enlisted to verify my coding of the transcribed interviews.
Representation is a major consideration in this example. The part-time faculty selected were randomly chosen from volunteers solicited by a letter describing my research project. A bracketing interview assisted in discovering my bias concerning the design of the interview questions. This interview helped to further reveal my position in this study.
Strengths and Weaknesses of This Study
The strength of this case study was embedded in the abundance of information that emerged from interviewing part-time faculty concerning their experiences and perceptions. The bias of the researcher and the subjectivity that may unintentionally slant the results and findings was addressed so as not to become a weakness in this study. An unintended consequence may develop in the future as part-time faculty realize their need for validation and training that is not being delivered by the administration of this college. A strong point for this study was the present lack of research regarding part-time faculty views and perceptions to be found in the literature. Therefore, this information has usefulness in beginning this dialogue at other colleges.
A major weakness in this study was the short time frame and limited number of interviews that took place. Follow up interviews would have been valuable in confirming the themes that emerged. Therefore, to improve this study, several modifications could have been implemented. For example, observations and interviews over several years would lend depth and insight to the conclusions found in this limited study.
Accordingly, the group of faculty who were interviewed could be increased with follow-up interviews every semester to ascertain any changes or confirmations in faculty perceptions concerning training. Another modification for subsequent studies would be to solicit student opinions regarding the changes in the courses that are web-enhanced after part-time faculty have participated in training workshops. Table 3 lists the questions for this study and the procedures that were implemented to gather the data for each area. The data collected from the questionnaires, interviews, and web sites provided a wealth of information that was analyzed to answer the research questions. The various methods were not restricted to any particular area and I allowed the data to overlap in not only validating but also providing new insights to the case.
Table 3. Research Design Plan
|Research Questions |Information Sources |Methods |Analysis |
|1. How is the concept of |Distance Education and |Interviews, web statistics |Content analysis, statistical |
|technology training for part-time|Technical Support Services |documents, archives |analysis |
|faculty defined and implemented |personnel, college Blackboard| | |
|at this college? |web site | | |
| a. What information about |Distance Education and |Interviews, observations, and |Content analysis, statistical |
|technology training has been |Technical Support Services |documents including: e-mail |analysis |
|communicated to part-time |personnel, archives |announcements to faculty, | |
|faculty? | |faculty meeting notes, handouts | |
| b. What is the status of |College Blackboard website |Web site database |Statistical and content analysis|
|faculty created web sites? | | | |
| c. Are part-time faculty |Distance Education and |Interviews and college policy |Content analysis |
|accommodated, rewarded, or |Technical Support Services |documents | |
|acknowledged for participating in|personnel, archives | | |
|training opportunities? | | | |
| d. What are the perceptions and|Distance Education personnel |Interviews |Content analysis |
|experiences of Distance Education| | | |
|personnel regarding training | | | |
|opportunities for part-time | | | |
|faculty to learn about | | | |
|educational technology? | | | |
|2. What are the perceptions of |Part-time faculty |Questionnaires and interviews |Content analysis |
|part-time faculty regarding | | | |
|training opportunities to learn | | | |
|about educational technology? | | | |
| a. What information about |Part-time faculty, archives |Questionnaires and interviews, |Content analysis |
|technology training has part-time| |bi-annual meeting agendas and | |
|faculty received? | |distributed handouts | |
|3. What are the experiences of |Part-time faculty, training |Questionnaires, interviews, and |Content analysis |
|part-time faculty who have chosen|workshops |observations | |
|to participate in technology | | | |
|training sessions provided by | | | |
|this college? | | | |
| a. What do part-time faculty |Part-time faculty |Questionnaires and interviews |Content analysis |
|believe are the difficulties | | | |
|and/or rewards of participating | | | |
|in technology training sessions? | | | |
| b. What factors influenced |Part-time faculty |Questionnaires and interviews |Content analysis |
|their decision to participate or | | | |
|not participate in these | | | |
|opportunities? | | | |
Validity and Triangulation
In an effort to triangulate my findings for this case study, I implemented several different methods in obtaining my data. My concern was focused on presenting a genuine picture when describing the experiences and perceptions of the part-time faculty and technology training. For that reason, I participated in a bracketing interview with an expert in the field of educational technology training to aid in bringing my preconceptions about my study to the surface. This activity was very useful in identifying several cultural issues inherent to this rural community to be included as part of the story in this research.
Another bias that became evident later in this study was my experience as a part-time faculty member at this college and other colleges and universities within this state. As a teacher of technology, I was willing to learn new innovations and attended any training that was made available to me. Therefore, my preconception of part-time faculty’s desire to attend training was biased towards my assumption that they would want to participate if the sessions were convenient. I also assumed everyone wanted to use these tools and just did not have the time or resources, but I discovered that this assumption was similarly flawed as the data was analyzed.
Therefore, to further facilitate and help reduce the effect of my bias, I sought out multiple sources of data and used four different methods (Creswel, 1994a). This triangulation of the data is also recommended by Preissle and Grant (2004) as “techniques designed to minimize the intrusion of the researcher into data collection, data analysis, and presentation and writing of the final report” (p. 172). To aid in validating my coding of the data, I shared a portion of my interview data, transcripts from one staff member and one part-time faculty, with a colleague experienced in analyzing qualitative data. Her results indicated that my coding was compatible with her findings in interpreting these responses. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then returned to the participants for member checking. None of the participants asked for any corrections or modifications to their transcripts.
Implementation of Methods
I used the free software program, Weft QDA, to help in coding these interviews (Fenton, 2006). I was surprised at my own dilemma in trying to find the time to learn the software that would aid in my data analysis. Here I was, the proverbial plumber with leaky pipes at home, asking harried part-time faculty about fitting technology training into their schedules – all the while - resenting the time drain due to my own learning curve with Weft QDA. I did persevere and found the software to be a useful tool in coding the interviews – much better than using Microsoft Word’s highlighting and comment functions that I had used before in coding data for other research projects. Summary of this Case Study Research
As this study developed, I was careful to keep records to enable an external reader to follow the “chain of evidence” that Yin (1989) has highly recommended to lend reliability to the case (p. 102). After completion of this research, I fully concurred with Stake’s (1995) comments when he explains the complex nature of the case study research methodology:
It is true that we deal with many complex phenomena and issues for which no consensus can be found as to what really exists – yet we have ethical obligations to minimize misrepresentation and misunderstanding…efforts that go beyond simple repetition of data gathering to deliberative effort to find the validity of data observed” (pp. 108-109).
Discussing the training opportunities for part-time faculty with various stakeholders provided an insight into the process of teaching and learning to teach in a community college. The process of integrating technology into this environment was only a part of the story that evolved as this data was collected, analyzed, and evaluated. The findings for this study are presented in the next chapter followed by interpretations and conclusions, which are offered in Chapter 5.
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
This chapter includes an examination of the findings obtained in a case study that included multiple data collection methods and sources. As mentioned in the previous chapter, these sources included: 1) interviews of ten individuals – four DE/TSS staff and six part-time faculty members, 2) questionnaires given to part-time faculty, 3) an analysis of the frequency and types of access for web-enhanced courses at this college, 4) observations of a training session, and 5) archives, documents, announcements, and handouts relating to various technology training activities at this college.
The beginning of this chapter includes a description of the setting involved in this study. Next, an overview of how the specific methods were implemented is discussed. Subsequently, the research questions are presented with the related findings specific to these questions across the data sources. Also included will be findings and general responses to questions that were not anticipated in my original data collection design.
The College Setting
This college is located in a rural area in the western part of the United States. According to state and county census data, the local vicinity has been experiencing steady growth primarily through those seeking retirement homes and several new industries relocating in this county. The college has had several major reorganizations, which has increased enrollment and also created a separate division for Distance Education (per the 2003 college catalog). As the demand for workers in certain areas increased, many new health related and vocational programs have emerged (college publicity pamphlet entitled “ [college name] Benchmarks 2006” and various press releases sent to all employees via e-mail).
The percentage of individuals holding bachelor’s degrees is relatively low in this community and the closest university campus is over 100 miles in proximity (2005 state census data). Accordingly, the local population has incomes lower than the state and national averages (2005 wage comparisons by county at this site and 2004 state employment figures from their website). As characteristic of most community colleges in this locale, part-time faculty teach the majority of the courses each semester (analysis of current course offerings).
The college is the only choice for most residents wishing to improve their job skills, take courses for enrichment, or pursue a degree. The exception being the local high school graduates who desire to leave the community to pursue the social life and academics provided by the universities. The college has been actively recruiting these high school graduates and has successfully increased its retention of the local youth mainly due, in part, to the increase in tuition rates at the universities (“Benchmarks” publicity pamphlet 2006). Many families are opting to send their students to the community college for one or two years to save substantial amounts of money on tuition and living expenses before allowing them to transfer to in-state universities.
The college considers itself to be based on a business model for determining the programs it offers or discontinues. Each program is evaluated in its relation to community demand, student success, and costs associated with delivering the courses (announcement and presentation at faculty meetings in 2001). The college enrollment has had a substantial increase in not only the number of students attending, but, as mentioned previously, in the number of full-time students from local high schools. Therefore, recruiting efforts for part-time faculty has been increased and many new faces have been added to the part-time faculty arsenal.
Campus Descriptions
This college has four campuses. Three are located within seventy-five miles of each other; the fourth is a smaller satellite campus located much farther from the other three. The most geographically central campus also houses the administration offices. This innermost community is the oldest of the four and was where this college originated. The population around this campus has the lowest income level of the three main sites. However, the students in this vicinity are most likely to have lived in the area the longest when compared to the other communities. The course offerings are very stable at this campus from year to year. This stability is due to the consistency in the work force of this community because of the location of a large number of manufacturing companies near this campus.
The campus farthest to the south has a large seasonal population and also has the highest income per capita (economic development publications for this local area and unemployment statistics for this county). This campus also emphasizes non-credit courses for this migratory student body. The summer FTF sessions are not as numerous because of the decline in the population during this season. The college art and theater events are well attended during the fall and spring semesters because of the demand from the winter visitors who enjoy these performances.
The most western campus is located within a few miles of a large entertainment center. The students at this location are more transient than the other communities as the jobs in this area fluctuate around the demand for recreational activities. This campus has several successful vocational programs in the health related occupations and in the industrial trades that are only available at this location. Therefore, this campus has a year around list of course offerings because of these on-going programs.
Generally, the evenings are the busiest at all of the campuses. Students and the part-time faculty are usually working during the day and attending classes at night. During the day, the student areas around the library and computer lab are sparsely populated. During the evening, the parking lots become crowded and the classrooms are full until around 10:00 p.m. The campuses then close and everyone disperses to prepare for the next day of work and family activities. With the exception of the southern most campus, the other sites are located several miles outside of the city limits, which seem to further emphasize the ebb and flow of students because of this bucolic location.
Weekends are quiet in comparison with only a few classes being offered primarily over ITV. Saturday evenings may find an event taking place – such as a play or musical performance – otherwise the campuses shut down by 5:00 p.m. and Sundays the college is closed. The only cars that are present in the parking lots on Sundays belong to the security personnel or the TSS staff. The TSS staff often work weekends to troubleshoot the networks or install updates to the Blackboard system during the midnight and early morning hours. Monday mornings bring the college back to life with the faculty and students arriving to start their week of classes.
Curriculum and Technical Changes
The college has been experiencing an increasing demand for online courses due in part to the long distances many of the students would be required to travel to attend FTF courses. This college delivered approximately 1,140 separate sections of courses during the semester of this case study. Eighty-eight (8%) of these classes were delivered online and two hundred and eleven (19%) were FTF classes that were web-enhanced. During the summer sessions, course offerings are drastically reduced because of the decrease in student enrollment, but the online courses usually increase to account for over one-third of the total courses presented. (review of the fall, spring, and summer 2006-07 schedules).
Because of the recent changes in management that have involved many new course offerings, efforts have been made to standardize the curriculum course outlines and syllabi used by all instructors (college web site). With many of the courses being taught by part-time faculty, the intent is that these curriculum packages would aid in delivering a higher quality and more consistent set of competencies and outcomes. These syllabi templates and curriculum outlines have been placed online and every instructor is expected to use these templates when developing their course syllabus.
Most of the faculty appear to have adapted to this procedure without much difficulty and find the new system to be convenient and efficient (discussions with faculty and part-time faculty during various program meetings August, 2006). The part-time faculty who discussed this new procedure publicly at the meetings appeared to appreciate the time saved in using this system. Several pages of the syllabus template include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) information along with the college’s policy regarding cheating, plagiarism, tutoring, and withdrawing from a course. An instructor only needs to input their contact information, course specific information, and class schedule to complete their syllabus for each semester. Part-time faculty who need assistance in downloading the template usually contact DE, their Division Chair, or Program Coordinator for help and several have reported excellent support from the 24/7 helpdesk services through the colleges technical support department (announcement and discussion at faculty meetings 2006).
The college administration has recognized the need for training to assist the faculty, including the part-time faculty, in using the technology necessary to use these templates and the Blackboard system. DE was given the task of training faculty to web-enhance courses and use the syllabus templates ([college committee name] minutes 2006). The motivation for this initiative relates to improving student access to course materials, such as the syllabus and instructor contact information and office hours.
Another reason for standardizing the syllabus was to protect the faculty and the college from possible omissions or misunderstandings regarding ADA policies, tutoring availability, and the withdraw procedures (announcement at faculty meetings, 2005 and 2006). The training plan recognized the broad range of technical skill levels amongst the faculty and intended to deliver basic, intermediate, and advanced training in the Blackboard program. The underlying assumption was that the Blackboard system would be the easiest for faculty to learn and implement in helping to improve access to course materials by students. These intentions were good, however, the implementation was not easily carried forward because of the unanticipated demand on the resources of the DE staff due to the significant increase in online course offerings.
DE works very closely with the technical staff at this college and the relationship is supportive and cooperative (committee meetings held monthly). The quality of the technical infrastructure of this college is above average when compared to other rural community colleges around the state (statewide curriculum meetings held at various community colleges 2004, 2005, and 2006). The decisions to upgrade software and/or hardware are based on curriculum needs but are constrained by the budget. An advisory committee meets monthly to give input to the technical support staff regarding any problems or needs for the college staff or instruction.
The technical support department tracks the responses to helpdesk requests and the downtime for e-mail, Blackboard, and network services. Their goal is to have requests (they use the term tickets) satisfactorily completed within one business day. The technology backbone has been substantially improved with additional bandwidth and has alleviated many prior problems with sending and receiving e-mail, and Blackboard outages. To facilitate communication, e-mail is sent through pre-designed lists that are separated into groups of full time and part-time faculty by campus, committees, students, and staff.
Last year, the technical support staff was asked by the advisory committee to separate the faculty lists into full-time and part-time faculty due to complaints from the part-time faculty regarding the large number of e-mails they were receiving from the college (committee meeting minutes, 2005). This change was implemented almost immediately and the part-time faculty have not publicly brought forward similar complaints since this change. The part-time faculty are included in any all-college e-mail postings along with the messages sent to all part-time faculty and campus specific part-time faculty. They receive about five to six e-mails per week from the college per these distributions, which does not include any student or personal correspondence (observation of e-mail messages over several weeks). If the Blackboard site or networks are having difficulties, the technical staff sends e-mail reporting this problem. During high use of the network (typically at the beginning and end of the semester) or in the event of a severe weather disturbance, this number can easily double to twelve or fourteen e-mails per week.
