Multimedia: Perceptions and Use in Preservice Teacher...

Multimedia: Perceptions and Use in Preservice Teacher Education

Lee Tennent B.A

Grad Dip Education (Early Childhood Teaching) M.Ed (Research)

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Innovation in Education Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane, Queensland Australia

2003

Statement of original authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a

degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my

knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written

by another person except where due reference is made.

Signed: _______________________________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are numerous people to whom I owe my sincere gratitude. Firstly, my

heartfelt thanks to Dr Kym Irving, my Principal Supervisor, and, Dr Donna

Berthelsen, my Associate Supervisor. Without their guidance, wisdom and expertise

this project would not have been possible.

Thanks must also be extended to Associate Professor Susan Wright, Director

of the Centre for Applied Studies in Early Childhood, for providing resources and

technical and moral support throughout my candidature, and to Margaret Kays for

her administrative assistance. Importantly, too, I am very grateful to the Australian

Government for my three-year Australian Postgraduate Award. At a time of single

parenthood, this financial support was much appreciated.

Needless to say, my project would not have been possible without the interest

and co-operation of many study participants. Thank you to the many academic staff

members from the Faculty of Education and to the hundreds of graduate teachers

who so willingly gave up their time to share their experiences and opinions with me.

I would also like to thank my postgraduate and work colleagues. I am

particularly grateful for the friendship and support provided throughout my

candidature by Petra, Rekha, Sue, Kerryann, Noelene, and Jenny. Cassie, too, will

always be remembered. My thanks also to several esteemed colleagues and friends,

namely, Dr Lisa Ehrich, Professor Brian Hansford and Dr Ann Farrell, for their

ongoing interest and confidence in me.

I am especially indebted to Professor Collette Tayler, my boss and Head of

the School of Early Childhood. Collette’s encouragement, advocacy, compassion,

and support have been instrumental in the completion of this project. Collette’s

strength, insight and enthusiasm have been an inspiration to me.

Thank you too, to my fabulous parents for their generosity, spiritedness and

unstoppable faith in me. Finally, a special thanks to my partner Pat, and my son Nick

for ensuring balance in my life and making every day a wonderful adventure.

ABSTRACT

Across the period in which this research was conducted, there has been an

increasing emphasis in government and university policies on the promotion of

technology integration in higher education. This emphasis has also become evident

in Commonwealth and State government policies relating to preservice teacher

education because of the need to ensure that teachers enter the profession with the

types of technological skills and competencies that can enhance teaching and

learning.

The research reported in this thesis describes the experiences and perceptions

of computer-based technologies from the perspective of academic staff and graduates

from two preservice teacher education courses in a Queensland university. The

research was conducted in two phases using a repeated cross-sectional longitudinal

design. In Phase 1 of the research conducted in 1997, and in Phase 2 in 2002,

questionnaires were used to gather data.

In Phase 1 of the research, participants comprised 43 academic staff members

involved in two preservice teacher education courses and 72 first or second year

graduate teachers from these courses. Items in the academic staff and graduate

teacher questionnaires elicited information on a range of issues related to the

technologies including knowledge and confidence levels, acquisition of knowledge,

current and future usage in teaching, advantages and disadvantages of teaching with

the technologies, the importance of the technologies to higher and preservice

education and the adequacy of preservice teacher education to prepare new teachers

to use technologies. Graduate teachers were also questioned about barriers to their

classroom use of technologies. Further questions for academic staff investigated the

existence of factors that facilitate usage of technologies and the degree to which the

presence or absence of these factors constituted barriers or incentives to technology

use. A number of questions also explored attitudes surrounding the valuing of

teaching, research and publishing.

Results from the first phase of research revealed that both academic staff and

new teachers made little use of technologies in their teaching. The most salient

barriers to academic staff technology use included lack of technical advice and

support, time, and lack of evidence of improved student learning and interest. There

was also a widely held perception among academic staff that teaching was not valued

by their university and that, in particular, innovation in teaching deserved greater

recognition. For graduate teachers, barriers to technology use included lack of

computers and resources, lack of school funding, and lack of knowledge and

training.

In Phase 2 of the research, participants comprised 40 academic staff members

and 123 graduate teachers from the same two preservice teacher education courses.

Participants were again questioned about knowledge and confidence levels,

acquisition of knowledge, current and future usage in teaching, and the adequacy of

preservice teacher education to prepare new teachers to use technologies. In light of

new research and building on findings from the first phase of data collection, several

new questions were added. These questions related primarily to the nature and

availability of training and how preservice teacher preparation in technology use

could be improved.

Results from the second phase of research indicated that, among academic

staff and graduate teachers, there had been considerable increases in knowledge and

confidence levels in relation to the technologies, along with increased levels of

usage. Both groups were also significantly more likely than their earlier counterparts

to report that preservice teachers were adequately or well prepared in the use of

technologies.

For graduate teachers, lack of equipment and resources were ongoing barriers

to technology use. Training in technology use appeared to be less of an issue for

graduate teachers than academic staff with most reporting access to, and satisfaction

with, inservice training opportunities. Encouraging too, was the finding that these

graduate teachers were significantly more likely than their 1997 counterparts to

attribute their knowledge of the technologies to preservice teacher education.

While positive change in technology use was evident across this period, continued

efforts to support and integrate technology in preservice teacher education remains

important, as does support for the innovative use of technology to promote learning

in schools.

Keywords: Computer-based technologies, multimedia, flexible delivery, computer-assisted instruction (CAI), the Internet, email, online teaching, audiographics, video conferencing, teleconferencing, higher education, preservice teacher education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement of original authorship ii

Acknowledgements iii

Abstract iv

List of Tables xii

List of Figures xv

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to the Research 1

Rationale for the Research 1

Research Design 5

Context of the Study 6

Scope of the Study 7

Definition of Terms 8

Research Purpose and Objectives 9

Organisation of the Thesis 11

CHAPTER 2 Background to Phase 1 Research 14

Introduction 14

Higher Education: A Time of Challenge 14

Technologies and Higher Education 16

Multimedia and Higher Education 18

Multimedia: Learner Issues 20

Multimedia: Unrealised Potential? 24

Technologies and Academic Staff 26

The Role of Change 33

Technologies and Teacher Education 37

Immediate Study Context 43

Summary and Questions Arising from the Literature 44

CHAPTER 3 Phase 1 (1997): Research Methodology 47

Introduction 47

Research Design 47

Method 50

Participants 50

Procedure 51

Measures 52

Analysis of Data 65

CHAPTER 4 Phase 1 (1997): Academic Staff

Experiences with Technology 67

Introduction 67

Background to Phase 1 67

Method 69

Participants and Procedure 69

Measurement 70

Data Analysis 70

Results 71

Demographic characteristics of respondents 71

Knowledge and use of technologies 71

The role of technologies in higher education 74

The role of technologies in preservice teacher education 75

Multimedia use in higher education 77

Incentives and barriers to multimedia use 82

Valuing of teaching 85

Discussion 86

CHAPTER 5 Phase 1 (1997): Graduate Teachers’


Introduction 91


Method 93


Measurement 93

Data Analysis 94

Results 94






Discussion 107

CHAPTER 6 Background to Phase 2 Research 113

Introduction 113

Preface to Phase 2 113

Continued Impacts of Technology on Higher Education 113

Technology use in Teacher Education 118

Teacher Education – Developments 1997 to 2002 120

Teachers in Schools – Developments 1997 to 2002 123

Immediate Research Context 131

Summary and Questions Arising from the Literature 133

CHAPTER 7 Phase 2 (2002): Research Methodology 136

Introduction 136

Research Design 136

Method 136

Participants 137

Procedure 137

Measures 138

Analysis of Data 143

CHAPTER 8 Phase 2 (2002): Academic Staff


Introduction 145


Method 147


Measurement 148

Data Analysis 149

Results 149






Valuing of teaching 169

Discussion 171

CHAPTER 9 Phase 2 (2002): Graduate Teachers’


Introduction 179


Method 182


Measurement 182

Data Analysis 183

Results 183





Discussion 204

CHAPTER 10 General Discussion and Conclusion 211

Introduction 211

Summary of Main Findings 211

Academic Staff 211

Graduate Teachers 215

Academic Staff and Graduate Teachers Compared 219

Issues Emerging from the Research 220

Issues for Academic Staff 220

Issues for Graduate Teachers 223

Advancing Teacher Education 227

Methodological Issues and Future Research Directions 230

Contributions to the Field 231

Conclusion 233

CHAPTER 11 Postscript 235

REFERENCES 251

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Phase 1 (1997) Academic Staff Questionnaire 271

Appendix B. Phase 1 (1997) Graduate Teacher Questionnaire 283

Appendix C. Phase 2 (2002) Academic Staff Questionnaire 292

Appendix D. Phase 2 (2002) Graduate Teacher Questionnaire 299

Appendix E. Tables of Academic Staff Findings 306

Appendix F. Tables of Graduate Teacher Findings 313

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Old and New Paradigms for Higher Education 15

3.1 1997 Academic Staff Questionnaire Sections

and Literature Support 61

3.2 1997 Graduate Teacher Questionnaire Sections

and Literature Support 65

Academic Staff Findings: 1997

4.1 Usage of Technologies for Teaching and

Non-Teaching 74

4.2 Reasons for Preparation in the Use of Technologies 76

4.3 Preferred Teaching Strategy 78

4.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Using

Technologies in Higher Education 80

4.5 Facilitators to Multimedia Use 82

4.6 Incentives to Using Multimedia in Teaching 83

4.7 Barriers to Using Multimedia in Teaching 84

4.8 Personal and University Valuing of Teaching,

Research and Publishing 85

4.9 Recognition of Innovation in Teaching 86

Graduate Teacher Findings 1997

5.1 Use of Computer-Based Technologies for

Teaching and Non-Teaching 98

5.2 Advantages of Using Multimedia in Work 99

5.3 Disadvantages of Using Multimedia in Work 100

5.4 Barriers to Using Multimedia in Work 100

5.5 Academic Staff Use of Technologies 101

5.6 Adequacy of Preparation in Technology Use 103

5.7 Preferred Teaching Strategy 105

5.8 Advantages Associated with Technology Use

in Higher Education 106

5.9 Disadvantages Associated with Technology Use

in Higher Education 107

6.1 Academic Staff Reports of Knowledge and

Use of Technologies – 1995 and 2000 116

6.2 Very to Critically Influential Factors in

the Use of technologies 117

6.3 Models of ICT Integration in Teacher Education Programs 127

7.1 2002 Academic Staff Questionnaire Sections and

Literature Support 140

7.2. 2002 Graduate Teacher Questionnaire Sections and

Literature Support 143

Academic Staff Findings 1997 and 2002

8.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents:

1997 and 2002 151

8.2 Ranking of Preferred Method of Training 152

8.3 Adequacy of Preparation in Technology Use:

1997 and 2002 163

8.4 Suggested Improvements to Technology Preparation

164

8.5 Incentives to Using Multimedia in Teaching:

1997 and 2002 166

8.6 Barriers to Using Multimedia in Teaching:

1997 and 2002 167

8.7 Personal and University Valuing of Teaching,

Research and Publishing: 1997 and 2002 170

8.7 Influence of Greater Recognition of Technology

Use: 1997 and 2002 170

Graduate Teacher Findings 1997 and 2002

9.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents:

1997 and 2002 184

9.2 Perceived Training Needs 186

9.3 Classroom Activities Using Technologies 187

9.4 Barriers to Classroom Use of Technologies 188

9.5 Academic Staff Use of Technologies: 1997 and 2002 197


1997 and 2002 202

9.6 Suggested Improvements to Technology Preparation

203

Postscript

11.1 1997 and 2002 Study Participants

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 10

Academic Staff Findings

8.1 Knowledge Levels for Conferencing Technologies:

1997 and 2002 154

8.2 Confidence Levels for the Internet: 1997 and 2002 155

8.3 Confidence Levels for Email: 1997 and 2002 155

8.4 Knowledge Development of Internet from

Work-Based Training: 1997 and 2002 156

8.5 Knowledge Development of Email from

Work-Based Training: 1997 and 2002 157

8.6 Knowledge Development of Internet from

Being Self-Taught: 1997 and 2002 157

8.7 Knowledge Development of Email from

Being Self-Taught: 1997 and 2002 158

8.8 Frequency of Use of Multimedia in Teaching:

1997 and 2002 159

8.9 Frequency of Use of Conferencing Technologies

in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 159

8.10 Frequency of Use of the Internet in Teaching:

1997 and 2002 160

8.11 Frequency of Use of Email in Teaching:

1997 and 2002 160

8.12 Preferred Future Usage of the Internet in Work:

1997 and 2002 162

8.13 Preferred Future Use of Email in Work: 1997 and 2002 162


1997 and 2002 165

8.15 Extent of Barrier – Lack of Evidence

of Improved Learning: 1997 and 2002 168

8.16 Extent of Barrier – Difficulty Integrating

into Subject: 1997 and 2002 169

8.17 Ranking of Personal Valuing of Research:

1997 and 2002 171

Graduate Teacher Findings

9.1 Knowledge Levels for Multimedia: 1997 and 2002 189

9.2 Knowledge Levels for the Internet: 1997 and 2002 190

9.3 Knowledge Levels for Email: 1997 and 2002 190

9.4 Multimedia Knowledge Development from

Preservice Teacher Education: 1997 and 2002 191

9.5 Internet Knowledge Development from


9.6 Email Knowledge Development from


9.7 Confidence Levels for Use of Multimedia:

1997 and 2002 193

9.8 Confidence Levels for Use of the Internet:

1997 and 2002 193

9.9 Confidence Levels for Use of Email: 1997 and 2002 194

9.10 Use of the Internet in Class: 1997 and 2002 194

9.11 Use of Email in Class: 1997 and 2002 195

9.12 Anticipated Future Use of Multimedia:

1997 and 2002 195

9.13 Academic Staff Use of Multimedia in Teaching:

1997 and 2002 198

9.14 Academic Staff Use of Conferencing Technologies

in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 198

9.15 Academic Staff Use of the Internet in Teaching:

1977 and 2002 199

9.16 Academic Staff Use of Email in Teaching:

1997 and 2002 199

9.17 Use of Multimedia by Self at University:

1997 and 2002 200

9.18 Use of the Internet by Self at University:

1997 and 2002 200

9.19 Use of Email by Self at University: 1997 and 2002 201

9.20 Adequacy of Preparation in the Use of

Technologies: 1997 and 2002 204

10.1 Study Purpose and Outcomes 229

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH

The following research report describes a two-phase longitudinal study of

graduates and academic staff from a faculty of education at a Queensland university.

The first phase of research was conducted in 1997, the second in 2002. The study

explored issues related to the use of computer-based technologies in education and

changes in these issues over time. Underpinning the study was the belief that the

successful integration of technology is largely contingent upon the perceptions and

beliefs of those expected to embrace it. Understanding of these perceptions is essential if

universities are to meet the needs and expectations of preservice teachers but remain

sensitive to the concerns and priorities of teaching staff. Findings from the research can

help to inform policy decisions at universities regarding the integration of computer-

based technologies such as multimedia in preservice teacher education courses. Findings

from the study may also inform education policy related to the skills required of teachers

within school programs.

This chapter provides an introduction to the program of research. It begins by

introducing the main premise of the research and briefly examines the issues that were

central to the research at the time of the two research phases. It also highlights the

changes or developments that had occurred throughout this five-year period. The

chapter then describes the research design that underpinned the two phases of the study,

outlines the immediate context and scope of the research and defines the key terms used

throughout the thesis. Following this, the research purposes and objectives are stated.

The chapter concludes by describing the organisation of the thesis.

Rationale for the Research At the time of the first phase of research, the need to examine issues

related to the use of computer-based technologies stemmed from the likelihood that

these technologies would play a growing role in the delivery of university education.

Universities around the world were recognising that new technologies could facilitate

changes to learning environments that offered students flexibility in terms of how, when,

and where they learned (Moran, 1995). Competition between universities for students

2

was increasing (AVCC Issues Paper, 1996; Hesketh, Gosper, Andrews, & Sabaz, 1996),

and attracting sufficient numbers of them could well be contingent upon how

successfully the educational needs of these new 'clients' were met. Reduced funding and

increased competition dictated that institutions of higher education were confronted with

many challenges. Several educationalists believed that the key to viability lay in the

widespread integration of computer-based technologies such as multimedia (Fyfe &

Fyfe, 1994; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996). At the time, writers and researchers maintained

that multimedia technology could not only provide a cost effective and flexible

alternative for the delivery of higher education, it could also enhance learning (Fyfe &

Fyfe, 1994; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996) through a variety of benefits including increased

interactivity (Simpson, 1994), and feelings of control (Felix & Askew, 1996; Massy &

Zemsky, 1995; McLoughlin & Oliver, 1995).

Technologies such as multimedia were also seen to have special significance for

teacher education because of the growing expectation that teachers must be

technologically literate in order to provide relevant instruction in schools. Many argued

that it was the responsibility of teacher education programs to produce graduates who

were confident and competent users of technology (Gabriel & McDonald, 1996;

Handler, 1993; Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Oliver, 1994; Thompson & Schmidt, 1994).

Because students needed to see technology modelled for them by their teachers (Davis,

Willis, Fulton, & Austin, 1995), teacher educators faced mounting pressure to be skilled

in the use of a range of technologies in order that these skills were passed on to

prospective teachers in school systems.

Despite this expectation, reports from new teachers indicated that technologies

were greatly under-utilised in preservice teacher education (Colon, Willis, Willis, &

Austin., 1995; Gabriel & MacDonald, 1996; Handler, 1993; Huang, 1994; Oliver, 1994;

Spotts & Bowman, 1995; Willis, Willis, Austin, & Colon, 1995). Studies revealed that

many new teachers regarded their preservice training in the use of technologies to be

inadequate (Colon et al., 1995; Oliver, 1994; Topp, Mortensen & Grandgenett, 1995)

and felt uncomfortable using technology in their classrooms (Handler, 1993; Hochman,

Maurer, & Roebuck, 1993).

3

In higher education, explanations for low rates of technology use by academic

staff remained nebulous due to the dearth of studies in the area (Spotts & Bowman,

1995). While many writers blamed conservative or negative faculty attitudes (Benavides

& Surry, 1995; Forgo & Koczka, 1996; Heron, 1996; Massy & Zemsky, 1995; Murphy,

1994), some studies revealed that technology use was impeded by a range of factors

including lack of time, training, equipment, resources and higher managerial support

(Davis, Willis, Fulton & Austin, 1995; Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Spotts & Bowman,

1993; Spotts & Bowman, 1995; Wetzel, 1993). In addition, research in Australia, the

United Kingdom and the United States suggested that lack of recognition, rewards or

incentives may be hindering technology use (Davis et al., 1995; Hesketh et al., 1996;

Ramsden & Martin, 1996; Willis et al., 1995).

By the time the second phase of research was conducted in 2002, the literature

indicated that substantial changes had occurred. Technology continued to be both a

source and agent of change within university environments because of pressure on staff

to deal with their workloads in different ways. Reduced government funding, increased

sizes and numbers of classes, larger marking loads and growing administrative tasks had

become ‘the norm’ (Nunan, George & McCausland, 2000). The changes, noted

Marginson (2000), were reshaping academic work and the academic profession who

were in danger of losing control of scholarship and research if they failed to engage

more fully in technology use.

Several studies since 1997 suggested that academic staff had indeed changed

their perceptions about, and usage of, technologies. There were indications that

academic staff were now more aware of the importance of technology in their teaching,

were more knowledgeable about technologies, and used technologies more frequently

than their earlier counterparts (Groves & Zemel, 2000). This increased knowledge and

use had occurred despite the persistence of barriers to technology use, particularly the

lack of evidence of improved learning outcomes, availability of administrative or

technical support, time to learn, and training (Groves & Zemel, 2000; Beggs, 2000).

Research also reflected an increasing awareness of the importance of effective

technology training with new insights suggesting that training is most effective when

provided by mentors (Cooper, 1999; Haile & Payne, 1999; Matthew, Callaway,

Letendre, Kimbell-Lopez, & Stephens, 2002; Vannatta, 2000). Some research also noted

4

that those responsible for training must also have an understanding of pedagogical

issues (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999). At the time of the second study, literature continued to

support the notion that the manner in which universities placed value on teaching and

learning, as opposed to research endeavours, also impacted on the use by academics of

technology in their teaching (Spotts, 1999).

In relation to teachers in schools, at the time of the second phase of research,

studies conducted in Australia and overseas indicated that confidence with, and usage

of, technologies had increased (Russell, Finger & Russell, 2000; Williams, Coles,

Wilson, Richardson, & Tuson, 2000; Zhao, Byers, Mishra, Topper, Chen, Enfield,

Ferdig, Frank, Pugh, & Tan, 2001). However, there were growing concerns about the

nature of this usage with students. Research indicated that technologies were being used

for low-level, supplemental tasks such as drill-and-practice activities, word processing,

and educational games (Brush, Igoe, Brinkerhoff, Glazewski, Ku, & Smith, 2001;

Russell et al., 2000; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Willis, Thompson & Sadera, 1999). A

variety of studies also confirmed that barriers such as time, support, and resources

continued to thwart technology use (Dias, 1999; Franklin, Turner, Kariuki, & Duran,

2002; Rice, Wilson, & Bagley, 2001; Schrum 1999; Strudler, McKinney, Jones, &

Quinn, 1999; Williams et al., 2000) while some studies suggested that opportunities for

inservice training had grown. Whereas literature prior to 1997 pointed to a lack of

training, there was evidence that both the variety and availability of training

opportunities had increased dramatically in recent years (Hasselbring, Smith, Glaser,

Barron, Risko, Snyder, Rakestraw, & Campbell, 2000). What was now apparent was

that the nature of training required attention. New studies indicated that training dealt

more with word processing and operating systems than integrating technology across

the curriculum (Franklin, et al., 2002; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Williams et al.,

2000).

Since the first phase of research, some studies continued to endorse the benefits

of technology-specific units for optimum training in technology in preservice teacher

education (McRobbie, Ginns, & Stein, 2000; Whetstone & Carr-Chelman, 2001) as well

as faculty modelling of technology use in classes (Matthew et al., 2002; Pope, Hare, &

Howard, 2002). However, other research advocated a different approach based on

university and school partnerships. These partnerships feature a variety of strategies

5

such as “expert” school teachers modelling the integration of technology, sharing

technology-rich lessons, demonstrating applications, providing practicum students with

hands-on technology use, and the development of one-on-one mentoring relationships.

The use of such strategies resulted in significant gains in technology integration skills

and confidence in using technology in the classroom (Dawson & Norris, 2000; Johnson-

Gentile, Lonberger, Parana, & West, 2000; Vannatta, 2000; Vannatta & O’Bannon,

2002).

Although these recent initiatives are encouraging, studies as late as 2002

indicated that many teachers were still unprepared to use technology in the classroom

(Hasselbring et al., 2000; Jerald & Orlofsky, 1999, Pope et al., 2002; Wright, 2001).

Furthermore, even when teachers did report feeling well prepared, they rarely attributed

their preparation to preservice education (Pope et al., 2002). Findings such as these

prompted Hasselbring et al. (2000) to conclude that technology training in preservice

teacher education programs was still insufficient to produce the kinds of changes that

are needed in today’s teachers in relation to the use of technology in their classrooms.

Research Design The research employed a survey methodology with two groups - academic staff

and graduate teachers. Surveys were conducted in 1997 and 2002. Thus, the research

could be described as longitudinal in design. Longitudinal research characteristically

involves subjects or cases that are the same or comparable from one period to the next,

collects data on items or variables on at least two occasions and compares that data over

time. This particular study utilised a repeated cross-sectional design in that it collected

data on a similar set of variables for two periods but involved comparable, rather than,

identical, cases. Menard (1991) notes that repeated cross-sectional designs allow for the

measurement of change for well-defined groups of cases as long as the cases are

comparable at the group level from one cross-section to the next. It is essential,

however, that sampling and administration of the data collection is strictly replicated at

each phase so as not to compromise the comparability of data.

While the strength of repeated cross-sectional research is its capacity to examine

trends in attitudes or behaviours over time, its limitations lie in its inappropriateness for

studying developmental patterns within cohorts and its inability to reliably determine

6

causal order (Menard, 1991). However, as it was not the intention of this program of

research to identify developmental patterns or causal order, a repeated cross-sectional

longitudinal design was considered appropriate.

Context of the Study The context of this two-phase program of research was the Faculty of Education

at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). This faculty is the largest provider

of education programs in Australia (QUT, 2002). At the time of data collection, the

Faculty comprised several departments. These departments work collaboratively to

provide a range of teacher education programs at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

At the time of the first phase of research, policy documents at QUT reflected a

growing interest in technology. For instance, of the six objectives documented in the

university-wide 1995-2000 Strategic Plan, two referred to technology, as did two of the

17 strategies designed to meet these objectives. Furthermore, one of the targets outlined

in this plan was, that by 1999, at least 10% of all first year undergraduate contact hours

would be computer-based on, or off, campus (QUT, 1995). In addition, to encourage

technology use in teaching, an initiative to allocate yearly funding to teaching and

learning projects utilising technology was also established (QUT, 1996) along with

policies promoting staff incentives to improve teaching (QUT, 1995). Surprisingly, there

were no specific policies within the Faculty of Education that related to fostering

preservice teachers’ technology skills nor were there were specific policies or initiatives

that related to equipping academic staff with these skills (QUT, 1995).

At the state government level, however, technological literacy among

Queensland’s school teachers had become a priority. In 1991, the Queensland Schools

Computer Policy (1991, cited in Tinkler, Lepani & Mitchell, 1996) stipulated that

school teachers needed to acquire skills and competencies in the use and application of

computers so that they could support students in the use of technology to process

information, investigate, test and extend knowledge.

At the time of the second phase of research, the heightened role of technologies

at the university was apparent. In addition to growing references to technology in yearly

strategic plans, QUT, in 1998, established a specific policy on flexible delivery in

7

teaching. A key initiative to emerge from this policy was the implementation, in 2000,

of an official university-wide Online Teaching (OLT) system. By 2001, every unit

taught in the university had an online presentation. However, academic staff could

choose both the extent to which, and the manner in which, they used the online system

facilities. At the Education Faculty level at QUT, the 1998-2002 Strategic Plan made

two broad references to technology, although neither referred specifically to preparing

preservice education teachers to use technology.

In 1999, the state education department, Education Queensland, introduced its

Minimum Standards for Teachers – Learning Technology. The rationale for the

Minimum Standards was that all teachers in Queensland needed to possess a minimum

level of skill in the use of computers for learning. Once teachers achieved competency

in four key areas of technology skill outlined in the Minimum Standards, they could

apply for a Learning Technology Credential. These four areas relate to:

1. Information Technology skills (focusing on the operation and use of both

hardware and software);

2. Curriculum application including classroom planning and management

(addressing the use of learning technology in key learning areas and

encompasses classroom management strategies);

3. School planning (relating to the processes and procedures that promote

continuity and coordination of learning technology activity at the school-wide

level) and,

4. Student-centred learning (dealing with the application of effective teaching

and learning processes to learning technology).

(Education Queensland, 1999, p. 6)

Scope of the Study

The research focused on a sample of graduate teachers and academic staff

involved in two preservice teacher education courses at one university. The rationale

underpinning the selection of respondents associated with a single university was the

assumption that differences on particular responses would be the result of differences

among respondents, rather than differences in the experiences to which respondents had

been exposed (Fowler, 1988). Previous research on technology use in universities, such

8

as that conducted by Beggs (2000), Groves and Zemel (2000), Oliver (1994), Spotts and

Bowman (1993, 1995), and Vannatta (2000), indicates that single-site investigations are

appropriate. Nevertheless, while the limitations associated with a single research site are

recognised, it is likely that issues reported in this study will have resonance for other

providers of preservice teacher education programs throughout Australia.

The research processes employed are largely quantitative. Questionnaire

methodology was employed because it is an efficient means of gaining information from

a potentially large numbers of respondents and due to the geographic dispersion of

graduate teacher respondents.

Definitions of Terms The investigation focused on perceptions and use of specific technologies that

were utilised in varying degrees at the university during the time of the research. All

technologies were computer-based in that they were reliant on computer hardware and

software. The technologies under investigation and the definitions used are:

• Computer-Assisted Instruction or CAI - basic, independent and self-paced

learning programs that are generally linear in format and do not feature sound or

video. Often used for exams and drill and practice exercises.

