Concerns of Liberal Arts Faculty toward Instructional Technology University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE Tennessee Research and Creative TRACE Tennessee Research an[.]
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2000 Concerns of Liberal Arts Faculty toward Instructional Technology Vicki G Sells-Lewallen University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Sells-Lewallen, Vicki G., "Concerns of Liberal Arts Faculty toward Instructional Technology " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2000 https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1381 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange For more information, please contact trace@utk.edu To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Vicki G Sells-Lewallen entitled "Concerns of Liberal Arts Faculty toward Instructional Technology." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education, with a major in Education E Dale Doak, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Carol Tenopir, Mary Jane Connelly, Everett Meyer Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Vicki Seils-Lewallen entitled "Concerns of Liberal Arts Faculty toward Instructional Technology." I have examined the final copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education, with a major in Education L�� E Dale Doak, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: ��' ���U:t- u �� Accepted for the Council: Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of The Graduate School CONCERNSOFLmERALARTSFACULTY TOWARD INSTRUCTIONA L TECHNOLOGY A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Education Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Vicki G Sells-Lewallen May,2000 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to myfamily: mychildre� Elyas and Mariam Bakhtiari, myhusband, Darrell, and to myparents, Howard and Martha Sells, who have made it all possible and worthwhile ii I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who have made this work possible I am particularly grateful to Dr E Dale Doak whose constant support and encouragement has sustained me throughout my program of studies at the University of Tennessee The members of my Dissertation Committee, Dr E Dale Doak, Dr Muy Jane Connelly, Dr Carol Tenopir and Dr Everett Meyer have always been positive and supportive in their advice and helpful in bringing this project to completion I am also grateful to my colleagues at the University of the South for their assistance and encouragement in completing this project Lastly, a deep debt of gratitude is owed to the many friends and family members who were always ready to lend encouragement and moral support to my efforts iii ABSTRACT In this study, the concerns of liberal arts faculty members toward the use of instructional technology were explored The Concerns-based Adoption Model developed at the University of Texas in Austin provided the methodological framework for determining the concerns and attitudes of liberal arts faculty toward the use of instructional technology The Stages of Concern Questionnaire, an instrument based on the Concerns-based Adoption Model provided the vehicle for gathering data The survey, open ended questions, and demographic information obtained from respondents at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee formed the basis of this research study Findings of this study included the determination of the peak Stage of Concern of faculty at the University of the South The peak concern for26% of the faculty respondents was at Stage 3-Management, a task-related concern Stage 1-Information, a seH-concern was the second peak stage with25% of respondents Demographic data were examined to determine relationships between the observed and expected distribution of faculty utilizing a Chi square measurement Significant relationships were determined to exist between academic rank, age range and peak Stage of Concern Positive tenure iv status was determined to relate to the likelihood of peak concern at Stage 3- Management while lack of tenure respondents were more likely to have a peak Stage of Concern at Stage Informational Level of use information gathered in the survey determined that frequency of use (significant at p= 02) and participation in training (significant at p= 01) as significant predictors of peak stage of concern The open-ended