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 Universit y
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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 parttime faculty to web-enhance their courses. ............................................................ 126
8
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
9
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?
10
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
11
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
12
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 parttime 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.
13
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
14
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 webenhanced 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.
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
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
19
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
20
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).
21
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
22
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 Brief Findings
Instruments
Emphasis: Faculty Training affecting Student Learning
Agee, Holisky, & This paper is the
Student assessment By requiring student
Muir, 2003
prequel to the actual data (test scores)
competency in
study that will
correlated to faculty technology at a
correlate student
participation in
curriculum level,
success to faculty
workshops
faculty were
development in
motivated to
technology
participate in
technology
workshops
Nicoll & Laudato, Evaluation –
Student surveys,
Online learning
1999
formative and
help desk reports,
materials increased
summative – on
and web server
student’s time on
professional
statistics – hits on
tasks and, therefore,
development
online materials and learning; faculty
program to webquizzes, where
training should
enhance courses
students accessed
include course
the web site (home, design
computer lab, etc.), competencies; the
written comments
use of formative
from students
evaluations
increased the success
of the program.
Monaghan &
Compared three
Student pre and
Online technology
Santiago, 2001
courses to evaluate a post-surveys,
did not improve
faculty training
faculty responses
higher scores in
program based on
and multiple choice interaction and
23
Positivist Studies
Methodology
student satisfaction
Methods Instruments
questions, syllabi,
and course
development
proposal
Brief Findings
teamwork due to
lack of
implementation by
instructors.
Instructors need
additional support to
implement
educational
technology and
evaluate online
enhancements.
Emphasis – Faculty Approval and/or Implementation
Belcheir & Cucek, Comparison of
Survey for faculty
Faculty were
2002
delivery methods
concerning their
satisfied with
reasons for teaching training and
distance education
technical support,
and their
faculty needed to
satisfaction with
change the process
training,
of courses converted
numerically scaled
to online delivery,
disincentives were
time involved, lack
of recognition and
compensation.
Covington et al.,
Limited evaluation
Pre and post
Increased number of
2005
of faculty
questionnaire to
courses delivered
technology training faculty participants, online with an
program
number of courses
increased number of
converted from FTF students, faculty
to online, survey of need support of
faculty, plan to
peers and technical
assess student
staff for successful
performance in
online course
upcoming
implementation.
evaluation of the
program
O'Quinn & Corry, Survey to determine Surveys quantified
This study indicates
2002
the barriers that
with numeric
that web enhancing
restrict community
scaling, limited
is desirable for
college faculty from open-ended
faculty when they
teaching distance
questions
are learning to teach
education courses.
online courses.
While the study
presents survey
24
Positivist Studies
Methodology
Trentin, 2006
results, the openended question
discussion is
limited.
Survey
Methods Instruments
Brief Findings
Pre and post
surveys, interviews,
meetings with
faculty, measuring
faculty use of
technology during
each phase of
training
Gradual training in
stages is more
effective for faculty
to integrate
technology into
courses, graduate
assistants 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
25
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
26
(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
Mixed
methodologies
Ali, 2003
Methodology
Methods Instruments
Brief Findings
Limited case study
for a formative
evaluation of a
faculty training
program
Interviews,
observations
Blocher, Echols, de
Montes, Willis, &
Tucker, 2003
Case study of one
teacher’s experience
with integrating
technology
Reflective summary
of this teacher
which included her
observations and
narrative
Training needs to be
tailored to
individual faculty
needs, technology
support is essential,
faculty need
freedom in choosing
implementation
methods.
Instructors appear to
function well in
learning under a
constructivist’s
model but may have
a difficult time
teaching their
27
Interpretivist’s
Studies and
Mixed
methodologies
Methodology
Brown, Benson, &
Uhde, 2004
Case study of three
faculty members as
they learn new
technology skills.
Grant, 2004
Case study of a
teacher education
department’s
professional
development
program targeting
distance education
training
Otero et al., 2005
Case study of a 3year review of a
technology-training
program for faculty
Weston, 2005
Comparative case
study of 13
instructors over 2
years while they
integrated a
software program
into their courses
Bell & Ireh, 2002
Methods Instruments
Brief Findings
students using this
approach.
The methods are not Professional
indicated in this
development is
narrative type article needed in
but implied as
technology for
interviews and
college faculty.
observations
Interviews both in
Found that
person and through institutional
e-mail
pressure to develop
distance education
courses and
convenience were
among the factors
that influenced
teacher participating
in program.
Field notes, faculty Faculty need an
interviews, minutes understanding
from the technology concerning the need
support staff
for technological
meetings
improvements
before wanting to
implement it into
their courses.
Interviews,
Faculty attitude
observations, field
caused some delay
notes, surveys with in integration, but
closed and opened
biggest hindrance
responses
was lack of student
access to computers.