• Multimedia (as exemplified by CD-ROMS) - programs that can be highly

interactive and feature combinations of sound, animation, video, graphics, and

text. Multimedia/ CD-ROM programs do not necessarily require Internet access.

• Audiographics or audio/videoconferencing - the simultaneous use of telephones,

videos and computers to link people (for example, groups of students and

teachers) at a distance.

• The Internet - an information source best known for the World Wide Web. You

do not need a Multimedia/CD-ROM computer to be able to access the Internet

but you do need to be online or networked to a site.

• Email - the computerised communication system that enables people to receive

and send messages via their computers.

• OLT (Online Teaching) - unit-specific lecture notes and resources available

through the university on-line system.

9

In relation to participants, Academic Staff referred to those staff engaged in full

time teaching in the Bachelor of Education (Primary) or the Bachelor of Education

(Early Childhood) at QUT. Graduate Teachers referred to first or second year graduates

of the Bachelor of Education (Primary) or the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood)

at QUT.

Research Purpose and Objectives The overall purpose of the research was to investigate the experiences of

academic staff and graduate teachers related to computer-based technologies and to

identify changes in these experiences over time.

Specific objectives of the study in relation to university academic staff were: 1. To explore attitudes towards, and usage of, computer-based technologies from

1997 to 2002.

2. To identify the factors that encouraged or hindered the use of computer-based

technologies from 1997 to 2002.

3. To examine perceptions surrounding personal and university valuing of teaching

from 1997 to 2002.

4. To determine perceptions concerning preparing students to use technologies in

their teaching from 1997 to 2002.

Specific objectives of the study in relation to graduate teachers were: 1. To explore attitudes towards, and usage of, computer-based technologies from

1997 to 2002.

2. To identify factors that encouraged or hindered the use of computer-based

technologies in the classroom from 1997 to 2002.

3. To determine perceptions concerning preparing students to use technologies in

their teaching from 1997 to 2002.

The aforementioned objectives and their links to major concepts identified in the

study are presented study in the conceptual framework on the following page.

10

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY

PHASE 1 (1997) Issues:

Technological advances Changes in higher education Recognition of need for Flexible Delivery

Potential of multimedia technology Literature on Constructivist Theory of learning

Recognition of need for technologically competent teachers

Objectives: 1. To explore attitudes towards and usage of computer-based technologies. 2. To identify factors that encouraged or hindered the use of computer-based technologies. 3. To determine perceptions concerning preparing students to use technologies in their teaching 4. For academic staff only – to examine perceptions surrounding personal and university valuing of teaching Participants:

Academic Staff Graduate Teachers

INFLUENCES ON CHANGE (Change Theory) External/imposed change

Government policies University policies and

initiatives on Flexible Delivery Institutional support for change Access to equipment and

resources. Availability of training Reward/recognition of

teaching Personal factors

Appropriate models Perceived value of the

innovation Confidence Knowledge

PHASE 2 (2002) Issues:

Continued technological advances Increased enrolments and diversity of

university students Heightened competition for students Establishment of university Flexible

Delivery Policy Increased workload of academic staff Potential of Internet-based technologies Focus on nature of technology training Introduction of standards for teachers’

technological competencies Objectives: 1. To explore attitudes towards and usage of computer-based technologies. 2. To identify factors that encouraged or hindered the use of computer-based technologies. 3. To determine perceptions concerning preparing students to use technologies in their teaching 4. For academic staff only – to examine perceptions surrounding personal and university valuing of teaching Participants:

Academic Staff Graduate Teachers

11

Organisation of the Thesis This thesis is organised into ten chapters. This chapter (Chapter 1), provided a

rationale and introduction to the program of research. It began by introducing the main

premise of the research and explained why this was an area worthy of investigation.

This section was substantiated by a brief look at the issues that were central to the

research at the time of the two phases of research and drew attention to changes or

developments that had occurred throughout the period. It seemed pertinent, at this point,

to set forth the research design that underpinned the two phases of the study. As such,

the appropriateness of a repeated cross-sectional research design was discussed. This

was followed by a description of the immediate context and scope of the research, along

with definitions of terms used.

Chapter 2, Background to Phase 1 Research, reviews the literature that informed

the first phase of research. The chapter highlights the profound changes that were

occurring within institutions of higher education during the mid 1990s and the

implications of technology for higher education. Following this is a discussion on

multimedia, its potential in higher education, the benefits associated with its use in

teaching and learning and its links with constructivist theories of learning. The chapter

goes on to discuss literature and research related to faculty use of technologies before

focusing on preservice teacher education. This latter section highlights the growing

importance of technological competency among teachers in schools and the expectation

placed on teacher education institutions to realise this competency. The chapter then

describes the specific context of the research and the policies or initiatives in place that

relate to the use of technologies in preservice teacher education. It concludes with a

range of questions that arose from issues highlighted in the literature.

Chapter 3, Phase 1 (1997): Research Methodology, describes the methodology

for the first phase of research and outlines the appropriateness of survey methodology

for the collection of data. It describes the procedure for data collection, describes the

subject groups, details the measures used and the techniques for data analysis. A

description of the technologies referred to in the measures is also provided.

12

Chapter 4, Phase 1 (1997): Academic Staff Experiences with Technology and

Chapter 5, Phase 1 (1997): Graduate Teachers’ Experiences with Technology, both

commence with a description of the objectives of the research and a brief overview of

the literature that informed this initial phase of the study. The subjects, procedures and

measures are briefly described again. Following this, an overview of the research

findings is presented. The chapters conclude with a discussion of findings as they relate

to the literature.

Chapter 6, Background to Phase 2 Research, reviews more recent literature that

helped inform the second phase of research. This literature focuses on developments that

have impacted on preservice teacher education in recent years, along with new research

into teachers’ uses of technology. The chapter then describes current policies or

initiatives at the university relating to technologies and preservice teacher education. It

concludes with a range of questions arising from the literature and findings from the first

phase of research.

Chapter 7, Phase 2 (2002): Research Methodology, outlines the methodology

for the second phase of research. It describes how data was collected, describes the

subject groups and details the slight variation between the measures used in this phase

of research and those used in Phase One. Like Chapter 3, this chapter concludes with a

discussion of how the data were analysed.

Chapter 8, Phase 2 (2002): Academic Staff Experiences with Technology and

Chapter 9, Phase 2 (2002): Graduate Teachers’ Experiences with Technology, present

findings associated with the second phase of research. Each chapter commences with a

brief overview of the literature and findings from the first phase of research that,

together, informed the second phase. Objectives of the second phase of research are

outlined and a description of the subjects, procedure and measures provided. The

chapters then present the research findings which are compared to findings in the first

phase. Both chapters conclude with a discussion of findings as they relate to the current

literature and, where appropriate, attempt to account for differences in findings between

the first and second phases of research.

13

Chapter 10, General Discussion and Conclusion, provides an overview of the

principal findings of the four studies as they relate to the specific research objectives and

highlights key differences and similarities in perceptions across the academic staff and

graduate teacher groups. Following this, is a discussion of the issues arising from the

findings as they relate to academic staff and graduate teachers. Suggestions for

advancing technology use at the preservice and classroom level are provided. The

chapter then outlines the methodological issues and future directions associated with the

research, along with the most important contributions made by the program of research.

Chapter 11, Postscript, reflects on the significance of the study in the broader

social context and highlights specific implications of findings for academic staff,

university managers and educational policy makers.

14

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND TO PHASE 1 RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

This chapter reviews the literature that informed the first phase of the

research. The chapter commences by highlighting the immense changes that were

occurring in higher education at the time of this study and the implications of

technology within this context. Particular attention is given to multimedia, its

potential in higher education, research into its benefits for teaching and learning and

its proposed link with constructivist theories of learning. A discussion of academic

staff use of technologies follows with consideration of theories related to change.

The final section of the chapter focuses on preservice teacher education and the

growing requirement to produce preservice teacher education graduates who are

competent and confident users of technology. The chapter outlines policies or

initiatives at the government and university level in place at the time of the first

study that related to technology and teacher education. The chapter concludes with a

range of questions that arose from the review of literature.

Higher Education: A Time of Challenge In the mid 1990s it was clear that institutions of higher education were

confronted with many challenges. Increased enrolment levels, reduced government

funding, and a more diverse student population had forced universities to improve

efficiency and effectiveness (Stedman, 1995). However, it was also recent

technological advancements that were having a profound impact on higher

education. Technological innovations had revolutionised our ability to communicate

and access information. With increasingly powerful yet cheaper computers, reduced

telecommunications costs combined with the development and installation of highly

efficient electronic networks, institutions of learning were propelled into the

'Information Age'. Innovations in communications technology promised unrestricted

and unprecedented access to higher education for students, in effect, paving the way

for the globalisation of education (Bonner, Berry & Marjanovic, 1995). As noted by

15

the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) (1997), (now the

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), the next two decades would

see higher education becoming an increasingly international enterprise, where

services would be delivered to a global market place.

It was predicted that as knowledge became a “fluent commodity” available

to anyone from anywhere, universities and colleges throughout the world would lose

their monopoly over the delivery of higher education (Bonner et al.,1995, p. 36).

Bonner et al. noted that private providers of education such as the American J3

Learning Company (standing for "Just in time, Just enough, Just where you want it")

were beginning to lure tertiary students away from traditional learning institutions

with promises of internationally recognised qualifications and individualised,

flexible learning options. This prompted a number of writers such as Felix and

Askew (1996) to predict that Australian graduates of the future would routinely

expect credit for overseas studies in their degrees.

Other educationalists shared the view that universities, as we knew them,

were under threat. In 1995 Moran claimed that we were witnessing the crumbling of

traditional university boundaries as the monopoly over the discovery, storage and

dissemination of knowledge disappeared. Similarly, Sallis and McMahon (1995;

cited in Bonner et al., 1995) speculated that instant access to all of the world's

knowledge could render the traditional transmission model of learning completely

redundant because information technology would change forever, “the knowledge

game”. In their paper Exploiting Information Technology in Higher Education, The

Australian Vice Chancellor's Committee (1996) noted that what these pressures and

changes constituted for higher education, was a complete paradigm shift. The

elements that contributed to this paradigm shift are outlined in the table on the

following page. Clearly, many elements featured in the new paradigm pointed to

increased student-centred learning and a growing dependence on technology.

16

Table 1.1 Old and New Paradigms for Higher Education (Tiano, 1996; cited in Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee Paper, 1996)

This table is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library.

Technologies and Higher Education In the mid 1990s it was already clear that new technologies had significant

implications for teaching and learning in Australia. Educational agencies and

accrediting bodies, professional organisations, researchers, scholars and public

policy makers stressed the growing need to integrate information technology into all

areas of education (Handler, 1993). This was due to the growing realisation that

universities that failed to incorporate technology into their curricula would not be in

a position to compete with those who had (Spotts & Bowman, 1995). It was

increasingly recognised that unless universities provided flexible modes of delivery,

students may seek out alternative providers of higher education (Bonner et al., 1995;

Felix & Askew, 1996; Spotts & Bowman, 1995). As a consequence, new

technologies began to dominate policy agendas within the Australian government

and universities and emerged as one of the most talked about issues in higher

education (Moran, 1995).

Moran (1995) noted that market trends coupled with government policy

recommendations had forced universities to critically examine ways in which they

17

could make their product more flexible in terms of both delivery and content. With

this in mind, the 1995 Search Conference on National Policy Frameworks to Support

the Integration of Information Technologies into University Teaching and Learning

(commissioned by DEET) recommended that Australian universities must:

Maximise the integration of technologies to improve access and equity

Expand students' freedom to choose what, where, when, and how to study

Assist in the individualisation of learning in a mass system.

Improve the quality of teaching and of learning how to learn.

(Moran, 1995 p. 2)

In order to achieve the transition to a flexible learning environment, the

report recommended that national and institutional policies and strategies were

needed in three areas. These were support and training for students in accessing and

learning how to use information technologies in the context of their study; research

and development into the educational applications of information technologies; and

evaluation of the educational and social effects and cost benefits of information

technologies (Moran, 1995).

Of the information technologies available in the mid 1990s, Mazzarol and

Hosie (1996) believed that interactive multimedia had the most potential to give

universities a competitive advantage. This ‘new’ type of multimedia, they claimed,

was cost effective and capable of ensuring greater control over the quality of

teaching. According to Issing (1996), new multimedia enabled the operator to use

computer supported interaction in conjunction with a multiple media system that

featured a variety of presentation forms such as data, text, sound, graphics,

animation, still frame, moving picture, and real-time simulations. These multimedia

computers stored all presentation data in digital form on compact discs (Issing,

1996), and relied on users playing an interactive role to access information (Aston &

Schwarz, 1994). The enormous popularity of multimedia CD-ROM computers was

evidenced by tremendous growth in sales. Nielson noted that in 1995, CD-ROM

encyclopaedias outsold the equivalent paper-based version. Others predicted that

soon, more CD-ROM computers would be produced globally than television sets

(Media & Information Service, 1993).

18

Stedman (1995) acknowledged that universities across Australia were

actively working on the development of interactive multimedia applications. Many

projects, ranging from the development of CD-ROM teaching materials to interactive

multimedia using the Internet, were being made possible by the availability of

government research grants to universities. The increase in the numbers of grants

awarded to multimedia projects was an indication of the commitment of both

government and higher education to investigate or develop innovative and flexible

teaching approaches. The growth grants by the Committee for Advancement in

University Teaching (CAUT) awarded to multimedia projects, for instance, grew

from 16 in 1993 to 66 in 1996 representing a 400% increase in funded multimedia

projects during this four-year period (CAUT, 1993; CAUT, 1996).

Multimedia and Higher Education In 1994, authors such as Fyfe and Fyfe asserted that the challenge of

accommodating students' variable study patterns, thereby maintaining enrolment

levels, could be addressed by the introduction of multimedia teaching tools.

However, while the need to remain competitive underpinned much of the push for

multimedia usage, there was also widespread conviction that this new technology

had a great deal to offer higher education. In the midst of claims that multimedia had

the potential to revolutionise teaching and learning, academics were facing mounting

pressure to incorporate it into their teaching. Students, on the other hand, were facing

the prospect of decreased lecturer contact and increased hours interacting with a

computer. This prognosis raised a number of important questions, none the least of

which was how can multimedia technology contribute to learning?

Attempts to rationalise the use of multimedia in education drew on a number

of current learning theories including cognitive models which focused on the idea of

situated, contextual and discovery learning, supported by scaffolding, learning from

errors, modelling, explaining and reflecting (Clark, 1994; cited in Sims & Hedberg,

1995). While many multimedia programs featured elements of these models, the

most frequently expounded theory in discussions on the pedagogical worth of

multimedia teaching tools was constructivism. Constructivists emphasise the

importance of the learner's active engagement during the learning process. According

to Fineman and Bootz (1995), learners construct or generate meaning from their

19

learning experiences, rather than passively receiving knowledge from the teacher.

Constructivists believe that learning is problem-solving based on personal discovery

by intrinsically motivated learners (Cooper, 1993; cited in Sullivan, 1995). They

maintain that knowledge is constructed through individuals’ interactions with their

environments (Fineman & Bootz, 1995) and regard learners as controllers and

developers of knowledge (Sims & Hedberg, 1995). Oliver (1994a) noted that this

model of learning actively takes into account individual differences in student

readiness for learning, the role of prior knowledge and the need for students to be

active participants rather than passive recipients in the learning process.

Much of the discussion surrounding the potential of multimedia in the mid

1990s highlighted specific characteristics embedded in constructivist learning

principles. According to Novak (1984; cited in Kennedy, 1995), constructivist theory

suggests that new knowledge is integrated into existing constructions by a process of

integrative reconciliation. Kennedy (1995) explained that multimedia programs

could facilitate this reconciliation because learners were able to select information

that was directly relevant to their prior knowledge, needs and experiences. Using

Jonassen's (1994) constructivist framework, Love and Gosper (1995) explained that

multimedia teaching resources could facilitate purposeful knowledge construction

because they provided multiple representations of reality, presented authentic tasks,

fostered reflective practice, and focused on knowledge construction, not

reproduction.

In the mid 1990s the literature devoted to the potential of multimedia

technology was almost as persuasive as it was vast. Claims about its significance for

teaching and learning ranged from the extravagant, for example, "opens new learning

worlds and creative dimensions for the acquisition of knowledge, for problem

solving and for creative activity" (Issing, 1996, p. 171) and, “an exciting experience

involving the sensory modalities of sight, sound and touch, all of which naturally

facilitate learning” (Choo, 1994, p. 230); to the pragmatic, for example, and “a

comparatively inexpensive method to provide expert information to a large,

dispersed and diverse population (Gooley, Towers & Dekkers, 1994, 165) and "has

the potential for endless practice” (Loss, Zadnick & Treagust, 1994).

20

Writers such as Grandgenett, Ziebarth, Koneck, Farnham, McQuillan and

Larson (1992), suggested that the ability to access vast amounts of information

quickly and efficiently, as afforded by multimedia technology, provided new

learning opportunities for students. Felix and Askew (1996) described these new

learning opportunities as "enriched" and noted that for students, multimedia offered

greater choice and control over their learning. For universities, Felix and Askew

(1996) suggested that multimedia technology offered three primary advantages: cost

savings, flexible delivery and the renewal of teaching.

Multimedia: Learner Issues

Much of the pressure for higher education to adopt technologies such as

multimedia stemmed from the requirement to respond to students’ needs. In the mid

1990s, students were not only demanding more flexibility in the delivery of higher

education, those entering university from the school system were increasingly

accomplished in the use of technology and appeared strongly motivated to develop

their skills in this area (Trevitt, 1994). As highlighted by Spotts and Bowman (1995),

many of these students had grown up with technology and were more

"technologically literate" than their teachers.

Yet, apart from an apparent desire for flexible learning options, little was

known about students' perceptions and use of technology. Cox (1994) noted that in

relation to computer use in higher education, it was easy to document how many

computers a particular institution may have, what types of software were installed

and the degree to which the computers were utilised. However, concerning how

students felt about using computer-based technologies and students’ preparedness for

using technology in the workplace, little data existed. The following discussion

reviews issues and research findings from the mid 1990s associated with tertiary

students’ use of technologies.

It was the ability to enhance teaching and learning that many writers believed

was a major attribute of multimedia. Slaughter and Knupp (1995) suggested that the

combination of text, pictures, sound, colour, animation and video in a package that

enabled the user to direct how information was presented, provided a very powerful

and flexible vehicle for creative teaching and learning. Valmont and Blanco (1995)

21

maintained that educators should take advantage of multimedia technology because it

enabled them to transform otherwise monotonous, lifeless tasks into engaging

learning opportunities for today's "visually informed" students. Grandgenett et al.

(1992) suggested that multimedia could bring to life traditionally difficult topics and

therefore help to establish links between classroom instruction and the real world.

Multimedia's capacity to deliver real-time simulations through the use of

video was a feature that many believed elevated it beyond traditional computer-based

learning. According to Sweeters (1994), simulations allowed learners to attempt

tasks within a safe environment. As such, multimedia could be viewed as a means of

supplementing, replacing, or preparing students for, practical experiences. Fyfe and

Fyfe (1994) noted this was particularly relevant in Australia where many university

practical course components had been abolished due to their relative high cost.

Other situations where multimedia could provide a solution were where

laboratory equipment was too expensive to purchase or maintain; where shortage of

equipment prevented hands-on use for each student; or when reduced teaching

budgets prohibited the provision of the extra academic and technical staff required to

supervise practice sessions (Fyfe & Fyfe, 1994). Laszlo and Castro (1995) proposed

that in these situations or when subject matter is physically not within easy access,

learning with multimedia could be almost as rewarding as actually being in the

laboratory.

According to Lewis and Hosie (1994), multimedia was particularly useful in

situations where there were large numbers of learners distributed over time and

place, where learners had varied experiences and skills, and where there was a

shortage of teachers with subject matter expertise. In addition, they claimed that

multimedia was ideal when there was a need for simulation, continuous practice or

retraining; the problem of combining different learning media such as text, slides,

video and audio; where subject matter was stable, and when training involved

processes, procedures, problem-solving, and decision making. Kemp and McBeath

(1994) added that multimedia teaching tools could provide a solution to concerns

such as the pressure to increase student enrolments in a course, monotonous lectures,

lack of interest or motivation in learning a subject, and poor student performances.

22

McLoughlin and Oliver (1995) noted, that in contrast to the didactic

presentation style characteristic of many university lectures, learning with interactive

multimedia provided students with greater options and a degree of control over the

learning process. This control included display control, pace and sequence control.

McLoughlin and Oliver (1995) claimed that these features were highly valued

because they enabled learning to be individualised - something widely believed to

enhance instructional outcomes. According to Olivier and Buckley (1994),

individualisation was not only advantageous to students, teachers could benefit as

well. They explained that individualisation could empower teachers because it

enabled them to identify and monitor student progress and adjust the learning

environment to meet individual needs.

Numerous authors have highlighted additional benefits associated with the

use of multimedia in teaching. Olivier and Buckley (1994) and Choo (1994) for

example, suggested that multimedia-delivered instruction could address varied

learning styles, while Dickinson (1994) proposed that it could stimulate many of the

senses and be more motivating than traditional teaching. According to Laszlo and

Castro (1995) and Lewis and Hosie (1994), this increased motivation resulted from

the continual feedback that was characteristic of most multimedia programs.

Laszlo and Castro (1995) suggested that another compelling attraction of

multimedia programs was that they allowed students to work things out by

themselves, thereby making the learning experience more meaningful. They

explained that if students made a mistake or found the content too difficult, they had

infinite opportunities for revision. Similarly, Curtin (1994), and Choo (1994),

considered the advantages of multimedia programs to be their self-paced and

revisable nature. They also stated that learning with multimedia was quick, flexible,

consistent, non-threatening, and appealed to more of the senses thereby enhancing

motivation, attention, and retention.

Learner interactivity was another purported benefit associated with

multimedia technologies. Simpson (1994) suggested that multimedia tools provided

learners with opportunities for higher levels of interactivity that actively engaged the

brain. Simpson (1994) speculated that the interactive nature of multimedia systems

23

could enhance users’ memory and learning.

Several studies conducted in universities in the mid 1990s provided support

for some of the aforementioned claims about multimedia. For instance, the majority

of students in an Australian study by Gooley, Towers and Dekkers (1994) reported

that a new CD-ROM learning resource was stimulating and preferable to paper-based

notes. In addition, students believed that the CD-ROM delivery suited their style of

learning and did not find it impersonal. Likewise, students in Waddick's (1995)

longitudinal study in New Zealand revealed a growing preference (from 60% in the

first year of the study to 100% in the final year) for tutorials delivered by multimedia

over those delivered by traditional instruction. Students reported increased

motivation to learn, improved attitudes towards the subject and valued the new

control they had over their learning. They also reported that the sound, colour and

movies enhanced their learning. Similarly, Crosby and Stevlosky (1995) also

attributed students' improved performance in a science subject to the variety of

presentation modes that multimedia provided.

Fyfe and Fyfe (1994) reported similar attitudes towards multimedia in their

Australian study. Observations and evaluations of a multimedia-delivered biology

experiment indicated that students enjoyed using the program and demonstrated

significantly higher on-task behaviours than when participating in traditional

laboratory-based experiments. In addition, feedback from tutors indicated there was

more time to concentrate on helping individual students, rather than simply

supervising them. In Crosby and Stelovsky’s (1995) study, students demonstrated

not only improved performance, but also higher attendance rates when lectures were

presented using multimedia materials.

Research by James, Clark, Hillis and Peterson (1995) compared student

performance in a multimedia science course with performance in the same course

delivered by traditional teaching the year before. While the study reported no

significant differences in examination scores, feedback from students revealed that

they were generally enthusiastic about the self-paced and independent learning made

possible by the multimedia program and were positive about the ability to repeat

difficult material and review content that needed further clarification. However,

24

students also raised several concerns stemming from their use of multimedia, namely

the inability to ask questions, difficulty maintaining concentration throughout the

three-hour program and problems accessing university computers.

For the most part, then, multimedia technology appeared to hold great

promise for higher education. For institutions, proposed benefits associated with

multimedia integration included long term cost savings (Choo, 1994; Massy &

Zemsky, 1995; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996), maximising consistency of teaching

(Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996), and ensuring competitiveness in an increasingly

competitive marketplace (Fyfe & Fyfe, 1994; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996). It was clear

from the research that multimedia-delivered instruction had already found much

support among learners across a range of disciplines. For students, it was suggested

that multimedia-delivered instruction offered flexibility in terms of how, when,

where and how much learning was undertaken (Stedman, 1995) and could stimulate

learning through high levels of interactivity (Simpson, 1994), multi-sensory input

(Dickinson, 1994; Forgo & Koczka, 1996), and the accommodation of individual

learning styles (Choo, 1994; Olivier & Buckley, 1994). In addition, students reported

improved motivation (Waddick, 1995), heightened interest (Gooley et al., 1994;

Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994), improved understanding of subject content (Crosby &

Stevlosky, 1995; Hsi & Agogino, 1993; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994), and increased

feelings of control over learning when using multimedia programs (Felix & Askew,

1996; McLoughlin & Oliver, 1994; Sims & Hedberg, 1995; Waddick, 1995).

Multimedia: Unrealised Potential?

Although new technologies, such as multimedia, were one of the most talked

about education issues in the mid 1990s, their impact on colleges and universities

was less extensive than first predicted. While technology continued to pervade our

daily lives as evidenced by supermarket scanners, electronic banking, mobile

telephones and so on, its impact on higher education was far less dramatic (Spotts &

Bowman, 1995).

25

Numerous explanations were offered for the apparent failure of multimedia

technology to realise its potential in higher education. Felix and Askew (1996)

suggested that two such barriers were the absence of multi-platform development

due to hardware and software incompatibilities and prohibitive costs. These costs

surround those associated with the purchase and installation of multimedia

workstations networked to a file server large enough to store hours of video,

production costs, as well as costs necessary for the continual upgrading of

technology and teaching materials. Forgo and Koczka (1996) identified other

obstacles to the infiltration of multimedia technology in higher education including a

lack of profession-wide recognition of the need for inductive information

acquisition; the emphasis on theoretical knowledge instead of practical skill-oriented

education; and a shortage of supplies and compatible media.

A further impediment to the infiltration of technology in higher education

was the inconsistent quality of existing learning materials. Several writers agreed

that few of the products available at the time were exemplary (Barrett & Jegede,

1994; Wetzel, 1993). McNaught (1995), for instance, noted that there were more

examples of inappropriate uses of information technology in teaching and learning

than there were well designed and evaluated programs that could be seen to enhance

learning. Felix and Askew (1996) suggested that product quality had suffered due to

a widespread lack of programming expertise among technical staff. They added that

the poorly conceptualised programs resulting from this lack of expertise had

jeopardised the credibility of multimedia as a teaching tool. Barrett and Jegede

(1994) however, claimed that poor quality materials were not the fault of

inexperienced programmers but those employed at the decision-making level. They

proposed that technological applications had been instigated by individuals who

although "predominantly uninformed", were in a position to ensure that technology-

based projects attracted funding.

Some argued that in many cases the adoption of multimedia teaching tools

stemmed more from an infatuation with technology than from educational necessity.

Authors such as Oliver (1994a) suggested that in some instances, multimedia had

found its way into education for reasons other than instructional advantage and

opportunity. Oliver (1994a) referred to these instances as being 'technology led' and

26

suggested that the educational rationale for implementing the technology was often

the least important factor in the uptake. Reeves (1993; cited in Oliver, 1994a)

explained that the problem with earlier technology-led applications, was that they

frequently failed to live up to their expectations. Referring to the many past

examples of important and innovative technologies for which research had clearly

validated and demonstrated potential benefits, Reeves noted that such benefits were

never fully realised. Reeves (1993; cited in Oliver, 1994a) noted the widespread use

in education and training since the 1960s of computer-assisted technologies

(variously referred to using acronyms such as CBT, CMI, CAI, CAL, or CBE) and

noted that while they showed great promise, they had generally been disappointing.

Choo (1994), however, reasoned that unlike multimedia, CBT, CMI, CAI and CAL

were disappointing because programs were largely textual and linear in structure,

employed limited sequential 'page turning' techniques and were not tailored to meet

the needs of users.