The part-time faculty receive an e-mail address, access to the network and Blackboard when they are hired. The Human Resources staff informs their Division Chair of the creation of these system accounts via e-mail to the Division Chair (discussion with Human Resource staff 2007). The Division Chair is responsible for communicating with the part-time faculty in their respective divisions by phone or in-person that they have an e-mail address. The Human Resource, DE, or TSS staff also fields any questions from the part-time faculty regarding these accounts if the Division Chair does not contact the part-time instructors right away. All of the e-mails from the college are sent to the student, staff, and faculty college e-mail addresses ([college name] Associate Faculty Resources and Information 2005).
The library, student centers, and computer labs provide wireless connections for students, staff, and faculty. The computer centers on all campuses also provide the community with Internet access free of charge and this service is well received by the public. The other local free web access is offered at the city libraries, but only by appointment. The computer labs are identical on the three main campuses and have a large central area housing about thirty computers organized in pods of six. Surrounding this area are about eight classrooms, which include an ITV classroom. All of these classrooms contain computers with the exception of the ITV room. The labs are staffed by full-time technicians and are open nearly 70 hours per week during the fall and spring semesters.
The typical classroom in the computer lab has between sixteen and twenty computers and an instructor station that has a computer and projector. The other classrooms throughout the campus do not usually have computers or Internet access – the exception being in the Science labs. However, any instructor can check out a projector and laptop depending on the availability of these items. The full-time faculty have usually commandeered their own equipment out of program budgets because they find the uncertainty of using the traveling projectors and computers to be less than satisfactory. The part-time faculty who do not teach in the computer lab are required to use this mobile equipment if they want to present a website or digital presentation.
Full-time and Part-time Faculty Training Opportunities
The full-time faculty are required to attend twice yearly meetings with the part-time faculty to present any changes to procedures and/or programs. These meetings are held in the evenings about ten days before the start of classes. At these meetings, technology training is announced and encouraged. The agenda includes dinner, followed by announcements from the campus dean, division chairs, distance education, and campus advisors. After approximately fort-five minutes, the part-time faculty meet with the full-time faculty or coordinators in their respective program areas. This breakout session is for further discussion regarding book adoptions and program changes in classes offered or updated.
A week before the faculty meetings during the semester of this study, Blackboard training schedules were mailed to every instructor with their schedule of courses to be taught. The full-time faculty were required to attend this technology training workshop unless excused by their division chair or campus dean. The part-time faculty are encouraged, but not obligated to attend these or any other workshops or seminars at the college.
Part-time faculty receive one point toward their increase in per credit hour pay for teaching courses and one point per semester for the faculty staff meeting that they attend. They need to teach approximately twenty courses to receive this pay increase (if they do not attend any staff meetings). This process of increasing their pay per credit could feasibly take three years or more depending on how many courses the part-time faculty member teaches and the number of meetings they choose to attend. The part-time faculty are restricted to teaching no more than nine credits per semester due to compensation requirements of health insurance and retirement benefits if they assume more than this amount of teaching (“Associate Faculty Resources and Information” published by the Human Resources department in 2007). On average, most of the part-time faculty teach one or two courses per week during a semester.
Over the past two semesters, the technical training opportunities have primarily focused on Blackboard as the full-time faculty are required to create a companion website for all of their courses. Web-enhancing a course is optional for the part-time faculty. Ad hoc training occurs with calls to the helpdesk, contact with the DE staff, or visits to the computer lab. The computer lab staff are on duty during the computer center regular hours, which are Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Formal training sessions addressing the use of the college’s e-mail, publisher test generating programs, PowerPoint presentations, or Internet search techniques are not currently being offered. Part-time faculty reported using the lab and DE staff for these types of questions and assistance if needed by coming into the labs or calling the DE personnel.
The College and the Community
As previously indicated, the college is a key player in providing web access and cultural activities for the local communities (college web site list of events). While isolated from urban areas, most of the population considers this locale to be full of recreational activities and reasonably accessible to a very large entertainment center. Within a few hours drive, these residents could be boating, hiking, camping, or enjoying world-renowned attractions (city Chamber of Commerce website). The drawback is the lack of higher paying jobs, with the exception of the professionals, and cultural activities are somewhat sparse in comparison to populated cities.
Given the smaller population, social interaction between religious activities, sporting groups, and work relationships often overlap which is somewhat perplexing to newcomers. Anonymity is not easily obtained in this area where registering for a class at the college is noted at the gym the next day by an acquaintance who was also there waiting to enroll in a ceramics workshop. The part-time and full-time faculty who teach at this college are also an important connection to the community. I have taught at a very large urban community college and rarely interacted with my students outside of the classroom. However, in this area, I am in constant contact with my students and colleagues - as are all of the instructors - regardless of their vocation.
Therefore, the general feelings in the community seem to be positive as the college continues to offer new programs to satisfy the demand of trained workers – which are in very short supply in this area (economic development publications for this local area and unemployment statistics for this county). I was fortunate to have the support of the top management while I was gathering my research data. Any obstacles that I encountered were not due to the lack of cooperation from the staff or administration and they were very supportive of this research concerning professional development opportunities for part-time faculty.
Part-time Faculty Interviews
Six of the interviews were with part-time faculty teaching in a variety of disciplines including Communication, English, Administration of Justice, Health Sciences, Business, and Graphic Arts. Two part-time faculty from each of the three main campuses of this college were selected randomly through the help of the instructional technology staff. From a pool of ten individuals from each campus (for a total of thirty individuals) who did not teach in the Computer Information Systems (CIS) program area, the top two names were selected after sorting these faculty by their home street address numbers. I eliminated three individuals who were listed because they had taught CIS courses in the past and I had been their supervisor for these classes. I only received one negative reply to my requests and I replaced this individual with another from the list on that campus.
The interviews were scheduled for one hour but usually lasted for approximately one and a half to two hours each. For the part-time faculty, one interview was conducted at the participant’s place of full-time work, one in my office, and the other four were held in a conference room in the college library.
All of the part-time faculty who were selected in this fashion happened to be male. The one prospective female faculty turned down my request for an interview. I replaced her with the next name on the list – which happened to be male. My original research design did not anticipate this random occurrence or focus on gender issues related to my questions. The faculty ratio of male to female is approximately 49% at this college, a fact that I did not uncover until after the random selection of participants (Human Resources statistical analysis). Therefore, a limitation of this study is the lack of women to be included and would warrant further investigation. The interview questions for both the faculty and DE/TSS staff are included in Appendix A.
The part-time faculty were very responsive and forthcoming regarding their experiences with technology and teaching part-time at the college. Only two of these instructors were actually using web sites to supplement their courses. Mitch was a very advanced user who had created a web site and paid for hosting outside of the college for this purpose. The other was Ron, an instructor, who was using Blackboard to supplement his ITV class.
All were experienced teachers, as well. Three of the faculty, Tim, Mitch, and John, had been teaching with the college for over fourteen years, the other faculty were teaching from between 3 – 4 years. Of the six interviewed, two received cell phone calls during our interview, three of them had classes to teach immediately following the interview, and only one of those interviewed, Tim, was solely teaching as his only employment. Tim is retired from full-time work and is the only retiree of the group who was interviewed. These time constraints were evident in the challenge of scheduling interview appointments around their teaching, full-time work, and family obligations.
Rick and John teach in the General Studies area, which includes English, Math, and Science classes. The other interviewees, Ron, Kevin, Tim, and Mitch, teach in the Applied Sciences or vocational programs offered by this college. The areas include courses in Administration of Justice, Business, Computer Information Systems, Nursing, Welding, Heating and Air Conditioning, Automotive, and Drafting. I purposely chose to not identify these faculty any further by their disciplines in the interview data that is presented. The reason being to protect their anonymity while they participated in this study. This college has limited course offerings in certain program areas. Further identification, while helpful in illuminating their comments, could very easily identify them in this analysis.
DE and TSS Staff Interviews
The DE/TSS staff interviews were completed in their offices on the college’s central campus. Four of the interviews were with TSS and/or DE staff members and three of these participants were female. Three of the four, Pat, Chris, and Karen, had taught as part-time faculty in the technology area at this college and other institutions. Their education included two with doctoral degrees, Donna and Chris; one with a bachelor’s degree, Pat, and; Karen, who had completed an associate’s degree. Both Chris and Pat had taught online as well as FTF before joining the staff at this college. Chris’s masters and doctoral degrees were obtained via online universities, the other DE/TSS staff members attended FTF courses to complete their programs of study.
These participants were chosen based on their position and involvement with training faculty to use technology. This college has only five full-time employees in this area (with two clerical employees). Therefore, most of the DE staff were interviewed and the TSS participant was chosen based on her/his position as the manager of the campus computer labs and helpdesk support. The DE staff members are predominantly female and, since this area is a new department for the college, have been with the college for less than four years. As a safeguard, I have chosen several gender-neutral names and not separated the TSS staff member from the DE participants to aid in masking their identity for this study.
As these employees are also my colleagues, the interviews were cordial. I believe the advantage of being an observer participant during this research was the trust they displayed given their candor during the interviews. However, compared to the faculty interviews, these employees were much more concerned with the confidentiality and anonymity of the interview data. None of these staff members requested any changes or deletions in their transcripts of the interviews.
Instruments
I field tested the questionnaire and the interview questions with a colleague and modified these instruments accordingly. The changes were minor and mostly involved the clarification between the terms college mailboxes and mailings to home addresses. When developing this questionnaire, I was unaware of the college’s intent to mail a notice to all of the instructors regarding the technology training workshops. Therefore, this option was not included in the “What information have you received about the technology training here at [college name]?” box. During the distribution of these questionnaires, the campus deans and division chairs were notified of this delivery to the part-time faculty mailboxes. The Vice Chancellor of Instruction was also given a copy of this questionnaire and approved of the distribution.
My rate of return was rather low for these questionnaires – 73/296 (Responses/Total distributed) - only 24.66% of the total distributed. This low response rate is problematic and the difficulty lies in not knowing how the non-respondents would have answered. Hutchinson (2004) notes that “the potential for nonresponse bias is always present when less than 100% of the surveys are returned, with the risk of bias increasing as response rate decreases” (p. 291) (Hutchinson uses the term survey research to include questionnaires and interviews as instruments).
In a study concerning training course evaluations, Darby (2007) reported a similar low response rate of 23.74% (427/1989) for the comment or open-ended section of a questionnaire to the response rate that I received to my questionnaire as a whole (p. 405). Her article was focused on improving this type of low response rate when the participants are asked to do more than check the boxes. Two additional articles suggest that the data is still useful in a study as long as the report indicates the possibility of bias because of the low response (Data Analysis Australia, 2007; Jarrett, 2005). To clarify these findings, I will note the actual number of responses along with the percentages when citing this data. This questionnaire could not be redistributed due to prior agreements with the administration of this college.
This occurrence could also be an indicator of the lack of part-time faculty response to many other administrative duties at this college. As a condition of their payment for teaching courses, the college has been forced to monitor the return of signed rosters and grade sheets before disbursement of part-time faculty paychecks (the college’s Part-time Faculty Resources and Information handbook 2006). The campuses were also different in their rate of participation for the questionnaire – 31% (37/119) at the southern most campus, 27.50% (22/80) at the central campus, and a low of 14% (14/97) at the western most campus. I will discuss the questionnaire findings in greater detail later in this chapter.
Observation of Training Session
The amount of data from the observation of the training session was not as forthcoming as I had hoped. The problem was the lack of training sessions for this semester. These three sessions (for the nearest campus locations) were scheduled before the first week of classes and no other training sessions were scheduled for the rest of the term. My data gathered during this training was confined to one training session instead of two or three. However, in discussions with the DE staff, the training session that I observed was very typical of the other ones that were within three days of each other in succession.
The participants and the instructor at this training workshop were aware that I was observing the session. As presented later in this study, the instructor announced the reason for my attendance to the rest of the class. I did not take notes during the session, but recorded my observations after the workshop was over. I sat at a computer and followed the lesson with the rest of the class to help minimize the disruption of my observations. I was paying particular attention to the part-time faculty who were present and the questions they were asking the instructor and the full-time faculty who were seated around them. I did not intend to assist other participants at this training session, but was asked to help and facilitated this request so as not to further disrupt the class by my refusal.
Seven full-time and three part-time faculty attended all or part of the two hour workshop. This workshop has been advertised in a mailing to the entire faculty and the full-time faculty were required to attend. The training was held in a classroom in the computer lab with twenty computers placed on tables facing the front of the room. The instructor was very cordial, knowledgeable, and helpful and was also a DE/TSS staff member. Two one-hour sessions were scheduled; the first hour was for beginning concepts and the second for more advanced features. My observations will be described in greater detail later in this paper as I present the findings for each of the research questions.
Answering the Research Questions
As I began the process of analyzing my data, I reviewed my research questions to guide my data coding.
1. How is the concept of technology training for part-time faculty defined and implemented at this college?
a. What information about technology training has been communicated to part-time faculty?
b. What is the status of faculty created web sites?
c. Are part-time faculty accommodated, rewarded, or acknowledged for participating in training opportunities?
d. What are the perceptions and experiences of Distance Education personnel regarding training opportunities for part-time faculty to learn about educational technology?
2. What are the perceptions of part-time faculty regarding training opportunities to learn about educational technology?
a. What information about technology training has part-time faculty received?
b. What is the general importance for part-time faculty to learn about technology integration in their courses?
3. What are the experiences of part-time faculty who have chosen to participate in technology training sessions provided by this college?
a. What do part-time faculty believe are the difficulties and/or rewards of participating in technology training sessions?
b. What factors influenced their decision to participate or not participate in these opportunities?
When analyzing the data collected while interviewing the DE/TSS staff, gathering the web statistics, archives, and observing the training session, my efforts were focused towards question number one. The data collected through the questionnaires, the interviews with part-time faculty, and also the observation, addressed questions two and three. Therefore, when coding the data, I separated the staff interviews from the faculty interviews because of the difference in emphasis given the design of this research. The categories that I developed and that were generally confirmed by a review of these transcripts by a colleague are summarized as follows:
For DE/TSS Staff:
1. Student and institutional needs and requirements from part-time faculty facilitated by technology
2. Positive and negative perceptions of training faculty to use technology at this college
3. Staff recommendations for training part-time faculty
For Part-time Faculty:
1. Positive and negative faculty experiences with training and technology at this college
2. Incentives and constraints for participation
3. Technology needed, not required, or not available
4. Faculty’s perception of student needs for technology based course enhancements
5. Format of training needed, skills needed, and faculty recommendations for using technology at this college
A screen shot of the specific coding categories that I used in Weft QDA is included in Appendix E. These categories were significant in framing the following discussion, which will be organized around the research questions. The first question involves the training as it was presented at this college during the time period of the case study analysis.
Findings for Question 1:
How is the concept of technology training for part-time faculty defined and implemented at this college?
The college broadly defines technology training. Calls to the 24/7 help desk support personnel, tutoring by lab aides in the computer labs, and Blackboard workshops held at various campus locations are all considered training opportunities (announcement at faculty meetings 2006). This college is delivering technology training on a bi-annual basis with supplemental one-on-one tutoring and instruction to faculty who request assistance. The responsibility for implementation of this training is mixed and is sometimes assigned to the TSS staff for specific areas, such as e-mail instruction, and also to the DE division primarily for Blackboard training sessions. All of the staff appear to work well together in helping to solve faculty problems regarding the implementation of technology at this college (as observed at technical advisory committee meetings monthly throughout 2006).
