Finalpaper!

Running head: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIRE 1

The Other Side of the Wire: Professors’ Perspectives of Technology Integration in Higher

Education

Krista M. Hess

Advised by Dr. Beth Rajan-Sockman

East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIRE 2

Abstract

The study of technology integration in classrooms has become an important focus in

recent times. With 21st Century Learners and their need for hands on experience, there is

a call for more understanding of the entire subject. Past studies focus mostly on grade

school educators and their perception of their experience. In most cases, these studies’

participants are actually pre-service educators and not those truly working in schools.

This paper reports the results of a phenomenological qualitative research study involving

two professors who are currently employed at a small Pennsylvania State University. The

participants are outside the college of education, and have different backgrounds in their

experience with technology. This study focused on finding the participants’ actual

experience integrating technology and understanding their theoretical influences,

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), and innovativeness. This was

done through interviews, observations, and a focus group interview. The results sugest

that the experience of integrating technology for these participants is mostly positive and

they believe technology integration is very important. The participants also show a great

deal of understanding in TPCK, and their innovativeness differs, but only slightly, from

one another. Possible future studies could include quantitative data and wider range of

participants.

Keywords: technology integration, technological pedagogical content knowledge,

innovativeness, higher education.


Introduction and Purpose

College Professors integrate technology in their classrooms just as much as K

through 12 teachers. It may just be a simple PowerPoint presentation or it could be an

intensive Web Quest. However, this group of people seems to under represented in this

particular topic. At this point, technology integration in the classroom is nothing new, but

a lot of research seems to repeatedly focus on the same areas. These areas are usually K-

12 teachers, their students, college students, or pre-service education majors. Past

research also mostly uses the same methods such as survey, pre-post testing, and other

perception-based methods. It seems a light needs to be shined on a forgotten group of

integrators and an observation of their actual adoption of technology. This forgotten

group is college professors. If professors are participants in a study, they have usually

volunteered and are part of a project study where their actual experience is not

considered.

In Breda, Clement, and Waeytens’ study they do study faculty members at a

University. However, their methodology incorporated the use of seminars and pre-post

tests. They were also trying to discover a relationship between the professors’

instructional beliefs and teaching approach (Breda, Clement, and Waeytens, 2003). There

is a need to understand the actual experience itself of integrating technology for college

professors. In this study, participants are individuals who integrate technology in to their

lessons every day. Discovering what the actual process is like and discussing the

positives and negatives will begin to shed new light on this area of the topic.

The university in this project is East Stroudsburg University (ESU). At this

university there has been a recent change to larger General Education classes (upwards of

200 students) and a concern, as in other studies, is being confronted with issues of large

class teaching (Hannon, Bretag, 2010). One of the focal points of this study is to take this

new situation in to account. The participants teach general education communication

studies courses with this new number of students, along with regular sized major-related

courses. Their previous technology integration in the class is questioned, and their new

modifications have been observed.

Barriers in the classroom is also a topic of concern when integrating technology.

ESU is an older University, having been built in 1893. A lot of the school’s buildings are


old and technologically behind. According to ESU’s website, the newest building was

erected between 2006 and 2008 and before that, the newest building had been erected in

1979 (LaBadie, 2012). Therefore, some classrooms do not have computers, let alone

Smart Boards. The ease with which the participants can integrate in this environment will

be taken in to account as a large part of their experience. In a study by Goktas, Yildirim,

and Yildirim (2009), crowded classrooms, lack of computers and other presentation

equipment in classrooms, and lack of computer laboratories for use in their free time

were found to be main barriers in integrating information and communication

technologies. This can be related to ESU’s current climate in integrating technology

overall. The discovery of the main barriers these particular participants come face to face

with is a worthy area to research.

In a study done in Pakistan, it was found that the majority of the teachers used

technology to mostly create question papers. They did not use it for classroom

facilitation. These teachers enjoyed the re-usability of all their materials (JAMIL, SHAH,

2011). Do the professors being studied in this particular research use technology for only

their use or do they use it to facilitate in the classroom? One participant (P2) is a younger

female professor and the other (P1) is an older male. Will this make a difference in how

they integrate? Gender and age have been studied before, in relation to anxiety and its

affect on innovativeness, and it was found that a difference in gender related responses

were not significant, indicating a fairly homogenous effect regarding impact. It has been

found, however, that there is a significant relationship between technology integration

and computer anxiety and innovativeness (Rogers, Wallace, 2011). The participants’

anxiety while integrating is studied.

A teacher’s innovativeness has also been studied extensively by Everett Rogers

(1995). In his book, Diffusions of Innovations, he discusses the S-curve, which correlates

to all the concerns discussed so far. He explains the different types of innovators, which

are: the innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. He also

explains the Innovation-decision process and the relation between the two. Because of the

difference in age between the two participants in this study, their pre-service education

technology experience differs. How this affects their innovativeness is a valuable area to

focus on. P1 received his Doctorate in 1990; P2 received hers in 2003. The more than 10-


year gap between these is an interesting difference. The participants both use different

types of technology in the classroom, and one refuses to use a technology that the other

uses every single day. Discovering why that is, where each participant is on the S-curve,

and in a decision process about certain technologies, is also valuable.