Laszlo and Castro (1995) noted that in contrast to these older technologies,

multimedia had the capacity for individualised, non-sequential, interactive, and

multi-sensory learning. Nevertheless, in their review of technology in American

higher education, they noted that although several universities were successfully

using innovative technologies in teaching, most continued to use technology in a

traditional role - the promotion of isolated subject mastery using drill and practice

techniques.

In summary then, there were already signs in the mid 1990s that multimedia

may never realise its full potential. There appeared little doubt that many existing

applications of multimedia were indeed, technology driven. The concern was that

these poorly conceptualised programs would undermine the value of multimedia as a

teaching tool. As Issing (1996) warned, there was a danger that multimedia

technology would be rejected due to inadequate pedagogic study before its

technological potential had been fully realised.

Technologies and Academic Staff Despite the growing literature on multimedia in the mid 1990s, the nature,

potential and problems associated with this rapidly expanding phenomenon remained

27

poorly understood (Loss, Zadnik, & Treagust, 1994). There was little doubt that the

novelty of multimedia had attracted a great deal of attention, however, beyond this

novelty was an urgent need for critical assessment of its use in academic teaching

and learning. So far, this kind of critical analysis had been lacking in the literature

(Jacobson 1994; cited in Dolly 1995), leading authors such as Dolly (1995) to

suggest that the field of multimedia inquiry did not take high quality research or

evaluation, either quantitative or qualitative, seriously.

Although relatively few studies had been performed to investigate teachers’

and learners’ uses of multimedia technology, Loss et al. (1994) noted that

multimedia technology seemed to have assumed a place of high standing among

many in the educational community. Oliver (1994a) suspected that some of these

assumptions might be based more on perceptions of quality and effectiveness, rather

than on concrete information drawn from experience and practice. Likewise, Park

and Hannafin (1993) suggested that much of the support for multimedia came from

intuitive, rather than empirical, validity.

According to Dickinson (1994), many claims about the potential of

multimedia in teaching had been undermined not only by a shallow research base,

but also by the rapid rate of technological change. Loss et al. (1994) explained that

research into multimedia had been limited by the lack of fully developed applications

and the changing capability of software and hardware. As Dickinson (1994) noted,

by the time long-term studies were completed and published, the technology they

described was often completely redundant. This situation led Dolly (1995) to

conclude that multimedia research comprised a hodgepodge of studies that lacked

both coherence and links to a central theory.

Positive attitudes towards multimedia are fundamental to technology

integration in higher education (Forgo & Koczka, 1996) and many attributed its

failure in the 1990s to conservative or negative staff attitudes (Benavides & Surry,

1994; Forgo & Koczka, 1996; Heron, 1996; Massy & Zemsky, 1997; Murphy, 1994;

Reeves; 1991, cited in McNaught, 1995). Spotts and Bowman (1995) proposed that

while negative attitudes were often manifested at the policy-making level, they were

often more apparent among those responsible for delivering instruction - the

28

teachers.

Heron (1996) claimed that in coming to terms with the implications of the

new technologies for teaching, learning and research, academics tended to fall into

three distinct groups. Firstly, stated Heron, were those who were embracing the new

technology and using it to enhance both their teaching and their careers. Secondly,

there were academics who were resigned to change and were seeking funding for

projects using the new technologies. The third group of academics, according to

Heron, comprised those who preferred to pretend that the changes were not

happening and continued traditional teaching despite increased pressure to adapt.

Spotts and Bowman (1995) believed that it was this third group of academics that

was most prevalent in universities. They claimed that while many academics were

making innovative and effective use of emerging technologies, most preferred to

teach the way they were taught ten, twenty or thirty years ago. Spotts and Bowman

(1995) noted that the primary teaching method for many centuries, the printed page,

remained firmly entrenched in most educational organisations. They claimed that

nowhere was this more apparent than in higher education where textbooks and the

lecture continued as ‘the norm’.

Benavides and Surry (1994) and Forgo and Koczka (1996) also linked the

slow uptake of instructional technologies in higher education to staff attitudes. They

maintained that the potential of technology had not been harnessed on most

university campuses because faculty were unwilling or unable to incorporate

instructional technologies into their classrooms. Similarly, Reeves (1991; cited in

McNaught, 1995) suggested that teachers' unwillingness to restructure subject

content and delivery methods to incorporate computers had helped stifle the use of

technology in higher education. According to writers such as Stedman (1995),

nothing short of a paradigm shift would alter these deeply ingrained attitudes and

role perceptions.

In 1994, Murphy also acknowledged resistance by academics to the use of

technology and maintained that resistance was mounting. Murphy (1994) claimed

that resistance stemmed from three factors: firstly, the difficulties associated with

29

integrating computers into the curriculum; secondly, the time involved in achieving

integration; and thirdly, doubts that computers could enhance or improve student

learning. In addition to lack of time, Smith (1994) cited lack of knowledge,

experience, and resources as the reasons offered by faculty for non-use of

technology.

Authors such as Smith (1994) stressed that the potential of technology to

enhance, expand and change the way students were educated could only be realised

if educators enthusiastically adopted technology based instruction materials.

However, in the mid 1990s the lack of well-conceptualised and well-developed

programs did little to warrant such enthusiasm. In 1995, McNaught (1995) noted that

the "mixed bag" of programs available at the time had seen the polarisation of staff

who either enthusiastically embraced new technology, or who scorned its use and

found it highly threatening. The key to the problem, according to Benavides and

Surry (1994), was education and training. They claimed that for technology to make

a difference in higher education, faculty must be made aware of its potential and

receive training in how to use the technology effectively. Smith (1994) cautioned

that if this training was not received, there was a danger that lack of knowledge by

academics would be transferred to students.

While there was little doubt that lack of education and training figured

highly, it was possible that the failure to incorporate technology into teaching also

stemmed from academics' priorities. The priorities held by academics tend to reflect

institutional priorities and values, but according to Peters and Mayfield (1982; cited

in Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, & Clark, 1995), these are not always communicated

consistently by universities. Peters and Mayfield (1982) claimed that universities

suffer from "institutional schizophrenia" because they transmit mixed messages to

staff about what is valued and deemed important. Indeed, in relation to technology

integration, the messages being received by faculty may well have been confusing.

Although faculty were being persuaded to incorporate technology in their teaching,

the message still being transmitted within universities was that excellence and

innovation in teaching were not valued or rewarded (Davis et al., 1995; Massy &

Zemsky, 1995; Ramsden et al., 1995). Kline (1994) noted that the 'publish or perish'

cliché was alive and well in university settings and illustrated the perception that

30

publishing was more worthy than good teaching. It would not be surprising then, that

if academics believed that research and scholarly activity influenced promotion or

tenure decisions they may see little point in changing their teaching strategies.

Despite the belief that attitudes were integral to the adoption of technologies,

in the mid 1990s few studies had been conducted to examine faculty attitudes

towards and usage of technologies. Briefly described as follows, most research was

conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Spotts and Bowman’s 1995 study of faculty (n = 306) from a mix of

disciplines in one university in the United States, for instance, gathered information

on a range of technologies across three areas: knowledge about and experience with

technologies; frequency of technology use in teaching; and importance and future

use of technology. This data was then correlated with background information about

respondents (gender and home computer ownership) to determine any relationships

between computer use and demographic characteristics. Staff were asked to rate their

level of knowledge about and experience with twelve types of technologies. In

relation to CAI, 23% reported good to expert knowledge and 18% reported that they

were experienced in its use. In relation to email, these figures were 32% and 33%,

multimedia, 13% and 8%, and computer conferencing (similar to audiographics), 16%

and 13%. Information on knowledge and experience of the Internet was not gathered.

Faculty were also asked to indicate how frequently they used the technologies. In

relation to email, only 16% reported using the technology at least weekly. For CAI,

this figure was 13%, computer conferencing, 7% and multimedia, 2%. Instead, the

vast majority of faculty reported that they never used the technologies in their

teaching. In response to how important technologies were to teaching, 65% of

respondents considered technology to be important or critically important, 25%

considered technology as somewhat important and only 10% felt that it was not

important. Concerning the anticipated use of technology, only 42% of faculty

reported that they were likely to use technology at some time during the year and

26% believed it was unlikely that they would use technology at all during the year.

From these findings, Spotts and Bowman (1995) concluded that most faculty would

continue to rely on traditional methods for delivering instruction.

31

As previously mentioned, Spotts and Bowman’s (1995) study also sought to

determine any relationships between the technology responses and demographic

information including gender and computer ownership. They found significant

relationships between gender and knowledge and experience of newer technologies

including multimedia with males rating their knowledge and experience higher than

females. This supported other research suggesting that differences existed in both

computer attitude and computer aptitude (Chen, 1986; Collis, 1985, 1989; cited in

Spotts & Bowman, 1995). Home computer ownership was reported by 83% of

respondents, and these respondents reported a greater level of knowledge and

experience than those who did not own computers. Concerning importance to their

teaching, home computer owners assigned a significantly higher level of importance,

as well as expectation of future use, than non-home computer owners. Similarly,

Hesketh et al. (1996) also reported gender to be a predictor of attitudes towards

technologies, with female faculty members being less positive than males about

using technologies.

Contrary to findings by Spotts and Bowman (1995) and Hesketh et al (1996),

a study of faculty (n = 421) from teacher education programs in universities/colleges

throughout America by Lyons and Carlson (1995) found that gender was not a

predictor of either attitudes toward technology, knowledge about technology or use

of technology. Lyons and Carslon (1995) noted that their findings supported those of

previous research into technology usage (Faseyitan & Hirschbuhl, 1991; Fuller,

1986; and Milet, 1991), and attitudes toward technology (Fary, 1988; Grasty, 1985;

Smith, 1985) in which gender was found to not play a significant role.

Several writers had suggested that lack of training and time were significant

deterrents to technology use and a number of studies supported this view. Research

by Wetzel (1993) in one American university, for example, revealed that a major

barrier to the use of technology by education faculty was lack of training or

knowledge. Other barriers identified by faculty were lack of time, facilities, software,

and equipment. While many staff also reported that they were aware of the

importance of their students’ learning about technology, Wetzel (1993) noted that

few actually claimed to utilise technology in their teaching. Similar findings were

also reported in studies by Davis et al. (1995), and Willis et al. (1995) in their cross-

32

cultural investigation of teacher educators in a number of universities in England and

the United States. In relation to valuing and use of technology, overall, both groups

reported that the use of information technologies in teacher education was very or

extremely important, but many claimed there were limited opportunities for training

in the use of technologies. Of the American sample, over 50% felt that limited time

to learn how to use technologies was a significant barrier to their use of technology.

Likewise, academic staff in Lyons and Carlson’s (1995) study in the United States

reported a lack of opportunities to learn about technologies. Academics reported

receiving little or no training in the use of technology, indicating instead that they

were either self-taught or received informal assistance from others.

Time and training issues were also highlighted in a study commissioned by

CAUT in Australia in 1995. Academics in this study reported that if they were to

develop and introduce innovations in teaching and learning, they needed more time.

This time, according to 74% of respondents would make a considerable difference to

their teaching (Ramsden & Martin, 1996). In Spotts and Bowman's 1993 study,

training and time were again considered by academic staff to influence their use of

new technology. Using closed and open-ended questions, Spotts and Bowman (1993)

surveyed academic staff at one university in the United States to investigate the

factors that influenced their use of technology, the barriers that prevented them from

using technology and the incentives they regarded as important for using technology.

The researchers found that from a list of items, the factors rated most highly by

faculty as influencing their use of technology were 'availability of equipment',

'improved student learning', 'funds to purchase materials', and 'compatibility with

subject'. 'Time to learn the technology' was nominated by around half the

respondents as being a very to critically important influence on technology use.

Other factors also rated as critically or very important included 'advantages over

traditional teaching', 'an increase in student interest', and 'ease of use'.

In relation to an open-ended question about barriers to technology use, Spotts

and Bowman (1993) noted that the most frequently cited barrier was 'lack of time to

learn the technology'. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that this was a primary

barrier. Other barriers reported by faculty included, 'lack of available equipment',

'lack of training' and 'lack of financial support'. Several also felt that pressure to use

33

technology had more to do with increasing faculty productivity than improving

student learning. According to Spotts and Bowman (1993), what academics required

before investing the time and energy required to learn about new technologies, was

evidence that student learning, interest and motivation would be enhanced by

technology. Academics also wanted an undertaking on behalf of their institution that

the necessary funds and equipment, as well as training and support would be made

readily available to all staff. Concerning incentives to use technology, Spotts and

Bowman (1993) found that from a list of items, the most important factor chosen by

faculty was 'release time'. Other incentives regarded as very to critically important

included 'student help' and 'clerical support’. However, responses to an open-ended

question about primary incentives for using technology, 'demonstration of improved

student learning' was the most frequently cited followed by 'having the necessary

time'. Spotts and Bowman (1993) noted that in contrast, the factors 'contribution to

promotion/ tenure', 'recognition of university community' and 'recognition of higher

education community' were rated by faculty members to be less important incentives

to using technology.

In a national Australian study by Ramsden et al. (1995), however, academics

highlighted the importance of rewards. These academics reported that the most

potent reward for good teaching was promotion or confirmation of appointment.

However, in relation to rewards, academics in studies by Davis et al. (1995), and

Willis et al. (1995), revealed there was little reward or recognition for curricular

innovations, software development or other technology applications. Along with

lack of technical skills, support, time and increased workloads, a survey of

Australian academics by Hesketh et al. (1996) also revealed concerns surrounding

rewards. According to faculty in their study, the extra effort to use technology in

teaching would not be rewarded because publishing was the yardstick for promotion.

This concern was also highlighted in the investigation by Ramsden et al. (1995)

which noted that academics, both in Australia and overseas, perceived teaching as

being less important than publishing or research in decisions affecting promotion or

tenure. Furthermore, many academics believed that the continual pressure to publish

could have a detrimental effect on the quality of their teaching (Ramsden et al.,

1995).

34

The Role of Change Although there was much evidence in the mid 1990s to suggest that faculty

shared numerous concerns about teaching with technology, there had been no

attempt to position these concerns within a theoretical framework. Yet, literature on

teachers' beliefs and practices indicated that a useful framework for conceptualising

faculty attitudes and behaviours may stem from theories related to change.

Consideration of how individuals react to change can provide insight into some of

the complexities associated with technology integration.

In 1992, Bailey and Palsha noted that new theories, philosophies and research

findings, all contributed to changes in the way professionals think and act. Change

evolved from personal experience and insight (Bailey & Palsha, 1992), and could be

relatively easy to accommodate (Kortecamp & Croninger, 1996). More often than

not however, change was imposed by external sources such as new government

policies, economic or demographic trends, social and cultural developments, and

technological advances (Bailey & Palsha, 1992). According to Kortecamp and

Croninger (1996), when the proposed change was large in scope, required significant

commitment of both human and financial resources, or was imposed by forces

external to the organisation, the likelihood of resistance to change increased. Sikes

(1992) explained that imposed change carried official authority that challenged

professional experience, judgement and expertise. This kind of change could mean

that teachers find themselves in jobs which are quite different from those they

originally chose, and this may lead to low morale, dissatisfaction and reduced

commitment

Imposed change, noted Bailey and Palsha (1992), carried with it the

expectation that teachers think and behave in new ways, such as modifying the way

they teach or provide services. Sikes (1992) stated that teachers were often in the

position of being both the subjects and agents of change. They were required to

change themselves and their work in order to meet the expectations of policy makers

who were neither familiar with them or the contexts in which they worked. They

may also be required to make changes that they believe, on the basis of professional

experience, may be inappropriate or impossible (Sikes, 1992).

35

According to Kortecamp and Kroninger (1994), the adoption of innovative

technology in preservice teacher education programs is an example of imposed

change. They explained that the external force in this instance was society's demand

that teacher education programs prepare teachers to be technologically aware and

able. The adoption of technology may be mandated through administrative channels,

alternatively it may be encouraged through inservice education programs (Bailey &

Palsha, 1992). Whatever the source of pressure, Bailey and Palsha (1992) noted that

there appeared to be an assumption that simply exposing professionals to the benefits

of an educational innovation and teaching the necessary skills to implement the

innovation, would result in the desired change. Recent literature suggests, however,

that several variables play a role in the adoption of innovations. These variables

include feelings of self-efficacy and perceived value of the innovation (Stein &

Wang, 1988), self-concept (Guskey, 1988), and levels of administrative support and

ongoing assistance (Invargson & MacKenzie, 1988; cited in Bailey & Palsha, 1992).

Fullan (1982; cited in Sikes, 1992) maintained that also crucial to any change

was how individuals came to terms with it in the context of their familiar framework

of reality. Whatever change meant for an individual determined how that change was

perceived and accommodated. In relation to teachers, Fullan (1982; cited in Sikes,

1992) suggested that depending on individual perceptions, the same change in the

same institution could aggravate problems or alleviate them. According to Sikes

(1992), much depended on what change meant for individual teachers' ideologies and

philosophies, on the kind of teacher they wanted to be and be seen as, on their

objective and subjective career aspirations, and on what they were required to do in

their job.

Sikes’ (1992) views on teachers and change can be related to the introduction

of technology in higher education. An academic's acceptance of new ideas is

influenced by their individual life experiences. Concerning technology, experiences

may be comprised of actual encounters with technology, or impressions gained from

sources such as colleagues or research findings. Whatever the source, if the

experience resulted in negative perceptions of technology, the likelihood of

resistance to the future use of technology was increased. Resistance to technology

may also occur if academics were made to feel that their teaching skills were

36

undermined or made redundant, or if they considered the use of technology to be

disadvantageous to students. Resistance to technology could also be a factor if the

introduction of technology created discord between an academic's aims and purposes

and those of an institution, For example, if an institution's rationale for integrating

technology was to compel students to learn by independent study, it may well

conflict with an academic's aim to facilitate student learning through personalised

and small-group instruction. Institutions may also view technology integration as a

means of reducing academics' teaching loads in order to maximise their time for

research and publishing. However, if an academic's aim was to prioritise teaching

rather than research or publishing, the resulting conflict in aims was unlikely to see

uncompromising support for technology-mediated instruction.

Work contexts and conditions must also be conducive to technology

integration if integration is to be successful. Tangible support in the form of adequate

facilities, and resources are essential if such change is to be realised. Academics not

only need access to equipment, software and training programs, they also require

time that is free of other commitments to become familiar with technology.

Sikes (1992) highlighted how work cultures impact upon change in higher

education settings. The effects of workplace cultures on the integration of technology

can be far-reaching, affecting it in a variety of ways. For example, a particular

culture in a university school or department may demonstrate its support for

technology by employing only those academics who express a willingness to use

technology in their teaching. It may also allocate funding to projects that involve

developing technology-based instructional materials rather than those that focus on

more traditional methods. On the other hand, resistance to technology integration

may be manifested by a culture in its non-use of technology, lack of support for

technology-based projects, or lack of provision of incentives to use technology. In

either situation, if academics find themselves at odds with the prevalent culture, they

may feel isolated, threatened and unable to fully commit themselves to their work.

It would appear then, that if institutions are to realise technology integration,

they must be mindful of the problems that imposed change can cause. Change is

extremely complex, individualised and often threatening. Without appropriate

37

consultation and support, attempts to impose change may be met with resistance.

In summary, despite the belief that attitudes were integral to the adoption of

new technologies, few descriptive studies have been conducted that examined how

academic staff viewed technologies and how technologies were being used. In

addition, there were only limited attempts to extricate those factors that encouraged

or prevented faculty use of technology. This handful of studies revealed a somewhat

perplexing picture of high valuing but under-utilisation of technology in higher

education along with inconsistent findings surrounding the effects of gender.

However, findings concerning the influence on technology use of factors such as

time (Davis et al., 1995; Spotts & Bowman, 1993; Willis et al., 1995), training

(Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Spotts & Bowman, 1993; Wetzel, 1993), equipment and

resources (Spotts & Bowman, 1993), and evidence about improved learning

outcomes (Spotts & Bowman, 1993) were more consistent, as were perceptions

about the importance of valuing teaching as opposed to research (Hesketh et al.,

1996; Kline, 1994; Ramsden et al., 1995).

Technologies and Teacher Education Writers on teacher education such as Kline (1994) claimed that multimedia

had unique potential for preservice teacher education programs. Kline (1994)

suggested that multimedia provided the answer to a predicament confronted by

teacher educators, namely, the need to provide preservice students with opportunities

to observe children, in order that they become skilled in analysing children's

behaviour. For example, field visits to classroom settings can be time consuming,

difficult to organise and often intrusive for schools and children. The accuracy of

students recordings made during such visits can also be difficult to determine. Kline

(1994) proposed that multimedia simulations were an effective and efficient

alternative to field visits. He maintained that simulations incorporating video

sequences and accompanying text, exercises, and feedback presented an authentic

and interactive context for learning about observation in school settings. Using

simulations, groups of students were able to observe and discuss identical events that

could be pre-selected according to their specific learning needs. In addition, such

controlled conditions made it possible for teacher educators to assess students'

mastery of observational techniques and understanding of child behaviours.

38

Berry (1994) claimed that simulations provided realistic experiences in which

students could apply problem solving and decision-making skills. He maintained

they were an effective means of preparing students for situations they were likely to

encounter in the classroom. According to White (1995), simulations actively engaged

learners in interactive, realistic and meaningful learning activities that encouraged

problem solving and reflection. This form of learning, explained White (1994), was

consistent with constructivist principles. Kenny, Covert, Schilz, Vignola, and

Andrews (1995) also noted that information presented in multiple formats provided a

rich learning environment reflective of a constructivist view of learning. They

suggested that the use of multimedia simulations and case studies could provide an

intermediate step between the more abstract level of theory and "the complex, even

messy, world of professional practice" (p. 173). From their study of preservice

students’ use of CD-ROM classroom vignettes, they concluded that multimedia

instruction was not only appealing, it could be effective in facilitating reflective

decision-making among student teachers.

However, perhaps the most powerful argument for the use of technologies

such as multimedia in education, was that teachers needed exposure to new

technologies in order to be prepared for the increasingly complex instructional

environments that confronted them. In 1993 in America, instructional technology

was already entrenched in the school systems with 4.5 million computers installed in

the nations’ schools. Aston and Schwarz (1994) revealed that at that time, 40% of

school districts were also utilising integrated learning systems. In Australia,

Newhouse (1994) noted that most schools in 1994 had significant numbers of

computers, with some having one computer for each student.

As noted by Bowes (1994), the development of children’s information skills

was already viewed by the United Nations as a fundamental right because these skills

were considered to be “the key to open access to information, to culture and to

knowledge” (p. 121). Bowes (1994) noted that in order to facilitate this skill

development in Australia, reports by Carmichael (Employment and Skills Formation

Council, 1992), Finn (Australian Education Council review Committee, 1991) and

Mayer (Committee to advise the Australian Education Council, 1992), along with the

National Curriculum Statement for Technology (Department of Employment,

39

Education and Training,1992; cited in Bowes, 1994), called for all school teachers to

have basic skills in information technology. Furthermore, governments in New South

Wales and Queensland developed specific policies concerning the use of computer

technology in schools. In 1996, Tinkler, Lepani and Mitchell noted that priorities

outlined by the New South Wales government included the following:

Every syllabus will state how computers can enhance the teaching and learning of

each subject.

Computers will not take over the classroom. Teachers will remain in charge and use

computers as a teaching tool for the whole class.

Every school will be connected to a superhighway to link schools to the information

of the world.

All new teachers in government schools will be computer literate and have the

proven capacity to use computers in the classroom.

(Tinkler, Lepani & Mitchell, 1996, p. 10, 11).

At the local level, the Queensland Schools Computer Policy (1991; cited in

Tinkler, Lepani & Mitchell, 1996) stipulated that its priority was for teachers and

students to use technology in order to process information, investigate, test and

extend knowledge. In relation to the role of teachers in the achievement of this, the

policy stated:

Teachers will acquire skills and competencies in the use and application of

computers to ensure support for the integration of learning technology across

the P-12 curriculum (Tinkler, Lepani & Mitchell, 1996, p. 13).

In order to realise the development of these skills and competencies, the

Queensland Schools Computer Policy also stated that teachers required:

Access to computer software and hardware;

Access to relevant policies and guidelines; Access to technical advice and support;

Advice on available resources; and,

On-going professional development and support.

40

While professional development programs are needed to ensure that current

teachers become skilled in the use of technologies, many researchers and

practitioners agreed that competency in the use of technology begins when students

are exposed to quality, integrated technology experiences in their teacher preparation

courses (Thompson & Schmidt, 1994). As Thompson and Schmidt stated, if new

teachers were to effectively employ technology in the classroom, they must have

appropriate experiences and instruction throughout their preservice program. This

instruction, claimed Munday, Windham and Stamper (1991; cited in Lyons &

Carlson, 1995), should be provided by role models in the higher education setting.

It was apparent that many teacher education programs were under growing

pressure from various organisations to equip students with a working knowledge of

new technologies. One such organisation, The International Society for Technology

in Education (ISTE) (Thomas, 1991; cited in Espinoza & McKinzie, 1995), decreed

that "all teacher preparation programs must provide fundamental concepts and skills

for applying information technology in educational settings" (p. 14). The directives it

outlined for teacher education programs were to demonstrate knowledge and uses of

multimedia, hypermedia, and telecommunications; to use computer-based

technologies to access information to improve personal and professional

productivity; and to apply computers and related technologies to facilitate emerging

roles of the learner and the educator.

Although organisations such as the United States Office of Technology

Assessment (1988; cited in Lyons & Carlson, 1995) have claimed that adequate

training in the use of technology was "the most important ingredient affecting the

implementation of new technology” (p. 753), several authors maintained that most

teachers experienced little or no training (Cunningham & Brown, 1994; Handler,

1993; Kline, 1994; Lyons & Carlson, 1995). Kline (1994) for example, claimed that

while university education, in general, lagged behind the business world in terms of

its use of technology, the preservice teacher education of teachers was even slower.

Likewise, a study by Handler (1993) revealed little evidence that typical preservice

teacher education programs were permeated with opportunities to work with

technology. Instead, what was apparent, was that in many classrooms, from early

childhood to senior high school, students demonstrated more comfort and expertise

41

in the use of computers than their teachers. The American Association of Colleges

for Teacher Education also maintained that beginning teachers were inexperienced in

using technology, even though in America, the ability to effectively use technology

was rapidly becoming a prerequisite skill for securing a teaching position (Lyons &

Carlson, 1995). Cunningham and Brown (1994), claimed that the situation in

Australia was much the same. They maintained that preservice training made little

use of technology, relying instead on lectures and group tutorials.

While research into the use of technologies in preservice teacher education

prior to 1997 was patchy, findings from studies were surprisingly consistent. Studies

revealed that although most preservice and graduate teachers considered technology

experiences to be an important component of their training, many were

uncomfortable with the prospect of utilising technology in the classroom (Handler,

1993; Hochman, Maurer & Roebuck, 1993; Liu, Reed & Phillips, 1990; cited in

Gabriel & MacDonald, 1996) and regarded their training in the use of technology to

be inadequate (Colon, et al., 1995; Oliver, 1994). For instance, a study of teachers by

Topp et al. (1995) found that nearly 70% rated their preparation in college to use

computer technology as inadequate. Likewise, Colon et al.'s (1995) study of new

teachers in the United States found that 85% felt they were minimally to poorly

prepared to use technology in the classroom and only 13% believed that their

preparation was adequate or better. Of these teachers, 74% considered the use of

information technology to be very or extremely important to their training but

reported very little personal or faculty use of technologies throughout their training.

From these findings, Colon et al. (1995) concluded that progress toward effective

integration in teacher education programs was painfully slow.

In order to investigate cross-cultural differences on a range of issues related

to technology, Davis et al. (1995) surveyed teachers in their first or second year of

teaching in schools throughout the United Kingdom and the United States. The

researchers sought information on attitudes towards, or experience with, a range of

technologies including multimedia. The study revealed that 97% of teachers in the

United Kingdom and 64% of American teachers reported that they were taught with,

or taught how to use, some information technologies during their training. Despite

this, only 20% of teachers in the United Kingdom and 13% of American teachers

42

reported that they were well prepared to use information technologies.

It appears that even when preservice teacher education students undertake

specific information technology courses, many still feel unprepared to use

technology in the classroom. Handler (1993) noted that 98% of all teacher education

programs in America provide a technology oriented course, but found that only 22%

of undergraduates and 14% of first year teachers felt confident about using

technology in the classroom. Although students regarded the technology course as

being valuable, they indicated that equally important to their preparation was the

opportunity to observe academic faculty members using technology.