The sub-questions will guide the organization of the findings in greater detail. This first question was answered primarily through interviews with the DE/TSS staff, observations, and archives. Since more than one area has accepted the responsibility for assisting part-time faculty to use technology, the various information concerning training has been sent in several forms, i.e. mailings, e-mail, and announcements at faculty meetings. During the interviews and other communication, the DE/TSS staff often refer to FTF courses as ground classes.
Question 1a: What information about technology training has been communicated to part-time faculty?
The DE/TSS staff have communicated to the entire faculty times and dates of Blackboard training sessions through e-mail, mailings, and announcements at faculty meetings. Evidence is available from the archival data that was collected, a note concerning technology training sessions on brightly colored orange paper was included with each faculty’s invitation to the semi-annual faculty meeting. This announcement was stapled to a letter listing the classes they were scheduled to teach and mailed to their homes at the beginning of this semester – about eight weeks prior to the dissemination of the questionnaire. A copy of this document is included in Appendix F.
Two subsequent e-mails were sent from DE to remind the part-time faculty about these training sessions. Unfortunately, copies of these e-mails that were sent to the part-time faculty were not obtainable and this information was gathered from conversations with the DE staff as best they could remember. The DE staff reports that these e-mails were sent to the part-time faculty’s college addresses, i.e. @[college name].edu. The subject line referenced “Blackboard Training” and “Just a Reminder – Blackboard Training” and the sender was DE@[college name].edu. The body of the e-mail mentioned the training workshop time and place on each campus and echoed the information in the orange colored mailing.
The questionnaire data further verify this communication in Table 4. This table compares the responses of the part-time faculty pertaining to how they received information about training opportunities with their preferred modalities of communication. The questionnaire allowed for multiple responses on these questions. Approximately 45% (33/73) of the part-time faculty who completed a questionnaire knew about technology training through e-mail notices and 40% (29/73) had heard of the announcements at the bi-annual faculty meetings. E-mail messages are one of the preferred ways that these instructors want communication sent, rather than announcements at meetings. They would also favor notices in their college mailboxes. Also noteworthy in this table is the finding that 33% (24/73) of the respondents to this questionnaire reported little or no information received about technology training.
Table 4: Comparison of How Information Received and Preferred Communication Methods by Part-time faculty
|How have I received information about training? % (checked |The best ways to communicate with me about training |
|box/total responses) |opportunities. |
|Through e-mail |45.21% (33/73) |Through e-mail |56.16% (41/73) |
|Announcement at faculty |39.73% (29/73) |Announcement at faculty |6.85% (5/73) |
|meetings | |meetings | |
|Other faculty or division |24.66% (18/73) |By phone call |27.40% (20/73) |
|chairs | | | |
|Little or None information |32.88% (24/73) |Through college mail box |47.95% (35/73) |
|received | | | |
| | |Mailed to my home address |15.07% (11/73) |
My observations and review of the printed agenda at the bi-annual faculty meetings also confirm that announcements concerning training opportunities had taken place with faculty on all four campus locations (college faculty meetings agenda Spring 2007). The next question area focuses on the situation at this college as it presents courses FTF, online, ITV, and web-enhanced.
Question 1b: What is the status of faculty created web sites?
According to the web site data, 211 of the 1,140 total courses (inclusive of the 88 online courses) delivered at this college were web-enhanced (See Table 5). This college employs approximately 65 full time faculty and almost 300 part-time faculty (review of spring schedule 2006). The full-time faculty teach 62% (131) of the web enhanced courses with the part-time faculty teaching 38% (80). When analyzing the individual web sites, part-time and full-time faculty sites were very similar in their use and access by students. The higher use by students in the discussion area did not depend on the faculty position of full-time or part-time but on the program area or ITV delivery of the course.
Table 5: Status of Faculty Created Web Sites
|Spring 2007 |Online Courses |Web-Enhanced |Total Courses |
|Number |88 |211 |1,140 |
|Percentage |8% |19% | |
A finding pertinent for this number was indicated by the administration in encouraging full-time faculty to create web-enhanced courses at the beginning of this school term and it appears that most of the full-time faculty have created at least the minimum site for this directive (announcement at faculty meetings during August, 2006). The reverse is true when the courses are placed on ITV, of these eighteen courses, twelve are taught by part-time faculty – a two to one ratio for their full-time counterparts teaching in this delivery method.
The findings for this question are further summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 lists representative courses with their total access numbers over a seven-week period and the corresponding per student access numbers. The findings in Table 6 indicate that the Nursing, Sciences, English, and CIS programs utilize web-enhanced courses more than the other disciplines at this college. The web-enhanced sites were accessed from between once or twice weekly to a high of 113 times per week or up to 16 times daily (a Nursing course that was being delivered via ITV). Each time a student chooses an area in a web site, an access is recorded. For example, if a student opened the main page of their Blackboard site, chose the Assignments tab, and then accessed the Instructor information area, the statistical data would record an access rate of three.
Table 6 includes only one developmental Math course as being web-enhanced. The Math department is not adequately represented in this data because their students begin their access through the college’s Blackboard system, but then link out to a Math testing and tutorial site developed by the book publishers for their courses (conversation with DE staff member).
Table 7 defines the groupings used to select the most representative courses to analyze. This grouping was necessary to aid in analyzing the vast amount of data that was accessible and generated by the Blackboard web sites. I chose representative courses that best fit the average number of access in the groupings I created for this purpose. I then divided the total access number (minus the instructor access numbers) by the number of students in the course who were active participants on the web site. This analysis did not change the ranking of the courses to any large extent, but did indicate the activities of sites that were being used by the students. To mask the identity of this college by their course offerings, the courses are categorized by program only and not named by their course titles.
Table 6: Selected web-enhanced courses based on overall access sorted by student access
Web Enhanced access statistics from 1/22/07 - 3/7/07.
Approximately 211 active sites of web-enhanced courses out of 1,140 (18.50%) total courses presented at this college.
|Sample Courses |
|Total Access |
|Instructor Access |
|Student Access |
|Number of students |
|Average Access by students |
|FT faculty? |
| |
|Nursing |
|4,132 |
|3790 |
|342 |
|50 |
|7 |
|FT |
| |
|Humanities |
|281 |
|23 |
|258 |
|29 |
|9 |
| |
| |
|History |
|287 |
|141 |
|146 |
|11 |
|13 |
|FT |
| |
|English |
|43 |
|16 |
|27 |
|2 |
|14 |
|FT |
| |
|CIS |
|278 |
|127 |
|151 |
|9 |
|17 |
| |
| |
|English |
|55 |
|12 |
|43 |
|2 |
|22 |
|FT |
| |
|Art |
|43 |
|21 |
|22 |
|1 |
|22 |
|FT |
| |
|Math - developmental |
|718 |
|431 |
|287 |
|11 |
|26 |
|FT |
| |
|Biology |
|750 |
|125 |
|625 |
|17 |
|37 |
|FT |
| |
|Biology |
|701 |
|157 |
|544 |
|13 |
|42 |
|FT |
| |
|CIS |
|1,503 |
|570 |
|933 |
|17 |
|55 |
| |
| |
|CIS - ITV |
|1,489 |
|569 |
|920 |
|14 |
|66 |
| |
| |
|Health - ITV |
|4,150 |
|1,179 |
|2,971 |
|44 |
|68 |
| |
| |
|Biology |
|3,483 |
|1,331 |
|2,152 |
|24 |
|90 |
|FT |
| |
|CIS |
|1,579 |
|614 |
|965 |
|8 |
|121 |
| |
| |
|Nursing - ITV |
|24,725 |
|2,442 |
|22,283 |
|68 |
|328 |
|FT |
| |
|English |
|12,355 |
|1,900 |
|10,455 |
|19 |
|550 |
| |
| |
|Nursing - ITV |
|59,987 |
|3,610 |
|56,377 |
|71 |
|794 |
|FT |
| |
For web-enhanced courses, the activities appear to begin with students and faculty posting announcements, staff information (e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and office hours), and grade books. As described in Table 7, web site activity increases as students use the communication areas to post discussion topics and e-mail their instructor and classmates with questions and responses. The activity further increases when assignments are included and interaction occurs between students and, also, between students and their instructor while working on group projects.
Table 7: Content Observations of Selected Average Use Web Enhanced Courses
|Very Low (< 100) |Low (100 - 500) |Medium (500 – 1,000) |High (1,000 - 4,000) |Very High* (4,000 – and|
| | | | |above) |
|Checking grades and |Very Low access activity |Low access activity |Medium Activity plus |High Activity plus more|
|staff information |plus using the task and |plus using Digital drop|appreciably more |discussion board |
| |assignment areas |box, e-mail, and |activity in tasks and |postings, communication|
| | |discussion as access |assignments |area, tasks, and |
| | |increases | |collaborative work on |
| | | | |group projects |
* One key factor of several Very High Access courses was ITV delivery - these courses typically depend on online postings of course documents, information, quizzes and exams.
Question 1c: Are part-time faculty accommodated, rewarded, or acknowledged for participating in training opportunities?
Accommodations to better include these teachers in training workshops are planned but not currently ready to be implemented as indicated in the conversations with the DE/TSS staff. Furthermore, the part-time faculty are not rewarded or currently acknowledged for participating in technology training opportunities. The exception to this finding is that the DE/TSS staff believes that technology competent part-time faculty are more employable at this college – which would be an implicit reward. To present these findings, I have separated them into two categories; accommodations, followed by findings related to incentives and rewards for part-time faculty to attend training sessions.
Accommodations:
The findings indicate that the accommodations for part-time faculty to be able to attend training sessions are needed but not yet being fully implemented. The term “accommodations” in this question relates to the scheduling of training sessions to be convenient for the participants. The staff is aware of the need to provide flexible times over numerous days in an attempt to include these individuals. They report that online courses provide the most flexibility but are not practical if the participants are not technically competent enough to learn in this environment. The findings for accommodating these part-time faculty into training opportunities were found mostly in the interview data with the DE/TSS staff.
Karen, an experienced staff member and former part-time faculty at this college, comments on the past training schedules and the challenge in accommodating the participants. The DE/TSS staff often refer to part-time faculty as associate faculty in their interview responses.
My biggest struggle was picking the times when people could attend or were willing to make the effort to accommodate the schedule of training…[associate faculty say,] "But I can't make it any of the times you offer it"...especially associate faculty because so many of them work full-time during the day...the only time they can come to training is on Saturdays or evenings...and sometimes that's a challenge to pick the proper evening that most people could attend.
As indicated in Karen’s comments, time, place, and format of training sessions appear to be difficult for the staff to address. Donna is the most experienced staff member that was interviewed. She voices her concern about the recommendations of the administration for all of the faculty to web-enhance their courses, “we need to be real careful what we demand of these instructors until we can actually set up...training campus by campus or initial training or screening by division chairs”.
The data gathered from the conversations with the staff stated their concern for making adjustments whenever possible for part-time faculty to be able to participate. When asked about general accommodations for training formats, Donna further discusses the needs of faculty who may already have skills and those that do not. Online training was also suggested to help accommodate the faculty who need flexibility – particularly the part-time faculty:
…on ground for those who consider themselves to be technology challenged and online for advanced training for more advanced functions in some of the learning management systems….Time of day? That's a real challenge, it needs to be morning, noon, and night and weekends because of associate faculty's work schedule. It needs to be offered on a regular basis so that associate faculty who are ground associate faculty know that one evening or afternoon either a week or every two weeks or a month ...they know they can come to "X" spot on "X" campus and know there will be someone there who can assist them with more than just "Duh"!
In an interview with Pat, another staff member, the findings indicate that these accommodations are not entirely available but are being implemented in the near future.
A:
What is the best format for this training – what would work best?
Pat:
What I've been working on is online using Blackboard as the practice platform...I would also put in components like access to the publisher's websites and be able to use what resources the publishers offer so to add to their courses.
A:
So, the location and time would be online?
Pat:
Yes, very flexible.
This discussion indicates that accommodations are being planned and the staff is aware of the need for these adjustments when training part time faculty.
Incentives and Rewards
The findings reveal that explicit rewards and acknowledgement are nonexistent for part-time faculty who seek out technical training at this college. However, two DE/TSS staff members noted that faculty who are trained in using the technology might be more marketable at this college.
According to the booklet entitled “Associate Faculty Resources and Information” distributed to the part-time faculty during the faculty meetings, professional development involves attending a course that helps new faculty develop a syllabus and review college policies regarding attendance, testing and grading, and student withdrawal procedures. Attendance at this seminar rewards the participant with “three points towards their salary increase on the faculty pay scale”. The section in the Faculty Reference Guide 2006-07 indicates the availability of Blackboard training and the DE’s phone number, but does not offer incentives such as points towards a pay increase.
While explicit rewards are not offered, two members of the DE staff perceive an implicit reward to part-time faculty who are technically literate. This aspect of part-time faculty hiring procedures is not present in any of the policies or job postings and is only present in the interview data with the DE/TSS staff. Chris has taught several courses online before becoming part of the staff at this college and reports the following observations:
Now, one of the things we're doing about that is to have a screening process - do we really want to consider having a faculty member that doesn't even have the basic skills to teach online or web-enhance a course? Now, if you're talking about a full-time faculty member, that's a different situation, and we have to deal with that. But with the associate part-time faculty, I think that you have more leeway if you want to select them or not select them.
Pat is the newest member of the staff and has also taught online and FTF courses for the college before accepting this position. Pat responds, “…all instructors need to learn to web-enhance. There's a new generation that are brought up using online classes. It's job security for faculty - they need to go in that direction”.
If this assumption is valid, then a reward or incentive may be the possibility of teaching more classes or being retained at this college. This implicit incentive was only noted by these two comments by the staff at this college and not validated by other sources including the part-time faculty interviews. Therefore, these statements may or may not be significant findings for this study.
The answers found in the data for this question would be that accommodations are perceived as needed by the staff to enable the part-time faculty to participate, but are not currently being implemented. Also, no explicit rewards or incentives for part-time faculty wishing to participate in training sessions are currently being offered.
Question 1d: What are the perceptions and experiences of Distance Education personnel regarding training opportunities for part-time faculty to learn about educational technology?
The perceptions of the DE personnel regarding training part-time faculty are that they lack basic technical skills and are in need of assistance to obtain these skills. They further perceive that a simplified structure is best when working with faculty who were in need of learning technology skills. The staff experience when training part-time faculty imply the need for patience when encountering resistance from faculty who are not inclined to follow procedures that involve technology. The answers to this question were expressed primarily through the interview data with the DE/TSS staff. They did not indicate a clear separation between part-time and full-time faculty when helping them with technology issues. Their comments were reflective of any faculty member that they had assisted or trained in learning technology skills and procedures. Overall, the staff was unified concerning their comments in several areas, faculty skills needed and their approach to faculty. I have divided the findings into two categories for this question: perceptions and experiences.
Perceptions:
The perceptions of the DE/TSS staff are that a number of the faculty (including the part-time faculty) have less than adequate skill levels with the technology and need assistance with many basic concepts. The following excerpts from interviews with the DE and TSS staff specify their perception of the part-time faculty when they need help with technology issues. This first group of staff comments points to the skills believed to be needed by the instructors. Chris, a former online instructor and currently a DE staff member directly involved with training faculty, responds,
They need basic literacy skills in the basic tools available on the computer today. If you want to function in today's world, you need to have a word processing capability and understanding, a spreadsheet basic understanding, mailing, searching, uploading document, downloading documents….