The overall purpose of this study is to discover the actual experience of a college

professor in the 21st century classroom. Their classroom beliefs, theories, and student

relationships have all been taken in to consideration and put up against all the other topics

and concerns discussed. This culminates in the majority of, if not the participants’ entire,

practice. The genuine experience is the most vital ingredient.

Methodology

Overview

The paradigm for this study is phenomenology, which seeks to describe basic

lived experience (Van Manen, 1997). This methodology was chosen because there is a

qualitative center and the participants’ actual experience can be explored, explained, and

focused on without the distraction of numbers and brief preceptions. To increase the

validity of this study, triangulation of data collection and the tiering of interview

questions were put in to effect. This was done through voice-recorded interviews

(Appendix A) done separately with each participant. Then, the investigator observed

(Appendix B) each participant’s class once while field notes were taken with a focus on

technology use of the participant. Students’ use or interaction was not included. After

each observation, the investigator voice-recorded supplemental questions (Appendix C)

that were brought forth from the participants’ use of technology during the class. The

data collection concluded with a Focus Group interview (Appendix D), involving both

participants. The questions were created after all other data collection had been done,

resulting in the ‘tier’ of data collection. The triangulation and tiering was intended to

strengthen the validity of the results.

The primary question for this qualitative study was: What is the experience of

integrating technology for the college professor? Participants’ elaboration of their

experiences integrating technology and the observation focus was guided by four

qualitative secondary questions: Is the experience, overall, more positive or negative for

the participant? Do the participants’ teaching theory/ies affect their technology


integration? Do the participants show an understanding of Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge in the classroom? Where on the S-Curve do the participants lie? Any

unanswered questions were in the focus group interview and discussed between the

participants. The qualitative method of phenomenology was the foundation of the

research as it helped to gather exemplary data about the participants’ experience of

integrating technology.

Setting

The research was done at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, a small

state university in the northeastern part of the state. The University is located in the

Pocono Mountains and is an hour and a half away from both New York City and

Philadelphia, PA. The school is located on 213 acres of land in the town of East

Stroudsburg and has 63 buildings. There are 68 Undergraduate Degrees and a 19:1

student to teacher ratio. The school is slightly diverse with 22% of students being of

another race besides Caucasian. The school is in the process of building a new University

Center and renovating an old building to have newer technologies in every classroom

such as SmartBoards. At the time of this study, there is only one computer for the

professor with a projector and pull-down white screen in the majority of academic

classrooms.

Participants

Both participants in the study are professors outside the college of Education.

Both earned Bachelors Degrees from other state colleges in Pennsylvania, also known as

PASSHE schools. P1 earned his degree in 1984 while P2 earned hers in 1998. P1

continued his education at a different school in Pennsylvania, but earned both his Masters

and PhD there. P2 earned her Masters and PhD at two different schools outside of

Pennsylvania. P1 finished his PhD in 1990 and P2 finished hers in 2003. This thirteen

year span between their degrees, especially in that time period, made a difference in their

pre-service technology training. P1 may have had one class where technology was taught,

while P2 had some professional development during her PhD on the integration of

PowerPoint. Lack of training has been discovered as a main barrier when integrating

technology (Goktas et al., 2009). However, the participants’ level of comfort with the

technologies they do use is obvious from observation. These two participants were


chosen because of their placement outside the college of education, their age and

education differences, and the way they integrate technology in the classroom.

Data collection

Interviews and classroom observation were the primary data collection tools so

that both perception and actual experience were taken in to account. First, the participants

were audio recorded in separate semi-structured interview (Shulz, Rubel, 2011). These

interviews covered their educational history, technology education history, professorship

history, their expectations for technology use when they were in school and the

expectations they have of their students now, and finished with how they integrate

technology and what they think of their relationship with it. The answers varied slightly,

but major similarities emerged.

The participants were then each observed once. P1 gave a lesson about speech

outlines and used very little technology besides a chalkboard. P2 gave a lesson about film

history and used PowerPoint and Youtube videos through out the entire lesson. Field

notes were taken by the investigator about what technology was used, how much it was

used, the interaction between the professor and the technology, and what the experience

was like from the investigator’s point of view. After the observations, the investigator

voice recorded a few questions that came forth during the lesson. For P1, this included

the reason for not using technology, even though it could have been. For P2, the topics

focused on sound equipment, content travel, and a student helper that the participant has.

Then, the two participants met together with the investigator. The voice recorded

focus group interview (Appendix D) had questions for each individual and for both to

answer and discuss. Questions revolved around comfort level while using technology,

theory, main barriers, student-professor relationship changes, and the importance of

technology integration in the 21st Century.