The importance of academics modelling the use of technology has also been

raised in studies cited by Wild (1994). Wild (1994) refers to research by Gooler

(1989), Davis (1992), Handler, (1993) and Wright (1993) which noted positive

outcomes of modelling technology use by lecturing staff for new teachers’ use of

technology in the classroom. Faculty modelling was also found to be related to

technology use in Huang's (1994) United States study of preservice teachers. Huang

(1994) investigated relationships between attitudes towards technology, use of

technology and characteristics such as gender and faculty use of technology.

Findings revealed that both utilisation and valuing of technology were significantly

correlated with faculty influence and gender. Students who reported more positive

faculty influence also reported higher valuing and greater use of technology than

those who did not. Overall, female students reported greater use and higher valuing

of technology than males. Huang (1994) noted, however, that compared with the

generally high value accorded to technology, the actual use of technology among

preservice teachers was low.

Low computer usage rates were also reported in Oliver's 1994 study of first

year teachers in Western Australia. In relation to preservice training in the use of

computers, Oliver (1994) found that 41% regarded their training as poor or very

poor, 32% reported receiving no formal computer education and of this group, 75%

had not been exposed to computers at all during their training. Within the school

setting, 60% of teachers reported that access to hardware and software was good, and

almost half reported that software quality was high to very high. Despite this, up to

43

75% of teachers made little or no use of computer technology and most considered

their usage to be significantly less than that of their peers. Concerning training needs,

all teachers considered training in computers to be a priority, with 90% regarding

this as a high or very high priority. When asked what might lead most to an

improvement in preservice computer training, teachers suggested a need for a formal

or compulsory unit in computer education and demonstrations in how to use and

apply a range of software packages.

According to Grandgenett et al. (1992), the challenge for teacher education

institutions, therefore, was to determine the best approach to help their students

become effective users of technology. Handler (1993) acknowledged that while this

may entail revising current teaching programs, it was the only way to ensure that

new teachers met the standards and requirements of schools in which they were

placed.

Immediate Study Context

At the time of the first phase of research, the impact of technology was

starting to filter into policy documents at the QUT. Of the six objectives documented

in the university-wide 1995-2000 Strategic Plan, for instance, two referred to

technology. These were: “provide teaching and learning environments which… make

the best use of appropriate technologies; and, offer courses of study which are

innovative, flexible…” (p. 10). In order to achieve this, two of the 17 strategies also

referred to technology. One of these focused on infrastructure – “the provision of

high quality educational technology” (p. 11), the other on human resources – “review

the strategic focus of academic staff development to enhance its contribution to the

University’s teaching and learning objectives and to recognise changes in the staff

profile and in the modes of course delivery” (p. 11). Of the 15 quantitative targets,

the one that explicitly noted technology stated, “By 1999, at least 10% of all first

year undergraduate contact hours will be computer based on or off campus, with

70% of schools involved” (p. 12).

In addition, an initiative to allocate yearly funding to teaching and learning

projects that utilised technology was also established at this time, along with the

44

development of policies promoting staff incentives to improve teaching. Among

these incentives were personal promotion and Awards for Outstanding Contribution

to teaching excellence (QUT Strategic Plan, 1995-2000).

Surprisingly, for the largest provider of preservice and graduate teacher

education programs in Australia (QUT, 2002), there were no specific policies within

the Faculty of Education that related to equipping preservice teachers with

technology skills. Similarly, at the Faculty level, there were no specific policies or

initiatives that related to equipping Education Faculty teaching staff with these skills.

SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE

LITERATURE

The review of literature raised a number of specific questions related to

perceptions and use of technologies such as multimedia in higher and preservice

teacher education. These questions underscore the current program of research and

are reflected in the overall research objectives outlined on p. 9.

A great deal of discussion suggested that multimedia technology had much to

offer institutions of higher education in terms of cost savings (Choo, 1994; Massy &

Zemsky, 1995; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996), consistency and quality of teaching

(Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996), and maximising competitiveness (Fyfe & Fyfe, 1994;

Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996). Studies revealed that there was general support among

learners for multimedia-delivered instruction and suggested that students

demonstrated improved motivation (Waddick, 1995); interest (Gooley et al., 1994;

Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994); and understanding of subject content (Crosby & Stevlosky,

1995; Hsi & Agogino, 1993; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994) when using multimedia

programs, as well as increased feelings of control over learning (Waddick, 1995).

While many students expressed a preference for multimedia-delivered instruction

over traditional methods (Gooley et al., 1994; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994; Waddick,

1995), some also voiced concerns after using multimedia. Concerns included

problems in accessing computers, inability to ask questions (James et al., (1995), and

difficulty understanding navigational instructions (Kenny et al., 1995). Therefore,

what perceptions do academic staff and graduate teachers hold in relation to the use

45

of new technologies such as multimedia in the delivery of higher education?

(Academic staff research objective 1, Graduate teacher research objective 1).

It was apparent from the literature, that technologies such as multimedia were

under-utilised in higher education. Many writers attributed under-utilisation to

negative faculty attitudes (Benavides & Surry, 1994; Forgo & Koczka, 1996; Heron,

1996; Massy & Zemsky, 1997; Murphy, 1994; Reeves; cited in McNaught, 1995),

but these claims remained largely unsubstantiated. Instead, emerging from the

research, were indications of a somewhat paradoxical situation in which technology

was highly valued but nevertheless neglected, by faculty in higher education. While

investigations of the relationship between technology use and faculty variables, such

as gender and rank provided inconsistent findings, research into factors that impacted

upon faculty use of technology proved insightful. Factors identified as affecting

technology use included lack of time (Davis et al., 1995; Spotts & Bowman, 1993;

Willis et al., 1995), lack of training (Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Spotts & Bowman,

1993; Wetzel, 1993), lack of equipment and resources (Spotts & Bowman, 1993),

and insufficient evidence that technology enhanced learning (Spotts & Bowman,

1993). Several studies also indicated that many academics believed that teaching was

undervalued compared to research or publishing (Hesketh et al., 1996; Kline, 1994;

Ramsden et al., 1995), while others writers suggested that change, if imposed, could

discourage faculty from adopting technology (Kortecamp & Croninger, 1996; Sikes,

1992). These findings raised a number of questions, including: What are the factors

that influence technology use? (Academic staff research objective 2). And, do

academic staff feel that teaching is undervalued? (Academic staff research objective

3).

While research into the use of technologies in preservice teacher education

was patchy, findings from studies were surprisingly consistent. As previously

discussed, computer-based technologies such as multimedia were thought to have

particular relevance for preservice teacher education students because of the growing

need for teachers to be technologically literate. Indeed, reports from new teachers

demonstrated much agreement regarding the importance of training in the use of

46

technologies (Colon et al., 1995; Huang, 1994; Oliver, 1994). However, studies also

revealed that many new teachers did not use technology in their classrooms because

they lacked confidence (Handler, 1993; Hochman, Maurer & Roebuck, 1993; and

Lui, Reed, & Phillips, 1990; cited in Gabriel & MacDonald, 1996). Furthermore,

there was also widespread dissatisfaction among new teachers regarding their

training in technology use, with many rating their training as inadequate (Colon et

al., 1995; Oliver, 1994; Topp et al., 1995). Although it was widely believed that

students benefited from observing faculty using technology (Handler, 1993; Huang,

1993; Wild, 1994; Wright, 1993), insights from new teachers revealed that preservice

teacher education lacked opportunities for students to observe and interact with

technology (Colon et al., 1995; Handler, 1993; Huang, 1994; Oliver, 1994; Spotts &

Bowman, 1995; Willis et al., 1995). Therefore, what factors influenced graduate

teachers’ usage of technology? (Graduate teacher research objective 2). And, what

perceptions do graduate teachers and academic staff hold in relation to preservice

preparation in technology use? (Academic staff research objective 4, Graduate

teacher research objective 3).

47

CHAPTER 3

PHASE 1 (1997): RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the overall research design for the study, the

methodology for the first phase of the research and highlights the appropriateness of

survey methodology for the purposes of data collection. The chapter outlines the

procedure for data collection, describes the participant groups and details the

measures used and the literature that informed the development of the measures. The

chapter also describes the technologies that were the focus of the study and the data

analysis techniques that were employed.

Research Design As it was the intention of this study to investigate change over time, the

program of research was conducted using a longitudinal design. According to

Menard (1991) longitudinal research is that which involves subjects or cases that are

the same or comparable from one period to the next, collects data on items or

variables on at least two occasions and compares that data over time. As opposed to

a longitudinal panel design involving identical cases, this particular study utilised a

repeated cross-sectional design in that it collected data on the same set of variables

for two periods but involved comparable, rather than, identical, cases. Menard (1991)

noted that repeated cross-sectional designs allow for the measurement of change for

well-defined groups of cases as long as the cases are comparable at the group level

from one cross-section to the next. It is essential, however, that sampling and

administration of the data collection is strictly replicated otherwise the comparability

of data may be seriously compromised.

While the strength of repeated cross-sectional research is its capacity to

examine trends in attitudes or behaviours over time, its limitations lie in its

inappropriateness for studying developmental patterns within cohorts and its inability

to reliably determine causal order (Menard, 1991). As it was not the intention of this

program of research to identify developmental patterns or causal order, a cross

48

sectional design was considered appropriate.

Data collection for both longitudinal and cross sectional research can involve

experiments, case studies, ethnographies, censuses, archival data, and sample

surveys (Menard, 1991). The research reported in this thesis is based on survey

methodology. Surveys are an appropriate means of gathering data from a large

number of individuals and can be an efficient and practical means of data collection.

According to Rea and Parker (1992), in situations when accurate information about

large populations is required and enough is known about the population to formulate

specific questions, there is no better method of research than the survey process.

Fowler (1988) explained that because survey research employs questions and items

that are consistent across individuals, it provides comparable information about

respondents in a research study.

The program of research was conducted in two phases. To ensure that the

research program met with ethical protocols, ethical clearance was obtained from the

University Human Research Ethics Committee at QUT prior to the commencement

of data collection.

In both phases, self-administered survey questionnaires were delivered or

mailed to academic staff and graduate teachers. The advantages of self-administered

surveys have been well documented and include increased anonymity for

respondents and flexibility in terms of how, when and where the questionnaire is

completed. In addition, because there is no interviewer, there is also no likelihood of

interviewer bias (Rea & Parker, 1992). However, according to Fowler (1988) lack of

interviewer presence can in itself be problematic. Fowler (1988) explained that if

respondents require assistance with their survey, no one is present to help them. This

situation can be partially remedied by inviting respondents to telephone those

responsible for the survey should they have any queries. Unlike interviews, self-

administered surveys also place more of a burden on the reading and writing skills of

the respondent. This can be problematic in situations where there are low levels of

literacy among respondents. In addition, the success of self-administered surveys can

be hampered by biased responses and low return rates. Fowler (1988) contended that

sometimes only those interested in the research issue make the effort to complete and

49

return a questionnaire. Nevertheless, he argued that when follow-up procedures are

in place to remind respondents to return the survey, or when they are distributed to

groups, self-administered surveys should achieve acceptable return rates.

The survey questionnaires used in this research gathered quantitative data

from closed questions and qualitative data from open questions. Closed questions

refer to questions for which a list of acceptable alternatives is provided from which a

response is selected, while open questions do not provide any response options

(Fowler, 1988). It was anticipated that such an approach involving closed and open-

ended questions would provide greater insight into the complex area of investigation.

Bryman (1988) explained that while quantitative methods are oriented to the special

concerns of the investigator and can effectively establish or reveal response patterns,

qualitative information gathered through open-ended questions are more oriented to

the participants’ perspectives. As such, qualitative information enables events,

actions, norms, and values to be viewed from the perspective of the people being

studied (Bryman, 1988).

In this research, closed questions were more frequently used in the survey

questionnaires for several reasons. According to Rea and Parker (1988) they are less

onerous to the respondent because a choice of responses is provided. Not only can

this make the task of answering a question easier, it can help to clarify the meaning

of a question. This is important because when questions are understood, the

likelihood of extraneous and irrelevant responses is lessened. In addition, closed

questions enhance the reliability and uniformity of responses thereby facilitating

comparisons among respondents (Fowler, 1988). Wiersma (1991) suggested that

closed questions have the added advantage of simplifying data tabulation. Despite

their strengths, closed questions can be inherently constraining for respondents. They

may also present problems when they are misunderstood or when a respondent

cannot find an appropriate response. Rea and Parker (1992) noted that under these

circumstances, a respondent might instead select an erroneous response.

While closed questions promote response consistency and ease of data

tabulation, open-ended questions also have specific value. Fowler (1988) noted that

respondents appreciate the opportunity to answer some questions in their own words.

50

Unlike closed questions, questions that are open provide respondents with an

opportunity to articulate feelings and beliefs that are most salient to them (Bryman,

1988). The use of open-ended questions is also appropriate when the list of possible

answers is longer than is feasible to present to respondents and when the answers

cannot be anticipated (Fowler, 1988). Although they offer particular advantages, Rea

and Parker (1988) suggest that open-ended items in self-administered questionnaires

should be limited. Open questions, they caution, can be difficult to interpret, time

consuming to code and often produce unusable data. The use of both open-ended and

closed questions in the present research provided a balance between the advantages

and disadvantages of the respective question formats.

Method During both phases of the research, self-administered questionnaires were

used to collect data. The surveys were designed to elicit academic staff and graduate

teachers' perceptions and usage patterns surrounding computer-based technologies.

They also elicited information from the respective groups about their attitudes

concerning the value and effectiveness of preservice teacher education in preparing

new teachers to use computer-based technologies in schools.

Participants Participants in both phases of the research were academic faculty members

and graduate teachers from two four-year degree courses in the Faculty of Education

at QUT. The rationale behind the selection of staff and graduates from the same

university was the assumption that any differences in survey responses stemmed

from differences among respondents rather than differences in the experiences to

which the respondents had been exposed (Fowler, 1988). In addition, being the

largest provider of preservice teacher education courses in Australia, QUT provided

a potentially large pool of participants. While, it is acknowledged that this single

context limits the generalisability of findings to other universities, many prior studies

of technology use have also focused on single university sites (Crosby & Stevlosky,

1995; Fyfe & Fyfe, 1994; McNaught, 1995; Spotts & Bowman, 1993, 1995; Wetzel,

1993; Waddick, 1995).

51

Academic staff participants, in both phases of the research, were full-time

teaching staff within the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of

Technology who taught in either the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) or the

Bachelor of Education (Primary) courses. It was felt that surveying two groups of

teaching staff within a single university faculty would ensure commonality of

experience among participants, in terms of their work context. Additionally, it was

hoped that a reasonably sized sample could be obtained.

The graduate teachers in the first phase of research comprised Bachelor of

Education graduates from both the 1995 and 1996 Early Childhood and Primary

courses in the Bachelor of Education at QUT. At the time of the study, therefore,

these graduate teachers had embarked on their first or second year of teaching. The

selection of QUT graduates permitted the comparison of their experiences and

recollections with those of their academic staff. Early childhood and primary

teaching graduates were selected for the study due to their training for, and teaching

in, general education classrooms. Secondary teaching graduates were not included in

the study because of their subject-specific training and teaching and the differential

emphasis on technology use across these subjects.

Procedure Prior to distribution, questionnaires were first piloted with a subset of

respondents. These respondents were also asked to provide comments on the clarity

of questionnaire items. This feedback assisted in the refinement of the final

instruments employed in both phases of the research. In Phases 1 and 2 the

questionnaires for academic staff were distributed to each full-time teaching staff

member involved in teaching in either the Bachelor of Education (Primary) or the

Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood). These staff members were identified using

the computer-based data warehouse system available at the university. Completed

questionnaires were returned to the researcher via the internal mailing system.

Survey questionnaires for graduate teachers were distributed via mail. Addresses for

graduate teachers were obtained via the graduate Student Information System. To

ensure ease of return, questionnaires for graduate teachers were distributed with

reply-paid envelopes. In order to maximise the return of questionnaires, two weeks

after the initial distribution of questionnaires, reminder letters were sent to both

52

academic staff and graduate teachers.

Measures Questionnaires were developed for the academic staff and graduate teacher

groups. However, because it was the intention to compare particular responses across

the groups, many items were common to the two questionnaires. Each of the

questionnaires included selected-response items (rating scales and forced-choice

items) and open-ended questions.

The questionnaires in both phases sought information about attitudes,

knowledge and usage patterns related to five types of computer-based technologies.

In Phase 1, these technologies comprised computer assisted instruction (CAI);

multimedia; audiographics; the Internet; and electronic mail (Email). The

technologies were selected for the following reasons. Firstly, they had been cited in

the literature as being 'innovative' or 'new' technologies which were likely to play an

increasing role in the delivery of education (Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Mazzarol &

Hosie, 1996; Spotts & Bowman, 1995). Secondly, as the technologies had been used

to varying degrees at QUT, it was felt that participants in the study would be

reasonably familiar with them. In addition, the investigation of a range of computer-

based technologies (rather than focusing exclusively on multimedia) would provide

greater insight into technology use and enable some findings to be compared with

those of previous research. Nevertheless, due to its prominence in the literature and

widespread claims about its potential to revolutionise teaching and learning in higher

education (Felix & Askew, 1996; Grandgenett et al., 1992; Issing, 1996; Kennedy,

1995; Love & Gosper, 1995; Valmont & Blanco, 1995), a variety of questions

focused exclusively on multimedia.

To promote consistency among the respondents’ understanding of the

technologies referred to in the questionnaires, descriptions of each of the

technologies were provided in the questionnaires. These descriptions were as

follows:

Computer-assisted Instruction (CAI) - basic, independent and self-paced

computer-aided learning programs which are generally linear in format and do

53

not feature sound or video. CAI is often used for exams and drill and practice

exercises.

Multimedia (as exemplified by CD-ROMS) - relatively new computer-based

technology. Multimedia programs can be highly interactive in nature and feature

combinations of text, sound, animation, video, and graphics. Multimedia/ CD-

ROM computers do not necessarily have Internet access.

Audiographics - simultaneous use of telephones and computers to link people

(for example, groups of students and teachers) at a distance.

The Internet - information source best known for the World-Wide-Web. You do

not need a Multimedia/ CD-ROM computer to access the Internet but you do

need to be 'on-line' or networked to a site.

Electronic Mail or E-mail - computerised communication system that enables

people to receive and send messages via their computers.

1997 Academic Staff Questionnaire

The measure developed to survey academic staff in Phase 1 of the research

was The Academic Staff Questionnaire (Appendix A). This 49-item questionnaire

comprised questions that were developed specifically for the research as there were

no measures available which met the requirements of the research. Several items

were, however, adapted from survey instruments developed by Davis et al. (1995),

Spotts and Bowman (1993; 1995); and Willis et al. (1995). In these cases, scales that

were employed in the previous studies were used. The Academic Staff Questionnaire

comprised five sections. A summary of section items and the sources that contributed

to their development is presented in Table 6.1. In the following sections, detailed

information is provided about the questionnaires and the rationales underpinning the

inclusion of the various questions.

Section A. Demographics and Computer Ownership

This section of the questionnaire, items A1 to A7, focused on demographic

information and computer ownership. Respondents were asked to indicate their

gender, years of lecturing experience, and the course in which they primarily taught

(Early Childhood or Primary). In addition, they were asked to indicate if they owned

54

a computer, and if they did, whether or not it had a CD-ROM drive or a Modem. The

inclusion of these questions stemmed from findings by Spotts and Bowman (1995)

who revealed significant relationships between home computer ownership and

increased knowledge of, and experience with, 'newer' or computer-based

technologies. It was hypothesised that ownership of a CD-ROM computer and or a

modem might further enhance such a relationship.

Section B – Knowledge and Use of Computer-Based Technologies

The second section of the questionnaire contained eleven items that sought

information related to knowledge about, attitudes towards, or use of the five

computer-based technologies previously outlined (CAI, multimedia, audiographics,

the Internet and email). It was hoped that responses to these items would provide

insight into the preparedness of academic staff to use computer-based technologies in

their work. Questions B1 and B2 examined faculty knowledge about computer-based

technologies. Question B1 asked teachers to rate their level of knowledge for each of

the five technologies, described earlier in this chapter, as 'Not literate'; 'Novice';

'Intermediate'; or 'Advanced' (as used by Colon et al. in their 1995 study). Question

B2 asked faculty to indicate how their knowledge was developed by selecting from

four options - 'self-taught'; 'help from colleagues'; ‘work-based training’; or

'professional training'. This question was included to allow comparison with previous

research by Lyons and Carlson (1995) which found that most faculty members were

self-taught or received informal help from others. Questions B3 and B4 were

designed to tap perceptions of confidence and difficulty associated with using the

technologies. Question B3 required staff to rate their level of confidence for each of

the technologies as either 'Not at all confident'; 'Not confident'; 'Confident'; or 'Very

Confident'. In question B4, staff were asked to rate each of the technologies as being

'Not at all difficult'; 'Not difficult’; ‘Difficult’; or 'Very difficult’.

Questions B5, B6 and B7 were concerned with the purposes and frequency of

use of technologies for teaching and non-teaching activities. It was felt necessary to

differentiate between these two types of activities in order to gain an accurate

understanding of technology utilisation among faculty members. Questions B5 and

B6 were select-response questions that required staff to indicate how often they used

55

each of the technologies for teaching and non-teaching activities. Staff selected from

the options 'daily', 'weekly'; 'fortnightly'; 'monthly'; 'once a semester'; or 'never'. Data

from these questions was compared with findings from Spotts and Bowman's (1995)

study in which most faculty reported that they never used newer technologies such as

multimedia. Question B7 was open-ended, inviting staff to explain how they use the

technologies for these activities.

Questions B8 and B9 examined faculty perceptions about their future use of

computer-based technologies. Staff were asked if they envisaged a ‘decrease’;

‘increase’; or 'no change’ in how often they would use technologies for teaching

(B8), and whether or not they would like to see 'less use'; 'more use'; or 'no change' in

usage (B9). Question B10, asked staff to rank order the five technologies according

to their perceived usefulness to their teaching. Question B11 asked staff to rate each

of the technologies as being 'Not important'; 'Reasonably important'; or 'Very

important' to the delivery of university education. While previous research has

reported that faculty consider technology to be important to university and teacher

education (Spotts & Bowman, 1995; Willis et al., 1995), no differentiation of

specific technologies has occurred. Data from questions B10 and B11 provided

insight into the relative importance and usefulness of the various computer-based

technologies.

Section C – Preparing Students for using Computer-Based Technologies

Part three of the questionnaire comprised four items related to preparing

student teachers to use technology. While some research has explored students' and

graduate teachers' feelings of preparedness to use technologies (Colon et al., 1995;

Davis et al, 1995; Handler, 1993; Oliver, 1994), very little has been documented

about how faculty view the adequacy or importance of technology preparation for

teachers. Items in this section were replicated in the preservice and graduate teacher

questionnaires to allow for comparison of findings across the three groups. Question

C1 asked teaching staff to rate on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Not important) to 5

(Extremely important), the importance of preparation in the use of computer-based

technologies. Comment was invited on this question to allow respondents to discuss

why they felt the way they did. Question C2 required staff to rank order each of the

56

five technologies according to their importance to early childhood and primary

teacher preparation. Question C3 was a select-response question that investigated

faculty perceptions of the adequacy of preparation to use technology. Staff were

asked to rate preparation for using technology from 1 (Not prepared) to 5 (Very well

prepared). The final question in this section addressed the issue of responsibility for

training in the use of technologies. Many educationalists believe that teacher

education institutions are responsible for preparing teachers to use technology

(Grandgenett et al., 1992; Handler, 1993; Thompson, 1994). Question C4 required

staff to nominate who they believed was accountable for training in technology use -

universities; schools; or both universities and schools.

Section D – Multimedia use in Higher Education

The fourth section of the questionnaire, comprising 23 items, addressed

attitudes to and usage patterns surrounding multimedia technology. Question D1, a

closed-response question, was designed to ascertain perceptions of the value of

multimedia delivered instruction compared to that delivered by traditional lecture.

This question was also included in the graduate teacher questionnaire to identify

whether similar values were held by the two groups. Proponents of multimedia-

delivered instruction have proposed particular advantages for students associated

with the use of multimedia technology, namely increased flexibility (Fyfe & Fyfe,

1994), control (Felix & Askew, 1996), interactivity (Simpson, 1994), motivation

(Waddick, 1995), interest (Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994), effectiveness (Hsi & Agogino,

1993), the accommodation of varied learning styles (Olivier & Buckley, 1994); and

more frequent feedback (Laszlo & Castro, 1995; Lewis & Hosie, 1994). Question 22

listed eight statements, each reflecting one of the learning dimensions. These

statements were 'Provides more flexibility'; 'Offers more control over learning'; 'Is

more interactive'; 'Is more motivating'; 'Is more interesting'; 'Is more effective';

Accommodates varied learning styles’; and 'Provides more feedback'. Response

options for each statement were four options 'Lecture', 'Multimedia', 'No Difference',

or 'Undecided'. Questions D2 and D3 were open-ended questions that asked staff to

articulate what they believed were the advantages and disadvantages of using

multimedia technology in the delivery of higher education.

57

Questions D4 to D14 addressed the presence or absence of factors that,

according to the literature, are conducive to technology use among university faculty.

Factors included in these questions have been found by Spotts and Bowman (1993)

to be important influences on faculty use of instructional technology, and have also

been identified in the literature as being influential. These factors to be rated by staff

in the questionnaire were:

Availability of equipment (Davis et al., 1995; Reeves, 1991; Smith, 1994;

Wetzel, 1993; Willis et al., 1995);

Evidence of improved student learning (McNaught, 1995; Murphy, 1994);

Evidence of improved student interest (Spotts & Bowman, 1993);

Ability to integrate into subject content (Benavides & Surry, 1994; Forgo &

Koczka, 1996; Murphy, 1994);

Availability of quality software programs (Davis et al., 1995; McNaught, 1995;

Wetzel, 1993; Willis et al., 1995);

Provision of training (Benavides & Surry, 1994; Davis et al., 1995; Lyons &

Carlson, 1995; Wetzel; 1993);

Adequate time (CAUT, 1995; Mackie & Corbly, 1995; Murphy, 1994; Smith,

1994; Willis et al., 1995; Wong & Smith, 1995);

Ongoing technical advice and support (Davis et al., 1995; Dolly, 1995);

Faculty support (Davis, et al., 1995; Dolly, 1995);

Comfort with technology (Davis et al., 1995; Munson, Poage & Conners, 1995;

Willis et al., 1995);

Rewards such as contribution to promotion or tenure (Hesketh et al., 1996).

Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale ranging from 1

(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree), the extent to which they agreed or

disagreed with each statement. For example, concerning the availability of training,

question D9 asked faculty to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed

with the statement 'Equipment for using multimedia technology is readily available

in my department'.

Questions D15 and D16 were identical in the rating response options for

questions D4 to D14, but focused on the future of multimedia in higher education.

58

These questions asked faculty whether multimedia technology integration was

necessary for universities to remain competitive, and whether or not multimedia

should play a growing role in the delivery of higher education. The intention of these

questions was to determine whether faculty views coincided with claims that an

increasingly competitive higher education climate would necessitate growth in

multimedia delivered instruction (Bonner et al., 1995; Felix & Askew, 1996; Fyfe &

Fyfe, 1994; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996; Spotts & Bowman, 1995).

Questions D17, D18 and D19 were concerned with change in educational

settings. According to change theorists, the development and adoption of new

materials by teachers constitutes modifying or changing one's beliefs and practices

(Bailey & Palsha, 1992). When change is imposed with little or no consultation, it

can challenge professional judgment and be met with resistance (Sikes, 1992).

Questions D17, D18 and D19 were designed to elicit information about these issues.

They asked staff whether or not they felt pressured to use multimedia in their

teaching (D17); whether or not they felt that such pressure would undermine their

teaching abilities (D18); and whether or not they were consulted about their

willingness to use multimedia in teaching (D19). Again, staff were asked to indicate

on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree), the

extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement.

Questions D20 and D22 re-examined the eleven factors thought to be

conducive to the use of technology. The intent of these questions, however, was to

determine the degree to which they would act as incentives or barriers to technology

use. Question D20 comprised a list of the eleven factors rephrased to express a

possible incentive, for example 'Availability of equipment' and 'Evidence of

improved learning'. Staff were required to check each factor according to whether it

would act as a 'moderate incentive'; 'significant incentive'; or 'no incentive'.

