Faculty Experiences with Online Technology Adoption A Mixed Methods Study

1. Faculty Experiences with Online Technology AdoptionA Mixed Methods Study

2. INTRODUCTON Review of Literature Technology Adoption Research Questions Purpose METHODS Data Collection RESULTS Survey Results Interviews Tag Cloud References

3. Introduction Recent data reports that 6.7 million students were taking at least one online course in 2012 (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Online instructors may be required to teach otherwise familiar materials in environments that may be unfamiliar or have not been evaluated (Parietti & Turi, 2011). The demands for flexible learning have led to the implementation of a variety of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in the higher education sector (Weaver, Robbie, Boarland, 2008). Introduction of LMSs is rapidly changing the conventional teaching context where instructors are forced to rethink their methods of teaching and presenting the information to their students (Weaver et al.,2008).

4. Review of Literature Instructors place high priority on the need for teacher training (Beck & Ferdig, 2009). Instructors’ willingness to participate in online learning courses is positively impacted by increased training and comfort with technology (Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012). The technology used to conduct a course may impact the amount and quality of interaction among students and instructors (Rubin, Fernandes & Avgerinou, 2013). 

5. Research Questions The researchers wish to explore faculty experiences with technology adoption regarding interaction, preparation and training in online learning.

6. Research Questions • Specific Sub-Questions include: • How does technology adoption influence faculty teaching experiences in online learning?   • How does technology influence interaction in online learning? • How does technology training influence faculty?

7. Technology Adoption Technology adoption, as defined for this study, is faculty acceptance of the online learning environment and the implementation of hardware and software, online tools and systems into the online course.

8. Purpose • The researchers aim to define factors that inform the types of tools instructors use in online courses and gather information on faculty experiences with online learning technology that influence: • the way the course is delivered • the satisfaction with the course or tools of the course • facilitating communication, feedback, interaction • The information produced from this study may be used to help other instructors design their courses to increase interaction and provide instructors with options as they are deciding the online learning technologies to adopt.

9. Methods • A mixed methods approach • Combining quantitative and qualitative data • Explanatory sequential design (Creswell & Clark, 2011) • Hover over the picture, press play to activate the animation

10. Data Collection Participants: online instructors at a public university in a small metropolitan area in Texas Triangulated Study: Phase 1: Demographics Phase 2: Experience Survey Phase 3: Interviews

11. Results Results of the survey instrument indicate that faculty are most comfortable with Moodle and Skype Although 55% of participants use Blackboard as the LMS to deliver their online courses, only 18% use the Blackboard Collaborate tool for synchronous online sessions. Sixty-four percent of participants reported experiencing a moderate level of interaction with and among students in their online courses. Twenty-seven percent experience high levels of interaction and 9% experience low levels of interaction.

12. Survey Results

13. Interviews Faculty member’s responses to needing more training now: • “Well, more training from my school – I don’t think so, More training to see new technologies –yea of course. Like I said everyday there are new technologies out there so you need to keep constant training on everything so definitely. I’m trying to learn new things everyday and everyday new tools come and appear and things like that so definitely, you need to keep up dated all the time.” • “I wouldn’t mind it because there are some things that I know I don’t use or I don’t use well. I know in Moodle the grade book continues to stumble me because I’ll have, you know not every semester, I change up assignments, but whenever I’ve tried to eliminate entries in the grade book, especially if it’s in the middle of the semester, I end up totally corrupting the grade book, so I think there are different elements of Moodle that I would like to understand more. So, yes I could definitely use some more training or some more self training.” • “Yes, I probably do. I would like to know about using a few more of the features or maybe in-depth on the features I do use. It is kind of difficult because I don’t know what I am missing. I will hear people chat and wonder how to do that and then I will inquire about how to do it.”

14. Tag Cloud

15. References Akdemir, O. (2008). Teaching in online courses: Experiences of instructional technology faculty members. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 9(2), p. 97-108. Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. The Sloan Consortium. Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. The Sloan Consortium. Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Changing the landscape: more institutions pursue online offerings. On the Horizon, 15(3), 130-138. doi: 10.1108/107481207 10825013 Beck, D. & Ferdig, R.E. (2009). Evolving roles of online and face-to-face instructors in a lecture/lab hybrid course. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Computing, 7(1). Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V.L.P. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Dye, J.F., Schatz, I.M., Rosenberg, B.A. & Coleman, S.T. (2000). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of date. The Qualitative Report 4(1/2). Erlandson, D. A., Skipper, B. L., Allen, S. D., & Harris, E. L. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 19–36. doi:10.1080/13583883.2005.9967137 Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research28(1). Lloyd, S.A., Byrne, M.M. & McCoy, T.S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 8(1). Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, D. Keegan (Eds.) Distance Education: New Perspectives, (pp. 19-24). Parietti, I.S.C. & Turi, D.M. (2011). Assessment of the online instructor. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 15, 63-78. Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the Community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 48–57. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.006 Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Sammons, M.C. & Ruth, S. (2007). The invisible professor and the future of virtual faculty. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 4(7). Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting Qualitative Data, Fourth Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Swan, K. (2005). Interface Matters: What Research Says About the Mediating Effects of Course Interfaces. 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, (2001), 1–6. Swan, K., Shea, P., & Fredericksen, E. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383. Weaver, D., Robbie, D., & Borland, R. (2008). The practitioner’s model: Designing a professional development program for online teaching. International Journal on E-learning, 7(4), 759-774.