INTEGRATION of TECHNOLGY in HIGHER EDUCATION

David A. Georgina, PhDUniversity of North Dakota

Teaching& Learning&

Charles C. Hosford, PhDUniversity of North Dakota

Senior StatisticianSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences

Purpose of the StudyTo examine how faculty technology literacy and technology training

impact the integration of technology into their pedagogy:

• required a quantitative examination of how faculty technology literacy skills related to pedagogical practice (integrating technology into their pedagogy), while controlling for training• Respondents surveyed in this study consisted of faculty members in the US colleges of education among the fifteen peer institutions of the University of North Dakota.• In this article, three of the five original research questions are addressed.

The inferential results of the study showed significant correlations between technology literacy and pedagogical practice integration.

Methodology

A non-experimental quantitative approach to data collection and analysis was used in this study.

• Sampling technique used in this study was single-stage random sampling. • The instrument used to collect data was a self-developed online survey hosted by InfoPoll Inc.• The data analysis process included the descriptive analysis of

data for the independent and dependent variables (pre- screening data).

• Responses were checked for accuracy of data, outliers, and missing values.

The Case Processing Summary and Descriptive tables were within normal parameters. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Histograms, and Stem and Leaf Plots were run for all variables.

Population N = 237 Total Population = 1115

Respondents = 237

Percentage = 21.2

• SUNY at Buffalo, – 70/20

• University of Alabama at Birmingham,– 60/9

• University of Hawaii at Manoa, – 55/16

• University of Illinois at Chicago, – 70/9

• University of Kentucky, – 115/9

• University of Louisville, – 90/33

• University of Missouri -Kansas City– 50/10

• University of Pittsburgh, – 155/26

• University of Nevada-Reno, – 70/16

• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,– 60/5

• University of Tennessee, – 30/11

• University of Utah, – 45/11

• University of Vermont, – 130/13

• University of Virginia, – 65/29

• Wright State– 55/20

College of Education Faculty from fifteen peer institutions of UND

Research Questions & STATISTICAL TESTS

1. What is the correlation among training strategies and pedagogical practices?

– Pearson Correlation

2. What is the effect of total years teaching on the integration of technology when controlling for faculty training?

– One-way analysis of covariance 3. Is there a relationship between years of teaching and reported

proficiency using computer software and/or hardware?

– Stepwise multiple regression

Results Question #1

• Significant correlations between two training strategies and pedagogical practices, design and delivery– small group forums with trainer– on my own time with tutorial

• Significant correlations between technology literacy and pedagogical practices – design – delivery

• Significant correlations between the integration of technology and pedagogical practices– design– delivery

Subscales Design Delivery

Large group with trainer -.107 -.078

1 Small group with trainer -.240*** -.244***

One-to-one with trainer .008 .007

On my own time with tutorial -.218** -.173**

Asking Colleagues -.066 -.071

Technology Literacy -646*** -.639***

Integration of Technology .912*** .822***

1 In this case, the correlation r(232) = -.240, p <.001 might be interpreted to mean that as the perceived need for training decreases (especially small group faculty forums with trainers and on my own time with tutorial) Pedagogical Practices (Design and Delivery) increase.

CORROLATIONS FOUND

Results Question #2

No Correlations Found

• Preliminary testing (Pearson r correlation) indicated that faculty training was not significantly related to the integration of technology, r(233) = .148, p >.10.

• Further testing (without attempting to control for faculty training) revealed years of teaching was not related to integration of technology, F(4, 230) = .91, p = .46, eta2 = .02..

Years Teaching

M SD n

1-5 16.64 3.61 70

6-10 17.25 3.32 52

11-15 16.81 3.67 26

16-20 18.04 3.44 23

20+ 17.47 3.76 64

Results Question #3 see handout

Years of Teaching and Proficiency with Hardware

Based on ANOVA results, numerous relationships were found between years of teaching and self-rated proficiency with hardware. Most notably, those with 1-5 years experience reported greater proficiency than those with 20+ years experience.

Years of Teaching and Proficiency with Software

As with hardware proficiency, ANOVA results revealed numerous relationships between years of teaching and self-rated proficiency with software. Again most notably, those with 1-5 years experience reported greater proficiency than those with 20+ years experience.

A Few Recommendations:• Faculty release time for training, • technology mentors for peer to peer

discussions and innovations, • departmental-level surveys for

determining individual faculty technology needs,

• follow-through procedures that are clearly stated with precise goals and objectives for the University, college, department, and faculty,

• decentralization of technology, • access to real-time IT support staff, • IT staff with pedagogy or instructional

design experience, • faculty representation into IT

infrastructure conversions and software decisions,

• realistic and practical pedagogy-based goals that are representative of the institutional and departmental mission statements,

• user-based technology assessment techniques,

• university and departmental-level faculty-run technology forums,

• and university or campus-wide centers for faculty

• technology training staffed with technology literate faculty.

Final Commentary

Broadening technological and pedagogical horizons may include re-visioning our ideas, practices, and training schemes in order to impart our pedagogical practices and learning outcomes.

The new goal in higher education now seems to be the creation of a university-wide professoriate in both information literacy and technology literacy. Therefore, the manner in which technology training is conducted may be vastly important.

Technology alone does nothing to enhance pedagogy; successful integration is all about the ways in which technology tools are used and integrated into teaching. This, of course, means that faculty must be trained in the use of the tools—not just given access to the tools—integrating new software as part of an interactive teaching and learning strategy.

THANK YOU