Question D23 comprised the same factors, but this time they were rephrased

to express a potential barrier, for example 'Lack of equipment' and 'No evidence of

improved learning'. Staff were required to check each factor according to whether it

would act as a 'Moderate barrier', a 'Significant barrier' or 'Not a barrier'. By

comparing responses to questions D4 to D14 with responses to questions D20 and

59

D22, it should be possible to identify the degree to which the presence or absence of

each of the eleven factors encouraged or prevented staff from using multimedia. For

example, if staff indicated that training was not available (Q.D9), but indicated that

availability of such training would be a significant incentive to use multimedia

technology (Q.D20), it could be proposed that the introduction of training programs

would be successful in encouraging staff to use this technology. It was thought that

responses to question D22 (potential barriers) would provide further clarification of

the need for training. Those faculty who indicated that training would act as an

incentive to use multimedia technology would be more likely to indicate that lack of

training would be a barrier to technology use. Regarding the presence or absence of

rewards such as contribution to promotion or tenure (as determined by responses to

question D14) if faculty indicated that this was not present but also indicated that its

presence would not act as an incentive to using multimedia technology, it was

possible to conclude that rewards such as promotion would be unlikely to encourage

staff to use multimedia technology. Questions D21 and D23, were open-ended

questions that asked staff to note any additional incentives or barriers to using

multimedia technologies in their teaching.

Section E – Valuing and Recognition of Teaching in Higher Education

The final section of the questionnaire was concerned with academic staff and

institutional valuing of three academic activities typically undertaken in universities -

teaching, research, and publishing. Previous research in Australia and overseas

revealed that academics not only consider teaching to be less important to their

promotion or confirmation of tenure than publishing or research, they have claimed

that innovations in teaching are rarely recognised or rewarded by institutions (Davis

et al., 1995; Hesketh et al., 1996; Ramsden et al., 1995). Furthermore, academics

have reported that increasing pressure to publish could jeopardise the quality of their

teaching (Ramsden et al., 1995). Questions E1, E2 and E3 were designed to shed

light on the valuing of these three academic functions in the university setting.

Question E1 asked academic staff to rank order teaching, research, and publishing

according to which they thought was valued most to least in their workplace. In order

to ascertain whether or not discord existed between institutional and personal values,

question E2 asked staff to rank order the activities according to how they felt they

60

should be valued. Question E3 asked faculty to indicate how strongly they agreed or

disagreed that innovation in teaching deserved greater recognition. Question E4

asked whether this greater recognition would encourage their use of technologies in

teaching. The focus of questionnaire sections and the rationale for questions are

presented in Table 3.1

61

Table 3.1 1997 Academic Staff Questionnaire Sections and Literature Support. Section Focus of sections Literature sources and support

for questions A

Demographics and computer ownership Gender, teaching area, number of years teaching and rates of computer-ownership

Spotts and Bowman (1995)

B

Knowledge and use of computer-based technologies Knowledge and confidence levels, sources of knowledge, difficulty of use, frequency and examples of use, future use, usefulness to teaching and importance to higher education

Colon et al. (1995), Lyons and Carlson (1995), Spotts and Bowman (1995), Willis et al. (1995).

C

Preparing students for using technologies The importance of technologies to teacher preparation, the adequacy of preparation, and the responsibility for such preparation

Colon et al. (1995), Davis et al. (1995), Grandgenett et al. (1992), Handler (1993), Oliver (1994), Thompson (1994).

D Multimedia Use in Higher Education Attributes of multimedia and the lecture and identify the advantages and disadvantages of multimedia use The presence or importance of a range of facilitators, barriers and incentives to multimedia use

Bailey and Palsha (1992), Benavides and Surry (1994), Bonner et al. (1995), Davis et al. (1995), Dolly (1995), Felix and Askew (1996), Forgo and Koczka (1996), Fyfe and Fyfe (1994), Hesketh et al. (1996), Hsi and Agogino (1993), Iynkaran and Crilly (1994), Laszlo and Castro (1995), Lewis and Hosie (1994), Lyons and Carlson (1995), Mazzarol and Hosie (1996), McNaught (1995), Murphy (1994), Olivier and Buckley (1994), Ramsden et al. (1995) Reeves (1991), Sikes (1992), Simpson (1994),Smith (1994), Spotts and Bowman (1993), Spotts and Bowman (1995), Waddick (1995), Wetzel (1993), Willis et al. (1995)

E

Valuing and recognition of teaching in higher education Valuing of teaching research and publishing, and the importance and effect of recognition for teaching

Davis et al. (1995), Hesketh et al. (1996), Ramsden et al. (1995).

62

1997 Graduate Teacher Questionnaire

The measure used to survey graduate teachers in Phase 1 of the research was

a 31-item questionnaire. Several items in the questionnaire were common to The

Academic Staff Questionnaire allowing for the comparison of findings across the

groups. The Graduate Teacher Questionnaire, like The Academic Staff

Questionnaire, was developed specifically for the research as there were no

established measures that met the requirements of the current research. A number of

items in the questionnaire were, however, adapted from measures developed by

Colon et al. (1995) and Willis et al. (1995). The questionnaire is presented in

Appendix B.

Section A – Demographics and Computer Ownership

The questionnaire was divided into three sections. Section A focused on

demographic characteristics and was comprised of questions about gender, age,

teaching specialisation (early childhood or primary), and months of teaching

experience. Like academic staff, graduate teachers were also asked to indicate if they

owned a computer and if they did, whether or not it had a CD-ROM Drive and

Modem.

Section B – Attitudes Towards and Usage of Computer-Based Technologies at Work

Section B of the questionnaire focused on computer-based technologies in the

teaching workplace. The eleven items addressed issues such as knowledge,

confidence, current and future usage levels, and perceived usefulness. It was thought

that data from these questions would provide an indication of teachers' readiness to

use each of the technologies. Questions B1, B2, and B3 were concerned with

knowledge and confidence levels associated with using computer-based

technologies. These issues were examined in a study by Colon et al. (1995) which

found that most recent teacher graduates who participated in the study rated their

level of knowledge about technologies as 'novice' or 'intermediate' and few were

willing to use technologies in their teaching. Question B1 asked teachers to rate their

level of knowledge for each of the five technologies, described earlier in this chapter,

as 'Not literate'; 'Novice'; 'Intermediate'; or 'Advanced' (as used by Colon et al. in

their 1995 study). Question B2 explored how this knowledge was developed - 'self-

63

taught'; 'help from colleagues'; 'work-based training'; 'preservice teacher education';

or 'other', while question B3 asked teachers to rate their level of confidence as 'Not at

all confident'; 'Not confident'; 'Confident'; or 'Very confident'. This question was

included because research by Handler (1993) found few preservice teachers felt

confident about using technology in the classroom. Questions B4, B5, B6 and B7 of

the questionnaire were concerned with the use made of the various technologies for

two types of work activities - actual classroom teaching and professional activities

other than teaching (for example, postgraduate study). It was felt that a clearer and

more thorough understanding of technology use in schools would be gained if

teaching and non-teaching uses were differentiated.

Question B4 required teachers to indicate how frequently they used each of

the technologies in their teaching by nominating 'daily', 'weekly'; 'fortnightly';

'monthly'; 'once a semester'; or 'never'. Question B5 addressed the use made of

technologies for non-classroom teaching purposes. Question B6 asked teachers to

provide some examples of these uses. Questions B7 and B8 were concerned with

teachers' future use of the technologies. Teachers were asked to indicate whether

they anticipated 'Decrease'; 'Increase'; or 'No change' in their future use of the

technologies (B7), and whether they would like to see 'Less use', 'No change'; or

'More use' or were 'Undecided' about future usage (B8).

Question B9 asked teachers to rank-order the five technologies according to

their relative usefulness to their work. The remaining two items in this section of the

questionnaire were open-ended. These questions enabled respondents to highlight

issues that could not be articulated in select-response questions. Questions B10 and

B11 of the questionnaire focused on multimedia and asked teachers to comment the

advantages and disadvantages (Q.B10) and barriers (Q.B11) associated with using

multimedia in their work.

Section C – Computer-Based Technologies and Preservice Teacher Education

The final section of the questionnaire contained 13 items that focused on

teachers' retrospective experiences with computer-based technologies throughout

their preservice teacher education. Question C1 asked teachers to indicate how

frequently they encountered each of the five technologies being used by faculty staff

64

for teaching. Questions C2 asked teachers to indicate how often they, themselves,

used the technologies at university. Question C3 asked teachers to provide examples

of how they and teaching staff used the five technologies at university. Question C4,

asked teachers to indicate how important they felt each of the five technologies was

to university teaching. As this question also appeared in the Academic Staff

Questionnaire (refer question B11), it was possible to compare the perceptions of

importance of the various technologies across the two subject groups. This question

also enabled comparison for this sample group with that of previous research which

revealed that, while graduate teachers highly valued training in the use of graduate

technologies, they made little use of them throughout their preservice teacher

education and rarely observed faculty using technology (Colon et al., 1995; Huang,

1994; Oliver, 1994).

Questions C5, C6, C7, C8, C9 and C10 matched Questions C1, C2, C3 and

C4 of The Academic Staff Questionnaire. These questions asked teachers to indicate

if they believed there should be 'More use', 'Less use' or 'No change' in the use made

of technologies for university teaching (C5); to rate the importance of preservice

preparation in the use of computer-based technologies and explain why they felt this

way (C6); to identify what subjects were studied throughout preservice teacher

education that focused on the use of technologies for school teaching (C7); to rank

the relative importance of the technologies to early childhood and primary teacher

preparation (C8); to rate the adequacy of preparation (C9); and to nominate from

'Schools', 'Universities', or 'Both schools and universities', which should be

responsible for such preparation (C10). Data from questions C5 and C9 could be

compared with findings from Colon et al.'s. (1995) study that revealed that overall,

students regarded technology as being very important to their preservice preparation

but were dissatisfied with this preparation.

Question C11, C12 and C13 of the questionnaire focused on the use of

multimedia technology in the delivery of higher education in general. Question C11

matched question D1 of The Academic Staff Questionnaire. It explored perceptions

of the espoused advantages of multimedia over the conventional lecture, namely

flexibility (Fyfe & Fyfe, 1994), control (Felix & Askew, 1996), interactivity

(Simpson, 1994), motivation (Waddick, 1995), interest (Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994),

65

effectiveness (Hsi & Agogino, 1993), the accommodation of varied learning styles

(Olivier & Buckley, 1994), and more frequent feedback (Laszlo & Castro, 1995;

Lewis & Hosie, 1994). The remaining items asked teachers to articulate what they

considered were the advantages (Q.C12), and disadvantages (Q.C13) associated with

using multimedia technology in university courses. These questions were also

included in the Academic staff questionnaire enabling responses to be compared

across the two groups. The focus of questionnaire sections and the rationale for

questions are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 1997 Graduate Teacher Questionnaire Sections and Literature Support Section Focus of questionnaire sections Literature sources and

support for questions A Demographic and computer

ownership information Gender, age, training specialisation, months teaching, computer ownership

B Knowledge and use of technologies Knowledge and confidence levels, sources of knowledge, frequency and examples of technology use, future use, usefulness to teaching, and advantages, disadvantages and barriers associated with technology use

Colon et al. (1995)

C Technology use in preservice and higher education Frequency of use, examples of use, importance of individual technologies, importance and types of technology preparation, adequacy of preparation, responsibility for teacher preparation, attributes of the lecture and multimedia compared, and the advantages and disadvantages of multimedia use.

Colon et al. (1995), Felix and Askew (1996), Fyfe and Fyfe, (1994), Huang (1995),Hsi and Agogino (1993), Iynkaran and Crilly (1994), Laszlo and Castro (1995), Lewis and Hosie (1994), Oliver (1994) Simpson (1994), Waddick (1995), Wild (1994)

Analysis of Data

Quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires were coded and analysed

using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows. Prior to

analyses, quantitative data were screened for accuracy of data entry and missing

values. Descriptive statistics were employed to highlight patterns or trends among

frequency data such as knowledge, confidence, current and future usage as they

66

related to the computer-based technologies.

In relation to open-ended responses, the process of qualitative analysis was

based on data “reduction” and “interpretation” (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 113)

in which respondents’ statements were systematically reduced by searching for

patterns or themes among the responses before being interpreted. The first stage in

this process involved transcribing verbatim responses to each open-ended

questionnaire item. Transcriptions for each question were then read and re-read to

obtain a general sense of the information and to consider its overall meaning

(Creswell, 2003). Data were then coded by organising the various responses into

topics or themes. These themes were then colour-coded and assigned descriptive

labels or codes. As themes emerged during analysis, the data were organised

categorically. These categories were reviewed repeatedly and reduced by grouping

topics or themes that related to each other. Numbers of responses within each

category were then tabulated to provide a frequency statistic.

67

CHAPTER 4

PHASE 1 (1997): ACADEMIC STAFF EXPERIENCES

WITH TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the experiences and perceptions of academic staff involved in

teaching in the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) and the Bachelor of

Education (Primary) are reported. This chapter commences with a brief overview of

the literature that informed this initial phase of research that focused on academic

staff. The participants and procedure are then briefly described, along with the

measurement instrument that was used. Objectives relating to this study follow. The

remainder of the chapter focuses on the study findings. The chapter concludes with a

discussion of these findings in light of previous research.

Background to Phase 1 Literature prior to the 1997 study suggested that computer-based technologies

had much to offer institutions of higher education in terms of cost savings (Choo,

1994; Massy & Zemsky, 1995; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996), improving the consistency

and quality of teaching (Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996), and maximising competitiveness

(Fyfe & Fyfe, 1994; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996). In particular, multimedia technology

was considered a means of facilitating flexible delivery (Stedman, 1995). It was seen

as a way of enhancing student learning through high levels of interactivity (Simpson,

1994), multi-sensory input (Dickinson, 1994; Forgo & Koczka, 1996), feelings of

control over learning (Felix & Askew, 1996; McLoughlin & Oliver, 1994; Sims &

Hedberg, 1995; Waddick, 1995), and the accommodation of individual learning

styles (Choo, 1994; Olivier & Buckley, 1994). Research had suggested that, when

using multimedia programs, students demonstrated improved motivation (Waddick,

1995), interest (Gooley et al., 1994; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994), and understanding of

subject content (Crosby & Stevlosky, 1995; Hsi & Agogino, 1993; Iynkaran &

Crilly, 1994). However, while many students expressed a preference for multimedia

delivered instruction over traditional methods, concerns such as problems in

68

accessing computers, inability to ask questions (James et al., 1995) and difficulty in

understanding navigational instructions (Kenny et al., 1995) had also been raised.

Computer-based technologies, it was thought, had particular relevance for

preservice teacher education students because of a growing expectation that teachers

must be technologically literate. Although it was widely acknowledged that students

benefited from observing academic staff using technology (Handler, 1993; Huang,

1993; Wild, 1994; Wright, 1993), feedback from new teachers had revealed that

preservice teacher education lacked opportunities to observe and use technology

(Colon et al., 1995; Handler, 1993; Huang, 1994; Oliver, 1994; Spotts & Bowman,

1995; Willis et al., 1995). Although many writers had attributed this lack of exposure

to technology to conservative or negative attitudes of academic staff (Benavides &

Surry, 1995; Forgo & Koczka, 1996; Herron, 1996; Massy & Zemsky, 1995;

Murphy, 1994), there was little research to support that claim. Instead, emerging

from the research were indications of a somewhat paradoxical situation in which

technology was highly valued but nevertheless underutilised by academic staff in

higher education. Research into factors that affected the use of technology pointed to

lack of time (Davis et al., 1995; Spotts & Bowman, 1993; Willis et al., 1995), lack of

training (Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Spotts & Bowman, 1993; Wetzel, 1993), lack of

equipment and resources (Spotts & Bowman, 1993), and insufficient evidence that

technology enhanced learning (Spotts & Bowman, 1993). Other explanations may lie

in theories related to change. Some writers had suggested that if individuals felt

pressured to change, if the proposed change was believed to undermine professional

judgement, and if there was a lack of consultation, resistance was more likely to be a

factor impeding the use of new technologies (Kortecamp & Croninger, 1996; Sikes,

1992). Other research suggested that university teachers believed that teaching was

under-valued compared to research or publishing and that this could discourage them

from adopting technology (Hesketh et al., 1996; Kline, 1994; Ramsden et al., 1995).

The purpose of this investigation was to explore the experiences and

perceptions of academic staff as they related to the use of several computer-based

technologies.

69

Specific objectives of this investigation in 1997 were to:

1. Explore attitudes of academic staff towards, and their usage of, computer-based technologies.

2. Identify the factors that encouraged or hindered the usage of computer-based

technologies.

3. Determine the perceptions surrounding personal and university valuing of

teaching.

4. Examine the perceptions of academic staff concerning preparing students to

use technologies in their teaching.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure In 1997, a questionnaire was distributed to staff involved in teaching the

Bachelor of Education (Primary) and the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood)

courses in the Faculty of Education at QUT. Staff names were obtained via the on-

line university data warehouse system. Questionnaires were distributed and returned

via the university internal mailing system.

Two weeks after the initial distribution of questionnaires, a follow-up mail-

out was conducted in an attempt to elicit a higher response rate. In total, 43 of the

102 distributed questionnaires were eventually returned representing a return rate of

42%. This rate was disappointing given the higher return rates reported in similar

studies by Hesketh et al. (1996), (75%, 198/245); Lyons and Carlson (1995), (57%,

421/733); and Ramsden and Martin (1996), (58%, 1489/2579). However, the return

rate was comparable to, or better than, those reported in studies by Spotts and

Bowman, (1993, 1995), (44%, 306/696), and Willis et al. (1995), (20%, 250/1223).

As noted by Babbie (1992), a return rate in survey research of at least 50% is

desirable. Given the modest return rate associated with the current study, therefore, it

must be acknowledged that generalisability of findings is limited.

70

Measurement The 1997 Academic Staff Questionnaire

As discussed in detail in Chapter 3, the 49-item Academic Staff

Questionnaire comprised items developed specifically for the current study because

there were no published measures that met the research requirements. The

questionnaire focused on five technologies CAI, multimedia, audiographics, the

Internet, and email. However, as noted in Chapter 3, a variety of items focused

exclusively on multimedia because of its particular potential to teaching and learning

in higher education. Descriptions of these technologies were provided in the

questionnaires. Several items included in the questionnaire were adapted from survey

instruments developed by Davis et al. (1995), Spotts and Bowman (1993; 1995) and

Willis et al. (1995). The questionnaire was divided into five sections. The first

section focuses on demographic information. The second section was concerned with

knowledge and current use of technologies. The third section examined the use of

technologies in preservice teacher education. The fourth section looks at multimedia

technology use in higher education. The fifth section addresses valuing and

recognition of academic activities. A more detailed description of the development of

individual items within these sections can be found in Chapter 3. The questionnaire

is presented in Appendix A.

Data Analysis Quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires were coded and analysed

using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows. Prior to

analyses, quantitative data were screened for accuracy of data entry and missing

values. Descriptive statistics were employed to highlight patterns or trends among

frequency data such as knowledge, confidence, current and future usage as they

related to the computer-based technologies.

The process of qualitative analysis of open-ended responses was based on the

data “reduction” and “interpretation” (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 113) process

described in Chapter 3. As noted, this involved organising data into topics or themes

which were then assigned category labels. These categories were reviewed

repeatedly and reduced by grouping topics or themes that related to each other.

71

Numbers of responses within each category were then tabulated to provide a

frequency statistic.

RESULTS

In the reporting of the results in this chapter, many tables presenting

frequencies and percentages on the responses for various questions have been placed

in Appendix E. This was thought to facilitate the reading and understanding of the

survey findings because of the extensive number of questions involved. Instead,

tables presented in this chapter tend to be those depicting categorised themes that

have emerged from the responses to open-ended questions.

Demographic characteristics of respondents Of the 43 academic staff who responded to the questionnaire in 1997, Table

8.1 shows that 40% (17) taught in the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) and

49% (21) taught in the Bachelor of Education (Primary). In addition, 12% (5) of

academic staff reported teaching in both the early childhood and primary courses. In

terms of gender, the entire sample comprised 63% (27) females and 37% (16) males.

The predominance of females was particularly apparent in the early childhood group

where they comprised 88% of respondents compared with 52% in the primary group.

This gender difference in the sample was expected as significantly fewer males were

involved in teaching in the early childhood course (at the time of questionnaire

distribution, only two male lecturers were employed).

Sixty-one percent (26) of the respondents had taught in higher education for

10 years or more. High rates of computer-ownership were evident among the group

with 95% (41) reporting owning a personal computer that had a CD-ROM (72%, 31)

and a modem (63%, 27).

Knowledge and use of technologies Respondents were asked six questions about their knowledge and use of

specific technologies. These questions focused on their level of knowledge (rated as

1, Not literate, to 4, Advanced); means by which they developed their knowledge

(rated as 1, Self-taught, 2, Help from colleagues, 3, Work-based training, 4,

72

Professional Training, or 5, Other); level of confidence (rated as 1, Not at all

confident, to 4, Very confident); and perceived level of difficulty (rated as 1, not at

all difficult, to 4, Very difficult) associated with using technologies, as well as

frequency and nature of usage in teaching and non-teaching activities (rated as 1,

Never to 6, Daily).

Reports from the academic staff revealed reasonably high levels of

agreement. Most possessed at least some knowledge of most of the computer-based

technologies. The distribution of frequencies shown suggested that academic staff

were most knowledgeable about the Internet and email with the majority of academic

staff reporting an intermediate or advanced level of knowledge of these technologies.

In contrast, less than one-quarter of the sample (23%) reported similar levels of

knowledge of audiographics. These results are presented in Table E.1 (Appendix E).

For the most part, knowledge of the technologies had been acquired

informally with professional or work-based training not contributing greatly to

knowledge attainment. Although almost one-third of the respondents reported work-

based training in the use of the Internet (30%) and Email (33%), the majority

reported that they were either self-taught or had relied on assistance from colleagues

(Table E.2, Appendix E). While academic staff generally indicated in 1997 that they

did not consider the technologies to be difficult to use (Table E.3, Appendix E),

many nevertheless expressed a lack of confidence in using them in teaching. More

than half of the sample reported that they were not, or not at all, confident about

using CAI (58%), multimedia (51%) or audiographics (73%) in their teaching (Table

E.4, Appendix, E). In contrast, however, nearly three-quarters (75%) of respondents

reported that they were confident or very confident about using email.

Analysis of findings revealed that academic staff made only limited use of

most of the technologies in teaching. A majority of the sample reported never using

CAI (72%), multimedia (56%), audiographics (77%) and the Internet (56%) in their

teaching. Email, on the other hand, was used daily or weekly for teaching purposes

by 40% of respondents. These findings are presented in Table E. 5, Appendix E.

While frequent use of the technologies was limited, reports indicated that

they were used for a variety of purposes. There were 29 responses to the open-ended

73

question asking how the technologies were used in teaching. Analysis of these

responses revealed five broad categories of usage. These categories, communicating

with students, using in classes, locating/sharing information and resources,

demonstrating to students, unit co-ordination and administration. These responses

are presented in Table 4.1. Academic staff indicated that Email and the Internet were

predominantly used for communicating with students, colleagues or organisations

and to a lesser extent for conducting research and accessing or sharing information or

resources. A number of academic staff also reported using one or more of the

technologies as a teaching tool in class or for demonstrating to students. As one

respondent noted, the technologies were “Used to demonstrate various

programs/functions to student teachers so that they will be better prepared when they

begin prac (teaching practice)”.

Respondents were also asked about their use of the technologies for non-

teaching purposes. Table E.6 (Appendix E) represents reports of the frequency of use

for each of the technologies. With regard to the Internet and Email, considerably

more use was made of these technologies for non-teaching activities, as opposed to

teaching activities. Reports from respondents indicated that the Internet was used

daily or weekly by 79% of respondents, while Email was used this often by 91% of

respondents.

There were 34 responses to the open-ended question asking how the

technologies were used in non-teaching activities. Analysis of these responses

revealed six broad categories of usage. As can be seen in Table 4.1, the largest

category was contacting/ networking with colleagues or organisations. Most of these

responses specified Email as the principal means of making contact. The second

largest group of responses was categorised as research, followed by information

retrieval, administration, and developing websites.

74

Table 4.1 1997 Usage of technologies for teaching and non-teaching ____________________________________________________________________ Teaching uses n = 29 ____________________________________________________________________ Communicating with students 62% (18)

Using in class 38% (11)

Locating/sharing information/resources 31% (9)

Demonstrating to students 17% (5)

Administration 10% (4)

____________________________________________________________________ Non-teaching uses n = 34 ____________________________________________________________________ Contacting/networking with colleagues/organisations 71% (24)

Research 65% (22)

Information retrieval 24% (8)

Administrative purposes 9% (3)

Developing web-sites 6% (2)

____________________________________________________________________

The technologies that academic staff claimed to be most knowledgeable and

confident about, which were also used most frequently and considered the least

difficult to use, were those for which many academic staff had reported receiving

work-based training. Almost one third claimed that their knowledge of these

technologies, Email and the Internet, had developed through work-based training.

The technology that academic staff were least knowledgeable and confident about

and which was considered the most difficult to use was Audiographics. Few reported

receiving work-based training in the use of this technology. Not surprisingly, this

was the least used of the five technologies.

The role of technologies in higher education Respondents were asked about the relative importance of each of the

technologies to the delivery of higher education (rated from 1, Not important, to 3,

Very important); the relative usefulness of the technologies to their teaching (ranked

from 1, Most important, to 5, Least important); anticipated future usage of the

technologies (rated 1, Less use, 2, No change, or 3, More use) to; and preferred

future technology use (rated 1, Decrease, 2, No change, or 3, Increase).

75

Findings presented in Table E.7 (Appendix E) suggested that a majority of

academic staff in 1997 perceived all five technologies as being at least reasonably

important to the delivery of higher education. Email and the Internet, however, were

substantially more likely than the other technologies to be nominated as being very

important (67% and 65%). Concerning usefulness to their teaching, rankings of the

individual technologies were less cohesive with no one technology being ranked

consistently as the most useful. There was general agreement, however, that CAI was

both the least useful technology to teaching and the least important technology in the

delivery of higher education (Table E.8, Appendix E).

It was clear from the responses that many academic staff in 1997 anticipated

making more use of the technologies in the future. The majority of academic staff

expected to increase their usage of the Internet (63%) and email (56%), while

slightly less than half (49%) anticipated using multimedia more often in their

teaching (Table E.9, Appendix E). With the exception of CAI, the majority of

academic staff also indicated that they favoured increased use of all of the

technologies (Table E.10 Appendix E).

The role of technologies in preservice teacher education Respondents in 1997 were asked about the importance of preparing students

in the use of technologies; the relative importance of the individual technologies to

preservice teacher education, the adequacy of such preparation and responsibility for

preparation.

Overall, the need to prepare students in the use of technologies was viewed

by academic staff as highly important. Forty-seven percent of the 1997 sample

viewed technology preparation as extremely important, while a further 33% and 16%

regarded preparation as very important or important respectively (Table E.11

Appendix E). In contrast, none of the sample regarded technology preparation to be

unimportant.

The 34 responses to an open-ended question about why such preparation was

important revealed a range of reasons with most focusing on increasing demands

from school or society for teachers to be technologically literate. These responses are

76

presented in Table 4.2. Of the responses, 38% reflected global concerns about

technological literacy, 29% noted specific requirements or expectations associated

with the use or proliferation of technologies in schools, while 26% stated that

technology enhanced or extended learning and teaching. A further 12% of responses

focused on the longer-term issue of preparing children to “enter a technological

world”, while another four responses also acknowledged children’s prior learning.

These responses noted that preparation was essential not because children needed to

be taught how to use technologies, rather, teachers needed to develop their own

knowledge in order to match that of the children in their care.

Table 4.2 Reasons for Preparation in the Use of Technologies (n = 34) ____________________________________________________________________

Technologically mediated communications 38% (13)

Requirement/expectation of schools 29% (10)

Extends/enhances teaching/learning 26% (9)

Preparation for children’s future 12% (4)

Recognition of children’s prior learning 12% (4)

____________________________________________________________________

In relation to which technologies were considered most to least important to

teacher preparation, responses, presented in Table E. 13 in Appendix E, were

generally consistent. Forty-four percent of the 1997 sample ranked the Internet as the

most important technology to preservice teacher education. Multimedia was regarded

by a majority of academic staff as being the second most important technology to

preservice teacher education while Email and Audiographics were considered third

and fourth in importance. As with usefulness to teaching, CAI ranked the lowest in

importance to teacher education.