Data Analysis

After each interview, the primary investigator transcribed the recordings. The interviews

were organized with the use of Microsoft Excel. Each interview question, for all

interviews, had a dedicated row in the spreadsheet with a column for each participant’s

answers. Similarities and differences in responses, as deciphered by the investigator, were

marked in two more separate columns.


The observation field notes were read several times by the investigator to find

pivotal phenomenological information. The major uses of technology, how much was

used, and barriers were marked by the investigator in a Microsoft Office Word document.

After the first interviews were transcribed, and the observations were concluded,

the investigator created the focus group interview, which made the data collection, tiered.

The participants had many discussions through out the focus group interview and the

most prominent agreements and disagreements were interpreted by the investigator.

These were also marked in their own columns in the Excel spreadsheet.

Findings

First Interviews

The phenomenological qualitative interviews unearthed a range of information

pertaining to participants’ technology integration experience and technology use overall.

Dominant categories related to the study’s primary and secondary questions directly.

Similarities and differences between participants for each question from the first

interviews are the main focus of the findings.

Both participants had lessons projected with materials using PowerPoint and an

overhead projector in their collegiate studies. However, P2 experienced much more

technology integration during her time. P1 mostly interacted with technology that directly

correlated to his content area. This included audio recording equipment, for example.

Each participant had a little technology involved in his or her time as PhD

candidates. Pedagogy was the main focus, however. P2 had training on PowerPoint

integration during her PhD while P1 had absolutely no training for technology

integration.

P1 and P2 both had Graduate Assistant positions during their Masters and PhD

programs. They expressed positive feelings toward their time in these positions and

explained their use of technology. P1 used technology that was appropriate for the

content area. Again, this involved audio recording equipment, for example. However, P2

used technology to present and teach material. She also taught a distance education class

when the online aspect was just beginning, and experienced many issues with content

transfer and communication. This caused much frustration.


P1 and P2 obtained jobs as professors in the time immediately surrounding the

completion of their PhDs. P2’s first full time position was at East Stroudsburg University,

while P1 began at a college in California before coming to ESU only a few years later.

At that time, both were using technology in the classroom, if only a little. At this

point, P1 expresses a deep dislike for PowerPoint presentations as a teaching tool for

pedagogical reasons. He believes they are static and that they cause lazy learning. P2 on

the other hand, relies on PowerPoint to give her lessons and as her lesson plans. She has

integrated PowerPoint in to her lesson since the very beginning of her career.

When discussing what technology requirements were expected of them when they

were students, P1 gave an interesting insight in to his first experience with email:

Great Story. I showed up for class, and found out that no assignments would be

accepted in hard copy. They must be email. I had no idea what email was.

So, I went in to a lab and 'logged on'. Didn't know what that was. Then I

sent an 'electronic mail' to the professor. I followed instructions, sent

message, hit return, and then the professor sent a response immediately.

The professor said, “Congratulations, your life will never be the same.”

Then after that, all my assignments were done converging email as a word

processor.

P1 also explained how he could access the school’s printers from home and would walk

back and forth between these places several times to edit his Master’s Thesis. P2’s

experience was different. She was required to have email and experienced her first online

chat with people from other countries during that time. It was the only class that she had

to use technology in.

As for requirements the participants have of their own students, both require that

papers are typed and that students have access to the school’s content management

system, D2L. P2 uses D2L for quizzes and P1 uses it for discussion boards. P1 also has a

need for radio/TV technologies in the classroom. P2’s content area does not require extra

technologies.

When explaining positives and negatives of these requirements, P2 stated that

students do not have a real opportunity to talk and that technology can only support and


not replace a teacher. She says that the student becomes alienated from the teacher and

instruction.

Interestingly, both participants were adamant that they would definitely want to

use technology in the classroom, instead of not using it at all.

After their past experience was gone over, the affect of the 21st Century Learner

on their technology integration was discussed. Both expressed texting as a major

problem. P1 has a texting policy in all of his syllabi. Next year, with the increase of class

size, as mentioned earlier, he will be seating students according to whether or not they

can resist texting during class. He knows he will not be able to deal with it. However,

texting was used in one of P1’s classes that involved interpersonal communication. It has

a content specific advantage. P2 explained that she spends a great deal more time reading

through papers that may be plagiarized. She also finds more ‘text lingo’ such as ‘u’

instead of ‘you’ in papers. Her policy is that this type of writing results in an automatic

fail.

An interesting find is that neither participant has noticed a difference in grades

between classes where technology is used more than another.

At the end of this interview, both participants said their relationship with technology is

okay. They expressed that there are some downsides like having to keep up with new

technologies and being dependent on using it. P2 uses D2L a lot to communicate and P1

has a harder time keeping up with technologies than P2.

Observations

participant 1. During this observation the technology that was used included a

computer to log in to email and a chalkboard and chalk. The topic was informative

speech layout. The classroom was set up with 4 rows of long lab tables. Each table had

either three or four students. Each row had three tables across. All tables faced the front

of the room.