Karen and Donna have both worked in several areas and conducted various training sessions. They often handle calls from students, faculty, and staff members regarding technical issues. Karen and Donna discuss their perceptions regarding the skill level of faculty. Karen shares her perception of faculty skills needed in specific areas:
Believe it or not...several associate faculty calls have come where they don't know how to do attachments in e-mail…. Sometimes they don't know how to log into the computers, they don't know what their log in and passwords are….And then sometimes they don't know how to use the projectors...they need a show and tell on how to use the projectors.
Donna discusses her perception of how the training of faculty should be organized:
Simple things first, like how to turn your computer on, how to copy files, how to move files, how to do Excel, specifically related to grade book issues, how to download material from the Internet. If we're talking ITV [Instructional Television], how to use the ITV equipment.
These conversations indicate the staff’s perception that skill levels are less than adequate for the faculty and basic training is needed to assist them in achieving this type of technical knowledge. Next, the experiences of the DE/TSS staff with faculty who have requested training follows in the next section. The faculty who lack skills may become frustrated and the experiences in assisting them were not always positive.
Experiences:
A number of challenging situations were encountered by the staff while training and helping faculty with technology. The staff’s experiences indicate several instructors have had some difficulty when attempting to use the technology to complete course management activities. They reported several incidents that included negative attitudes about technology, training sessions with a wide variety of instructor technical abilities, and the need for patience when attempting to help these faculty through the maze of screen menus and computer jargon. Chris notes, “because they already have their mind made up that it's not going to work…but there are some that you can provide everything but they just won't buy into it”. Karen describes her experience with faculty:
But they're trying to squeeze these classes into their regular life so much that I'm not sure they all go to the trouble of building that extra pre-session into their schedule, you know? [referring to the need for faculty to practice with the projectors before classes begin]
The experiences were generally reported as constructive as these individuals helped faculty members with various technical problems. However, Pat had direct involvement in conversations with faculty who believed they were being demoted to clerical employees when needing to use the digital forms. Pat had these comments to report during our interview:
I have trouble with instructors who do not like the technology and refuse to do what we ask them to do, like submit their grade sheets - they just kind of go off in their own direction…Some instructors resent the fact that they have to web-enhance. We want them to use the Blackboard grade book, but some instructors don't know Excel ....to do simple things. "Excel give me the creeps" one instructor said.
There is some resistance - "why should I have to learn that?"…Some instructors are great but some instructors ..."I don't want to figure it out...I'm not a secretary".
A:
They said that?
Pat:
(nodding) We encourage everyone to be part of the online process...get their feet wet...some say "I'm too old to learn that"...but they expect everyone to learn in their classes.
To provide further data regarding the experiences of staff members while training part-time faculty, I observed and participated in a campus training session. Of the part-time faculty, one was a CIS instructor who uses Blackboard regularly as I am familiar with her work on this campus. The other two part-time faculty appeared to be very novice computer users, as they did not know how to log in to the systems or save their files.
The full-time faculty at this training session knew how to log in as they all have computers in their offices. The full-time faculty were mainly interested in posting announcements, transferring their syllabus to the websites, and using the grade book since these three items were required of their courses by the administration. The two part-time faculty struggled and sought help from those sitting in close proximity, but left without completing their tasks. Even though the two part-time faculty left before they were finished with their Blackboard websites, they were well received by the rest of the group and assisted by those sitting around them. The facilitator of this workshop noticed the problem and attempted to address the wide disparage of skills among these ten participants.
His first comment on seeing me attend was, “Why are you here? – You know this already!”. I reminded him of our previous conversation several weeks prior and my need to observe this session. He remembered, agreed, and enthusiastically allowed me to observe and asked me to lend a hand as needed. As the workshop progressed, I eventually began assisting my colleagues with their questions at their request with the instructor’s permission and encouragement to help. To refuse to answer the questions of the participants would have caused a disruption and further compromised my observations.
The handout for this workshop included many pages of Blackboard screen shots. The full-time faculty were pleased to complete their web sites and the camaraderie was evident between all of the participants. As this session was scheduled during the day before an evening meeting, many of the part-time faculty were not able to attend. The part-time faculty who did attend voiced their dismay at not being at the level of technology competency for the items that were discussed and listed on the board (the exception was the CIS part-time faculty participant).
Two of the newest full-time faculty attending this session were from the Nursing program and were anxiously working to complete their websites. These two faculty had the most questions for the instructor and were sitting next to each other intently discussing their course web sites. I later understood that these websites were an important part of their courses that were to be delivered via ITV in about one week (examination of the web statistics and subsequent conversation with one of these Nursing faculty).
Further findings in regard to staff experience with training faculty emerged from the interviews with the staff. When asked what advice they would give a brand new staff member in training instructors to use technology, Chris and Pat – both previous online instructors - voiced the following recommendations to these new employees. Chris responds, “Patience. Go read the book of Job, please, even if you're not religious….Don't ever get confrontational with a faculty member or a student or anyone else. It will not serve any purpose…. So my experience has been that you have to spend a lot of time up front with them”. Pat concurs with Chris when she says, “It's important not to throw them out there”.
The findings regarding the perceptions and experiences of the staff when training and/or assisting instructors with technology are described by two of the most experienced staff members who were interviewed, Donna and Karen. Donna comments, “We don't always understand the total lack of connection that an instructor is making in their mind”. Karen explains further:
We forget... that it [technology] is something that not everybody knows…Don't assume any particular information is already known. Start with the basics, of course, and you can't talk down to them….You can't assume that they know basic things like what is a network drive…It's easy for some of us that are here all the time to assume that they know what we mean when we use acronyms
Therefore, the staff perceives the faculty as needing assistance with the technology that is available at this college. They also realize, through their experiences that providing this type of training may not always be welcomed, convenient, or simple to deliver. This interview excerpt will conclude my findings for my first research question, which focuses on the training situation and the communication that is being presented at this college. This next area will focus on the findings related to the perceptions of the part-time faculty regarding technology training at their campuses.
Findings for Question 2:
What are the perceptions of part-time faculty regarding training opportunities to learn about educational technology?
The part-time faculty have mixed perceptions regarding training availability and/or the need for educational technology at this college. A number of the part-time instructors are unaware of the existence of training opportunities and many others find technology tools for classroom instruction unimportant. The data was abundant in answering this area of my research questions. The questionnaires and interviews with part-time faculty were the main sources of data for this area of my analysis.
Question 2a: What information about technology training has part-time faculty received?
The data gathered from the questionnaires revealed that approximately 33% (24 out of 73 responses) of the part-time faculty completing a questionnaire were unaware that any technology training was available – as high as 43% (6 out of 14 responses) on one campus. The summary of this part of the questionnaire data is illustrated in Table 4. Percentages do not add to 100% because respondents were able to “select all that apply” on all of the questions. As previously indicated, the data specifies that the preferred way to communicate about training opportunities appears to be e-mail and through the college mail delivery system. Relatively few of the part-time faculty who responded wanted to learn about training through announcements at the bi-annual meetings – even though they listed this mode as a major way of hearing about the workshops.
One instructor, Kevin, did not believe he received any information regarding technology instruction through e-mails. Kevin is a vocational instructor and has been teaching with the college for about four years. When asked about the best time and format for training opportunities, he responded with the following comments, “Well, I have my email and I don't really get any email on any trainings that are available at the college - I haven't. Which if you don't know about it's hard… hard to attend”.
However, two e-mails announcing training opportunities were sent to all faculty, including the part-time faculty, and the questionnaires indicated that about 45% (33/73) of the respondents to the questionnaire knew there was training through e-mails from the college. Therefore, the answer to this question had mixed responses. The majority of the part-time faculty who were interviewed or responded to the questionnaire have received information about training opportunities. However, nearly a third of the faculty who answered the questionnaires were not aware of any training. The three part-time faculty who participated in the training session that I observed apparently knew enough about the training to come at the designated time and place.
Therefore, the information that has been communicated has been received by some and, somehow, not by others. As indicated in Kevin’s response, many of the instructors may not be attending the faculty meetings because they do not feel the need to do so. He further explains, “The information I received seemed like it pertained mostly to full-time faculty members and then I sat for like two hours and listened to stuff and it really didn't pertain to me”.
The following conversation with Ron, the ITV instructor, was typical of every interview except the one with Mitch, who was an expert in web page design and server technology. Recall, also, that Ron is already using Blackboard to web-enhance his ITV course.
A:
Why do you think the college wants faculty to web-enhance their courses, and do you know what I mean by web-enhance?
Ron:
Why don't you tell me so I have your perception?
A:
Okay. It's where you're adding maybe the Blackboard site or online site where you're adding your syllabus, your office hours, any additional information, grade book, or just adding Internet sites for students to go to or using the e-mail, those kind of things.
Ron:
I see. What's the question now?
Ron’s response indicates that the terms used to indicate training opportunities may not be clear and understood. This response leads to the next sub-question of what level of importance is perceived by the part-time faculty regarding learning to use technology in their courses.
Question 2b: What is the general importance for part-time faculty to learn about technology integration in their courses?
The importance of learning technology is related to several concepts: present computer skill levels, lack of computer equipment in the classrooms, the perception of the college’s intentions, past experiences of the part-time faculty when they were students, lack of college services such as typing, and a change in the availability of publisher resources. As indicated in the previous comments from Kevin, the part-time faculty may not believe that attending meetings and training opportunities were as relevant for them as for the full-time faculty. The findings also indicate that these instructors did not always have access to presentation equipment in their classrooms, and, therefore, did not place a high importance on learning to use the equipment.
Another finding related to the value of learning about technology integration is if this training is actually needed. The issue of needing to learn something that has already been adapted is denoted by the following observations by Rick, a general studies instructor who has been teaching courses for about four years. He is responding to the question of what type of training the college should be presenting by noting that he thinks everyone should already know how to use a computer for basic needs like e-mail and word processing.
It's hard for me to believe that there are people who don't know how - especially considering when we go to new faculty members. If there is something specific, like Blackboard, that makes sense to show someone how to log on or log, you know, into that - perhaps setting up with their password or something of that nature. But, I find it difficult to believe ….
All of the faculty, with the exception of one who was teaching via the ITV system at this college noted the lack of computer equipment in their classrooms. When asked what kind of educational technology do you use in your classes, Tim, one of the most senior of the vocational part-time faculty interviewed responded: “Well, not very much. Most of the classrooms here aren't set up for PowerPoint, so I don't even bother learning how to use it because it's not available in most of the rooms that I teach in”.
Several part-time faculty viewed these enhancements as more than simply an addition to their class presentations. Tim and Mitch, both experienced instructors, voiced their concerns when asked, “Why do you think the college wants faculty to web-enhance their courses?” Tim answers:
I get the feeling they're trying to standardize and centralize things, and it's one way of, I think, of having their hand in things and seeing what teachers are doing and making sure that whatever's supposed to be covered in a class is covered. That's my guess.
Mitch views the college’s intentions differently:
I think that they are looking at this more from a trendy point of view. It's trendy to do this and I think they see it as a PR tool. I think they see it as a marketing tool. I think they see it as a way to say that they're doing this but I don't really see the commitment.
The findings also pointed to the type of class being delivered might be a factor in how the faculty viewed the importance of technology in teaching a class. Tim discusses technology as it relates to his Communications course, “It's really kind of an old-fashioned kind of a class, at least the way I've taught it”.
The importance of learning about technology also appears to be related to the instructor’s past experiences with these tools and their uncertainty about the reasons for implementation. My discussion with Rick, part-time faculty in the general studies area, illustrates this point. His past college experience influences his perception of how significant the use of technology is in his classroom:
[referring to the time he was a student in college in the 1980s]…but I just don't ever remember needing access to information that wasn't accessible either from the instructor during the class or from my textbook … but how much out of class time am I going to have to devote to a class that I am teaching, you know, part time or, you know, as an associate faculty member?
Importance in learning the technology was also related to changes that occurred by the college to no longer providing certain clerical services for faculty. Tim, who has recently had these services provided for him while teaching over the past sixteen years, describes this difficulty and his reaction:
Since the college will no longer do typing for us, we're forced to do that unless we want to hand-type all of our quizzes and tests, which is a fate not to be contemplated…We're part of the college. I've always felt the associate faculty is what keeps community colleges in business. Sometimes we get the feeling the administration doesn't think that way, but I've been in this business a long time.
Another issue that directly affected the level of importance that was perceived by faculty occurred when the publishers of instructor’s materials changed their formats from overhead transparencies to PowerPoint presentations. Tim also lamented on the potential loss of transparencies available from a major publisher:
Now, I know we're all going to have to go to PowerPoint sooner or later, and it's probably going to be sooner because I have to talk pretty long and hard to get the publishers to send me transparencies. That's pretty expensive for them. They'd rather send it all on disk.
For those faculty who had used the electronic grade book features, the convenience of this tool made learning the technology more important. Mitch, the most technologically skilled, is satisfied with using a digital grading system, “I can have my tests automatically graded and a report sent to me. I don't touch the test. It just comes to me automatically”. Kevin, one of the busiest of the part-time faculty that I interviewed, said, “Well, it's easier to track - less paperwork”.
To summarize the findings for this question, the importance of learning technology is related to several concepts. These concepts include past experiences with technology and the lack of availability of computers in the classrooms where they teach. Related to the importance of technology training are the experiences of faculty who have participated in some version of technology training sessions. The findings for this last set of questions follow.
Findings for Question 3:
What are the experiences of part-time faculty who have chosen to participate in technology training sessions provided by this college?
The part-time faculty reported satisfaction with the help they had received from the DE/TSS staff, but two of the six who were interviewed did not believe they possessed adequate technical skills to attend workshops. The questionnaires supplemented this interview data and contained many of the findings for this question. Instructors who had experienced some type of training at this college had mixed reviews. As mentioned previously, many of the part-time faculty who were interviewed had experiences with the DE/TSS staff informally or outside of the training sessions. They also had many comments regarding their lack of being able to attend the training sessions.
Question 3a: What do part-time faculty believe are the difficulties and/or rewards of participating in technology training sessions?
In my discussions with the part-time faculty and also evident on the questionnaire data, the main difficulty for part-time faculty to participate in training sessions was finding the time to attend and accommodate the schedule of training sessions. The two benefits of training were being able to provide online materials to students and to use digitized materials that are replacing paper sources from publishers.
Difficulties:
The findings revealed time as the main difficulty for faculty involvement in training sessions. In answering the question, “When would be the best time and days for workshops?”, Kevin describes his demanding schedule:
…with my job working 40 hours a week - here, working two other jobs besides this one and raising a family and building a house kind of hampers me on getting more training…[this individual was not counting his part-time teaching at the college as the “two other jobs” referred to in this quote]
John, a sixteen-year veteran part-time faculty member who also teaches at the local high school reports:
Well, you know, myself, and I know that a lot of these people that teach here, they teach at a public school during the day, most of those people, I think, at least in the academic areas. It'd have to be - it's very hard because even in evenings, it's - you get things going here, but it would have to be more of an evening thing, I think, or, God forbid, a weekend.
Ron is one of the newer instructors and has a very full schedule. He teaches his courses on the ITV system and was one of only two instructors web-enhancing in his classes. Our conversation about his workweek continues below:
Ron:
I would probably have to do it on - for me personally it would have to be a weekend day simply because I teach Monday night, I take Spanish Tuesday night, I have Wednesday night to Exercise, I have Thursday night Spanish and Friday night is recovery night, so that only leaves me –
A:
The weekend.
Ron:
And I'm working all day on it [getting ready for Monday’s class].
The comments above illustrate the time constraints these faculty are overcoming to teach their courses. I found that these instructors were obligated (at a minimum) to at least one job, family responsibilities, and teaching a class or two (with the exception of Tim, the retired part-time faculty member). Accommodating any leisure activities was very difficult and attending technology training was not always high on the priority list.