When asked about the responsibility for preparing preservice teachers to use

technology in the classroom, it was clear that academic staff viewed this as a joint

school – university task. Few (12%) regarded such preparation as the sole

responsibility of universities and only one respondent believed that schools should be

solely responsible.

77

Concerning the adequacy of this preparation, respondents’ ratings were

surprising with 58% of the sample indicating that it was less than adequate (refer

Table 8.3). Although 21% rated preparation in the use of technologies as being

adequate, less than one in ten (9%) indicated that students were well prepared and

none of the sample believed that students were very well prepared.

Multimedia use in higher education To gauge perceptions about the comparative attributes of multimedia-

delivered instruction and the lecture, academic staff were asked which strategy they

believed was advantageous according to eight criteria - flexibility, learner control,

interactivity, motivation, interesting, effectiveness, accommodation of learning styles

and increased feedback. Respondents were asked to select either ‘Lecture’,

‘Multimedia’, ‘Same’ or ‘Undecided’. To gain further insight into the use of

multimedia in higher education, an open-ended question asked academic staff to

nominate any advantages associated with using multimedia (other than those already

suggested in the earlier question) and the disadvantages associated with using

multimedia. In addition, academic staff were also asked about the presence of factors

that might facilitate multimedia usage (rated from 1, Strongly disagree, to 5, Strongly

agree); and the extent to which these factors acted as incentives (rated from 1, No

incentive to 3, Significant incentive) or barriers to multimedia use (rated from 1, Not

a barrier, to 3, Significant barrier).

As Table 4.3 shows, academic staff views about the relative merits of the

traditional lecture and multimedia-delivered instruction were varied. Most consensus

related to which strategy offered more control over learning and which strategy

provided more flexible learning options. More than 44% believed that multimedia

offered more control and over 58% believed that multimedia provided more

flexibility. Multimedia was also considered to offer advantages over the Lecture in

terms of its interactivity and ability to accommodate varied learning styles. However,

as the Table illustrates, opinions were by no means unanimous.

For many criteria, a majority of the sample was unable to differentiate or

decide between the strategies. This was apparent for the factors more motivating,

more interesting, more effective, and provides more feedback. In relation to more

78

motivating, the largest single group reported being undecided, however a further

26% believed the strategies to be the same in terms of their ability to motivate

students. For “more interesting”, a majority of academic staff considered the Lecture

and multimedia to be the same but a further 28% were unable to decide. Only 23%

believed that multimedia was more interesting than the Lecture, however even fewer

(14%) thought that the Lecture was more interesting than multimedia. In relation to

which strategy was more effective and provided more feedback, undecided was

selected in both cases by 40% of academic staff.

Table 4.3 Preferred Teaching Strategy (n = 43) ____________________________________________________________________ Criteria Lecture Multimedia Same Undecided ____________________________________________________________________ Provides flexible

study options 2% (1) 58% (25) 16% (7) 16% (7)

Offers more control

over learning 9% (4) 44% (19) 21% (9) 16% (7)

Is more interactive 19% (8) 33% (14) 26% (11) 19% (8)

Is more motivating 21% (9) 16% (7) 26% (11) 30% (13)

Is more interesting 14% (6) 23% (10) 30% (13) 28% (12)

Is more effective 12% (5) 9% (4) 33% (14) 40% (17)

Accommodates

learning styles 7% (3) 35% (15) 26% (11) 26% (11)

Provides more

feedback 21% (9) 21% (9) 12% (5) 40% (17)

____________________________________________________________________ Advantages

In terms of advantages of using multimedia in higher education, 86% of the

respondents offered numerous suggestions. While some reiterated ‘flexibility’ and

‘interesting’, there were sufficient original responses to form several categories. As

seen in Table 4.4, responses noting individualised or self-paced learning comprised

the largest group. The second largest group of responses were those that focused on

the ability of multimedia to overcome geographical isolation, while almost as many

respondents shared the view that multimedia adds variety to, complements or

79

supports teaching or learning methods. Preparation for teaching was another theme

that emerged from the responses with several academic staff contending that the use

of multimedia in higher education enabled preservice students to familiarise

themselves with the technology in readiness for their own teaching. Two of these

responses referred to the role of ‘modelling’ technologies with one stating

“Modelling - as teachers, current students need to know how to select and use (and

sometimes make) multimedia resources for their students”.

A fifth group of responses labelled efficient use of resources comprised

comments noting benefits associated with costs or efficiency in use of respondents’

time. Comments in this category included “Probably cheaper in the long run” and

“Efficiency of academic staff resource”. The remaining three categories of responses

comprised those relating to facilitating learning and communication. These

categories were improves access to a range of information or materials, enables

revision or further learning, and enhances communication.

Disadvantages

Open-ended responses from 84% (36) of academic staff about the

disadvantages of multimedia also indicated that they shared numerous concerns

about its use in higher education. As noted in Table 4.4, many academic staff

perceived learning with multimedia to be lacking in human interaction. One

respondent described this teaching method as “dehumanising”. Academic staff were

equally sceptical about the quality or effectiveness of multimedia programs while

several commented that cost and technical or maintenance problems were

problematic. Time was another problem mentioned with several respondents noting

that the setting up or actual development of multimedia teaching materials was

“Time-consuming”. Four academic staff referred to over-reliance as a possible

disadvantage to using multimedia. Responses in this category reflected concerns

about exclusive use of multimedia in teaching. A respondent said “Can’t be seen as

the be all and end all”.

Two further disadvantages noted by academic staff focused on possible

detriments to students. Three responses could be categorised as unsuited to some

students. Two academic staff expressed uncertainty that this method of learning was

80

beneficial for some students, while another stated that students preferred contact with

lecturers over contact with a computer. The final disadvantage was access. Two

academic staff noted that gaining access to multimedia technology could be

problematic for some students.

Table 4.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology Use in Higher Education ____________________________________________________________________ Advantages (n = 37)

Enables learning to be individualised/self-paced 24% (8)

Addresses geographic isolation 19% (7)

Adds variety to/ complements/ supports teaching or learning methods 16% (6)

Preparation for teaching 14% (5)

Efficient use of resources 8% (3)

Improves access to information/materials 8% (3)

Facilitates/ enhances communication 8% (3)

Enables revision/further learning 8% (3)

____________________________________________________________________

Disadvantages (n = 36)

Lacking human interaction 31% (11)

Dubious quality or effectiveness 31% (11)

Cost 22% (8)

Technical/ maintenance problems 22% (8)

Time involved in setting up/ producing materials 17% (6)

Risk of over reliance 11% (4)

Unsuited to some students 8% (3)

Access problems 6% (2)

____________________________________________________________________

Facilitators

To further investigate perceptions about using multimedia, academic staff

were asked about the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a range of

statements. These statements reflected 16 dispositions or environmental factors (refer

Table 4.4) that have been proposed to facilitate technology use by academic staff in

higher education.

81

Analysis of responses indicated that, in some regards, the work environment

at this university was not readily conducive to multimedia use. As shown in Table

4.4, there was widespread disagreement among academic staff that training in the use

of multimedia (75%), equipment for using multimedia (65%), and examples of

quality multimedia programs (53%) was available to them. Forty-nine percent of

respondents also disagreed or strongly disagreed that technical advice and support

was available and 47% disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had time to learn

how to use the technology.

Despite this, attitudes receptive to use were apparent among academic staff.

A majority agreed or strongly agreed that multimedia in teaching could improve both

student interest (84%) and learning (72%), that multimedia should play a growing

role in university teaching (70%), that the integration of multimedia was necessary

for university competitiveness (66%), and that multimedia would be easy to integrate

into teaching (64%). In relation to pressure to use multimedia in teaching, nearly half

of the sample (49%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they felt pressured to use

multimedia. Furthermore, a considerable majority (77%) disagreed or strongly

disagreed that any such pressure to use multimedia would undermine their abilities

as teachers.

There was less certainty among the group regarding whether or not the use of

multimedia in teaching would enhance promotion, or whether they were consulted

about using multimedia in their teaching. A majority indicated that they neither

agreed nor disagreed with each of these statements. Mixed perceptions were also

apparent regarding support from the Faculty. Although 37% agreed or strongly

agreed that support for using multimedia was provided by their faculty, 23% were

neutral and 40% disagreed or strongly disagreed. In addition, while a nearly half of

the sample (49%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they felt comfortable using

multimedia in their teaching, a further 40% agreed or strongly agreed that they did

feel comfortable.

82

Table 4.5 Facilitators to Multimedia Use (n = 43) ____________________________________________________________________

Strongly Strongly Facilitators Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree ____________________________________________________________________ Equipment available 30% (13) 35% (15) 14% (6) 14% (14) 5% (2)

Can improve student learning 0% (0) 0% (0) 28% (12) 63% (27) 9% (4)

Can improve student interest 0% (0) 0% (0) 16% (7) 70% (30) 14% (6)

Easy to integrate into subject 2% (1) 16% (7) 14% (6) 54% (23) 12% (5)

Quality programs available 9% (4) 44% (19) 26% (11) 16% (7) 5% (2)

Training available 35% (15) 40% (17) 14% (6) 9% (4) 0% (0)

Have time 14% (6) 33% (14) 28% (12) 21% (9) 2% (1)

Technical support available 14% (6) 35% (15) 30% (13) 14% (6) 7% (3)

Support from faculty 14% (6) 26% (11) 23% (10) 35% (15) 2% (1)

Feel comfortable using 12% (5) 37% (16) 12% (5) 35% (15) 5% (2)

Helps promotions/tenure 19% (8) 21% (9) 44% (19) 14% (6) 2% (1)

Necessary for university

competitiveness 5% (2) 7% (3) 19% (8) 40% (17) 26% (11)

Should play a growing role

in higher education 2% (1) 7% (3) 19% (8) 44% (19) 26% (11)

Feel pressured to use

in teaching 14% (6) 35% (15) 40% (17) 7% (3) 5% (2)

Pressure to use would

undermine abilities 23% (10) 54% (23) 23% (10) 0% (0) 0% (0)

Consulted about using

in teaching 21% (9) 23% (10) 44% (19) 12% (5) 0% (0)

____________________________________________________________________ Incentives and barriers to multimedia use

To examine which particular influences might hinder or promote the use of

multimedia in teaching, respondents were asked to consider eleven items in terms of

the degree to which they acted as incentives or barriers to multimedia use. As Table

4.5 indicates, all but one item contribution to promotion/tenure was considered by a

majority of the sample to be a significant incentive to multimedia use. Nevertheless,

this item was considered by almost two-thirds of the sample to be a moderate or

83

significant incentive to using multimedia. Technical advice and support, time to learn

the technology, along with evidence of improved student interest and learning

appeared to be particularly salient.

Table 4.6 Incentives to Using Multimedia in Teaching (n = 43) _________________________________________________________________________________

No Moderate Significant Item Incentive Incentive Incentive ____________________________________________________________________ Available equipment /resources 5% (2) 33% (14) 63% (27)

Evidence of improved student

learning 0% (0) 23% (10) 74% (32)


interest 0% (0) 23% (10) 74% (32)

Easy to integrate into subject 0% (0) 37% (16) 63% (27

Available quality materials 2% (1) 28% (12) 67% (29)

Available training 5% (2) 28% (12) 65% (28)

Time out to learn about technology 2% (1) 16% (7) 81% (35)

Available technical advice /support 0% (0) 16% (7) 79% (34)

Support from faculty 2% (1) 30% (13) 65% (28)

Comfort with technology 5% (2) 37% (16) 56% (24)

Contribution to promotion/tenure 33% (14) 33% (14) 33% (14)

____________________________________________________________________

To identify any additional incentives to multimedia use, an open-ended

question asked respondents to identify any further incentives. From 15 respondents,

several novel incentives were identified including the desire for collaboration among

colleagues. “Co-operation, collaboration with colleagues, learning from each other”

and “Have a peer/mentor to support my learning as I try to teach students” suggested

a need for moral and mutual support within the faculty. Also related to training, one

respondent commented that instruction that “focused directly on the use of computer-

based technologies in education” would be an incentive.

Longevity of technology was another issue raised by one of the academic

staff. This respondent asked “Why put a lot of effort into developing something if it

is going to be outmoded tomorrow?” Other incentives specified were smaller class

84

sizes so as to enable interaction among participants, and a reduction in time taken to

prepare for lectures. Lastly, one respondent simply noted “Pay” as being an

incentive.

In terms of barriers to multimedia use, Table 4.6 shows that more than half of

the academic staff regarded lack of equipment or resources (61%), lack of quality

materials (56%), lack of available training (54%), lack of technical advice and

support (54%), and, in particular, lack of time (72%) as significant. In addition, 47%

considered lack of faculty support to constitute a significant barrier. Regarding lack

of time and quality materials, only 7% indicated that these were not barriers to

multimedia use, while fewer than 5% considered that lack of technical advice and

support was not a barrier. Lack of contribution to promotion appeared to be the least

significant barrier.

Table 4.7 Barriers to Using Multimedia in Teaching (n = 43) _________________________________________________________________________________

Not a Moderate Significant Item Barrier Barrier Barrier ____________________________________________________________________ Lack of equipment/resources 9% (4) 30% (13) 61% (26)

No evidence improved student

learning 37% (16) 35% (15) 21% (9)


interest 35% (15) 35% (15) 23% (10)

Difficult to integrate into subject 33% (14) 42% (18) 23% (10)

Lack of quality materials 7% (3) 35% (13) 56% (24)

Lack of training options 12% (5) 30% (13) 54% (23)

Lack of time 7% (3) 19% (8) 72% (31)

Lack of technical advice /support 5% (2) 42% (18) 54% (23)

Lack of faculty support 14% (6) 37% (16) 47% (20)

Discomfort using technology 35% (15) 44% (19) 19% (8)

Doesn’t contribute to promotion/

tenure 65% (28) 19% (8) 12% (5)

___________________________________________________________________

85

When asked to identify additional barriers to multimedia use, 33% (14)

respondents offered suggestions. Two respondents specified that for students, costs

associated with purchasing or accessing equipment were barriers to multimedia use.

For another, the size of tutorial groups and the need to organise students’ timetables

so that they were able to use a range of technologies were barriers. Related to

evidence of improved learning, one respondent noted that “Lack of evaluation of

such projects” was a barrier and another noted “Some scepticism about whether it

would be an improvement”, while “Lack of confidence” and “Imposition of

technology without faculty consultation or support” were also cited.

Valuing of teaching To investigate perceptions surrounding the valuing of teaching, academic

staff were asked to rank-order three activities, teaching, research and publishing,

according to how each was valued personally and how the respondents felt each was

valued by their university. Findings, presented in Table 4.7, indicate that academic

staff valuing of the activities and their perceptions of university valuing were at

odds. While 86% of academic staff indicated that they valued teaching most highly,

followed by research and then publishing, only 12% felt that teaching was valued

higher than publishing and then research.

Table 4.8 Personal Valuing and University Valuing of Teaching, Research and Publishing (Rankings of 1) ____________________________________________________________________ Activity Personal Valuing University Valuing ____________________________________________________________________ Teaching 86% (37) 12% (5) Research 28 % (12) 37% (16) Publishing 12% (5) 54% (23) ____________________________________________________________________

Not surprisingly, there was consensus among academic staff surrounding the

need for greater recognition of innovation in teaching. Table 4.8 shows that in

response to this question, 40% of academic staff strongly agreed and 49% agreed

that increased recognition was warranted. However, academic staff appeared less

resolute about the degree to which such recognition would encourage their use of

technology in teaching. As can be seen in Table 4.8, almost half the sample (49%)

86

agreed or strongly agreed that they would be more inclined to use technology if

innovation in teaching attracted greater recognition, yet almost one-third (30%) of

the sample was undecided and 18% rejected the suggestion.

Table 4.9 Recognition of Innovation in Teaching ____________________________________________________________________ Need for greater recognition of innovation in teaching (n = 42) ____________________________________________________________________

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree agree

______________________________________________________________ 2% (1) 0% (0) 7% (3) 49% (21) 40% (17)

____________________________________________________________________ Influence of greater recognition on technology use (n = 42) ____________________________________________________________________

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree agree ______________________________________________________________ 2% (1) 16% (7) 30% (13) 19% (8) 30% (13)

____________________________________________________________________

DISCUSSION

Contrary to assumptions made by a number of writers, academic staff

demonstrated largely positive attitudes towards technology integration. Heron

(1996), Massy and Zemsky (1997), and Forgo and Koczka (1996) among others, all

attributed the slow uptake of technology in universities to negative academic staff

attitudes. Reeves (1991; cited in McNaught, 1995) claimed that technology

integration in higher education had failed in part because of the unwillingness of

teachers to restructure lecture content and delivery methods to incorporate

computers. However, participants in this study, like those in Spotts and Bowman’s

(1995) study, were generally receptive to technology integration. For instance, in

relation to the importance of technologies to university teaching, the vast majority of

academic staff rated all of the technologies as being at least reasonably important

with Email and the Internet being overwhelmingly rated as very important. Similarly,

Spotts and Bowman (1995) found that a majority of their sample considered

technology to be important or critically important to their teaching. In contrast, few

felt that it was unimportant. Research has specifically linked multimedia with a range

87

of positive teaching and learning outcomes such as increased flexibility, learner

control, interactivity and motivation. In addition to these merits, academic staff in the

current study noted that multimedia technology facilitated self-paced or

individualised learning, could help address geographic isolation for external

students, and added variety or complemented existing teaching methods. No doubt,

the recent dramatic increases in university and government funding for technology-

based teaching initiatives (CAUT, 1993; 1996; QUT Strategic Plan, 1995-2000)

contributed to the view held by academic staff that technologies, like multimedia,

have an important role to play in the delivery of higher education.

Most academic staff surveyed in the 1997 study also demonstrated positive

attitudes towards their future use of technologies. Given the university’s aim to

deliver, by 1999, at least 10% of all first year students’ contact hours in computer-

based format (QUT Strategic Plan, 1995-2000), these positive attitudes towards

technology are essential. As noted, the majority of academic staff anticipated

increasing their use of email and the Internet, while many also foresaw an increase in

their use of multimedia. Most too, were in favour of increasing their technology use,

especially their use of email, multimedia and the Internet. Incidentally, these

technologies were also rated by academic staff as being the most useful to their

teaching. Such predictions of future usage provide further evidence of receptivity

toward technology integration and contrast with findings of Spotts and Bowman

(1995). Although academic staff in their study rated technologies as critically

important to their teaching, less than half predicted using technology in the near

future. A mediating factor in the current study could be the very high rates of home

computer ownership among respondents. Spotts and Bowman (1995) suggested that

both positive attitudes and technological literacy were more prevalent among those

who owned computers.

As noted earlier, technology use has particular implications for preservice

teacher education. Many have claimed that exposure to technology experiences

throughout preservice teacher education could play an important role in preparing

prospective teachers to use a range of technologies in their own classrooms. Findings

from studies conducted in the United Kingdom (Davis et al., 1995) and the United

States (Willis et al., 1995, Wetzel, 1993) reflected the importance that teacher

88

educators place on students’ technology preparation. Similar opinions were

expressed by academic staff in the current study. Nearly all those surveyed in 1997

rated this preparation as being important or extremely important, particularly

preparation in the use of the Internet and multimedia. In terms of the adequacy of

preservice preparation, however, academic staff were less positive. None of the

sample believed that students were very well prepared in the use of technology and

few claimed that students were well prepared. Rather, the majority of respondents

rated student preparation in technology use as being inadequate.

Opinions surrounding who was responsible for this preparation may provide

some insight into the apparent frankness of responses by academic staff. Unlike

writers such as Lyons and Carlson (1995) and Thompson and Schmidt (1994) who

claimed that teacher education institutions should be solely responsible for

preparation in the use of technologies, most academic staff in the 1997 study viewed

preparation as a shared university-school responsibility. Few regarded technology

preparation as a sole responsibility of universities.

Despite positive attitudes towards the technologies and recognition of their

unique role in preservice teacher education, a substantial number of academic staff in

1997 claimed that they made little or no use of the technologies in their teaching.

Limited or non-use of technologies by teacher educators has been revealed in

previous research. As noted earlier, Wetzel (1993) reported that teacher educators in

his study rarely used technologies in their teaching, even though they recognised its

importance to teacher education. Similarly, many of the participants in Spotts and

Bowman’s (1995) study reported never using technologies. Compared with

respondents in these studies, however, most academic staff in the current study

reported using technologies.

Further insight into this high valuing but under-utilisation of technology use

was gained by examining those factors that could hinder or facilitate technology use.

In relation to multimedia technology, research prior to 1997 identified numerous

barriers that hindered its use by teaching staff in higher education. In this study, little

had changed since previous research with the same barriers continuing to impede

technology use. Teaching staff rated numerous factors as significant barriers to their

89

use of multimedia, the most salient being the lack of technical advice and support,

time, equipment and resources, quality materials, Faculty support, and training. At

the time of this study, there appeared to be no specific directives, initiatives or

incentives in place within the Faculty that assisted or encouraged academic staff in

their efforts to use or learn about technology. Nor were there policies or statements

that communicated the importance of technological competency among preservice

teacher education students, or guidelines and strategies that could facilitate this

competency. Yet, as noted by Fullan (1991), this support is vital if change is to be

realised.

The vast majority of respondents indicated that lack of time for learning

about technology was a moderate or significant barrier to using multimedia. Not

surprisingly, almost all respondents indicated that the availability of more time

would be a moderate or significant incentive to using technology. This finding

supported research by Davis et al. (1995), Ramsden and Martin (1996) and Spotts

and Bowman (1993) that found that time for learning about technology was an issue

of contention for a majority of study participants. Similar concerns surrounded the

issue of training in technology use. As noted earlier, most academic staff in the 1997

study reported that they were self-taught in the use of the technologies, with

professional development or training playing little or no role in knowledge

acquisition. Studies in the United Kingdom and the United States have also revealed

that teacher educators have limited opportunities for training in the use of technology

and are largely self-taught (Davis et. al., 1995; Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Wetzel,

1993; Willis et al., 1995). This absence of training opportunities was rated as a

moderate or significant barrier to technology use by most academic staff.

According to academic staff, a substantial barrier to their use of multimedia

was a lack of quality materials. This finding mirrored sentiments expressed by

McNaught in 1995 when she stated that the slow rate of technology integration could

be attributed to the dubious “mixed bag” quality of programs that were available.

Open-ended comments in the current study also suggested that, like Oliver (1994a),

several academic staff suspected that some of these programs were ‘technology led’

and lacked instructional merit.

90

Responses to questions about incentives to use technology tended to differ

from their responses related to barriers suggesting that the removal of a barrier would

not necessarily be a significant enough incentive to facilitate technology use. Unlike

barriers, ease of integration, followed by evidence of improved student interest and

learning appeared to be the most powerful incentives. The importance of improved

student learning outcomes was also noted by Spotts and Bowman (1993) in their

study. In their study, this was the primary incentive to technology use. In addition,

like respondents in Spotts and Bowman’s (1993) study, availability of training, time,

equipment, quality materials and support were also strong incentives, while, to a

lesser extent, contribution to promotion was another incentive to using multimedia.

There was partial evidence to suggest that the ‘institutional schizophrenia’

described by Peters and Mayfield (1992; cited in Ramsden et al., 1995, p. 4) existed

at this university. Hesketh et al. (1996), Davis et al. (1995), Massy and Zemsky

(1995), and Ramsden et al. (1995) had claimed that academic staff in universities are

persuaded to use technology in their teaching yet they have an underlying belief that

excellence and innovation in teaching is not valued. While it must be acknowledged

that a minority of academic staff in the 1997 study indicated that they were under

pressure to adopt technologies in their teaching, the vast majority, nevertheless, felt

strongly that their values were antithetical to those of the university. They asserted

that while they personally valued teaching above research and publishing, the

university valued research and publishing over teaching. Furthermore, while most

agreed that technology integration was necessary for the university’s competitiveness

and that technology should therefore play a growing role in higher education, few

agreed that their use of technology in teaching would be recognised or rewarded in

the form of promotion or tenure. Not surprisingly, they agreed that innovation in

teaching deserved greater recognition.

It would seem then, that the newly introduced schemes for rewarding

teaching excellence at the university (QUT Strategic Plan, 1995-2000) have so far

been unsuccessful in persuading academic staff that teaching, with or without

technology, is highly valued. Until this message is more clearly and consistently

communicated, staff at this university, like those in previous research, are unlikely to

change their existing teaching practices.

91

CHAPTER 5 PHASE 1 (1997): GRADUATE TEACHERS’

EXPERIENCES WITH TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the experiences and perceptions of graduates from the 1995 and

1996 Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) and Bachelor of Education (Primary)

courses are reported. The chapter commences with a summary of the literature that

informed this study and briefly describes the participants, procedure, measure, and data

analysis techniques involved. The chapter then outlines the specific study objectives

before presenting the findings. These findings are then compared with those of previous

research.

Background to Phase 1 The review of literature prior to 1997 highlighted an amalgam of research

findings related to learners' use and perceptions of technologies such as multimedia.

Studies revealed that there was general support among learners for multimedia delivered

instruction. Research indicated that students demonstrated improved motivation

(Waddick, 1995); interest (Gooley et al., 1994; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994); and

understanding of subject content (Crosby & Stevlosky, 1995; Hsi & Agogino, 1993;

Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994) when using multimedia programs, as well as increased feelings

of control over learning (Waddick, 1995). While many students had expressed a

preference for multimedia-delivered instruction over traditional methods (Gooley et al.,

1994; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994; Waddick, 1995), some had also voiced concerns about

using multimedia including problems accessing computers, an inability to ask questions

(James et al., 1995) and difficulty in understanding navigational instructions in

programs (Kenny et al., 1995).

The increasing use of computer-based technologies in schools has seen

mounting pressure for teachers to demonstrate technological literacy and model positive

attitudes towards technology in their classrooms. Many researchers and practitioners

believed that the key to developing competency and positive attitudes among teachers

92

lay in exposure to high quality and integrated technology experiences (Thompson &

Schmidt, 1994). This exposure, was the responsibility of teacher training institutions

(Battisa & Krockover, 1982; Bean, 1988; Hess, 1990; cited in Gabriel & MacDonald,

1996; Handler, 1993; Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Thompson & Schmidt, 1994). Although

few in number, studies into the use of technologies in preservice teacher education prior

to 1997 were surprisingly consistent. These studies indicated that new teachers regarded

training in technology use as important to their careers (Colon et al., 1995; Huang, 1994;

Oliver, 1994), and benefited from academic staff modelling technology use (Handler,

1993; Huang, 1993; Wild, 1994; Wright, 1993) but that preservice education

experiences lacked opportunities for students to observe and interact with technology

(Colon et al., 1995; Handler, 1993; Huang, 1994; Oliver, 1994; Spotts & Bowman,

1995; Willis et al., 1995). Several studies reported that new teachers felt uncomfortable

using technology in the classroom (Handler, 1993; Hochman, Maurer & Roebuck, 1993;

and Lui, Reed, & Phillips, 1990; cited in Gabriel & MacDonald, 1996), and claimed that

their preservice training in technology use was inadequate (Colon et al., 1995; Oliver,

1994; Topp et al., 1995).

The purpose of the investigation was to explore the experiences and perceptions

of preservice teacher education graduates as they related to the use of several computer-

based technologies.

Specific objectives of this investigation in 1997 were to:

1. Explore the attitudes of graduate teachers towards, and their usage of, computer-

based technologies.

2. Identify the factors that influenced graduate teachers’ usage of computer-based

technologies in the classroom.

3. Determine the perceptions of graduate teachers concerning their preparation in

the use of technologies.

93

METHOD

Participants and Procedure In 1997, the Graduate Teacher Questionnaire was distributed to the 350

graduates from the QUT 1995 and 1996 Bachelor of Education (Primary) or the

Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) courses. Information on contact addresses for

graduates was obtained from the university’s graduate destination records. By surveying

two groups of graduate teachers, the likelihood of obtaining a reasonable sample size

was increased. Questionnaires were distributed and returned via mail. Reply-paid

envelopes were provided for ease of return.