Mixed
Mixed: Evaluation
Interviews,
of a new program
questionnaires,
that improved
number of courses
curriculum and
developed and
integrated
repackaged
technology to
address uneven test
scores in teacher
Training improved
faculty efficacy,
faculty noted
improved student
performance but this
information was
anecdotal
28
Interpretivist’s
Studies and
Mixed
methodologies
Blocher, de
Montes, Tucker, &
Willis, 2000
Tearle, 2003
Methodology
certification exams
Mixed: Case study
using the
participant’s own
action research
which included
journals and her
recorded
experiences along
with statistical
analysis of
questionnaires to
analyze the use of
constructivist’s
principles to teach
technology to
education students
and higher
education faculty
Mixed: Case study
to help determine
why some schools
are more successful
in integrating
technology. This
school is a British
secondary school,
which includes
grades 11 –18.
Methods Instruments
Brief Findings
Interviews,
observations, self
report instruments
(quantitative),
observations, group
meetings, notes
during sessions
questionnaire
(quantitative)
An important
component to
consider in training
was building
confidence in the
participant’s ability
to learn the
technical aspects of
the tools being
taught. Faculty and
pre-service teachers
were better able to
incorporate the
constructivist’s
learning
methodology if they
felt confident in
their technical
abilities.
Integrating
technology will be
successful if
approached from
more
comprehensive
attitude of change in
the broader school
setting.
Interviews,
documents,
observations, and
questionnaires
(quantitative)
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
29
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
30
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 webenhancements, but are these new quizzes and exams really indicating learning objectives
31
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
32
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).
33
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 & TrumanDavis, 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).
34
Customizing these activities focuses on the participants rather than the needs of the
workshop designer or the institution’s criteria for professional development. This learnercentered 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
35
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.
36
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
37
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
38
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
39
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.
40
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,
41
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?
42
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)
43
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
44
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 fulltime 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.
45
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 – parttime 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
46
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.
47
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
48
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
1. How is the
concept of
technology training
for part-time faculty
Information
Sources
Distance
Education and
Technical Support
Services
Methods
Analysis
Interviews, web
Content analysis,
statistics documents, statistical analysis
archives
49
Research Questions
defined and
implemented at this
college?
a. What information
about technology
training has been
communicated to
part-time faculty?
Information
Sources
personnel, college
Blackboard web
site
Methods
Analysis
Distance
Education and
Technical Support
Services
personnel,
archives
Interviews,
observations, and
documents
including: e-mail
announcements to
faculty, faculty
meeting notes,
handouts
Web site database
Content analysis,
statistical analysis
b. What is the status College
of faculty created
Blackboard
web sites?
website
Statistical and
content analysis
c. Are part-time
faculty
accommodated,
rewarded, or
acknowledged for
participating in
training
opportunities?
Distance
Education and
Technical Support
Services
personnel,
archives
Interviews and
college policy
documents
Content analysis
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 parttime faculty
regarding training
opportunities to learn
about educational
technology?
a. What information
Distance
Education
personnel
Interviews
Content analysis
Part-time faculty
Questionnaires and
interviews
Content analysis
Part-time faculty,
Questionnaires and
Content analysis
50
Research Questions
about technology
training has parttime faculty
received?
3. What are the
experiences of parttime faculty who
have chosen to
participate in
technology training
sessions provided by
this college?
a. What do parttime 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?
Information
Sources
archives
Part-time faculty,
training
workshops
Methods
interviews, biannual meeting
agendas and
distributed handouts
Questionnaires,
interviews, and
observations
Analysis
Content analysis
Part-time faculty
Questionnaires and
interviews
Content analysis
Part-time faculty
Questionnaires and
interviews
Content analysis
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
51
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 parttime 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.
52
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
53
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.
54
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
55
“ [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
56
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
57
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
58
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 parttime 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
59
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 webenhance 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
60
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 parttime 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
61
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 inperson 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
62
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 parttime 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
63
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
64
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
65
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.
66
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.
67
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
68
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.
69
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
70
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.
71
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?
72
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:
73
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.
74
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?
75
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 parttime 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
76
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
The best ways to communicate with me
training? % (checked box/total responses)
about training opportunities.
Through e-mail
Announcement at
faculty meetings
Other faculty or
division chairs
Little or None
information received
45.21% (33/73)
Through e-mail
Announcement at
faculty meetings
56.16% (41/73)
By phone call
Through college mail
box
Mailed to my home
address
27.40% (20/73)
39.73% (29/73)
24.66% (18/73)
32.88% (24/73)
6.85% (5/73)
47.95% (35/73)
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
77
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
Number
88
211
Percentage
8%
19%
Total Courses
1,140
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
78
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.
79
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
Total
Instructor Student Number Average FT
Courses
Access Access
Access of
Access
faculty?
students by
students
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 718
431
287
11
26 FT
developmental
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.
80
Table 7: Content Observations of Selected Average Use Web Enhanced Courses
Very Low (< Low (100 - 500) Medium (500 – High (1,000 100)
1,000)
4,000)
Very High*
(4,000 – and
above)
Checking Very Low access Low access
Medium
High Activity
grades and activity plus using activity plus
Activity plus
plus more
staff
the task and
using Digital
appreciably
discussion
information assignment areas drop box, e- more activity in board postings,
mail, and
tasks and
communication
discussion as
assignments area, tasks, and
access 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
81
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”.