question related to the advantages of using instructional technology revealed that visualization and presentation of information, student motivation, and access to increased amounts of information were important factors to liberal arts faculty using instructional technology in teaching The disadvantages associated with instructional technology were expressed as amount of time required for presentation, hardware and software failures or difficulties, and lack of adequate technical support Recommendations and implications of this research included the utility of the Concerns-based Adoption Model as a diagnostic tool to detennine concerns of faculty toward instructional technology The use of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire coupled with demographic and open-ended questions provided a diagnostic tool useful in the preparation and presentation of specific faculty training and technical support Recommendations for further research included the development of a Stages of Concern Questionnaire related specifically to the innovation of v instructional technology, longitudinal studies of the concerns of college faculty toward instructional technology and the utilization of the Stages of Concern process to determine student concerns toward the use of instructional technology vi TABLE OF CONTENTS � ONE: OVERVIEW •.• •.• • • • ••.• • •.•••.•.• •.• •.• •.• • • • ••.•.• ••.•••.••••.• • �TWO: REVIEW OF TI-lE LITERATURE • •.• •.•• •.• ••.•.•.•.•• • •.• • • CHAPfER THREE: PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY CHAPfER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .• •.• • ! S 27 48 •.•• • .•• •••.•.• CHAPfER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS •.•.• • •.• IJII3��1ti\1?� 88 �7' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J\J?��1'nL>I� • • • • l()� �� -····················································································"···1�� vi · : -·· �: II-* ; -: - F';t ·.· ·- ; : ' - - - : ·_ ,. - ·- ··3· :.! Rtload NorM - - - _ ' -'- �: ; ,? Stroh Netscape: CBAM - New Record ; : " �-.c.- =·��· �_::-.{�:� -;-: �;�·-=- � Ntls:oape ••I ·;:·; f!l cl Print lit s lty &bcp E-"':C - :.,:-.c-� eJ �j S t: " ·- - ·- • - Location:,& lh!!£:1/r., ,l - - odu:591/C81oMY£8/I't1Pro?-db-C8N1&·11�tlfG'IIti20Clll&-fcrmat-n.Yblm& , , o·'wblt·· R>tllto.l Have you had formal training in tbe US& of instructional technology? � Q Yes Q No � - - �i - - Describe tlle advantages ot using , -· ! inStruCtional teehnology: ! •i c : Describe tlle disadvantages/barriers to using instructional �notogy: • y i Questioo : I a m concerned about students· a�tudes towards instructional teehnology I • ' • 7• Very True 4• Q00 02 030405Q6Q7 Som.e"lltlat True l• NotTrUD 0• lrrele'l1mt Question 2: r now know ot some otller approaches tbat might work better 1!:11' dl- 0 04 - · , 7• Verr True 4• Somevbo.t True 1• Ncn TrUll D• Irrelevmt 7• Verr -;: l:i; �� � �·:;:.� [� � � -� 19 �: Bide � Looollon: ;-F·o,··: 'C ·3 •� :.'! IbM :>! Stnh Itt� at "">-:" ::.£ Print fit Stcwlty Shop ·;�,,� /; lhttp:/lforvtnl s.w-.ew ::rJIIC8IIHWDihHPro�N1&-IIy��Z31&-1armo�lllm&.-vit� Question 3: I don't even know what instructional 00 02 03 05 0607 technology Is Question 4: I am concern&oC3N1&-�t &-fcnn&- Jilin&""'flow Qu�on 7: I WOUld Uk& to • I a·'Wbot's Rtllttd 7• verr True coordinate my effort Wlth othHS to maximJz& tho effects of Instructional technology- 4• 00 02 04 05 1• Not Trus a Irrelevant QUestion 26: I woUld Uke to have more information on time and energy commitments required by Instructional t.chnology �� 0 7• Verr True 4• Somevbat True I• Not True 0• Irrelevant ?• Very Question 29: I woUld Ilk& to know What oth&r faculty are doing In this area Question 30: At this time, I am not interested in learning about Instructional technology QUestion : I woUld Uke to determine how to supplement, enbanc., or replace Instructional technology Question 32 : woUld ll.ke to feedbaCk from 00 Q I Q2 Q3Q405 0607 Trus 4• Som8'rlbat True I• Hot True 0• Irrelevant 0 I 03 04 05 07 7• Verr True 1• Somevhat True l • Hot True 0• Irrelevant 0 02 7• Verr True •• Somewbal True l• Hot True 0· Irrelevant US& 00 02 07 l:ii•-11)- 124 - + • �� � : L t ion : - - - • . ·3 � - •• � ·- -· _;· , ,.·.;_ RoiNd ''� Homo ?- � � .C.CIIW (�� o' ' i '' d Print � S.C�rlty Shop IRJISI �; ;,; }; (http://fclrwnl sw-.NJ:591 JC8»MBIFH'ro1-.lloCBAH&-��I&���It� , O���s Ro W wowa �e w use f*