Two weeks after the initial distribution of questionnaires a follow-up mail-out of

reminder letters was conducted. In all, 72 completed questionnaires were returned,

representing a return rate of 21%. This low return rate was disappointing but not

unexpected as, in addition to the 72 completed questionnaires, 105 (30%) were returned

unopened with the notification “No longer at this address”. These changes of address

frequently occur when graduates complete their studies or when they are offered a

teaching position. As many do not inform the university when this occurs, graduate

destination records may be out of date. Notwithstanding, the implication of low-return

rates for the study is the limited generalisability of findings. This low return rate of

completed questionnaires was not unexpected, however. As Nederhof (1985) noted,

response rates for mailed surveys are notoriously low with initial mailings typically

attracting a 20-30% return. Dooley (1995) explains that while mailings repeated three or

four times can often raise return rates to as high as 60-70%, the increasing cost of

postage tends to outweigh the initial cost savings of this method.

Measurement The 1997 Graduate Teacher Questionnaire

As noted in Chapter 3, the 31-item Graduate Teacher Questionnaire comprised

items developed specifically for the study because at the time there were no published

measures that met the requirements of the study. A number of items in the questionnaire

were adapted from survey instruments developed by Colon et al. (1995) and Willis et al.

94

(1995). The Graduate Teacher Questionnaire was divided into three sections. Section A

focused on demographic characteristics, Section B, on perceptions and current use of

technologies, while Section C asked teachers to recall their recent experiences of

technology use in preservice teacher education. Like the Academic Staff Questionnaire,

the Graduate Teacher questionnaire sought information in relation to five technologies,

CAI, multimedia, audiographics, the Internet, and email, as these technologies were in

use at the university at the time of the study. Again, because of its documented potential

for teaching and learning, several items focused on multimedia. The Graduate Teacher

Questionnaire is presented in Appendix B.

Data Analysis Quantitative data obtained from the questionnaires were coded and analysed

using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows. Prior to analyses,

quantitative data were screened for accuracy of data entry and missing values.

Descriptive statistics were employed to highlight patterns or trends among frequency

data such as knowledge, confidence, current and future usage as they related to the

computer-based technologies.

The process of qualitative analysis of open-ended responses was based on the

data “reduction” and “interpretation” (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 113) process

described in Chapter 3. As noted, this involved organising data into topics or themes

which were then assigned category labels. These categories were reviewed repeatedly

and reduced by grouping topics or themes that related to each other. Numbers of

responses within each category were then tabulated to provide a frequency statistic.

RESULTS

In the reporting of the results in this chapter, most tables presenting frequencies

and percentages on the responses for various questions have been placed in Appendix F.

It was thought that the reading and understanding of the findings would, thereby, be

improved. Instead, tables presented in this chapter tend to be those depicting categorised

themes that have emerged from the responses to open-ended questions.

95

Demographic characteristics of respondents Of the 72 teachers who responded to the questionnaire, 46% (33) had been

enrolled in the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) and 54% (39) had been

enrolled in the Bachelor of Education (Primary). In terms of gender, the entire sample

comprised 93% (67) females and 7% (5) males. This gender bias in the sample was not

unexpected as significantly fewer males than females were enrolled in both courses. The

mean age of the teachers was 24.6 years (SD = 3.64). Regarding teaching experience,

the mean number of months employed in teaching was 15.06 (SD = 5.82). Reasonable

rates of computer-ownership were evident among the teachers. Seventy-six percent (55)

reported owning a computer, which had a CD-ROM (47%, 34) and a modem (31%, 22).

Ownership rates did not vary significantly between the early childhood and primary

graduates. Demographics of the 1997 sample are presented in Table 9.1.

Knowledge and use of technologies Graduate teachers were asked to indicate, on response scales, their level of

knowledge of the technologies (rated from 1, Not literate, to 4, Advanced), their level of

confidence (rated from 1, Not at all confident, to 4, Very Confident), their frequency of

usage (rated from 1, Never, to 6, Daily) and their expected future usage and preferred

future usage (both rated from 1, Less use, to 3, More use). Graduate teachers were also

asked to indicate from a list of five options, how they acquired their knowledge of the

technologies (these options were Self-taught, Help from Colleagues, Work-based

training, Preservice Education, and Other). In addition, graduate teachers were asked to

rank-order the technologies from 1, Most important, to 5, Least Important, according to

their perceived usefulness to teaching, while open-ended questions asked them to

identify the advantages and disadvantages associated with using multimedia in the

classroom and to provide examples of how the technologies were used.

These new teachers possessed at least some knowledge of most of the

technologies, although nearly 60% indicated that they had no knowledge of

Audiographics. Teacher reports presented in Table F.1 (Appendix F) indicated greatest

knowledge of multimedia with just over half (53%) reporting an intermediate level of

knowledge and a further 14% reporting an advanced, level of knowledge. In contrast,

fewer teachers reported being knowledgeable about the Internet. Less than one in three

96

of the teachers (29%) rated their level of knowledge of this technology as being at the

intermediate level, while only 7% rated their knowledge as advanced.

For the most part, these teachers appeared to be self-taught in their use of the

technologies. More than half reported being self-taught in CAI (51%) and multimedia

(51%) use, and more than one-third in the use of the Internet (38%) and email (35%).

However, many teachers also attributed their knowledge to help from colleagues,

particularly knowledge of the Internet (28%) and email (25%). To a lesser extent,

inservice training also appeared to play a role in knowledge acquisition but only in

relation to multimedia (14%) and the Internet (13%). With the exception of email

(18%), few teachers attributed their knowledge of the technologies to preservice teacher

education. These results are presented in Table F.2 in Appendix F.

In 1997, teachers appeared to be most confident in their use of multimedia and

CAI with more than two-thirds indicating that they were confident or very confident

about using these technologies in their teaching (refer Table F.3, Appendix F). In

addition, almost half (49%) the group reported feeling confident or very confident about

using the Internet. In contrast, almost three-quarters (74%) of the group indicated that

they were not confident or not at all confident about using conferencing technologies in

their teaching.

Reports from the new teachers indicated that multimedia was the most widely

used technology in teaching with almost half (49%) using this technology on a daily or

weekly basis (refer Table F.4 Appendix F). More than one-third (36%) of the group also

appeared to make daily or weekly use of CAI, however, their use of the other

technologies in the classroom was apparently limited. With regard to the Internet, for

example, 57% of the teachers reported never using it in teaching, while more than three-

quarters (76%) reported never using email in the classroom. In contrast, Table F.5

(Appendix F) shows that the Internet and email were used more regularly for non-

teaching purposes.

Analysis of responses to the open-ended question asking how the technologies

were used in classroom teaching elicited responses from 63% (45) of the graduate

teachers. Thematic analysis identified eight broad themes among the responses. These

97

themes, presented in Table 5.1, were Class research/projects, Educational programs,

Revise/reinforce concepts, and Email other schools/classes.

As can be seen in the table, the largest number of responses comprised Class

Research/ Projects. Forty-two percent (19) of the teachers who responded to the

question noted that they used the technologies, particularly multimedia and the Internet,

for conducting research and projects in class. Educational programs comprised the

second largest group of responses. Thirty-eight percent (17) of teachers indicated that

they used specific multimedia teaching programs and activities such as ‘James

Discovers Maths’ in class. The third largest groups of responses, Revise/Reinforce

Concepts and Email other Schools/Classes each comprised 16% (7) of responses.

Eleven percent (5) of the teachers who responded to the question also indicated that

children were permitted to use the technologies (the Internet or multimedia) for

extension activities or as a reward for finishing tasks on time.

Forty-two percent (30) of the graduate teachers also provided examples of their

non-teaching uses of the technologies. Table 5.1 highlights the six categories that

emerged from the responses. As can be seen, the most frequently cited use of

technology for non-teaching purposes, comprising 60% of responses was word

processing for lesson plans and newsletters. A further 30% of responses indicated that

technologies (primarily the Internet) were used for entertainment, while 23%

respondents each indicated that they used computers to receive and or send email, and

for obtaining information or ideas for teaching. Several teachers also stated that they

used the technologies for professional development or gaining practice.

98

Table 5.1 Uses of Computer-Based Technologies -Teaching and Non-Teaching ____________________________________________________________________ Teaching uses (n = 45) ____________________________________________________________________ Class research/projects 42% (19)

Educational programs 38% (17)

Revise/reinforce concepts 16% (7)

Email other schools/classes 16% (7)

Extend/reward children 11% (5)

Word processing resources 9% (4)

Story writing/publishing 7% (3)

____________________________________________________________________

Non-teaching uses (n = 30) ____________________________________________________________________ Word processing lesson plans, newsletters 60% (18)

Entertainment 30% (9)

Personal email 23% (7)

Getting information/ideas for teaching 23% (7)

Professional development 17% (5)

Practice using technology/programs 13% (4)

_______________________________________________________________

In terms of usefulness to work, more than half (53%) of the graduate teachers

ranked multimedia first (refer Table F.6 Appendix F). A further one-quarter (25%) of

the group ranked the Internet as the most useful followed by CAI (17%) and email (6%).

Audiographics was the least likely of the technologies to be ranked as most useful. The

relative usefulness of the technologies to teaching was further reflected in anticipated

future usage. The highest expectation of increased future use related to multimedia

(71%), followed by the Internet (69%) and email (58%) (Table F.7, Appendix F). Not

surprisingly, more than half (56%) the graduate teachers anticipated no change in their

current use of audiographics. Teachers were especially positive about their anticipated

use of multimedia and the Internet with around 90% of the group reporting that they

would like to use these technologies more (Table F.8, Appendix F).

99

Seventy-four percent of the graduate teachers described what they thought were

advantages associated with using multimedia in work. Table 5.2 presents the seven

categories that emerged from responses. As can be seen, by far the most frequently cited

advantage related to the perception that children enjoyed using multimedia. Typical of

the comments in this category were “Children’s heightened interest/enthusiasm” and “It

is an interesting and motivating tool for students”. One-off comments not represented in

the table were, “Children working/learning together”, “Efficient way of planning and

making resources”, and “Fantastic extension work”.

Table 5.2 Advantages of Using Multimedia in Work ____________________________________________________________________ Advantages (n = 53) ____________________________________________________________________ Keeps children interested, motivated 52% (28)

Enables access to up-to-date information 23% (12)

Encourages independent learning 17% (9)

Adds variety to learning 15% (8)

Promotes computer literacy 13% (7)

Accommodates different learning styles 13% (7)

Enables skill development/revision 9% (5)

____________________________________________________________________

Responses to the question about disadvantages associated with using multimedia

in work were more indicative of barriers or impediments to use. Sixty percent of

graduate teachers provided a range of responses, most of which could be grouped into

one of seven categories. As Table 5.3 highlights, the largest category comprised those

responses relating to a lack of computers or resources that were needed to facilitate

multimedia use. Lack of training or knowledge and lack of funding were also frequently

cited as disadvantages. Further “one-off” disadvantages noted by graduate teachers

included, “Difficult for young children to understand plagiarism”, and “Too many

choices and decisions to make, takes longer to achieve goals”.

100

Table 5.3 Disadvantages of Using Multimedia in Work ____________________________________________________________________ Disadvantages (n = 43) ____________________________________________________________________ Not enough computers/resources 30% (13)

Not enough teacher knowledge/training 19% (8)

Lack of funding 19% (8)

Unreliable/old technology 16% (7)

Dubious educational benefit 12% (5)

Over or inefficient use by children 12% (5)

Need for constant supervision of children 12% (5)

____________________________________________________________________

When asked to describe barriers to multimedia use, 75% of graduate teachers

responded. Most responses were grouped into one of four categories. As can be seen in

Table 5.4, the categories of responses mirrored many of those that were previously

noted as disadvantages, for instance lack of funding, and lack of time. Additional

barriers described by graduate teachers that could not be categorised included “Yes, my

lack of wanting to use them”, and “Many don’t see computers as worthwhile or

necessary”.

Table 5.4 Barriers to Using Multimedia in Work ____________________________________________________________________ Barriers (n = 54) ____________________________________________________________________ Lack of funding for resources/equipment 74% (40)

Lack of training, knowledge, confidence 26% (14)

Lack of time 6% (3)

Technical problems 6% (3)

____________________________________________________________________ The role of technologies in higher education

In order to further investigate perceptions surrounding the role of technologies in

higher education, these teachers were asked about the frequency of use of technologies

at university, how the technologies were used, the relative importance of the

technologies and the future use of technologies in higher education.

101

Teachers indicated that they saw only limited use of the technologies by

academic staff throughout their four-year university course (refer Table F.9 Appendix

F). At least half the 1997 respondents indicated that academic staff made no use of CAI

(53%), multimedia (50%), audiographics (74%), and the Internet (64%), while almost

half (47%) also reported no use of email. The most frequent use appeared to be made of

multimedia and email, with 17% reporting daily or weekly use of both technologies. In

1997, teachers reported that while at university, they also made only limited use of the

technologies (refer Table F.10 Appendix F). Analysis of descriptions from the 36

graduates who responded to the question about how the technologies were used,

revealed that graduates typically focused on use of the Internet or library databases for

finding information (33%) and use of email by students and academic staff for

communication (31%). Twelve percent (3) of teachers also noted instances of one or

more of the technologies being demonstrated to them and one teacher each noted the use

of teleconferencing on one occasion and reviewing a piece of software. The various uses

of the technologies are presented in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Academic Staff Use of Technologies ____________________________________________________________________ Type of use (n =36) ____________________________________________________________________ Internet for research/information retrieval 33% (12)

Email communication/assignment submission 31% (11)

Presentation of lectures 19% (7)

Demonstration/assessment of technologies/programs 12% (3)

Video/teleconferencing 3% (1)

Reviewing software 3% (1)

____________________________________________________________________ Teachers’ opinions concerning the importance of the technologies to higher

education were largely consistent. In 1997, a majority of new teachers regarded all five

technologies to be reasonably or very important to the delivery of higher education. The

Internet was most frequently nominated as very important to the delivery of higher

education (68%) followed by multimedia (63%). Only a handful of respondents

regarded these technologies as being unimportant to the delivery of higher education. In

contrast, CAI was regarded by more than one in five new teachers as being not

102

important to the delivery of higher education (These frequencies are presented in Table

F.11, Appendix F).

As could be expected, the majority of new teachers favoured increased use of all

the technologies in the delivery of higher education. Table F.12 (Appendix F) reveals

that, in 1997, preferred increased usage was most apparent for multimedia and the

Internet with more than 90% of the sample indicating they would like the technologies

to be used more.

The role of technologies in preservice teacher education In order to examine issues specifically related to preservice teacher education,

graduate teachers were asked to rank the technologies (from 1, Most important, to 5,

Least important) according to their importance to preservice teacher education and to

list the number of subjects or units studied throughout their preservice teacher education

that focused on technology use.

Responses regarding the relative importance of the various technologies to

teacher preparation revealed that half (50%) the group regarded multimedia as the most

important technology to teacher preparation while 28% ranked the Internet first (refer

Table F.13 in Appendix F). Only one respondent ranked audiographics as the most

important technology and only two rated email as the most important. In terms of

subjects studied, responses indicated that three-quarters (75%) of the teachers had

studied at least one such subject. More than 38% had studied two or more technology-

focused subjects.

Graduate teacher were also asked to rate the importance of preparation in the use

of technologies (on a scale ranging from 1, Not important, to 5, Extremely important),

the adequacy of such preparation (on a scale ranging from 1, Not prepared, to 5, Very

well prepared) and to indicate which (Universities, Schools, or both Universities and

Schools) was responsible for preparation.

Responses indicated that new teachers viewed preparation in the use of

computer-based technologies to be highly important. More than half (56%) the group

viewed technology preparation as extremely important. A further 36% and 6% regarded

preparation as very important or important respectively, indicating that more than 98%

103

considered preparation to be at least ‘important’. In contrast, none of the sample

regarded technology preparation to be not important and only 1% considered it to be

‘not very important’.

However, graduate teachers’ ratings of the adequacy of preservice teacher

education to prepare new teachers to use technologies in their teaching were low. As

evident in Table 5.6, less than one-fifth (19%) of the group rated technology preparation

as adequate. Only 1% believed that students were well prepared and none of the sample

considered students to be very well prepared in the use of technology. In contrast, 42%

of new teachers believed that students were not adequately prepared while a further 38%

believed they were not prepared at all. Taken together, these ratings indicate that most

new teachers viewed technology preparation as being less than adequate.

Table 5.6 Adequacy of Preparation in Technology Use (n = 72) ____________________________________________________________________ Not Not very Adequately Well Very well prepared well prepared prepared prepared prepared ____________________________________________________________________ 38% (27) 42% (30) 19% (14) 1% (1) 0% (0) ____________________________________________________________________

In terms of responsibility for this preparation, teachers overwhelmingly

indicated that technology preparation should be a dual responsibility of schools and

universities. More than 83% indicated that technology preparation should be a shared

task. Only 14% believed that universities were solely responsible, and only one graduate

teacher regarded technology preparation as a school responsibility.

Multimedia use in higher education In 1997, new teachers were asked to consider what they thought to be the

advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of multimedia technology in

higher education. This specific focus in the questionnaire on multimedia technology,

stemmed from the literature, which, at the time of the study, proposed that multimedia

offered numerous benefits to learners such as increased control over learning, flexible

study options and increased interactivity.

104

To gauge perceptions about the relative merits of the traditional lecture and

multimedia-delivered instruction, graduate teachers were asked which strategy was

advantageous according to eight criteria. These criteria are listed in Table 5.7. Graduate

teachers were asked to select one response option (Lecture, Multimedia, Same, or

Undecided).

As Table 5.7 shows, new teachers believed that multimedia offered certain

advantages to students. Sixty-three percent of new teachers indicated that, compared

with the traditional lecture, multimedia provided more flexible study options. More than

half the sample (51%) also indicated that they believed that multimedia offered more

control over learning, and was more interesting (63%), interactive (58%) and motivating

(51%). In addition, nearly one-third (32%) of new teachers considered multimedia to be

more effective than the Lecture. Nevertheless, one in four (25%) of the sample were

undecided about which strategy was more effective and a further 26% believed the

strategies were equally effective. Similarly, 28% of the sample also felt that the Lecture

and multimedia were equally motivating.

The most support for the traditional lecture appeared to be in terms of its ability

to provide feedback. Forty percent of new teachers believed that the Lecture provided

more feedback than multimedia. In contrast, only 15% thought that multimedia offered

more feedback than the Lecture. Nevertheless, one in four (25%) of the sample were

undecided about which strategy provided more feedback, while a further 17% regarded

them to be equal in terms of providing feedback.

105

Table 5.7 Preferred Teaching Strategy (n = 72) ____________________________________________________________________ Criteria Lecture Multimedia Same Undecided ____________________________________________________________________

Provides flexible

study options 8% (5) 63% (45) 14% (10) 14% (10)

Offers more control

over learning 15% (11) 51% (37) 17% (12) 15% (11)

Is more interactive 25% (18) 58% (42) 11% (8) 4% (3)

Is more motivating 15% (11) 51% (37) 28% (20) 4% (3)

Is more interesting 7% (5) 63% (45) 22% (16) 6% (4)

Is more effective 14% (10) 32% (23) 26% (19) 25% (18)

Accommodates

learning styles 1% (1 ) 65% (47) 17% (12) 15% (11)

Provides more

feedback 40% (29) 15% (11) 17% (12) 25% (18)

____________________________________________________________________

When asked, in an open-ended question, to suggest additional advantages

associated with using multimedia in higher education, 52 teachers responded. Most

responses reiterated advantages such as ‘flexible’ and ‘interesting’, however, some

novel responses were also provided. These responses were grouped according to the five

categories in Table 5.8.

As seen in Table 5.8, Preparation for teaching was the theme that dominated

responses. Twenty-six percent of teachers noted that an advantage of using multimedia

in the delivery of higher education was familiarity with technology for future teaching.

Self-paced / self-directed learning comprised the second largest group with 19% of

responses. The third largest group were those responses that focused on the quality of

delivery. Ten percent of teachers shared the view that multimedia Improved or varied

the teaching methods used in higher education, while six percent noted that it was

Stimulating/exciting or entertaining. Other open-ended responses that could not be

categorised were included “Easier for lecturer”, “Improved attendance”, and “More

comprehensive, up-to-date information”.

106

Table 5.8 Advantages Associated with Technology Use in Higher Education ____________________________________________________________________ Advantages (n = 52) ____________________________________________________________________

Familiarity with technology/Preparation for teaching 26% (13)

Enables learning to be individualised/self-paced 19% (10)

Adds variety to/improves presentation 10% (5)

Stimulating/ exciting/ entertaining 6% (3)

____________________________________________________________________

Fifty-eight percent (42) of graduate teachers also commented on what they

regarded to be the disadvantages associated with using technology in the delivery of

higher education. Thematic analysis revealed six themes or categories among the

responses. It is noteworthy that three respondents also noted “none” while a further

three commented Depends on quality of lecturer/program. The categories of responses

and number of responses within each category are outlined in Table 5.9. As can be seen

in the Table, the largest group of responses concerned lack of human interaction

afforded by multimedia. Thirty-six percent commented that learning with multimedia

was Impersonal or lacked feedback/discussion. The second largest group of teacher

responses (19%) highlighted Lack of student knowledge or competence as a

disadvantage, while a further 17% of responses highlighted problems associated with

access to computers. In addition to the remaining categories shown in the table,

miscellaneous or one-off comments were, “It needs to be used effectively”, “People

gather round computer screen – hard to see”, “More fact-based than opinion-

generating”, “The technology present is behind what schools have and opportunity for

use is limited”, and, “Cost”.

107

Table 5.9 Disadvantages Associated with Technology Use in Higher Education _____________________________________________________________________ Disadvantages (n = 42) ____________________________________________________________________ Impersonal/ Lack of feedback/discussion 36% (15)

Students lack of knowledge/competence 19% (8)

Access problems 17% (7)

Risk of over reliance/inappropriate use 10% (4)

Students need to be motivated/ self-directed 7% (3)

Technical problems 5% (2)

_____________________________________________________________________

DISCUSSION

As noted in the literature, prior to 1997 little research had been

conducted into teachers’ perceptions and usage of computer-based technologies.

Existing studies tended to investigate relationships between specific learner

characteristics and technology use and rarely were those ‘learners’ preservice teacher

education students. Furthermore, due to the relatively recent emergence of computer-

based technologies, the use of these technologies remained largely unexplored. What

was apparent at the time of the 1997 study, were growing demands that classroom

teachers were technologically literate. Organisations such as the United Nations had

stipulated that the development of children’s information skills was a fundamental right.

In Australia, policy documents such as the Carmichael, Finn, and Mayer reports and

National Statements called for all teachers to have basic skills in information technology

(Bowes, 1994), while locally, the Queensland Schools Computer Policy (1991) stated:

Teachers will acquire skills and competencies in the use and application of computers to ensure support for the integration of learning technology across the P-12 curriculum

(Queensland Schools Computer Policy, 1991; cited in Tinkler, Lepani & Mitchell, 1996, p. 13).

108

In 1997, reports from graduate teachers indicated that most possessed some

knowledge of the five technologies noted in the survey, although only a handful claimed

to be very knowledgeable about any of the technologies. Teachers’ reports indicated that

they were largely self-taught in their use of the technologies, while many also

acknowledged receiving help from colleagues. Apart from multimedia, which was used

regularly by almost half the group, only limited use was made of the other technologies

in classroom teaching. Most teachers claimed to never use email, the Internet or

audiographics in the classroom. Given findings such as those by Oliver (1994) and

Huang (1994), this was not surprising. The majority of first year teachers surveyed in

Oliver’s study in Western Australia made little or no use of technologies. Likewise,

Huang commented that, although technology was valued by the school-based preservice

education teachers in his United States study, it remained under-utilised in teaching.

Previous research linking gender (Chua et al., 1995; Spotts & Bowman, 1996),

computer ownership (Chen, 1986; Collis, 1985; cited in Spotts & Bowman, 1995; Lloyd

& Gressaed, 1985; cited in Reed et al., 1995) and perceptions and use of computers

suggested that further investigation of the effects of gender and computer-ownership

was warranted. Findings from this 1997 study were largely inconclusive. In the

aforementioned studies, females were found to be less confident in their use of

technology and /or less likely than males to own a computer. Although, in Huang’s

(1994) study, it was females who reported greater use and higher valuing of technology.

Due to the small number of males (five) in this study, however, reliable inferences about

the role of gender could not be drawn. In relation to computer ownership, owning a

computer also did not appear to be a predictor of attitudes towards or usage of

technologies. What was apparent, was a higher rate of computer ownership among

graduate teachers in the current study compared with those in Chua’s (1995)

Queensland study two years earlier.

Previous studies had concluded that underlying new teachers’ limited

technology use was a lack of confidence (Handler, 1993; Hochman, Maurer & Roebuck,

1993; and Lui, Reed, & Phillips, 1990; cited in Gabriel & MacDonald, 1996). Findings

from the current study supported this notion. The majority of graduate teachers reported

feeling not, or not at all, confident in their use of the Internet, email and audiographics

and these three technologies were used the least often in the classroom. However, most

109

teachers did claim to be confident or very confident in their use of multimedia and CAI

and data analysis confirmed that these two technologies were used the most frequently.

Unlike confidence, negative attitudes did not appear to be a contributing factor

to teachers’ limited use of the technologies. Most teachers reported that they hoped to

use all of the technologies more frequently in their teaching, particularly multimedia and

the Internet. In relation to multimedia, teachers explained that it helped to keep children

interested and motivated, it enabled access to up-to-date information, encouraged

children’s independent learning, added variety to learning, promoted computer literacy,

and accommodated a range of learning styles.

Further explanation for low rates of technology use was gleaned from teachers’

comments about barriers to their use of technology. As noted, the most frequently cited

barrier stemmed from the lack of equipment or resources at school. This contrasted

markedly with Oliver’s (1994) finding in his Western Australian study where teachers

indicated that access to hardware and software at the school was good.

Opportunities for inservice training also appeared to impact on teachers’

technology use. Despite assurances articulated in the Queensland Schools Computer

Policy (1991) about the importance of on-going professional development and support,

few teachers in the current study attributed their knowledge of the technologies to

inservice training or professional development. Furthermore, more than a quarter of the

teachers also commented that lack of inservice training was a primary barrier to their use

of technology. It would appear then, that for many teachers in the current study, the

Queensland Schools Computer Policy has so far failed to translate policy into practice.

While inservice training programs and available equipment and resources

undoubtedly facilitate teacher’s technology use, many maintain that the production of

graduates who are confident and competent users of technology is the responsibility of

teacher education programs (Battisa & Krockover, 1982; Bean, 1988; Hess, 1990; cited

in Gabriel & McDonald, 1996; Gabriel & McDonald, 1996; Handler, 1993; Lyons &

Carlson, 1995; Oliver, 1994; Thompson & Schmidt, 1994). However, prior to 1997,

studies in the United States had revealed widespread dissatisfaction among graduate

teachers with their preservice teacher education technology preparation (Colon et al.,

1995; Topp, 1993; cited in Topp, Mortensen, & Grandgenett et al., 1995). Extensive

110

research in the United Kingdom and the United States by Davis et al (1995) also

reported similar findings. Although most teachers in the studies reported that they were

taught with, or taught how to use, some information technologies during their training,

few felt they were well prepared to use these technologies in their teaching. Likewise, in

Australia, Oliver’s 1994 study revealed that almost half of the first year teachers studied

regarded their training as poor or very poor.

Findings from the current study suggested that there had been little or no

progress in preparing teachers to use technology. The majority of graduate teachers

rated their technology preparation as inadequate, while less than one fifth believed that

they were well, or very well, prepared.

When asked what might lead most to an improvement in preservice computer

training, secondary teachers in Oliver’s (1994) study suggested that there was a need for

formal training in computers. This suggestion is hardly novel. As early as 1991, the

International Society for Technology in Education, decreed that "all teacher preparation

programs must provide fundamental concepts and skills for applying information

technology in educational settings" (Thomas, 1991; cited in Espinoza & McKinzie,

1995, p. 627). However, in contrast with Oliver’s (1994) study in which one third of

new teachers reported no computer training throughout their preservice teacher

education, the majority of students in the current study claimed to have completed at

least one technology unit while many also indicated that they had completed two or

more such subjects. Yet, despite this exposure to technology, they remained dissatisfied

with their training. Handler (1993) made similar observations in the United States,

noting that although the vast majority of students in teacher education programs

undertake specific information technology courses, many still feel unprepared to use

technology in the classroom.

