A CAUSAL MODEL OF FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Katrina A. Meyer, Yonghong Jade Xu

Abstract


Based on earlier studies using the 1999 and 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) data, a causal model explaining faculty technology use was constructed. Path analysis was used to test the causal effects of age, gender, highest degree, discipline (health science or not), recent research productivity, and teaching load on faculty use of websites in teaching. Two models, one for faculty from Research I institutions and the other for faculty from Community Colleges, were tested and both models fit the data with satisfying indices. Results confirmed that age, highest degree, and teaching loads influenced technology use directly, but indicated the lack of relationship between research productivity and technology use in teaching. An additional connection is suggested from discipline to teaching load. One important difference between the two models is that the impact of gender and teaching load on research productivity is significant for faculty at Research institutions, but not for faculty at community colleges. The models confirm the consistent and relatively strong relationship of teaching load to faculty technology use.


Keywords


Faculty Technology Use,Research Universities,Community Colleges

Full Text:

PDF

References


Xu, Y., & K. A. Meyer. Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity. The Internet and Higher Education 10(1): 41–52, 2007.

Meyer, K.A., & Y. J. Xu. A Bayesian analysis of the institutional and individual factors influencing faculty technology use. The Internet and Higher Education 10(3): 184–195, 2007.

Oblinger, D. G. Educating the net generation, no date. Available online at https://www.msmc.la.edu/Include/learning_resources/todays_learner/OneDayv2-HO.pdf.

Woratschek, C. R., & Lenox, T. L. Information Systems Entry-Level Job Skills: A Survey of Employers, 2002. Available online at http://isedj.org/isecon/2002/343a/ISECON.2002.Woratschek.txt.

Greer-Pitt, S. Distance learning: Silver bullet or educational apartheid? ERIC document ED466235, 2001.

Twigg, C. A. Is technology a silver bullet? Educom Review 31(2). Available online at https://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/31228.html.

National Education Association. Quality on the line. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2000.

Green, K. C. Campus Computing 2003. Encino, CA: Campus Computing Project, 2003.

Morgan, G. Faculty use of course management systems. ECAR Key Findings, 2003. Available online at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/ekf0302.pdf.

Lynch, D. Professors should embrace technology in courses… The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(19): B15–B16, January 18, 2002.

Fox, S. & M. Madden. Internet use and email. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2005. Available online at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Generations_Memo.pdf.

Fallows, D. How women and men use the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2005. Available online at http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/171/report_display.asp.

Betts, K. S. Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study. Ph.D. diss. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1998.

Rockwell, S. K., J. Scheuer, S. J. Fritz, & D. B. Marx. Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach at a distance. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 2(4): 1999. Online at http://www.westga.edu/~distance/rockwell24.html.

Adria, M. & T. Rose. Technology, preprocessing, and resistance—A comparative case study of intensive classroom teaching. Journal of Education for Business 80(1): 53–60, 2004.

Dziuban, C. D., J. C. Brophy-Ellison, & J. Hartman. Faculty 2.0. Educause Review 42(5): 62–77, 2007.

Brahler, C. J., N. S. Peterson, and E. C. Johnson. Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues. Educational Technology & Society 2(2): 1999. Available online at http://www.ifets.info/journals/2_2/jayne_brahler.html.

Cavanaugh, J. Workload and compensation considerations for online faculty. Academic Leader 22(7): 2006. Available online at http://www.magnapubs.com/pub/magnapubs_al/22_7/news/598995-1.html

Brown, B. M. Digital classrooms: Some myths about developing new educational programs using the Internet. T.H.E. Journal, 1998. Available online at http://thejournal.com/articles/1406_2.

McKenzie, B. K., N. Mims, E. Bennett, & M. Waugh. Needs, concerns and practices of online instructors. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 3(3): 2000. Available online at http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall33/mckenzie33.html.

National Center for Education Statistics. Distance education instruction by postsecondary faculty and staff: Fall 1998 (NCES 2002-155), 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Geith, C., & K. Vignare, K. Online degree programs: Service and cost. In J. Bourne and J.C. Moore (Eds.) Online Education, 203–211, 2001. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Geith, C., & M. Cometa. Cost analysis results: Comparing distance learning and on-campus courses, 1999. Available online at http://www.rit.edu/~609www/ch/faculty/CostStudy.PDF.pdf.

Hislop, G. W. Does teaching online take more time? Paper presented at 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October, Reno, NV, 2001. Available online at http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2001/papers/1198.pdf.

Bartolic-Zlomislic, S., & A. W. Bates. Investing in online learning: Potential benefits and limitations, 1999. Available online at http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/investing.html.

Park, S. M. Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? In B. Ropers-Huilman (Ed.), Women in Higher Education: A Feminist Perspective (2nd Ed.), 285–308. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000.

Stack, S. Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education 45(8): 891–920, 2004.

Thomas, S. L., and R. H. Heck. Analysis of large-scale secondary data in higher education research: Potential perils associated with complex sampling designs. Research in Higher Education, 42(5): 517–540, 2001.

Fairweather, J. S. Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education 76(4): 401–422, 2005.

Fugate, A. L. Career stages of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review 28(1): 1–22, 2000.

National Center for Education Statistics. Faculty questionnaire. National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 2005. Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/pdf/2004_Faculty_Questionnaire.pdf.

Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55, 1999.

McDonald, R. P., & M. R. Ho. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods 7(1): 64–82, 2002.

Meyer, K. A. Online program capacity: Limited, static, elastic, or infinite? Planning for Higher Education 36(2): 52–63, 2008.

Berge, Z. L. Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it? The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 1(2): 1998. Available online at http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Berge12.html.

Clay, M. Faculty attitudes toward distance education at the State University of West Georgia, 1999. Available online at http://www.westga.edu/~distance/attitudes.html.

McGee, P. A., & V. Diaz. Wikis and Podcasts and Blogs! Oh, My! What is a faculty member supposed to do? Educause Review 41(5): 28–41, 2007.

Barron, A. E. & C. Lyskawa. A review of tools for developing and managing online courses. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual: 163–165, 1998.

Mims, N. G., B. K. McKenzie, & E. Kirby. How to simply involvement in on-line coursework. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual: 220–223, 1999.

Mims, N. G. Out of the ivory tower and into the chat rooms—are we giving in too much to technology? The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 2(3): 1999. Available online at http://www.westga.edu/~distance/mims23.html.

Betts, K. S. An institutional overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 1(3): 1998. Available online at http://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html.

Schifter, C. Perception differences about participating in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 5(1): 2002. Available online at http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/schifter51.html.

Schifter, C. C. Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education: A factor analysis. ED at a Distance 13(1): 2000. Available online at http://www.usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/JAN00_Issue/Factors.htm.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v13i2.1668