Table 8 illustrates the times, days, and semesters that would work best for training sessions. Evenings or daytime sessions earned almost equal votes; which was surprising as five of the six instructors that were interviewed worked during the day. Weekend sessions and summer sessions were favored over weekdays and Fall/Spring semester workshops. These findings indicate that scheduling these sessions is very difficult as the part-time faculty are almost equally disbursed in their time preferences. Weekdays were the least popular day for workshops and, yet, the training sessions for this semester were held during the daytime on a weekday.
Table 8: Best Times, Days, and Semesters for Training Workshops
|Best Times for Training Workshops |Best Days for Training Workshops |
|% (checked box/total responses) |% (checked box/total responses) |
|Daytime |34.25% |Sat/Sun |30.14% |
| |(25/73) | |(22/73) |
|Evenings |35.62% |Weekdays |19.18% |
| |(26/73) | |(14/73) |
| | |Summer |20.55% |
| | | |(15/73) |
| | |Fall/Spring |19.18% |
| | | |(14/73) |
As indicated in these discussions with the part-time faculty, the difficulties were evident for these instructors to attend or seek out training opportunities. The next section discusses the possible benefits that might be realized upon learning to use these tools.
Rewards:
Taking the time to attend training sessions had several rewards, which included helping students and efficiency. Mitch voiced the advantages for students in his courses if a companion web site was created. As previously mentioned, Mitch is the most experienced in technology of the part-time faculty who were interviewed:
What I can do as the instructor is I can orchestrate a variety of educational experiences for these students and they can go and they can look at all of these different things, and they may get different opinions. This guy over here may say, "X plus Y equals Z" and somebody over here may say, "No. X plus Y equals A" and that's fine but they need to be exposed to that, and that's where the Internet comes in. That's where having this massive library that you can bring right into your home comes into play.
Several comments were recorded on the questionnaires when I asked about what would motivate them to attend a workshop. I listed points towards their pay increase (the college rewards part-time faculty with a per credit hour pay increase after teaching several semesters and points are awarded based on the number of credits taught and on attending the faculty meetings), certificates of completion, incentives such as flash drives and software, and “other – please list”. Table 9 provides the data gathered from the questionnaires in this area. Generally, points toward the pay increase and other incentives such as software, flash drives, and t-shirts were listed as the major types of motivators for the faculty to attend a workshop.
Table 9: Incentives for Part-time Faculty to Participate in Training Workshops
|What would motivate you to attend a workshop? % (checked box/total |
|responses) |
|Points towards pay increase |50.68% (37/73) |
|Certificate of Completion |23.29% (17/73) |
|Flash Drives, Software, T-Shirts, etc. |46.58% (34/73) |
|Other |16.44% (12/73) |
Most of the part-time faculty indicated the need to be acknowledged for their professional development activities. The comments under “other” also display the desire to improve their instruction: “Be more effective teacher”, “No incentives [needed]”, “The training is enough - but I won't refuse the gimmix [sic]”, “Keep current”, “Just feeling competent to teach the class”, “allow me to do a better job of teaching”, “a finished product I can use in class”, “just getting the information is the reward”, “the motivation would be to learn more about the technology available to me so that I can better teach my students!”
The interview data also validated these comments from the questionnaires as a way to help students be more successful as the possible reason to learn new technology skills. When asked why they thought the college wanted faculty to web-enhance their courses, John, the Communications instructor, responded, “Well, I imagine it's because a lot of, particularly part-time, students live part-time lives…”.
Kevin, the extra busy vocational teacher, responded:
It would probably enable your students to access information easier…It adds a little bit more to the classroom and I think they enjoy it more and I believe students have a tendency to learn better when the class isn't boring and is interesting and…People are raising families that want to get their degrees - online is a better available tool for them than maybe going out to the college and spending three hours out there to do what they can do at home - still take care of the kids, still do the dinner, clean the house and do the things that they need to do and still be able to get their education.
Tim, the long-term vocational instructor, answers, “I think that's a good idea because you're not always around to answer their questions about what we're going to be doing that week or this or that”. Ron, the newer of the instructors who has recently learned Blackboard and the ITV system reports what he views as a trend:
'Cause I think that's the trend in education now is to involve electronics in more than just PowerPoint presentations. I think the wave of the future for education is to use electronic devices such as the Internet as an integral part of the curriculum and I think that allows students more flexibility in their - fulfilling their individual needs in a way that a general classroom can't do.
The findings for this question indicate that the difficulties for part-time faculty to attend training in technology include the time constraints around the schedule of training sessions. The rewards were indicated in the interviews with part-time faculty and also on the questionnaire responses. These incentives were perceived to be student centered and focused on helping them access class-related information more efficiently.
Question 3b: What factors influenced their decision to participate or not participate in these opportunities?
The factors found to influence the faculty in attending workshops included: the format of the training workshops; the skill level and topics presented at the workshops; indifference regarding the need to learn and use these tools; and fear of incorporating technology into their courses.
The recommendations from faculty and staff interviewed for the format of training were split between FTF and online training. Four of the six faculty interviewed preferred FTF workshops with two preferring online because of the convenience. The two who thought online would work best, were the most advanced in using technology in their courses. The following comments indicate that for some faculty online would not be the best, while for others, this mode would be a good choice for them. Kevin prefers FTF classes, “I like face to face because I'm the type of person where I learn better face to face, hands on than I do online…trying to keep my attention focused online is sometimes is a difficult thing”. However, Rick, a general studies instructor, believes online is better for his needs. Rick currently does not use Blackboard in his instruction and does not plan to web-enhance his course anytime in the near future.
I am a huge believer in online presentation. There are some things that you can't do online, granted. I would not want somebody doing brain surgery on me who's only been online but there are all kinds of things that you can do online and I think that that kind of a presentation for a lot of people works very well but again, if the college is going to write this stuff then the college has to recognize the fact that not everybody is going to look at it the same way so you've got to present it in a couple of different ways. I think if somebody can sit down and work with this stuff online, I personally think that's the idea…ideal…ideal idea.
Another reason for choosing to whether or not to participate is the skill level and format involved in the training as indicated in the following responses. Ron says, “The time of the semester when the training was offered was at a time when I was not up to speed with Blackboard enough to attend the training”. Tim, the retired instructor who needed to learn PowerPoint because of the lack of transparencies, attended the training but did not believe he was ready for the instruction:
Well, I went to the Blackboard training and got almost nothing out of it. They said, first you press this, then you press that, and you press something else, and then this comes up and that comes up. I can't learn that way. I know it while I'm doing it, and then they're all done, and it's like, okay, I just wrote the Gettysburg Address, now you write something equally as good, you know….
Another factor that influences part-time faculty to attend technology training at this college is the possible disparity between the topics that are being presented and the topics that are needed for these workshops. Table 10 serves to demonstrate this finding. This data indicates the tools some of the instructors are already using in their courses as compared to what was noted as areas where training is needed. The majority of the instructors who answered the questionnaire are using e-mail (64.38% - 47/73 respondents) and the Internet (56.16% - 41/73 respondents) to communicate with students and supplement their course content. Developing exams using computerized test generators is also being utilized in courses to a large extent. The areas needed for training are mainly focused towards using the test banks, creating PowerPoint presentations, and using Blackboard to web-enhance a course.
Table 10: Comparison of Areas of Part-time Faculty Using Technology and Areas that Part-time Faculty Need Training
|Already using this in my courses. |Training needed |
|% (checked box/total responses) | |
|e-mail to communicate with |64.38% |College’s e-mail |10.96% |
|students |(47/73) | |(8/73) |
|Internet to supplement course|56.16% |Internet |10.96% |
|information |(41/73) | |(8/73) |
|Digital test banks |36.99% |Use test banks to create |23.29% |
| |(27/73) |exams |(17/73) |
|PowerPoint Presentations |26.03% |PowerPoint Presentations |31.51% |
| |(19/73) | |(23/73) |
|Blackboard Web Sites |24.66% |Blackboard Web Sites |26.03% |
| |(18/73) | |(19/73) |
|College Library Website |12.33% |College Library Website |8.22% |
| |(9/73) | |(6/73) |
| | | | |
|Instructor resources from the|47.95% |Word processing |15.07% |
|book publisher |(35/73) | |(11/73) |
| | |College Web Site |15.07% |
| | | |(11/73) |
Another factor relating to faculty participation is an attitude of indifference regarding technology integration into their courses. Tim, the long-term retired instructor, wonders, “Why do we have to do that?” and this same question was voiced by three of the part-time faculty during the interviews. To keep Tim’s comments in perspective, the entire discussion is presented below:
I'm like everybody else that's been at a business for many, many years. We're always reluctant to accept something new and different that we don't really understand. That's human nature. And I'm - even though I know that, I'm not exempt from that. I have that same emotional reaction, "Why do we have to do that? This has been working fine," you know. And so, I have to watch that tendency. So I don't know that we're not - trying to keep up with the changing times.
This uncertainty is validated by the following remarks by Rick, a fourth year part-time faculty teaching in the general education area. He indicates his lack of desire to learn something that is not worthwhile. Rick’s comments below indicate both the time issue and the uncertainty about educational technology’s worth:
Why are we creating a product that is supposedly superior? Are we providing solutions to problems that don't exist? And, you know, sometimes I look at technology that way as far as the classroom, you know, are we doing things that are - are we solving problems that don't exist?
I enjoy the teaching and I enjoy the students and, you know, the opportunity that I have to be in a classroom for a couple hours a day is cool. But, as I have a business, the meetings or the seminars, those tend to take a backseat…It's kind of - technology is kind of an odd thing because if you don't know something exists, then you don't know that you want to use it or you don't know that it can be beneficial to you. And so, I would say, having classes, you know, or seminars or workshops would be difficult because you're in a situation where -for example, Blackboard - I don't know how it's going to benefit me.
Similarly, John, the communication instructor, had this comment to my question, “What experiences have you had in using technology in your courses?”
Oh, very, very little. I teach and have taught for, I don't know, 20-some years, a public-speaking class, and it's involved very little technology except what - occasionally, people want to bring in. I have set up things where people could do some PowerPoint demonstrations. But otherwise, it's pretty much hands-on…. It’s still kind of a person in front of the public, in front of the classroom, talking, you know, using material that they've prepared, and that's basically what it's been.
Concerns regarding possible technology breakdowns were indicated by two part-time faculty and the staff who had assisted instructors with these types of problems. Anyone who has experienced technical difficulties while teaching can relate to Rick, the fourth year general studies part-time faculty. Rick offers his advice concerning equipment disasters:
So it's - I've used things - and not necessarily at the - not necessarily here, but as I've used them at the high school where you get used to things being a certain way and when it's taken from you or when you don't have access to it - whether something comes up, you need to be able to function without it and that you don't just fall into a sobbing heap because you can't get it to work.
Ron describes his difficulties and embarrassment encountered with online testing:
See, I had to do that by trial and error to learn and it's just chaos. Once the test has been assigned and somebody has taken that test, I can't fix these problems. Otherwise the students all have to take the test all over again so it's just - devastating is a little extreme but one, it destroys your credibility, and it reduces the whole point of using the technology, which is to improve efficiency and to improve student acquisition of knowledge.
The staff members involved in training were also very aware of these potential situations for faculty to become uncomfortable in front of students. As previously mentioned, all but one of the staff had recently taught part-time at this college before assuming their present positions. Karen, an experience DE/TSS staff member and former part-time faculty, has witnessed these problems that faculty sometimes experience when the equipment fails to deliver:
…which I think some of them get flustered if that has to go on with the students watching [showing the faculty how to work a projector]…but some of them it takes them unaware...and they get flustered and grumpy "I can't get this stuff to work"… Some of the faculty don't seem to have these kind of skills or have thought ahead how they'll handle it if things don't go right. And it ends up being that they loose their cool... and that makes the college look bad...sometimes they take it out on the staff. There's way to go about handling glitches and I don't know if they have any guidance from the college to know how to do that... kind of an image thing.
To summarize the findings to this question concerned with the experience of part-time faculty, these instructors found the training content to not always match their needs or skill level and were not always convinced that the learning to use the technology was worth the risks involved in the implementation. The questionnaires indicated several areas that were not being presented, such as PowerPoint presentation development. Lastly, these faculty are also unsure if technology tools are needed for their courses and mixed on their opinions of the best training format. To conclude this section, I will present a brief summary of the findings for all of the research questions addressed prefaced with several findings for a question that was not originally anticipated in the design of this study.
DE/TSS Staff Perceptions of Technology Ready Faculty
I did not directly seek an answer to the question of what a part-time faculty would look like if they were ready to learn technology. The actual question to the DE/TSS staff was asking them about their experience in training and helping part-time faculty with technology issues. The discussion would then deviate into the traits of part-time faculty who wanted to learn about technology (even though this interview question was not directly asked nor was it included in my original research design). Chris, an experienced DE/TSS staff member and former part-time online instructor, comments on the type of faculty who enjoy learning to use Blackboard:
There are the eager people who want to learn, so you have something you can provide them and they're jumping on it to move forward and learn what they need to learn….All of a sudden they see a light come on…
Karen, one of the senior staff members, indicates, “some of them are really organized and prepared”. Pat, a newer staff member, concurs when saying, “They need to have an attitude of flexibility - willing to learn…and who likes to use the Internet and is not afraid of the technology”.
Donna, the most experienced of the DE/TSS staff, indicates several desirable qualities found in innovative instructors:
…lack of fear...and self-confidence and a willingness to try something new… So given, that we would like someone who is an enthusiastic and well experienced teacher - but not online yet - then we are willing to go the extra mile to train for online teaching….Usually it's only those people who feel comfortable or who are willing to take the risk to web-enhance who do it.
Therefore, the data gathered from these comments suggest that the personality of the instructors who seek out training appear to be those who are adventurous and willing to put themselves at risk to learn new teaching tools. According to the comments from the staff, this incentive to learn technology appears to be a desirable personality trait of part-time faculty.
Summary of Findings
My questions concerning part-time faculty perceptions and experiences guided my choice of research methodology – this case study. The observations, archives, web statistics, interviews, and the questionnaire gave valuable insights into an interesting dilemma for this college. This situation is reflected in my original problem statement: The issue to be studied involves the increasing numbers of part-time faculty teaching in higher education who may not be supported in learning how to integrate technology into their courses but are expected to incorporate these skills nevertheless. As indicated in the introduction to this chapter, I gleaned more answers than I was originally seeking. Some of this information included the traits of part-time faculty who seek out learning opportunities and incentives to learning technology that were very intrinsic to the instructor’s desire to better manage their courses.
The final chapter of this study will address conclusions and data interpretations. However, Wolcott (2001b) admonishes the researcher involved in gathering qualitative data for a case study to not seek a conclusion. He advises the writer to allow the data to speak – not the researcher.
I do not work toward a grand flourish that might tempt me beyond the boundaries of the material I have been presenting, or might detract from the power (and exceed the limitations) of the observations themselves or what I have been able to make of them (p. 121).
Nevertheless, my conclusions and interpretations for further study will follow as I keep in mind the limitations and restraint of assuming inferences derived from the data that do not exist.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, and CONCLUSIONS
This case study explored the environment and activities of the part-time faculty as they are encouraged to add technology to their courses – specifically in the form of adding an online component to their classes. The perceptions and experiences of these faculty were the focus of the research and the data collected indicated several themes. As I discuss the conclusions and need for future research, I will also relate how this research complements or disputes the current literature. The first area of discussion will address the ideas that culminated after analyzing the findings collected during the course of this case study.