P1 started the class with a basic outline of class content written on the board. The

only other material the professor had in the classroom was a lesson plan on the desk in

the front center of the room. P1 gained the students’ attention by making an interesting

relation between a clothes drawer and speech writing. “Each drawer is a ‘point’ in a

speech (Introduction, Body, and Conclusion).”


After five minutes of class, P1 still had not touched technology. Then, he went to the

chalkboard. P1 wrote supplemental material in to categories that were written on the

board prior to class and pointed to the topic he was discussing. P1 had only touched the

board once after fifteen minutes of class. P1 mostly checked notes on the desk, wrote on

the board for words that were hard to spell, and then would erase it. P1 would then write

in that same spot again for another word that was hard to spell. Also, P1 wrote on the

board for recall.

The major pedagogical use of the chalkboard was writing something on the board, and

then asking for input on what was written.

participant 2. During this observation the technology that was used included four

speakers near the ceilings at the front of the room, a clip on microphone, Windows 7 PC,

PowerPoint presentation with 12 slides, and a flash drive. The topic was film history. The

classroom was average sized auditorium with a small raised stage in the front. A podium

with a computer was set up between the stage and seating. Around 200 auditorium seats

(without desks) fill the room and the students only fill about half. Students are spread

through out the auditorium with most sitting at front, center.

P2’s class is significantly different from P1’s. Not only does it differ in class size

and setting, but in the use of technology. The lesson depends on the technology. P2 has a

helper who switches through the PowerPoint slides and deals with the sound equipment.

To begin class, as students were walking in, horror movie music was playing to set the

mood. Then, to gain the class’ attention, P2 discussed the opening weekend of The

Hunger Games movie. She included online discussions about the movie, numbers, and

more.

The technology-use had some issues. The large projector screen that the

PowerPoint was on had a glare on it from the windows that were high up and to the sides.

Some images and words were hard to read. Also, the sound was a bit too quiet for those

sitting in the back of the room. There was a large fan making noise in the back and the

font on the screen, when viewing a webpage, was too small.

P2 was sometimes soft spoken, and was hard to hear on the microphone.

However, she walked around the room and kept students engaged by doing so. The

PowerPoint itself had transitions between slides, pictures for borders that related to the


subject, and few words. Most of the information was given to the class verbally, with the

PowerPoint as reference. Some slides had videos from Youtube linked on them.

P2 used a print out of the PowerPoint as the lesson plan, with extra notes. By the

time 40 minutes had passed in the class, only 5 slides had been shown. An hour in to the

lesson, 4 more had been shown. Most slides had clips from movies on them. Instead of

pointing to the slide or interacting with it, besides showing clips, P2 hardly referenced the

PowerPoint directly. Only one slide had more writing than usual. At the end of the lesson,

P2 reminded students of a quiz they needed to take on D2L.

Semi-structured Interviews

The questions for these interviews were created during the observation of the

participants and asked immediately following. For P1, the investigator asked about his

feelings on PowerPoint use versus the chalkboard. He said that he is selfish and likes to

interact with the aid he uses. He likes to feel the chalk and “likes the banging of the

chalk.” He says it brings attention. He also thinks that it is easier to see the information

and that all the transitions in a PowerPoint take away from the information on the board.

P1 likes the way his classes are taught, and is satisfied. He will not change to PowerPoint

or other ways of integrating technology. He likes the focus on him.

There were more questions for P2 after observation. First, P2 explained that she

transports her data, like the PowerPoint presentations, with a simple flashdrive. She does

not have a Dropbox account. P2 also said that she prepares her PowerPoints before the

semester begins. However, the beginning slides, which usually include current topics, are

not prepared until closer to the time of that particular lesson’s presentation. She also

explained that the microphone does not take too long to prepare and that she tries to

remember to turn it off when she does video clips. She remembered that last semester she

randomly started singing and did not realize the microphone was on. P2 also explained

her use of D2L quizzes.

Focus Group

The focus group interview questions were derived from primary and secondary

questions that were not answered through out the rest of the research process.

When told how P2 uses PowerPoint, P1 explained that if he had training he would maybe

use PowerPoint, but he still thinks that fundamentally it is flawed as an instructional


delivery system because it causes laziness in note taking, takes attention away from the

instructor, and classroom set up does not make it ergonomic for the students. He said that

he is open to learning some techniques such as inserting Youtube, graphics, and songs

and he thinks that is very useful. More than that, he likes to walk in to the audience,

wants to challenge them, and wants to catch the person who is fading away. If he is

spending time on PowerPoint he cannot spend time on those other things. He says that he

thinks PowerPoint works for P2 and that he does not use the chalkboard that much

anymore, contrary to the lesson that was observed. He discussed the Ratemyprofessors

website and how he and P2 have high ratings. He says, “the biggest thing we have in

common is we have conversations in the class.”