82
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.
83
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
84
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.
85
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
86
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
87
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:
88
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 webenhance. 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 parttime 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
89
since these three items were required of their courses by the administration. The two parttime 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
90
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
91
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
92
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
93
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?
94
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
95
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 oldfashioned 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
96
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
97
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
98
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
99
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
100
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
% (checked box/total responses)
34.25%
Daytime
(25/73)
35.62%
Evenings
(26/73)
Best Days for Training Workshops
% (checked box/total responses)
30.14%
Sat/Sun
(22/73)
19.18%
Weekdays
(14/73)
20.55%
Summer
(15/73)
19.18%
Fall/Spring
(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"
101
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)
50.68%
Points towards pay increase
(37/73)
23.29%
Certificate of Completion
(17/73)
46.58%
Flash Drives, Software, T-Shirts, etc. (34/73)
16.44%
Other
(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
102
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:
103
'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
104
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….
105
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.
106
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.
% (checked box/total responses)
e-mail to
communicate with
64.38%
students
(47/73)
Training needed
College’s e-mail
10.96%
(8/73)
56.16%
(41/73)
Internet
10.96%
(8/73)
Digital test banks
36.99%
(27/73)
Use test banks to
create exams
23.29%
(17/73)
PowerPoint
Presentations
26.03%
(19/73)
PowerPoint
Presentations
31.51%
(23/73)
Blackboard Web
Sites
24.66%
(18/73)
Blackboard Web
Sites
26.03%
(19/73)
College Library
Website
12.33%
(9/73)
College Library
Website
8.22%
(6/73)
Instructor resources
from the book
publisher
47.95%
(35/73)
Word processing
15.07%
(11/73)
College Web Site
15.07%
(11/73)
Internet to
supplement course
information
107
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 parttime 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
108
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 parttime 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 -
109
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
110
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 parttime 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:
111
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 parttime 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
112
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.
113
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 overcommunication 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
114
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; GessNewsome et al., 2003; Otero et al., 2005; Weston, 2005). If these types of procedures are
implemented, the apparent disconnect could be minimized significantly.
115
Because of the lack of a skill assessment of the workshop participants, the parttime 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.
116
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.
117
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.
118
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, “Webenhancing your [college name] ground class? Distance Education Staff will be providing
119
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 “webenhancing” 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 parttime 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
120
in Blackboard may appear to be targeting online instructors and perhaps viewed as missent 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
121
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.
122
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
123
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 parttime 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-
124
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.
125
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 email attachments. Many times, I have been unsure of several acronyms sent to me via email 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 parttime 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.
126
Figure 2: Revised participants, processes, and communication involved in training parttime faculty to use educational technology in their courses.
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
127
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
128
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
129
data with part-time faculty in this study even though they were in the majority of webenhanced 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
130
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
131
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
132
correspondence instead of mailing paper will continue to require all of us to utilize our email 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.
133
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 http://technologysource.org/article/faculty_development/.
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.
134
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.
135
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 http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos066.pdf
Bush, G. (2005). Logging on to Staff Development. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from
http://thejournal.com/the/printarticle/?id=17309
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).
136
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
http://www.daa.com.au/analyticalideas/responserates.html
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.
137
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 http://www.pressure.to/qda/
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.
138
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty. Improving the status of parttimers 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), 324340.
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.
139
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. 3958). 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: McGrawHill/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.
140
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 http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article2528.asp
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.
141
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
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/13/merger
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.
142
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
http://www.isoc.org/HMP/PAPER/118/txt/paper.txt.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Postsecondary education: Table 227.
Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_227.asp
143
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
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall2053/olt2053.html.
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
144
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter54/Quinn54.htm 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
145
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.
146
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. 70106). Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Dehli: Sage Publications, Inc.
147
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.
148
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 parttime 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?
149
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?)
150
7. Do you have anything else you would like to tell me about your experiences with
technology while teaching here at the college?
151
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
 Used instructor lecture materials on
presentations during lectures
CDs or publisher’s web sites
 Created Blackboard web sites
 Used or demonstrated to students the
Library website
 Used the Internet (i.e. Google)
 Used E-mail to communicate with
and/or the [college name]
students
website to search for information
 Used Electronic test and exam
 Other: Please
generators
indicate__________________
3. Would you like to have training in any of the following? (check all that
apply)
 How to use word processing to create
 How to use the Library web site
syllabi or handouts
 How to create Blackboard websites
 How to use the Internet to supplement
class discussions and assignments
 How to create or use PowerPoint
 How to use the [college name] web site to
Presentations
access information and online forms
 How to use [college name]’s e-mail to
 How to create exams and quizzes using
contact students
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
152

Other_____________________

meetings
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
 Certificate of
 Incentives –
 Other –
towards my
completion
flash drives,
Please list
increase in
software, ton the
pay
shirts, etc.
back of
this form
153
APPENDIX C: REQUEST LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS
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
154
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.
155
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FOR ADULTS
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.
156
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:
157
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
158
APPENDIX E: WEFT QDA CODING CATEGORIES
159
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)