Themes and Relevance to the Current Literature
The themes that emerged after reviewing the data are presented next as the overall concepts and perceptions were analyzed. The general theme regarding training and technology issues in this case study is a “disconnect” in what is available or needed and what is perceived to be required by those teaching and working at this college. This college has included the part-time faculty in their technology training plans, but has struggled with communicating the benefits to these instructors. The administration wants to assist the part-time faculty in enhancing their communication with students, but has not yet provided incentives for these teachers to learn the tools. In addition, the possible over-communication through e-mail and other posted announcements may have desensitized the part-time faculty to these requests.
As the themes that emerged dealt with multiple research questions - at times simultaneously – I will present them intertwined with the current literature that was reviewed for this case study. These themes are framed under the following general concepts as they relate to the perceptions and experiences of part-time faculty and staff at this college: misplaced expectations, indifference, barriers, and incentives.
Misplaced Expectations
As indicated in previous comments, the staff and training personnel were well aware of the implications in a college wide mandate to add technology to courses. Several staff members mentioned the challenge of scheduling training for faculty. Karen told of the frustration of trying to accommodate part-time faculty schedules while Donna emphasized the need for training before requiring web-enhanced courses from these instructors. The administration’s expectations and good intentions are not matching the availability of the equipment in classrooms or the staff to teach these sessions. This situation is further complicated by the part-time faculty’s indifference and lack of time to learn these tools.
The literature cited several best practices that are not currently being implemented at this college. This college did not use fellow faculty members to help with the training sessions or conduct a needs assessment before beginning the planning of the workshops. Both of these practices are recommended in the current literature (Bush, 2005; Covington et al., 2005; Frey & Donehue, 2003; Pittinsky, 2005). Further, as these workshops are developed, the emphasis should be on teaching and learning to provide relevance and credibility to the training, not solely on the technology (Ali, 2003a, 2003b; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Otero et al., 2005; Weston, 2005). If these types of procedures are implemented, the apparent disconnect could be minimized significantly.
Because of the lack of a skill assessment of the workshop participants, the part-time faculty may have felt the workshop topics were not appropriate for their needs. While staff members suggested starting from the beginning and working forward, Tim, one of the few faculty I interviewed that had been to one of the regular training sessions described his experience as less than starting at the basics. He depicted his experience as complex as being shown how to write the Gettysburg address in one sitting. Another instructor, Ron, did not attend the training because he did not feel he was prepared for this level of instruction.
This disconnect is further illustrated on the questionnaires. The part-time faculty who responded to the questionnaires reported that they need skills taught in word processing, exam creation, and developing PowerPoint presentations. However, these training sessions are not being presented on a regular basis at this time and only Blackboard training is being offered twice annually. The DE/TSS support staff are addressing these needs one-on-one and the demands on these individuals is sometimes overwhelming. As Chris indicated, confrontation should not be an option when challenged by frustrated colleagues.
Another finding that supports a disconnect in this case study was one not originally sought through the research questions. The findings from the interviews with the DE/TSS staff depicted the traits of a “ready-to-learn-technology” part-time faculty member, which was not supported by the interviews with the part-time faculty, training session observation, or questionnaire data. The DE/TSS staff may not be viewing the part-time faculty as they actually exist – somewhat indifferent to incorporating technology into their courses.
The questionnaires and interviews with part-time faculty reflected the same concerns with the expectations placed on them without training or equipment. Mitch and John appeared to be distrustful of the college’s intentions and watchful eyes in placing their syllabus and grade books online. The questionnaire data also supports this perceived divide with a good portion of the part-time faculty who completed this instrument reporting they were unaware of any technology training at this college.
This disconnect of being informed of the training – but still not knowing about it – may also be attributed to the next theme I will be addressing, indifference to learning and using technology in the classroom.
Indifference
Indifference in using technology was apparent in several data sources including the web statistics gleaned from the access of web-enhanced sites, the interviews with the faculty and staff, and the observation of the training session.
This pattern – the possible lack of interest and concern about technology and, consequently, the training - was the most difficult for me to discover in my data. Nevertheless, this theme was present all along. My bias was apparent and only after sharing my findings with a colleague, a full-time faculty member, did this theme emerge. In discussing the finding that part-time faculty were uninformed of the training opportunities, I became more aware that these instructors were possibly indifferent about these activities. True, the lack of these skills did not prevent them from teaching since many of them are not easily replaced because of the lack of trained faculty in this rural area. Therefore, these faculty may not perceive the value of technology integration.
This type of indifference was further indicated in several of the comments by part-time faculty. This attitude was also evident overall in the disregard of the mailings and e-mails to instructors about the training sessions. Furthermore, the part-time faculty indicated that they were doing well teaching without technology and did not feel the need to spend more time learning it.
Indifference has not been addressed by the literature, but resistance to innovation was noted in several studies(Covington et al., 2005; Herling, 2000; Purcell, 2005). Resistance was not supported by the findings in this case study. While faculty resistance was inferred by Pat, one of the newer DE/TSS staff, this attitude concerned the procedures of using the electronic grade book and was not confirmed by the interviews with the part-time faculty, observations, or the questionnaire.
The indifference regarding the use of technology should not be confused with any lack of commitment from these instructors regarding their teaching or their interest in their students. As indicated in the interviews, these instructors are teaching because they want to help their students learn the subject matter.
These findings support the current literature regarding the need for faculty to know the reason why before becoming interested in training opportunities (Ali, 2003a, 2003b; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Otero et al., 2005; Weston, 2005). If the administration discussed the importance of student access to the syllabus and instructor contact information, the part-time faculty would possibly want to pursue training workshops. However, they may have not adequately communicated the goals of using Blackboard to communicate with students. Therefore, the part-time faculty maybe indifferent in learning to use these tools.
The next theme that emerged from the data is probably the largest overall pattern in responses that was indicated in every instrument used in this case study. This theme is the barriers preventing faculty from participating or choosing to participate in using technology in their courses.
Barriers
Several barriers emerged concerning technology implementation by part-time faculty. These barriers include the apprehension of incorporating these new tools and possible communication issues regarding the availability of training opportunities.
Fear of being ridiculed or loosing credibility is an obstacle not easy for instructors to overcome. Rick, the fourth year general studies part-time faculty, described a possible meltdown in front of his students and Ron, the ITV instructor, was embarrassed by a glitch in the online testing program. Karen, and experienced DE/TSS staff member, also witnessed first hand the frustration of instructors when the technology failed to deliver.
Any instructor who has had a technical malfunction while presenting a lecture or demonstration can certainly relate to the embarrassment and frustration experienced by these teachers and staff members. The literature confirms the importance of technical support and this barrier could be minimized if the part-time faculty were adequately trained in using the equipment and the technology was readily available in the classrooms (Bell & Ireh, 2002; Brown et al., 2004; Weston, 2005).
Another possible barrier may be that the part-time faculty were unaware of the training sessions because of the terms used in discussing educational technology and learning systems. The notice sent to the entire faculty at this college asked, “Web-enhancing your [college name] ground class? Distance Education Staff will be providing Blackboard training (basics and refresher) for Associate and Resident Faculty on each [college name] Campus on the following days” (Appendix F).
The days and times were listed – all mornings when many of the part-time faculty are occupied with their full-time jobs. From the interviews and questionnaires, the data may indicate not only a barrier due to scheduling, but also a possible communication barrier. Many of the faculty that I spoke with were not totally certain what “web-enhancing” a course meant. If this term was not familiar – then Blackboard training would not make sense either.
This lack of understanding the terms used in announcing seminars and workshops, is a phenomenon that I perceive as “technology as a second language” (TSL). If the part-time faculty did not understand the technical language being used to announce this training, then these messages might not be considered something worthy of attention.
An experienced DE/TSS staff member, Karen, noticed this problem of technical language being misunderstood when working with instructors when she said in our interview, “You can't assume that they know basic things like what is a network drive....they don't understand how it all works”.
E-mail at this college may be another possible area of difficulty in communicating with the part-time faculty. As previously discussed, the part-time faculty have complained about the amount of e-mail they have received from this college. Also, only the college e-mail addresses are used when sending messages and pertinent information. This combination of too much communication along with messages that part-time faculty do not perceive as relevant might provide an explanation of why some of the part-time faculty did not know about training workshops. An e-mail from DE referring to training in Blackboard may appear to be targeting online instructors and perhaps viewed as mis- sent mail by the part-time faculty.
The findings reveal an attitude of indifference and lack of perceived value, coupled with apparent time constraints, for part-time faculty to incorporate technology into their courses. The final theme in this discussion provides an insight into what motivates these individuals to be part-time instructors. They teach because they enjoy it and want to share their passion in their respective content areas. The incentive, if any, for faculty to add technology to their courses is to help students, as was overwhelmingly indicated in my conversations.
Incentives
A major incentive to learn the technology was the delivery mode of the course. The data gathered from analyzing the web-enhanced course statistics points to the increased use of Blackboard websites by faculty who are using the ITV system for their classes. The incentive in this mode of delivery appears to be convenience and necessity. The Nursing program at this college has chosen to utilize the ITV system and partnered these courses with an online site to encourage participation from the nursing students. In a subsequent discussion with one of the full-time Nursing faculty, this website also helps with scheduling clinical rotations that are part of the class competencies. The Science department has also made a similar decision to incorporate Blackboard into their courses to help accommodate students into larger lecture groups that break out into smaller lab components.
During the observation of the training session, the two new Nursing faculty were anxious to learn the Blackboard site as quickly as possible. After reviewing the web statistics, this need became evident as their curriculum and ITV delivery system was demanding this tool for their courses that would begin in about a week. This same data set reveals that only about 18% of all of the courses at this college are web-enhanced as indicated in Table 5.
As expected, the computer classes had a significant presence in adding web sites through Blackboard to their courses. The high access areas on these sites were the exams and course information sections. However, the incentive to provide a means for students to communicate with each other and the instructor between four dispersed campus locations appears to be an important motivation to produce a web site on Blackboard.
Incentives are found to be an important component of any successful training program in the current literature but are not being formally offered at this institution to part-time faculty (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Hartman & Truman-Davis, 2000; Moon, Michelich, & McKinnon, 2005; Santovec, 2004). Many of the incentives could be implemented for a very low cost – such as certificates of completion. These certificates were found to be desirable by the part-time faculty who responded to the questionnaires. The college administration lacks precedence in this area, as the literature is not forthcoming regarding training opportunities for part-time faculty. However, increasing the points towards the salary increase for these instructors would need to be evaluated for the cost that might be incurred if this reward was offered.
Therefore, the ideas that developed in this research were intertwined throughout the data and presented several areas that were not fully confirmed by the current literature. This comparison of the literature and the findings in this case study is discussed in the next section of this chapter.
Literature Comparisons to the Findings
The literature regarding part-time faculty feelings of being disenfranchised is not fully supported by the findings in this case study (Dubson, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). The faculty that I interviewed were not looking for full-time work at the college and had a passion for their content areas that they wanted to share with others. The rural setting of this college may contribute to this attitude as most of the local professionals enjoy giving back to the community in the form of teaching. However, several faculty did indicate that they were skeptical about the college’s intent in web enhancing courses. They also did not believe that the college always supported their needs, such as providing typing services or projectors in their classrooms.
Further, the part-time faculty are aware and accepting of the fact that they are different than the full-time teachers. Most of them are not inclined to devote the amount of time and energy required to complete all of the full-time faculty administrative duties. When I mentioned to Kevin, a busy vocational part-time faculty member, that the reason for the bi-annual faculty meetings was so that the part-time faculty would not feel that they were treated differently than the full-time faculty, he responded, “But we are different…I know where I’m at…I don’t do it [teach] for the money, I can do other things. I enjoy teaching people about my experience”.
The literature does not address part-time faculty and technology training to any great extent. Therefore, my research includes data that has been underreported in the literature. My findings indicate that the majority of the current literature recommending the design of the training for convenience, customization, and relevance is also valid for part-time faculty (Blocher et al., 2000; Blocher et al., 2003; Grant, 2004; Otero et al., 2005; Tucker, Stronge, Gareis, & Beers, 2003).
The findings in this case study agree with the literature that the time required to learn about technology is a disincentive. Compounding these constraints is the lack of equipment in classrooms for part-time faculty to use, which also agrees with the literature regarding the importance of technology availability (Weston, 2005). Another barrier confirmed in this study by the interviews with part-time faculty was the fear of being humiliated while learning these new tools (Fuller, 1999; Hartman & Truman-Davis, 2000; A. H. Moore, 2001). This research also identified a new barrier for technology integration to the literature, the attitude of indifference about using technology in the classroom.
The part-time faculty at this college are mixed on what skills need to be presented in workshops, the training format, and the overall need for this type of training. Many of the participants in this study were self-taught in their computer skills. The incentives to participate are somewhat none existent until the necessity becomes the catalyst for learning a new skill, i.e. the publisher will no longer provide transparencies and only create PowerPoint presentations for instructors to use or the need for communicating with students on other campuses in ITV delivered courses.
The college administration has broken new ground in attempting to include part-time faculty into technology training opportunities. Increasing student communication with their instructors and an attempt to assist the harried part-time faculty with their class management motivates this effort. A reassessment of this plan would be in order to re-evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of a technical training program inclusive of the part-time faculty.
Reflections on the Research Design
Because the issue of part-time faculty and technology training encompassed many factors and participants, I chose the case study methodology to aid in telling the story of this college’s concept of training and the perceptions of the part-time faculty who work here. Several areas of this design were not anticipated to be as rich in data as I first expected. One being the web statistics – until I reviewed this data, I did not know how the faculty and part-time faculty were developing the web-enhanced courses. These statistics were very telling in who was creating the sites and why. The full-time faculty were in the majority of the users of Blackboard to web-enhance their FTF courses. However, the program areas that are using this tool to facilitate student interaction and accommodate physical distances between classes were surprising. Apparently, program areas are driving this adaptation more than I realized.
Moreover, I did not expect the various data sources to validate each other as strongly as they did. The problem with the communication that is being presented to the part-time faculty and what is being received was evident in several sources including the interviews and questionnaires. I proposed two possible reasons for this communication breakdown, either the instructors did not understand the language of the messages (TSL) or these messages were met with a severe lack of interest. The other data sources, especially the interviews and observation of the training session, give credibility to either conjecture.
If any of us were standing in front of a class and announcing upcoming tests and assignments, but two-thirds of the students were still showing up the next day unprepared, what would you, as the instructor, blame for this inconsistency? Either the students did not understand what was said and announced, or, they did not care because these activities would not affect their performance in the course.
The staff mentioned this communication breakdown several times in our interviews – either the instructor did not understand the structure of the networked computers or did not comprehend the purpose of the technology being used such as e-mail attachments. Many times, I have been unsure of several acronyms sent to me via e-mail from technical support and I teach full-time in this area. The faculty that I interviewed did not always associate the terms web-enhanced with the Blackboard software training and yet these terms were sent in the e-mails and mailings to their home addresses. Ron, the ITV instructor, was unaware of the term web-enhanced even though he was using Blackboard as a companion site for his ITV course.
I previously referred to this lack of understanding technical jargon as Technology Second Language. These TSL issues may occur often when communicating with the part-time faculty, but are possibly overlooked for fear of being ignorant of the latest electronic acronyms. To further illustrate this theme and my other findings, I have revised my diagram that was presented in Chapter 3 to include the findings and interpretations in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Revised participants, processes, and communication involved in training part-time faculty to use educational technology in their courses.