P2 discussed how in the 200 person class, she tries to walk up and down the aisles

as much as she can and as the microphone permits. In smaller classes, the way she uses

PowerPoint is to put keywords on it, so the students have to pay attention or they are

missing the definitions or examples. While P1 and P2 might have different methods of

delivering, they are still similar in providing examples and current topics that students

have to pay attention to, “in order for it to make sense in their world.”

When discussion moved on to Distance Education, P1 said he is definitely not for

these types of classes. He enjoys using D2L and the functionalities that he understands.

He believes the discussion function helps with writing. P2 said that when she teaches

Distance Education courses she does not use PowerPoint at all. Reading material is very

important. She mostly uses D2L to upload documents and PowerPoints about topics she

does not discuss in face-to-face classes that are important. She also uses the discussion

functionality in Distance Education courses.

When discussing ‘text lingo’ again, P1 said that he does not encounter it much. It

is a content specific issue, because of script writing and other journalistic reasons. P2 is

adamant about no text lingo use by her students.

She gives an example of email usage:

In terms of when a student sends an email, they should be acting as though

they are representing themselves to an outside company and I have the

ability to fire them for misrepresenting. That is how I respond. But texting,

I mean, it is pervasive and it is uncontrollable at this point.


P1 on the other hand, explains that it is frustrating when a student sends an email from his

or her cell phone and they are typing ‘text style’. Both agree that text language has

become more of an issue in papers and emails and students are beginning to confuse

when capitalization and other grammatical functions should or should not be used.

P1 began to explain that he comes to class with notes on Microsoft Word that he

prints out. He prepares lessons the morning of class. If he is using Internet sources, he

sends and email to himself with the links. A major barrier came up at this point. In the

classrooms on campus, Youtube videos are sometimes blocked. Some classrooms will

stop Youtube videos after 1 to 2 minutes. Continuing the discussion of barriers, P1

expressed excitement of the renovation of the old building on campus. Smartboards are

going in to these classrooms.

A major barrier that the participants then discussed is how the classrooms were

set up by whomever designed them. They expressed that professors should be able to

design classrooms, but they do not know how that can happen. They explained that the

technology is not being optimized. In one building on campus, a screen is in the center of

the room and another is in the right hand corner, which makes no sense to them and

causes issues with students seeing content. P1 said another barrier is the size of emails the

current email server can handle. He expressed that moving to the cloud is great for larger

content transportation. He then went on to explain another barrier, that when one thing

goes wrong, like static on a microphone in P2’s class, the whole rest of the class can be a

disaster.

P2 mentioned a few small barriers such as video suggestions at the end of

Youtube videos, and that she must catch the video before it gets to that point. Otherwise,

students want to see the other videos. She also discussed videos being different volumes.

She also mentioned surprise at the fact that the university has not switched to Google

docs.

The discussion of barriers led to the discussion of anxiety and innovativeness. P1

explained that he is nervous until he is positive the technology is going to work. He said

that he is a professor and he is thinking, “I’m teaching steps, and those steps are a backup

plan, and now what happens when mine does not work? The lesson is shot.” He says he

has a bit of performance anxiety. P2 explained that the use of the microphone makes her


nervous. The one she uses has had static issues and if the microphone does not work, she

has to yell. She also compares it to performance anxiety. She also said that one day the

computer kept shutting off for no reason. That is a problem with relying on Powerpoint.

The whole lesson is gone, and the whole computer has to be turned back on. She says it is

a major waste of time.

When discussing whether they think it is important that professors learn to

integrate technology in to the classroom for 21st Century learners, the participants had a

lot to say. P1 thinks professors should learn and be open to anything that is coming down,

technology wise, but he will continue to dismiss PowerPoint. When discussing professors

that refuse to use technology at all, P2 said that that is a sad truth. She said there are

classes that are made for current topics and students benefit from seeing them. P1 said it

comes down to the instructor, that students relate to him and P2. He says again how they

have conversations with the students. P2 said she thinks, “our students today…and I

know they have the different types of learners (audio, visual) most need the application…

Hands on…our students need to see it or experience it in order to really get it.”

P2 also said that especially as 21st Century learners become the majority of

students, it is just going to get harder. The attention spans of students have changed.

They used to think in 7-8 minute spans and the younger students are now starting to think

in 140 text characters. She says that not using media and technology is not going to be an

option very soon.

The discussion then moved on to the learning or teaching theories the participants

follow. P1 said he follows Rhetorical Theory. He said that that is, “analyzing the

audience, adapting to the audience, making sure the delivery is interesting, being

organized, having an attention getter, and many more things that go in to the study of

rhetoric.” Both P1 and P2 agree that student-teacher relationships and friendship are

important. P2 explained that learning is a collaborative process and that, “a teacher is not

really a teacher. They are a-co learner with the class.” She explained that it keeps her

from having stale lessons, and she is always learning something new.

