Abstract:

Technology is pervasive in society, but has been slow to permeate the higher education classroom. While some professors use technology to calculate grades and generate tests, very few use technology directly in the classroom to support learning and instruction. Moore (1994) suggested that this lack of technology infusion may be due to a chasm which exists between early adopters and early/late majority individuals with respect to their attitudes toward adoption of an innovation. In order to understand why some instructors are not using technology in the classroom, this study examined concerns about technology use in the classroom among part- and full-time community college instructors. Hall and Hord’s (2006) Stages of Concern about an Innovation (SOCQ) and Mills and Tincher’s (2003) Technology Integration Standards Configuration Matrix (TISCM) were used in conjunction with statistical analyses of demographic data to assess if part- and full-time faculty members share similar concerns about technology in the classroom and to determine if patterns of use were similar among the two groups. Results showed that part- and full-time instructors did not differ with respect to their concerns about, and levels of use of, technology in the classroom and can therefore be considered a single group for training and support purposes. Most faculty members were in the early stages of adoption of the innovation, based on their SoCQ peak concern scores and average SoCQ concerns profile. Instructor age was not correlated with concerns about technology use in the classroom and nonusers and low-users of technology were found to have correctly assessed their level of technology use in the classroom. However, one-third of self-identified “integrators” of technology in the classroom inaccurately assessed their level of use. A post-hoc cluster analysis grouped these individuals with self-assessed nonusers, rather than with other integrators. Results from the TISCM indicated that most faculty members used technology to enhance personal productivity, but that fewer used technology to deliver content in the classroom and very few infused technology into student learning activities. Analysis of open-ended responses revealed that many faculty members held erroneous beliefs about technology and its use for instruction and learning.

Keywords:

classroom technology, change, adoption of innovations, college, faculty.