[pic]
Research Questions and Interpretation of the Findings
My methodology was guided and the subsequent research developed to assist in answering the following questions. I will list these again along with a summary of the findings and my interpretations for each category (inclusive of the subcategories).
How is the concept of technology training for part-time faculty defined and implemented at this college?
The concept of technology training is defined by this college as offering workshops and technical support to the faculty inclusive of the part-time faculty. The college’s DE/TSS staff is announcing training and providing as many opportunities for technical assistance as they believe is feasible. They are communicating this information via mailings and e-mail postings along with announcements at faculty meetings. One aspect of their training that was not addressed was the lack of equipment available for faculty to use while teaching. The web sites that have been developed are primarily by full-time faculty or part-time faculty who are teaching on ITV. Part-time faculty are not directly compensated for participating in training. DE/TSS staff members generally have a positive attitude regarding faculty learning to use technology but acknowledge the frustration involved in this process.
What are the perceptions of part-time faculty regarding training opportunities to learn about educational technology?
Only a few of the part-time faculty perceive the training in technology to be necessary in certain teaching situations, such as using a test bank, but time consuming. For those that have wanted to incorporate technology, the lack of equipment or difficulty in acquiring this equipment confirms their preconception that they can do a good job of instructing students without these tools. The faculty are either indifferent or do not understand the terms involved in the communication being sent out by the DE/TSS staff regarding training opportunities. However, many would like to be involved in specific learning areas such as word processing or using the test banks to create exams.
What are the experiences of part-time faculty who have chosen to participate in technology training sessions provided by this college?
The part-time faculty who have participated in training were not well represented in this study, which also indicates the general themes of time constraints and lack of incentives in attending these sessions. Necessity became a significant reason for participation. Of those who had participated in some version of training, they were observed or reported feeling not prepared and overwhelmed by the amount of material that was covered in a short time. The vocational ITV instructor, who was extensively using Blackboard, was given one-on-one training and was very satisfied with this instruction. The retired vocational teacher who needed to use the test bank to develop exams also welcomed this type of instruction.
Limitations
The bias of this researcher was evident throughout the study. My participation in the training session impacted the reactions of the other participants and the instructor of this session. The low response rate to the questionnaires was also problematic. Another limitation was the short time frame of study. If I had the opportunity to begin again, I would like to have two semesters to talk with part-time faculty who had participated in the training sessions from the previous semester. Furthermore, the web access statistics per course were not as descriptive as I anticipated. These numbers may have possible errors in the data labels for access numbers. I consulted the DE administrator in charge of these statistics and he was not certain of the coding of these headings. Therefore, we agreed to the definition of the data headings as best we could given the information source that was available.
Another limitation was the number of faculty interviewed and that they all happened to be men. Further interviews with men and women would enrich the data presented and either confirm or dispute these faculty’s perceptions and experiences. I was satisfied with the representation of the different course content areas. However, full-time faculty teach several subjects that are numerous in the number of courses offered at this college. Therefore, Math, Sciences, and Nursing were underrepresented in the interview data with part-time faculty in this study even though they were in the majority of web-enhanced courses.
Another comparison that would contribute to this case study would be to also interview the resident faculty at various campuses. This comparison would shed more light on comparative reactions from instructors who are full-time employees of the college and have more time to commit to these training sessions. These faculty have offices, computers, and proximity to one-on-one technical support that the part-time faculty lack. Their perceptions and experiences would add depth to this case study.
Subsequent Areas for Future Study
Several areas related to this case study warrant further study. This case focused on the part-time faculty experiences and perceptions. A similar study is warranted on the student’s experiences and perceptions regarding web-enhanced courses. Several studies have indicated a causal analysis regarding online materials and testing and student outcomes, but few have gathered interpretive data from students relating to their satisfaction with these enhancements (Agee et al., 2003; Monaghan & Santiago, 2001; Nicoll & Laudato, 1999).
Another topic that became apparent during the staff interviews were the characteristics of faculty who readily adapt to learning technological tools. Several studies indicate a need for faculty self efficacy and independence when applying technology to their courses, but few have identified these characteristics concerning the faculty of the rapidly changing community college environment (Blocher et al., 2003; Weston, 2005). The part-time faculty interviewed at this college realized that their students usually knew more than they did about technology, nevertheless they felt confident in their own areas of expertise.
Regarding the technology training at other community colleges and institutions of higher education, how is the importance of technology training made evident at different institutions – what scarce resources are they willing to devote to training and incentives? At a recent conference presentation regarding Blackboard technology training, I was impressed by the difference in urban colleges versus rural colleges. The urban colleges required their part-time faculty to complete extensive training (not compensated - on their own time) in technology before teaching. The rural colleges responded that they wished they could do the same, but did not have this luxury because of the lack of supply of qualified instructors (Goldberg, 2005b). Another area of further study would be the comparison of different training programs at a variety of institutions.
I would also recommend exploring the incentives for part-time faculty participation in other areas – curriculum development, club activities, and mentoring other part-time faculty. My study only addressed their willingness to learn and use technology. What influences or prevents them from other college activities? The obvious answer is the time constraints, but the indifference and lack of concern was also theme that emerged from this case study. Only one of the faculty that I interviewed was dependent on teaching as his only source of employment. Are these faculty more likely to attend meetings and events than the “working” part-time faculty?
Reflections
As previously stated, the major theme that emerged across all of my data is a “disconnect” of the technology training, resources, and the needs of the part-time faculty who teach at this college. When I began this study, I believed my title – “Teaching without Tools” – sounded a bit dramatic in describing the plight of part-time faculty in higher education. However, the data not only supports this title but also reinforces the difficulty in providing training for part-time faculty compounded with their own reluctance to incorporate technology into their courses due to indifference and time constraints to attend workshops.
From an analysis of the web access statistics, part-time faculty teach only 38% of the total courses that are web-enhanced. This low number may indicate indifference to technology or maybe a symptom of the obstacles that are too overpowering for these instructors to overcome. The barriers could include the lack of time, indifference in learning technology, and the fear of humiliation in front of students. Time constraints plagued the entire faculty who participated in this study – including the observation of the training session.
I began this study with a preconception that part-time faculty were not being adequately served at this college in being able to participate in training opportunities. I eventually discovered that many of these faculty had chosen a different path and did not believe this training would be beneficial. They all acknowledged the changes occurring about them and realized that their lack of skills would eventually impact their teaching. However, as their time and energy was compromised every day in attempting to balance work, family, and teaching, they have chosen to cross this bridge when it is in front of them.
The college is aware of these limitations and is in the process of updating the availability of equipment and training. The cost advantages of using digital correspondence instead of mailing paper will continue to require all of us to utilize our e-mail more than our mailbox. Book publishers are also looking to reduce their costs in providing web sites and digitized test banks instead of printed instructor manuals. The part-time faculty will continue to be the backbone of the teaching force of this college and will probably need proof that using the technology is worth the time to learn it.
Based on the research collected through this case study, colleges would do well to present incremental changes that save time for instructors when preparing for and delivering their courses. The caution is to not obstruct their love of teaching and sharing with students while assisting them with the tools of the trade.
If community colleges choose to pursue a training program for part-time faculty, the changes need to be approached with prudence. The part-time faculty’s devotion to their students should not be discarded along with the outdated equipment in the name of improvement. The part-time faculty who participated in this study appear to do rather well “teaching without tools” because of their commitment to the college and their students. I hope that we do not go overboard with demanding the use of technology from these instructors. If this institution and others like it go too far, part-time faculty may use the “tools without teaching.” This modification would be a grave mistake if these teachers were to abandon their passion for sharing their experiences and knowledge simply to incorporate a piece of technology for the sake of progress.
References
Agee, A. S., Holisky, D. A., & Muir, S. A. (2003). Faculty development: The hammer in search of a nail. The Technology Source, September/October, Retrieved June 13, 2006 from .
Al-Bataineh, A., & Brooks, L. (2003). Challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of instructional technology in the community college classroom. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(6), 473-484.
Alexander, M. W., Bartlett, J. E., Truell, A. D., & Ouwenga, K. (2001). Testing in a computer technology course: An investigation of equivalency in performance between online and paper and pencil methods. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 18(1), 69-80.
Alexander, M. W., Truell, A. D., & Bartlett, J. E., II. (2002). Students' perceptions of online testing. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 44(1), 59-68.
Ali, A. (2003a). Faculty adoption of technology: Training comes first. Educational Technology, 43(2), 51-54.
Ali, A. (2003b). Instructional design and online instruction: Practices and perception. TechTrends, 47(5), 42-45.
Anastasiades, P. S., & Retalis, S. (2001). The educational process in the emerging information society: Conditions for the reversal of the linear model of education and the development of an open type hybrid learning environment. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, 43-48.
Belcheir, M. J., & Cucek, M. (2002). Faculty Perceptions of Teaching Distance Education Courses. Research Report 2002-02. Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.
Bell, E. D., & Ireh, M. (2002, July). Planned change in teacher education: Unfreezing the status quo through the integration of technology. Paper presented at the Annual Preparing Tomorrow's Teacher to Use Technology (PT3) Grantees Conference, Washington, DC.
Bett, S., French, D., Farr, G., & Hooks, L. (1999). Augmenting traditional teaching with Internet-based options. In D. French, C. Hale, C. Johnson & G. Farr (Eds.), Internet based learning: An introduction and framework for higher education and business (pp. 47 - 62). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456-480.
Blocher, J. M., de Montes, L. S., Tucker, G., & Willis, E. M. (2000, October). Preparing teachers to integrate technology using constructionist methodology: Don't teach me how I know I should teach; teach me how I want to be taught. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO.
Blocher, J. M., Echols, J., de Montes, L. S., Willis, E., & Tucker, G. (2003). Shifting from instruction to construction: A personal meaningful experience. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 74-78.
Brown, A. H., Benson, B., & Uhde, A. P. (2004). You're doing what with technology? College Teaching, 52(3), 100-104.
Bryan, V. C., Ariza, E. N., & Knee, R. H. (2001). The dilemma of recruiting, rewarding, and retaining technically competent faculty in higher education. Florida: Higher Education Clearinghouse Code: HE034184.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Teachers - Postsecondary. Retrieved June 22, 2005, from
Bush, G. (2005). Logging on to Staff Development. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from
Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39.
Chou, S.-W., & Liu, C.-H. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: A learner control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 65-76.
Christensen, T. K. (2003). Case 1: Finding the balance: Constructivist pedagogy in a blended course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 235-243.
Congdon, K. G. (1997). CAUTION! Technology in the classroom may be harmful. In D. C. Gregory (Ed.), New technologies and art education: Implications for theory, research, and practice. (pp. 107-121). Reston, VA: The National Art Education Association.
Covington, D., Petherbridge, D., & Egan, W. S. (2005). Best practices: A triangulated support approach in transitioning faculty to online teaching. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(I).
Creswel, J. W. (1994a). Combined qualitative and quantitative designs. In J. W. Creswel (Ed.), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Creswel, J. W. (1994b). A framework for the study. In J. W. Creswel (Ed.), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Creswel, J. W. (1994c). A qualitative procedure. In J. W. Creswel (Ed.), Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 143-172). Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Darby, J. A. (2007). Open-ended course evaluations: A response rate problem? Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(5), 402-412.
Data Analysis Australia. (2007). Response Rates. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from
Debevec, K., Shih, M.-Y., & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning strategies and performance in a technology integrated classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 293-307.
deMarrais, K., & Lapan, S. D. (2004). Introduction. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and Social Sciences (pp. 1-11). Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dirkx, J. M., & Barnes, B. J. (2006, April). The Meaning of "Qualitative" in Qualitative Research: An Analysis of Published Articles Adult and Continuting Education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Conference, San Francisco.
Dubson, M. (2001). Ghosts in the classroom: Stories of college adjunct faculty - and the price we all pay. Boston: Camel's Back Books.
Duhaney, D. C. (2005). Technology and higher education: Challenges in the halls of academe. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 7.
Eisner, E. W. (1992). Are all causal claims positivistic? A reply to Francis Schrag. Educational Researcher, 21(5), 8-9.
Epper, R. M. (2001). The new economy meets the Ivory Tower. In R. M. Epper, Ed. & A. W. Bates, Ed. (Eds.), Teaching Faculty How To Use Technology: Best Practices from Leading Institutions. (pp. 1-18). Connecticut: American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education.
Fenton, A. (2006). Weft QDQ: A free qualitative analysis software application. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from
Flannigan, S., Jones, B., & Moore, W., Jr. (2004). An exploration of hiring practices in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(10), 823-836.
Frey, B. A., & Donehue, R. (2003). Making the transition from traditional to cyberspace classrooms. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 12, 69-84.
Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change Forces: The Sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Fuller, F. (1999, April 14). Web instruction as cultural transformation: A reeducation model for faculty development. Paper presented at the Annual Research Day of the Northwestern State University of Louisiana, Natchitoches, Louisiana.
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty. Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gess-Newsome, J., Blocher, J. M., Clark, J., Meansco, J., & Willis, E. M. (2003). Technology infused professional development: A framework for development and analysis. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), 324-340.
Goldberg, A. (2005a). Exploring instructional design issues with web-enhanced courses: What do faculty need in order to present materials on-line and what should they consider when doing so? Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 40-51.
Goldberg, A. (2005b, October). Keeping Up with the techno-Joneses: A faculty handbook to web-enhance courses. Paper presented at the The League for Innovation in the Community Colleges, Dallas, Texas.
Goldberg, A., & Riemer, F. (2006). All aboard - destination unknown: A sociological discussion of online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), 166-172.
Granger, M. J., & McGarry, N. (2002, December). Incorporating on-line testing into face-to-face traditional information systems courses. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th International Academy for Information Management (IAIM) Annual Conference: International Conference on Informatics Education Research (ICIER), Barcelona, Spain.
Grant, M. M. (2004). Learning to teach with the web: Factors influencing teacher education faculty. Internet & Higher Education, 7(4), 329-341.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (1992). Understanding Teacher Development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hartman, J. L., & Truman-Davis, B. (2000). Institutionalizing support for faculty use of technology at the University of Central Florida. In T. Bourner, Ed., T. Katz, Ed. & D. Watson, Ed. (Eds.), New Directions in Professional Higher Education. (pp. 39-58). Buckingham, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Hays, P. A. (2004). Case study research. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and Social Sciences (pp. 217-234). Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Healy, J. M. (2005). Should technology lead the quest for better schools? No: The mad dash to compute. In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues (pp. 353-358). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Herling, T. J. (2000). Adoption of computer technology by communication faculty: resistance to innovation. Communication Abstracts, 23(5).
Hord, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning Together, Leading Together. New York and Oxford, Ohio: Teachers College Press and National Staff Development Council.
Hunt, G. J. F. (1986). Needs assessment in adult education: Tactical and strategic considerations. Instructional Science, 15(3), 287-296.
Hutchinson, S. R. (2004). Survey research. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and Social Sciences (pp. 283-301). Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hutchison, K. R. (2001). Developing faculty use of technology: The Bellevue Community College experience. In R. M. Epper, Ed. & A. W. Bates, Ed. (Eds.), Teaching Faculty How To Use Technology: Best Practices from Leading Institutions. (pp. 93-114). Connecticut: American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education.
Irani, T., & Telg, R. (2001). Planning for the next wave: Assessing current faculty distance education training and development needs. Journal of Applied Communications, 85(4), 7-18.
Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment on community college graduation rates. Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081-1103.
Jarrett, C. (2005). Caroline's corner: Survey response rates? 2% is not good enough. Retrieved June 8, 2007, from
Kanuka, H., Collett, D., & Caswell, C. (2002). University instructor perceptions of the use of asynchronous text-based discussion in distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 151-167.