Continuing the discussion of student-teacher relationships and how they have

changed in the last few years with 21st century learners, P1 said that he has had three

phases. The first was when he was young and on the same mind set with his students. The


second was in his late 30’s and he felt disconnected from his students. Then, he became

connected again and the students understand the separation but also some how feel

connected with his personality. He explains that cell phone texting has helped him a lot

with his other positions at the school. He says that it is easier to be connected with the

students, and texting has definitely been a big part of that. However, he expressed that

students lie much more and with much less thought than they used to.

P2 then said that students have become more informal in their communication,

even on email, which is typically seen as a formal medium to students. Students no

longer use salutations or closings in emails. She believes this has a great deal to do with

texting and technology.

Discussion

Summary of Findings

Overall, there are some major similarities and differences between P1 and P2.

From the interviews, it is obvious that P1 and P2 view the use of PowerPoint very

differently. While P2 depends on PowerPoint, P1 refuses to use it based on fundamentals.

The same comparison can be made with their use of technology overall. P1 does use

technology, but it is not the main focus of his lessons unless it is content specific

technologies. P2, however, uses PowerPoint and other technologies every day, without

fail. A vast similarity though, is that both greatly enjoy using technology and learning

new things and they feel a small amount of nervousness when integrating certain

technologies.

The fact that P1 never used technology once in his lesson that was observed may

have to do with the lack of training that he possesses. This will be discussed in the

conclusions.

From observation, the investigator noticed that coincidentally, P1 writes on the

board at the same time he is talking. He mentioned in his interview that he enjoys the

sound and feel of the chalk; however, this is very similar to how PowerPoint is typically

used. As words appear on the screen, the presenter is usually speaking about those words

at the same time. It is possible that P1 could use PowerPoint and still have the attention of

his students. Nevertheless, this is not the focus of this study.


For P2, the use of a student helper made her experience easier. The size of her

class would typically make it difficult to use PowerPoint effectively, but she is able to

successfully do so because of the helper. Her use of PowerPoint to support her lessons

works very well for her.

In general, it can be suggested that the professors’ experience with technology

integration is for the most part, positive. There are barriers, and there always will be, but

these two participants work around them and are pedagogically sound, which increases

the effectiveness of their technology integration.

Conclusions

Even though the amount of participants in my study is small, the results are still

significant enough to be supported by other studies. In Goktas, Yildirim, and Yildirim’s

article (2009), administrative support was a major barrier. In this study, it was found that

there are no administrative requirements or restraints on a professor’s technology use. In

a round about way though, administration affects the participants because of poor

designed classrooms. This is the screen placement and microphone use that both

participants discussed

Training is a major barrier here. Also in the article “Main Barriers and Possible

Enablers of ICTs Integration into Pre-service Teacher Education Programs”, one of their

biggest findings was that a lack of training on technology in their teacher-training

education is a major barrier. In this study, P1 had absolutely no training in technology

during his teacher-training. This can be related to his innovativeness, or lack thereof.

In the Diffusion of Innovations, P1 seems to be in the passive rejection phase and

in the late majority (Rogers, 1995). In Rogers’ chapter 5, it says that individuals expose

themselves to ideas that relate to their interests or needs and existing attitudes. P1 refuses

to use PowerPoint and has had no real experience using it. So, unless he feels a need for

the innovation, he will not use it. While on the other hand, P2 uses PowerPoint every day.

She is an early knower and early adopter of PowerPoint. This means that she had more

formal education for this software (Rogers, 1995). Her professional development during

her PhD program has ensured that P2 uses technology everyday, specifically,

PowerPoint.


However, once trained, P1 immediately becomes immersed and integrates

technology. This suggests that those who are going to be future educators need

technology training. With the 21st Century Learner soon becoming the majority of

learners, teachers will need to integrate technology to create successful students. This will

also enhance a teacher’s experience in integrating technology in the future.

One discussion that was of importance, was about the relationship between

teacher and student. In Conrnelius-White’s study (2007) about this topic, it was found

that the relationship between positive teacher-student relationships and positive student

outcomes is very high. Therefore, P1 and P2’s belief of the friendship theory is crucial.

Their discussion of being co-learners with the students could be something that other

educators may need to look in to so they can accommodate their 21st Century Learners.

Although Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge was not specifically

discussed, P1 and P2 show a great deal of understanding of the concept. In their

classrooms they are pedagogically sound, mix technology in when it is necessary, and

understand their content to a high degree. Briefly, the participants mentioned that these

three areas could be separate but they should always be used together and not be seen as

codependent construction that indiciate sensitivity to the nuances of technology

integration (Mishra, Koehler, 2006).

Also, in JAMIL and SHAH’s article “Technology: Its Potential Effects on

Teaching in Higher Education,” they support a finding of this study. A participant in their

study was quoted as saying, “when we used technology excessively we become

dependent on that.” This is an important quote because P2 depends on PowerPoint to

teach her classes and keep track of her lesson plans. She was trained in college on

PowerPoint and has always used it. With the finding from the training aspect, and then

the dependence on technology, this suggests that the difference in each participant’s

training really affects their technology integration. Although both enjoy the use of

technology and feel comfortable with it, training really impacts how it is used.