Keefe, T. J. (2003). Enhancing a face-to-face course with online lectures: Instructional and pedagogical issues. Proceedings of the Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference.
Labeouf, J. P. (2000). Tapping into the academic workforce: Beyond complaints to dialogue, resolution and accommodation. Virginia: Community Colleges Clearinghouse Code: JC010311.
Lane-Kelso, M. E. (2000). Integrating technology in the classroom: Teacher training case study, Unpublished Dissertation. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
Lawton, D. F. (2001, November 8-12). Older Adults Eager to Explore Cyberspace. Paper presented at the 24th National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Practice Papers, pp. 221-227, Atlanta, Georgia.
Lears, J. (2000). Techno-Utopia? Tikkun, 15(1), 39.
Lederman, D. (2005). Blackboard, WebCT to Merge. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from
Leh, A. S. C. (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their online communities. Educational Media International, 39(1), 31-38.
Leslie, D. W., & Gappa, J. M. (2002). Part-time faculty: Competent and committed. New Directions for Community Colleges, 118(Summer), 59-67.
McWilliam, E., & Taylor, P. G. (1998). Teacher Im/material: Challenging the new pedagogies of instructional design. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 29-34.
Milliron, M. D., & Miles, C. L. (2000). Seven signs on the road ahead for community colleges. In M. D. Milliron & C. L. Miles (Eds.), Taking a Big Picture Look @ Technology, Learning and the Community College (pp. 1-45): League for Innovation in the Community College, Community Colleges Clearinghouse Code: JC010005, published with support from Oracle Corporation.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Monaghan, J. M., & Santiago, R. S. (2001, November). Critical examination of the use of online technologies in diverse courses at a large comprehensive university. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Proceedings of the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,Selected Research and Development Practice Papers, Atlanta, GA.
Moon, D., Michelich, V., & McKinnon, S. (2005). Blow away the competition: Explosive best practices for cost-effective excellence in distance learning. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 29(8), 621-622.
Moore, A. H. (2001). Designing advanced learning communities. In R. M. Epper, Ed. & A. W. Bates, Ed. (Eds.), Teaching Faculty How To Use Technology: Best Practices from Leading Institutions. (pp. 79-92). Connecticut: American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education.
Moore, M. G. (2003). From Chautauqua to the Virtual University: A century of distance education in the United States. Columbus, Ohio: Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, Ohio State University.
Murray, J. (1995, June). Training is for dogs: Teachers teach; teachers learn. Paper presented at the INET'95, Internet Society's 1995 International Networking Conference, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved June 23, 2006 from .
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Postsecondary education: Table 227. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
Nichols, R. G. (1997, February 14-18). A critical approach to teaching educational technology. Paper presented at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, NM.
Nicoll, J. M., & Laudato, N. C. (1999, October). Assessing the impact on students of online materials in university courses. Paper presented at the Educause, Long Beach, CA.
Olt, M. R. (2002). Ethics and distance education: Strategies for minimizing academic dishonesty in online assessment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, V(III). Retrieved July 6, 2006 from .
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000, November). Positivists, Post-Positivists, Post-Structuralists, and Post-Modernists: Why Can't We All Get Along? Towards a Framework for Unifying Research Paradigms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Educational Research (AAER), Ponte Vedra, FL.
Oppenheimer, T. (2004a). Education's Holy Grail: Teacher training. In T. Oppenheimer (Ed.), The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of technology (Rev. ed.) (pp. 305-317). New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Oppenheimer, T. (2004b). Introduction. In T. Oppenheimer (Ed.), The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of technology (Rev. ed.) (pp. xi-xxi). New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
O'Quinn, L., & Corry, M. (2002). Factors that deter faculty from participation in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Retrieved from on June 14, 2006.
Otero, V., Peressini, D., Meymaris, K. A., Ford, P., Garvin, T., Harlow, D., et al. (2005). Integrating technology into teacher education: A critical framework for implementing reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 8-23.
Pallof, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pallof, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Company.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation (pp. 144-164). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, under an exclusive agreement with The Regents of the University of California.
Pittinsky, M. (2005). No teacher left behind. T.H.E. Journal, 32(11), 32-34.
Preissle, J., & Grant, L. (2004). Fieldwork traditions: Ethnography and participant observation. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and Social Sciences (pp. 161 - 180). Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologies. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 7(1/2), 79-93.
Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1995 Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Anaheim, CA.
Resta, P., Christal, M., & Roy, L. (2004). Digital technology to empower indigenous culture and education. In A. Brown & N. Davis (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2004 (pp. 179-195). London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Robertson, H. J. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280-296.
Santovec, M. L. (2004). Training the people who train the teachers. Distance Education Report, 8(20), 3-6.
Schneider, J. (2003). The unholy alliance between departments of educational administration and their "Invisible Faculty". American Association of School Administrators, 26(1), 1-15.
Schrag, F. (1992). In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educational Researcher, 21(5), 5-8.
Schuetz, P. (2002). Instructional practices of part-time and full-time faculty. New Directions for Community Colleges, Summer(118), 39-46.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Columbus, Ohio.
Spitz, R. (2000, August). Is the Internet for everyone? Art in search of a better connected society. Paper presented at the Tenth International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor, R. (Ed.). (1980). The Computer in the School, Tutor,Tool, Tutee. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Tearle, P. (2003). ICT implementation: what makes the difference? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 567-583.
Trentin, G. (2006). The Xanadu project: Training faculty in the use of information and communication technology for university teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 182-196.
Tu, C.-H. (2005). From presentation to interaction: New goals for online learning technologies. Educational Media International, 42(3), 189-206.
Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., Gareis, C. R., & Beers, C. S. (2003). The efficacy of portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional development: Do they make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 572-602.
Wallin, D. L. (2004). Valuing professional colleagues: Adjunct faculty in community and technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(4), 373-391.
Wentland, D. (2001). The strategic training of employees model (STEM): The four P's approach. Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi.
Weston, T. J. (2005). Why faculty did and did not integrate instructional software in their undergraduate classrooms. Innovative Higher Education, 30(2), 99-115.
Wolcott, H. F. (2001a). Linking up. In Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 70-106). Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Dehli: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wolcott, H. F. (2001b). Tightening up. In Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 109-139). Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Dehli: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Appendix A: Part-time Faculty and Staff Interview Questions
Distance Education (DE) and Technical Support Services (TSS) Staff Interview Questions
1. Why do you think the college wants faculty to web-enhance their courses?
2. What kind of technology training do you think would be most helpful for part-time faculty? (probe: What format, time, location, and/or schedule would be best for training faculty?)
3. What has been your experience in assisting part-time faculty to use technology, such as Blackboard for an on-line course or as a web-enhancement to courses? (Probe: What kind of assistance do instructors usually need? Where do you direct them for online help and resources?)
4. What would you want to tell another staff member about training and helping faculty if they had never tried this before? (Probe: What did you learn while training faculty that you would have liked for someone to tell you before you started helping them?)
5. Do you have anything else you would like to tell me about your experiences in supporting and training part-time faculty to use technology?
Part-Time Faculty Interview Questions
1. Why do you think the college wants faculty to web-enhance their courses?
2. What experiences have you had in using technology in your courses?
3. How did you learn to use technology in your classes? (probe: examples - word processing syllabus and handouts, PowerPoint slides in a lecture, Blackboard to web-enhance a course, and/or e-mail?)
4. What has influenced you to attend meetings, workshops, or training here at the college and how would you describe this experience?
a. What was your level of computer skills before the training or demonstration?
b. Before, during or after your training, what was your experience with the technical support staff? (Probes: What types of questions did you have? How would you describe your experience with the DE or TSS staff?)
c. How did you find out about training opportunities here at the college?
5. What would you tell another instructor about adding technology to a class (such as web-enhancing a course) if they had never tried this before? (Probe: What did you learn while web-enhancing your course that you would have liked for someone to tell you before you started this activity?)
6. If you have not yet received or requested any training, what would you recommend that the college provide to help you add technology to your course? (Probe: When would be the best time and days for workshops? Would you prefer FTF, ITV, or online training?)
7. Do you have anything else you would like to tell me about your experiences with technology while teaching here at the college?
Appendix B: Part-time faculty questionnaire
(Note: This questionnaire was originally formatted to fit on one page)
Thank you for taking your time to complete this form. Please place it in the drop box by the mailboxes.
Please complete the following questions involving technology training here at the college. Please feel free to include any comments on the back of this form.
1. What information have you received about the technology training here at [college name]?
|Announcement at faculty meetings |From other faculty/division chairs/Distance Education staff |
|E-Mail |Other: Please indicate____________________ |
|Little or none | |
2. Have you used any of the following in your classrooms or in preparing for your courses? (check all that apply)
|Developed or used PowerPoint presentations during lectures |Used instructor lecture materials on CDs or publisher’s web sites |
|Created Blackboard web sites |Used or demonstrated to students the Library website |
|Used the Internet (i.e. Google) and/or the [college name] |Used E-mail to communicate with students |
|website to search for information | |
|Used Electronic test and exam generators |Other: Please indicate__________________ |
3. Would you like to have training in any of the following? (check all that apply)
|How to use word processing to create syllabi or handouts |How to use the Library web site |
|How to create Blackboard websites |How to use the Internet to supplement class discussions and assignments |
|How to create or use PowerPoint Presentations |How to use the [college name] web site to access information and online |
| |forms |
|How to use [college name]’s e-mail to contact students |How to create exams and quizzes using test banks provided by your book |
| |publisher |
|Other – Please list:_____________________________ | |
4. What are the best ways for the college to communicate with you about meetings, training, teaching schedules, etc.? (Please check any that apply)
|E-mail |Printed announcement/schedule in my mailbox |
|Phone |Announcement at faculty meetings |
|Other_____________________ |Mail (USPS) to my home |
5. When is the best time for training workshops? (Please check all that are best for you to attend)
|Daytime |Saturdays/Sundays |Summer |
|Evenings |Weekdays |Fall/Spring semester |
6. What would motivate you to attend a workshop designed to help you learn about adding technology to a class that you teach?
|Points towards my increase in |Certificate of completion |Incentives – flash drives, |Other – Please list on the |
|pay | |software, t-shirts, etc. |back of this form |
Appendix C: Request letter to participants
[pic]
Address
Dear ,
I would appreciate your consideration of participating in a one hour interview that will focus on a study concerning Professional Development Opportunities for Part-Time Faculty in Educational Technology. This project is also part of my doctoral studies at Northern Arizona University, College of Education. My advisors, Dr. Blocher and Dr. Tu, support this research.
Your name was randomly selected from a list of part-time faculty who teach courses at [college name] Community College. This list included only your name, address, and phone number. You were chosen to participate because you have taught courses for [college name] Community College and none of these courses were Computer Information Systems classes.
The questions that will be asked will concern your experiences in the courses that you teach and you will be able to receive the notes that I take during the interview. Your participation is confidential and only I will know your identity. Nothing revealed in the interview will ever contain your name or the course names that you have taught or identify [college name] Community College.
I understand your time constraints as an instructor, and I would like to offer you an appreciation gift for your help with my project. Please return the enclosed form for a $50 gift certificate to Barnes & Noble Bookstores, Hastings Bookstores, Chili’s Restaurants, Big 5 Sports, or Cracker Barrel Restaurants. You will receive your gift on completion of your interview. Your indication to participate in this study is not binding. I will contact you to arrange our meeting, however, you may drop out of the study at any time and I will destroy any information collected at that point. This is a customary procedure in interview research.
Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to hearing from you.
|_________________________ |
|Andra K. Goldberg |
|Doctoral Candidate & CIS Course Coordinator |
|1971 Jagerson Ave. |
|Kingman, AZ 86409 |
|928-692-3015 |
Interview Participation Form
YES,
Name:_____________________________________
(First & Last – Please Print)
I plan to volunteer to participate in this study.
My preference for the appreciation gift is a $50 gift certificate to:
□ Barnes & Noble Bookstores
□ Big 5 Sports
□ Hastings Bookstore
□ Chili’s Restaurant
□ Cracker Barrel Restaurant
Name_________________________________Date_____________________
Phone_________________________________E-mail___________________
NO,
I do not wish to participate in this study at this time.
Name__________________________________
Thank you for your consideration.
Please return this form to me within 5 days of receiving it in the enclosed stamped envelope.
Appendix D: Informed consent for adults
[pic]
College of Education, Curriculum and Instruction
INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT FOR ADULTS
Project Title: A Case Study of Part-Time Faculty Perceptions and Experiences Regarding Technology Training Opportunities in Higher Education
Dear Participant,
You are being asked to participate in a project conducted through Northern Arizona University and [college name] Community College. The University requires that you give your signed agreement to participate in this project.
The investigator will explain to you in detail: (a) the purpose of the project, (b) the procedures or protocols to be used, (c) how your personal information will be kept confidential, and (d) the potential benefits and possible risks of participation.
You may ask him/her any questions you have to help you understand the project. A basic explanation of the project is written below. Please read this explanation and discuss with the researcher any questions you may have.
Then, if you decide to participate in the project, please sign on the last page of this form in the presence of the person who explained the project to you. A copy of this form will be given to you for you to keep.
1. Project Purpose and Description: This study will attempt to determine what aspects of professional development opportunities for faculty are important in learning to incorporate educational technology into their courses.
2. Explanation of Procedures or Protocols: Qualitative data will be collected for this evaluation through questionnaires, interviews, and observations. Your participation will include an interview approximately one hour in length. The interview may take place in person, on the phone, or by e-mail.
3. Confidentiality: All of the information collected will be kept confidential and any identifiers will not be used in the data analysis or compilation. Only the researcher will know your identity. Nothing you reveal in the interview will ever be connected with your name.
4. Benefits: The benefits of this study will be to aid the development of professional development training programs for faculty and part-time faculty concerning the potential use of web-enhanced components of a course to improve student learning and participation.
5. Risks: There are no known potential risks associated with this study.
6. Refusal/Withdrawal: I understand that my participation is strictly voluntary and that I can withdraw at any time without consequences.
|(a) Refusal to participate in this study will have no effect on any present |
|or future services or benefits that I may be entitled to from the University. |
|(b) Anyone who agrees to participate in this study is free to withdraw |
|from the study at any time without penalty. |
|(c) I understand that it is not possible to identify all potential risks in |
|an experimental procedure. |
• __________________________________ Date ________________
Signature of Participant
• Printed Name ___________________________________________
• __________________________________ Date ________________
Signature of Research Representative
• Printed Name ___________________________________________
There is a dated approval stamp on this consent form (below). The stamp indicates that this project has been reviewed and approved by the Northern Arizona University Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research. Contact the Human Research Protections Administrator at 928-523-4340 if you have any questions about: (1) the conduct of the project, or (2) your rights as a research participant, or (3) a research-related injury. Any other questions about the conduct of this research project should be directed to:
Andra K. Goldberg
1971 Jagerson Ave., Kingman, AZ 86409
928-692-3015, akg27@nau.edu
Dr. Michael Blocher
(928) 523-1897, Michael.Blocher@nau.edu
College of Education, Northern Arizona University
Dr. Chih-Hsiung Tu
(928) 523-0671, Chih-Hsiung.Tu@nau.edu
College of Education, Northern Arizona University
APPENDIX E: WEFT QDA CODING CATEGORIES
APPENDIX F: DE NOTICE SENT TO ALL FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME FACULTY
(Note: The DE contact information has been removed from this copy of the notice)
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.