The participants’ use of technology also differs greatly in the observations,

because of the difference in class sizes. P2 had a class of over 100 students, which was

discussed in Hannon and Bretag’s study, “Negotiating Contested Discourses of Learning

Technologies in Higher Education.” In their study, the university had set requirements


that professors must follow. In this study, P1 and P2 have no requirements set upon them

by documents or administration. They did mention concern over students being able to

communicate and build relationships, which was a major concern found in Hannon and

Bretag’s study. This greatly affects a large classroom size of 21st Century Learners and

will be a concern for a majority of professors at ESU very soon.

In accordance with this study, Rogers and Wallace’s study, “Predictors of

Technology Integration in Education: A Study of Anxiety and Innovativeness in Teacher

Preparation” found that there is a relationship between computer anxiety, innovativeness,

and technology integration. P1 has a hard time keeping up with today’s technologies and

will not integrate PowerPoint in to his classroom. Unless he has been shown a new

technology he does not integrate it. P2 however, will innovate when given the chance, but

still has anxiety over the use of computers and their possible malfunctioning.

Overall, these results shed light on the experience of today’s college professors

and their integration of technology in to the classroom. Diffusions of Innovations is very

important in this instance, and though there is a difference between the participants in

their previous training, they believe technology integration is important for learners and

have a positive attitude toward it.

Limitations and Future Research

This study did shine light on a rarely observed population of technology

integrators. The intense qualitative nature and small amount of participants did

exponentially limit the degree of the findings. Even from this small population it can be

suggested that the experience here differs greatly from K-12 integrators, as there are no

administrative requirements.

This study could be the beginning of more extensive research about higher

education and the integration of technology. The 21st Century Learner and their need for

hands on activity is going to increase very quickly. More studies focused on this group of

integrators could open the eyes of current and future professors who may reject or be

hesitant about using technology in their classrooms.

The fact that the participants had some major barriers that they experience, yet

still had a positive outlook on technology integration, shows the great integrity of the

participants. This is a major limitation of this study, as a majority of professors may not


feel this way. These participants are in a field that requires the use of other technologies

besides computers and they have studied human communication in depth. Their outlook

may be very different from a professor in a Science, Math, or English field.

Research that studies a larger number of participants, in larger schools, and in

different fields would shine an even greater light than this study has. Looking in to more

quantitative data would give a broader view of the integration of technology in higher

education. A small university in northeast Pennsylvania is not going to give the large

scope that this area deserves.

Future research is needed to verify the experience of integrating technology for

professors such as:

1. A study using a survey.

2. A study with more participants in number and in different fields of study.

3. A study with both qualitative and quantitative data.

4. A study in a school with administrative requirements for technology integration.

5. A study covering more colleges and universities across the country and world.


References

Breda, J., Clement, M., & Waeytens, K. (2003). An interactive training programme for

beginning faculty: issues of implementation. International Journal of Academic

Development, 8(1/2), 91-104. doi: 10.1080/1360144042000277964

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a

meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143.

Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible neablers of

icts integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational

Technology & Society, 12(1), 193-204.

Hannon, J., & Bretag, T. (2010). Negotiating contested discourses of learning

technologies in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 106-

120.

JAMIL, M., & SHAH, J.H. (2011). Technology: its potential effects on teaching in higher

education. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 38-51

LaBadie, S.. (2012). East Stroudsburg University. In About ESU. Retrieved December

15, 2011, from http://www4.esu.edu/aboutesu/index.cfm.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a

framework for teaching knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusions of innovations. (4th ed., pp. 161-203). New York: Free

Press.

Rogers, R.K., & Wallace, J.D. (2011). Predictors of technology integration in education:

a study of anxiety and innovativeness in teacher preparation. Journal of Literacy

and Technology, 12(2), 28-61.

Schulz, L.L., & Rubel, D. (2011). Phenomenology of alienation in high school: the

experiences of five male non-completers. Professional School Counseling, 14(5),

286-298.

Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: human science for an action

sensitive pedagogy (2 ed.). London: Althouse Press.


Appendix A

As you may know, much research has been done on the effect of technology integration

in the classroom. This research has been conducted in Kindergarten classes through to Higher Education classrooms. However, the subjects of the research are more often than

not, the students. Very rarely are the teachers or professors given an opportunity to express their feelings on, or be the focus of research regarding technology integration.

To shed further light, the research I am doing is solely focused on two Professors in a Higher Education setting. One part of that research is this interview. The information you

provide will help me to focus on the most important factors of your integration of technology and mold the other research instruments I will be using.

This interview will take up about 1 hour and focus on your experience with technology integration from your own education to your current professorship.

Education

1. To begin, I’d like to learn a little bit about your undergraduate and graduate

degrees.

Where did you earn your Bachelors?

What year?

What was your degree?

Where did you earn your Masters/ PhD?

What year(s)?

What is your degree?

What year did you earn each degree, respectively?

2. Your experience as a student is different from what a current student’s experience

would be.

What types of technologies were used in your college classrooms

when you were a student?


Did you take any classes that involved learning how to use new

technologies of the time?

If so, what were they?

Did you take any classes that involved learning to integrate technology

in to your classroom?

Professorship

1. Now we’ll move on to your history as a professor.

When you were earning your Masters/ PhD, were you an adjunct or Teaching Assistant?

What was that like? Was there technology involved?

When did you begin your first job as a Professor and where was it?

What was your technology integration like then?

When did you begin at East Stroudsburg University?

What type of classes have you taught?

Technology Expectations

1. There are obviously some standards and expectations of professors that are made

by administrators, etc. I’d like to take a look at the technology expectations of different parts of your career.

When you were working on your Masters/ PhD, what were the

technology requirements of you as a student? (Did you need to type your papers instead of write them?)

(If you had other professor jobs before ESU) Were there any technology integration expectations/rules there?

2. Now at ESU, as a student, we are required to type our papers and hand in a lot of

our assignments electronically (via D2L for example).

Did any of your previous experiences involve requirements like this? (If so, what?)

Have you or do you have requirements of your own students like this? (If so, what?)

What do you think are the negatives or positives of this type of requirement?

3. Would you rather use technology in the classroom, or not use it at all? (Why, why not?)

Technology Integration

1. Your current younger and future students are what they call “21st Century learners”. There are new standards for K-12 settings that involve a No Child Left Behind requirement that all students be ‘computer literate’ by the 8 th grade. There

are even standards that are solely technology requirements, that states and districts take up as they see fit. So, the majority of students use technology in the

classroom on an everyday basis before they come to college. And many of them learn and do better in that type of setting.


Does this new type of student effect how you prepare and teach your

lessons now? (How?)

How long have you been integrating technology in to your classroom? (How?)

Have you noticed a difference between your classes where you may use more technology than one where you may not?

What type of technologies do you use in the classroom?

Lastly, I’d like to give you a very open ended question to try and get a more well rounded view of your take on technology and its integration. How would you describe your

relationship with technology?

Appendix B

Both professors were observed in one class. The observer took notes of observations.

(See ‘Observations I am looking for’). The students were in the classroom, but their participation was not taken in to account.

Observations I am looking for

Classroom arrangement

Technologies available to Professor

What software and hardware are used by Professor

Any internet use

Any technical difficulties

How the Professor solves technical difficulties/ works around them

Are the technologies up to date?

Are the technologies working?

Does the Professor know how to use the technologies?

Is the Professor integrating the technology or just using it as an add on

to instruction?

Does the teacher facilitate learning with technology?

Is the technology doing all the work?

Appendix C

Discussed Smart Board

How do you transport your PowerPoints? How far in advance do you prepare?

Microphone Instead of using PPT as your chalkboard, so you don't have to write the same thing over and over again, why do you decide to use a blackboard?

Appendix D

For P1:


If you had had training in PowerPoint, and how to properly use it in the classroom so that the students’ attention was still on you, would you use it?

For P2:

Why do you think the attention is still on you even though you use PowerPoint? For P1:

Would you give content in a PowerPoint form for a Distance Education course? How would you prefer to give content, if not?

For Both:

How frustrating is it for you, when students text or have text lingo in assignments,

or use improper etiquette in emails, etc?

--definitely because of the 21st century learner..the older students don’t do that. Right? When did it really start becoming an issue?

Have you noticed a major difference in the quality of work in the last 5ish years? What would you attribute it to if so?

For P1:

P2 uses PowerPoint as a sort of lesson plan, what do you use as your lesson plan?

Will you ever switch to digital format?

Made an observation, you write while you speak... this is like PowerPoint. What do you think about that?

For Both:

Do you think that future teachers NEED to learn how to use technology in the

classroom? Why or why not? How do you think that will affect the 21st century learner?

What would you say are the main barriers when you integrate technology in to your classroom? Like lack of computers. How doe these affect your integration? Or teaching?

--The age of ESU’s buildings… Do you feel nervous or anxious when using technology?

--To create lessons or when giving them, using it?

Do you have a specific teaching/learning theory you live by? How do you think that affects your technology integration?

What kind of relationship do you think Technology, pedagogy, and content have? “Teachers interpret the subject matter and find different ways to represent it an make it

accessible to learners.”


How have your relationships with students changed in the last several years, if at all?

Has any administration ever hindered you from technology integration…I know there are no mandates about actually using it though.

Any questions for me, any questions for each other? Want to say anything about your use of technology or anything…

Date post:	19-Jul-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	indiana-university-of-pennsylvania
View:	24 times
Download:	3 times