Clearly then, the completion of technology specific subjects alone may be not be

sufficient to prepare preservice teachers to use technology in their teaching. As noted in

the literature, many maintain that the key lies in academic staff modelling the use of

technology (Davis, Willis, Fulton, & Austin, 1995). Studies in the early 1990s cited by

Wild (1994) linked the modelling of technology use by lecturing staff with increased

teacher usage of technology in the classroom (Gooler,1989; cited in Wild; Davis, 1992;

111

Handler, 1993; Wright,1993). Likewise primary and secondary preservice teachers

Huang’s (1994) study in the United States found that both their utilisation and valuing

of technology were significantly correlated with faculty modelling. When asked how

teacher preparation could be improved, primary teachers in Oliver’s (1994) Western

Australia study called for more faculty demonstrations in how to use and apply a range

of software packages.

Although the benefits associated with observing faculty using technology

(Handler, 1993; Huang, 1993; Wild, 1994; Wright, 1993), remain undisputed, research

conducted in the mid 1990s revealed that preservice teacher education lacked

opportunities to observe and interact with technology (Colon et al., 1995; Handler,

1993; Huang, 1994; Spotts & Bowman, 1995; Willis et al., 1995). Similarly, most

teachers in Oliver’s (1994) study claimed that they not been exposed to computers at all

during their preservice training. In 1997, reports from teachers in this study indicated

that little had changed. Survey responses indicated that the majority of graduates had

never seen CAI, multimedia, audiographics and the Internet being used by academic

staff throughout their four-year course, while almost half had witnessed no use of email.

Of those who provided examples of how academic staff utilised technology, only three

noted instances of modelling or demonstrating technology use. Instead, most usage

appeared to centre on using the Internet for searching databases and using email to keep

in touch. It seemed, therefore, there was little evidence of the exposure to quality

integrated technology experiences that writers and researchers (Thompson & Schmidt,

1994 Battisa & Krockover, 1982; Bean, 1988; Hess, 1990; cited in Gabriel &

MacDonald, 1996; Handler, 1993; Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Thompson & Schmidt,

1994) had suggested were so critical to teacher preparation.

Despite their lack of exposure to technology, there was little evidence that

graduate teachers were reluctant to embrace technology use in higher education. On the

contrary, the vast majority of teachers believed that use of all of the technologies should

be increased. The technology most widely regarded as the most important to their

preparation was, not surprisingly, also the technology nominated by teachers as the most

useful to their own teaching. This technology was multimedia.

112

Indeed, in support of previous research, graduate teachers in this study

associated multimedia with a range of positive teaching and learning outcomes. In 1997,

graduate teachers agreed that multimedia was a flexible teaching and learning strategy

(Stedman, 1995), that offered control over learning (Felix & Askew, 1996; McLoughlin

& Oliver, 1994; Sims & Hedberg, 1995; Waddick, 1995), was interactive (Simpson,

1994), interesting (Gooley et al., 1994; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994) and motivating (Fyfe &

Fyfe, 1994; Waddick, 1995) and able to accommodate a diversity of learning styles

(Choo, 1994; Dickinson, 1994; Forgo & Koczka, 1996; Hsi & Agogino, 1994; Olivier

& Buckley, 1994). Graduate teachers were also more likely to agree that multimedia-

delivered instruction was effective in terms of understanding of subject content (Crosby

& Stevlosky, 1995; Hsi & Agogino, 1993; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994).

However, in contrast with Hsi and Agogino’s (1994) findings, graduate teachers

in this study did not agree that multimedia offered improved feedback. When prompted

about disadvantages associated with this technology, many claimed that multimedia

offered limited feedback and reduced opportunities for discussion or questioning.

Graduate teachers also expressed concerns stemming from a lack of knowledge about

how to use the technology effectively and difficulties accessing multimedia capable

computers. These findings supported those of James et al. (1995) who found that

students in his study were concerned about access and the inability to ask questions

when using multimedia. Notwithstanding these misgivings about multimedia, the

majority of teachers in the current study believed that all technologies except

Audiographics were very important to the delivery of university education.

113

CHAPTER 6

BACKGROUND TO PHASE 2

INTRODUCTION

This chapter reviews the literature that informed the second phase of research.

This literature focuses on initiatives and developments that have impacted on higher and

preservice teacher education since the initial phase The chapter highlights current

research into teachers’ usage of technologies and describes specific policies and

initiatives at the university level that relate to technologies and preservice teacher

education. The chapter concludes with several questions that arose from the literature

and from findings generated by Phase 1 of the study.

Preface to Phase 2 As described in Chapters Four and Five, findings from the first phase of research

were largely supportive of those of previous studies. Academic staff and graduate

teachers, although positive in their outlook towards technologies, lacked confidence in

their use of technologies and made little use of technologies in their teaching. Both

groups hoped to make more use of the technologies in their teaching in the future and

graduate teachers recommended that the use of technologies in preservice teacher

education be increased. Graduate teachers and academic staff considered preparation in

the use of technologies to be important but rated this preparation as inadequate. This

was despite reports from most graduates that they had studied at least one technology-

specific unit or subject at university. The groups reported numerous barriers to their use

of technology but common to both was the perception of lack of resources and

equipment and lack of, or ineffective, training. Rather than acquiring their knowledge of

technologies through training, both groups reported being largely self-taught. For

academic staff, available training was also a primary incentive to technology use.

Continued impacts of technology on Higher Education Since 1997, the technology revolution continues to challenge and redirect all

forms of education (Groves & Zemel, 2000). Nunan et al. (2000) noted that at the

university level, the growth in student numbers in the “transition from semi-elite to

114

semi-mass education” (p. 93) has resulted in greater student diversity. However, the lack

of a commensurate increase in government funding has meant that academics have

faced increased sizes and numbers of classes, larger marking loads and more

administrative tasks in each course. According to Nunan et al. (2000), this diversity calls

for a wider repertoire of teaching strategies, resources and sensitivities, along with the

adjustment of teaching and learning to account for more “complex group

communications” (p.93).

To many, technological advances continue to be both the cause and effect of

change in the delivery and support of education (Nunan et al., 2000). Oliver (2001)

notes that the challenge for universities is how to best use technology in teaching and

learning and how to develop strategic plans and processes around technology that will

“take them forward in sustainable ways” (p. 222). Indeed, such is the value of

technology today, that criteria for the Good Universities Guide Australian University of

the Year 2000-2001 award focused on the development of the e-university that would

prepare graduates and the university for the emerging e-world. The recipients of this

coveted award claim to offer students flexibility of time, place, and pace, highly refined

materials, and advanced interactive delivery at negligible institutional costs. They note

that the technologies that make this possible are online interactive multimedia, Internet-

based access to World Wide Web resources, computer-mediated communication using

automated response systems, and campus portal access to institutional processes and

resources (Taylor, 2001). At this award-winning university teaching and learning

approaches were based on what is referred to as the Fifth Generation Distance

Education Model or the Intelligent Flexible Learning Model (Taylor, 2001 p.2).

Marginson (2000) emphasised that Australian universities are being transformed

by profound long-term changes and the imminent challenges posed by competition for

online students (Taylor, 2001). These changes, inevitably, are reshaping academic work

and the academic profession. Marginson acknowledges that one of the biggest changes

stems from the growth of instructional and communications technologies and the

resulting “mushrooming of non-faculty support professionals” (p. 34). He claims that

this situation has arisen in part because many believe that academics are

“technologically challenged” (p.34). Whatever the reason, Marginson believes that the

effect of this development has been the bypassing of academics and the undermining of

115

autonomous academic control over the curriculum. As such, he claims that in order for

academics to remain in control over the evolution of scholarship and research, it is

essential that they engage more fully in decision-making surrounding strategically

important areas such as new technologies.

So, five years on from the implementation of Phase 1 of the study what does

research tell us about technology use in higher education? Despite the aforementioned

challenges, research related to the adoption of technology by academic staff remains

scarce. Groves and Zemel (2000) describe the challenges faced by higher education in

recent years as “daunting” and note that the importance of technology has continued to

grow. Their study of academic staff in one United States university revealed that 46%

believed that technologies were very to critically important to their teaching. Likewise,

53% of academic staff in a single university study by Beggs (2000) agreed that

technologies were very to critically important to their teaching. This compares with only

38% of staff in Spotts and Bowman’s (1995) study. Recent cross-national research

(Mueller, Jones, Ricks, Schegelmilch, & Van Deusen, 2001) on academic staff attitudes

(n = 138) towards multimedia also revealed strong support for the use of this technology

in teaching. According to the researchers, 87% of staff agreed or strongly agreed that

multimedia has a positive impact on student interest, 67.9%, that it helped to explain

concepts, and 39% that it assisted student-staff communication.

Since 1997, new studies have shown changes in academic staff knowledge and

use of technologies. Using measures adapted from Spotts and Bowman’s (1995)

instrument, Groves and Zemel (2000) surveyed staff (n = 54) in a United States

university about a range of technology issues. Comparisons between the 1995 and 2000

data on knowledge and usage are provided in Table 6.1. As the table indicates, in 2000,

there were significant greater numbers of staff claiming good to expert knowledge of

email and, to a lesser extent, multimedia but a slight decrease in relation to computer

conferencing. Daily to weekly use of email and multimedia was also greater although

daily to weekly computer conferencing dropped to zero. Groves and Zemel (2000) also

surveyed academic staff about the Internet and found that 42% reported good to expert

knowledge of this technology and 45% used it on a daily to weekly basis. In terms of

frequency of use, Groves and Zemel, like Spotts and Bowman (1995), noted that the

116

technologies that staff claimed to be most knowledgeable about were those that they

used often.

Table 6.1 Academic Staff Reports of Knowledge and Use of Technologies (Spotts & Bowman, 1995; Groves & Zemel, 2000) ____________________________________________________________________ Good to Expert Knowledge Daily to Weekly Use 1995 2000 1995 2000 ____________________________________________________________________ Email 32% 62% 16% 40%

Multimedia 13% 21% 2% 11%

Computer conferencing 16% 14% 7% 0%

The Internet N/A 42% N/A 45%

____________________________________________________________________

Surprisingly, data from the studies on academic staff home computer ownership

revealed that rates remained consistent over the years. In 1995, home computer

ownership for academic staff in Spotts and Bowman’s study was 83%. In 2000, in

Groves and Zemel’s study it was 85%. Similarly, home computer ownership among

staff in the study by Beggs (2000) was 90%.

As noted in earlier literature, initial work by Spotts and Bowman (1993) shed

light on the factors that influenced academic staff use of technology. Several years later,

using similar instruments, studies in the United States by Groves and Zemel (2000) and

Beggs (2000) sought to determine if staff still considered these factors to be important

influences. Table 6.2 compares original data from Spotts and Bowman’s study with the

two recent studies and shows that these factors appear to be more influential than ever.

With the exception of funding which remained unchanged and use by colleagues which

was actually less in the study by Beggs (2000), the table shows that since 1993,

increased numbers of academic staff regarded most of the factors as important or critical

influences in their use of technology. This increase was particularly apparent for

available administrative or technical support, time to learn, comfort with technology and

training.

117

Table 6.2 Very to Critically Influential Factors in Faculty use of Technology ____________________________________________________________________

Spotts & Bowman Groves & Zemel Beggs (1993) (2000) (2000)

____________________________________________________________________ Available equipment 86% 97% 89%

Improved student learning 85% 97% 89%

Improved student interest 68% 96% 71%

Advantage over traditional method 72% 92% 80%

Ease of use 65% 91% 74%

Time needed to learn 56% 91% 72%

Training 58% 87% 69%

Compatibility with discipline 79% 86% N/A

Comfort with technology 46% 80% 54%

Administrative/technical support 26% 80% 80%

Compatibility with existing materials 58% 77% 62%

Use by colleagues 15% 35% 13%

Funding for resources 79% 79% N/A

____________________________________________________________________

Beggs (2000) proposed that the individual factors could be grouped according to

Instructional and learning issues (including improved student learning, advantage over

traditional delivery, increased student interest), Equipment access and training

(including equipment availability, ease of use, time needed to learn and training, or

Instructional materials – discipline-specific factors (including administrative support

and comfort with technology). Further analysis revealed that Instructional and learning

issues appeared to be the most influential factors, followed by Equipment access and

training and Instructional materials – discipline specific.

Faculty members in the study by Beggs (2000) were also asked to select from

six factors, those that posed very important or critically important barriers. Responses

indicated that the most significant barriers were lack of time, followed by lack of

equipment and lack of training. From these findings, Beggs (2000) concluded that

before faculty members will adopt technology, they must be certain that it will have a

significant impact on instruction and they require a university climate that is conducive

to technology use providing strong administrative support, sufficient equipment and

118

resources and extensive training. More recently, Mueller et al.’s (2001) investigation of

barriers to technology use revealed that the barrier cited by most academic staff was lack

of training, followed by lack of technical support and lack of equipment.

Technology use in Teacher Education Clearly, the successful integration of technologies throughout preservice teacher

education relies on a complex range of factors – referred to by Strudler and Wetzel

(1999) as “enabling factors”. Since 1997, several studies have attempted to elucidate the

conditions that foster technology integration by teacher educators. Strudler and Wetzel’s

(1999) United States study of teacher education colleges with ‘exemplary practice’ in

technology integration revealed that common to all these colleges was the informed and

committed leadership of deans, administrative and faculty leaders. These leaders, the

researchers noted, had vision and goals related to technology integration that facilitated

funding, technical support, access to technology, direction and support for training, and

“pedagogical fit” – an understanding of how technology could “fit with and enhance

their current instructional styles and practices” (p.74). Strudler and Wetzel (1999)

asserted that technology training must be provided by those who have an understanding

of curriculum integration and should be offered in a variety of formats including group

workshops and one-on-one learning opportunities.

Along with access to appropriate hardware and software, technical support and

time, Matthew et al. (2002) also found that, for teacher educators at one university, the

availability of and nature of training opportunities was critical to their integration of

technology. According to Matthew et al. (2002), professional development in

technology integration is about changing teaching practices to best utilise technology.

They maintained that training in the form of one-on-one coaching or mentoring is most

successful because it is self-paced, provides individualised attention that focuses on the

skills and knowledge needed, and ongoing support. Consistent with this view were

findings from studies in the United States by Cooper (1999; cited in Thomas & Cooper,

2000) and Haile and Payne (1999). Cooper’s (1999) evaluation of a two-year funded

technology infusion task group in a teacher education college revealed successful,

though slow, technology integration. The researchers noted, that while faculty were

interested and involved in integrating technology, they desired one-to-one design

support from colleagues and opportunities to exchange ideas. Ongoing barriers to

119

technology integration were time limits, student access, and knowledge of availability of

equipment in schools.

Research by Vannatta (2000) revealed that high levels of technological

competency and skills in integration do not necessarily go hand in hand. While most

teacher educators at a university reported moderate to high levels of proficiency in email

(92.8%), the Internet (76.2%) and multimedia (69.8%), 40% commented that they

needed training in how to integrate technology into their teaching. When asked to select

their preferred training method, 42.2% preferred a one-on-one peer mentor program,

31.1% a two-hour group sessions, 28.9% a student-faculty mentor program, and 11.1%

a half-day group session.

Individualised training was the key to positive outcomes for faculty in a study by

Haile and Payne (1999). In Haile and Payne’s (1999) study, faculty members at one

university were assigned an Instructional Technology Assistant (ITA) who had expertise

in multimedia and provided one-on-one computer training tailored to meet the

individual needs of faculty. Evaluations revealed that, after training, faculty had changed

their teaching style to focus more on guiding and facilitating learning rather than

imparting knowledge. One year later, according to the researchers, faculty continued to

use multimedia as part of their regular teaching for searching the Internet, constructing

web pages, communicating with email, using and evaluating WWW sources and

software packages. Haile and Payne (1999) concluded that extensive professional

development was needed over many years in order to prepare teacher educators to

adequately use technology. They claimed, however, that in most teacher education

institutions, faculty continue to lack specific training in technology integration and must

be supported and encouraged in their efforts by colleagues and the university

administration.

Prior to 1997, several writers had proposed that university valuing of teaching

also impacted on faculty use of technology in their teaching. Literature since then

continues to support this view. For instance, faculty members in the study by Spotts

(1999) of technology integration in a United States university indicated that their time

could be better spent pursuing activities that the university promoted as necessary for

promotion or tenure. In particular, untenured faculty commented that it was more

120

beneficial to spend time on research and publications because promotion and review

boards valued these activities above instructional excellence or development and

implementation of instructional materials utilising new technologies. Spotts (1999)

concluded that technology use will remain limited until university promotion and tenure

review boards recognise its importance. Weeks (2000) also highlighted the

comparatively low value accorded to teaching in universities, noting that the second rate

status of teaching in higher education is a major inhibitor to staff developing their

teaching practice. She noted that in Australia, compared with the United Kingdom and

to a lesser extent the United States, faculty were less likely to be rewarded (in the form

of credentials) for attempts to improve their teaching. Lueddeke (1999) commented that

Crimmel’s (1984) observation “Hired to teach, paid to publish” sums up the paradox

still facing most academics.

Teacher Education - Developments 1997 to 2002 Although all higher education faculty are affected in some way or

another by technology integration, teacher educators are confronted with unique

challenges. Increasingly, teacher education programs are being held accountable for the

performance of their graduates (Dewert, 1999). As Thomas and Cooper (2000) argued,

the proliferation of new technology in schools makes it incumbent upon teacher

education programs to ensure that technology is integrated in teacher preparation

programs.

New technologies and teacher education are currently at the forefront of many

government policies, with explicit and implicit links between education and the

emerging knowledge economies on all continents of the world (Davis, 2000). Davis

(2000) noted that in the United Kingdom, the government’s aim was to ensure that all

practising teachers could teach with computer technologies by 2002.

Worldwide, an increasing expectation that teachers are technologically literate is

evident from the emergence of technological competency standards. Agencies such as

the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in the United States and the

Teacher Training Agency in the United Kingdom are now a catalyst for national

standards, programs and evaluations of teacher education (Downes, Fluck, Gibbons,

121

Leonard, Matthews, Oliver, Vickers, & Williams, 2001). In many countries around the

world, such standards have been pivotal in shaping the content and direction of teacher

education programs.

One organisation in the United States, the CEO Forum on Education and

Technology, has developed what it terms the Teacher Preparation STaR Chart. This

chart is a self-assessment tool for universities and faculties of education designed to

provide an indication of how well they are preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use

technology. The chart helps institutions determine their current status relative to

conditions or factors thought to enable the preparation of teachers who are information

literate, fluent with information technology and able to use a variety of technologies to

help P-12 students learn. The 18 indicators or standards outlined on the chart are

grouped under Campus-Wide Leadership, Campus Infrastructure,

Schools/Colleges/Departments of Education (SCDEs) Leadership, SCDE Infrastructure,

SCDE Curriculum, Faculty - Competence and Use, Students – Competence and Use,

Alumni Connections (CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 2000). The chart has

been adopted by several teacher education institutions in the United States. Criticism of

the STaR Chart, however, stems from its lack of clarity in relation to terminology,

measurement of skills and program capabilities (Downes et al., 2001). Questions could

also be raised about the underlying motives of the CEO Forum whose membership

comprises representatives from companies such America Online, Inc (AOL), Apple

Computer, Inc, Bell Atlantic, Dell Computer Corporation, IBM Corporation, Compaq

Computer Corporation, Lucent Technologies, Flextronics International, and Advanced

Network and Services Inc.

In recent years in Australia, there have been several initiatives and policy

directives designed to both enhance and standardise teachers’ technological skills. The

Australian Council for Computer Education (ACCE) (2000), for instance, has developed

a rationale for the specification of teacher competencies (Russell et al., 2000). As

Downes et al. (2001), noted, however, there remains no unified set of national education

standards for beginning teachers’ technology skills. Furthermore, despite assertions by

the Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education (2003) that teacher

education programs must “equip teachers with the necessary skills, knowledge and

attitudes to enable them to develop innovative capacity in students” (p. 20), there is still

122

no related set of national program requirements for teacher education institutions

surrounding the provision of appropriate learning experiences for preservice students

(Downes et al., 2001). In the absence of national standards and requirements, those

departments responsible for education in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and

Queensland have developed their own criteria for teacher capabilities. New South

Wales, however, is currently the only state to have devised standards applicable to

graduating, as well as, practising, teachers.

In Queensland, teachers’ technological skill requirements are currently

articulated in the document Minimum Standards for Teachers – Learning Technology

developed in 1999 by Education Queensland. Underpinning this initiative is the aim of

improving “student learning outcomes through the integration of computers in the

curriculum and bringing worldwide information resources to Queensland state school

classrooms” (p.6), along with the recognition that achievement of this aim depends on

teachers’ competence and confidence in the use of computers for learning and teaching.

The rationale for the Minimum Standards, therefore, is for all teachers to possess a

minimum level of skill in the use of computers for learning. The standards relate to four

key areas:

1. Information Technology skills (focusing on the operation and use of both

hardware and software);

2. Curriculum application including classroom planning and management

(addressing the use of learning technology in key learning areas and encompasses

classroom management strategies);

3. School planning (relating to the processes and procedures that promote

continuity and coordination of learning technology activity at the school-wide

level) and,

4. Student-centred learning (dealing with the application of effective teaching and

learning processes to learning technology).

(Education Queensland, 1999, p. 6)

Related to each key area is a checklist of descriptors that teachers can use to

assess their competency levels. Schools can use data from teachers’ checklists to plan

professional development programs. These programs may be delivered in a range of

123

modes (including self-paced tutorials, an Education Queensland Trainer, a private

training organisation, peer tutoring and mentoring, and participation in tertiary courses

offering credit for specific modules). Once a school principal or delegated staff member

is satisfied that a teacher has met the required standards (through a negotiated mix of

demonstration, interviews and portfolio work) in all four areas, teachers can apply for a

Learning Technology Credential.

Teachers in Schools – Developments 1997 to 2002 Have the heightened interest in and activity surrounding technology integration

since 1997 influenced teachers’ perceptions and experiences of technology? A review of

recent international literature suggests that many new teachers continue to lack

confidence (Hasselbring et al., 2000, Jerald & Orlofsky, 1999; Ross et al., 1999), are

making limited use of technologies in their teaching (Hasselbring et al., 2000; Williams

et al., 2000) and continue to be confronted by numerous barriers to technology

integration including unsatisfactory or inadequate inservice and preservice training

(Cole, 2000; Hasselbring et al., 2000; Russell, 2000). Furthermore, emerging research

also indicates that, even when teachers use technology, it is rarely used to its fullest

potential (Brush et al., 2001; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999;

Willis, Thompson & Sadera, 1999; Wright, 2001).

Since 1997, several studies have continued to reveal low rates of technology

usage among teachers. In 1999, for instance, an Education Week survey of 1407

teachers across the United States indicated that 40% of teachers do not use computers at

all during a typical school week (Hasselbring et al., 2000). Likewise in Scotland, a

recent study of 681teachers revealed that most did not make daily or weekly use of

technologies (Williams et al., 2000). Several studies also continue to suggest that lack of

technology use by teachers is underscored by teachers’ lack of confidence or feelings of

competence (Ross et al., 1999). For example, a recent US wide survey by the National

Center for Educational Statistics, found that only 23% of teachers felt “well prepared” to

integrate technology into their teaching and only 10% considered themselves to be “very

well prepared” (Wright, 2001). Few of these teachers believed they had the skills

necessary to teach their students how to use technology (Hasselbring et al., 2000).

Replicate findings were reported in another United States study by Jerald and Orlofsky

124

(1999) in which only one fifth of teachers surveyed felt prepared to integrate technology

into the curriculum.

While some studies (Zhao et al., 2001; Pope et al., 2002) indicate that

confidence levels among teachers might be improving, there is now growing concern

surrounding the ways in which technologies are being used. According to recent studies

in the United States and Scotland teachers tend to use computers for basic, supplemental

tasks such as drill-and-practice activities, word processing, educational games, and

computer-based tutorials (Brush et al., 2001; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Strudler &

Wetzel, 1999; Williams et al., 2000; Willis, Thompson et al., 1999; Wright, 2001).

In Australia, baseline data on teacher’s technology usage and capabilities was

provided by a national study commissioned by Department of Employment Training

and Youth Affairs (DETYA) (1999). This study collected information from 1258

teachers across 400 schools throughout the country. Study findings revealed that

although most teachers reported very high levels of many of the 13 basic computing

skills (e.g., turning on a computer, saving a document and using a mouse), fewer

reported having ‘advanced’ computing skills (such as retrieving information from the

Internet or other databases and using software programs to create pictures). Particularly

limited usage was reported for communicating with others (such as communicating with

schools in other countries, participating in an email or Internet relay chat or using

videoconferencing technologies). Russell et al’s (2000) review of the study concluded

that its findings were cause for concern. With reference to the DETYA (1999) study,

Yelland, Greishaber and Stokes (2000) acknowledged that in recent years there appear

to have been gains in basic computing skills and levels of confidence among practising

teachers. They cautioned, however, that the DETYA findings indicated that teachers

were unlikely to be applying their skills ‘in ways that are likely to fundamentally change

the ways they teach, or in ways that will enable the use of computers as other than

relatively low level educational tools’ (p.334).

Russell et al. (2000) acknowledged that although teachers’ usage of technologies

may not be exemplary, teachers, nevertheless, are strong supporters of technology use in

schools. They note that in the DETYA (1999) study, most teachers agreed that

125

information technology has a made a worthwhile contribution to the quality of teaching

and learning and believed that these technologies were relevant across all subject areas.

Barriers to use of technologies by teachers in schools

An examination of literature reveals that, since 1997, little has changed in

relation to barriers to effective technology use with lack of knowledge, skills (Rice et al.,

2002; Williams et al., 2000), training (Dias, 1999; Franklin et al., 2002; Rice et al.,

2001), time (Dias, 1999; Franklin et al., 2002; Rice et al., 2001; Schrum, 1999), support

(Dias, 1999: Rice et al., 2001; Schrum, 1999; Strudler et al., 1999), and lack of

resources or access to equipment, (Dias, 1999; Franklin et al., 2002; Rice et al., 2001;

Schrum, 2001; Strudler et al., 1999; Williams et al., 2000) continuing to impede usage.

In Australia, the DETYA study revealed that lack of access to hardware/software for

teaching and learning was also a significant barrier to effective technology integration

for respondents, along with costs of hardware and software, and lack of available

technology support. Inadequate or unsatisfactory training and professional development

were also major impediments (Russell et al., 2001).

Since 1997, the variety and availability of professional development technology

training opportunities have increased dramatically (Hasselbring et al., 2000). For both

new and experienced teachers, professional or ‘inservice’ training is now recognised as

critical to the development and upgrading of skills in technology use. Recent literature

indicates, however, that some training programs have been more effective than others.

McCannon and Crews’s (2000) study of United States’ teachers, for instance, revealed

that although training in technology use was available to most teachers, courses tended

to be in word processing (e.g., Word) or operating systems (e.g., Dos, Windows, Mac).

The researchers noted that this training resulted in substantial increases in computer

usage for administrative tasks but less increase of using computers to enhance teaching.

Franklin et al. (2002), also highlight the growing support for inservice training, noting

that school districts in the United States now allocate around 6% to 15% of their

technology budget on professional development for teachers. However, like McCannon

and Crews (2000), they observed that technology training generally focused on basic

operations rather than curriculum integration.

126

To date, research in Australia into inservice training in technologies has been

largely consistent with overseas findings. Here, 90% of teachers in the DETYA (1999)

study acknowledged that professional development opportunities were available to

them, although almost half rated these as inadequate and few felt strongly that they were

adequately informed about incorporating technology into the curriculum. The majority

of teachers reported that training amounted to 10 hours or less and was conducted after

school. Russell et al. (2000) argued that it was not the availability that was in question,

but the duration, type and location of training. They concluded that professional

development of current teachers needed to be dramatically upgraded. Findings such as

these prompted Hasselbring et al. (2000) to conclude that inservice technology training

was insufficient to produce the kinds of changes needed. From their extensive

international review of research they called for more opportunities for, and emphasis on,

integrating technology across the curriculum.

It is important to note that some recent technology training initiatives have also

met with success for curriculum integration. In the United States, a study by Ross,

Hogaboam-Gray and Hannay (1999) of K-3 teachers reported positive outcomes from

participation in a school-based “technology infusion” project. Pre- and post-study

surveys revealed improved confidence of teachers to use technology in their teaching

once they had been exposed to ‘technology infusion’ – described by the authors as

additional hardware and software, inservice training opportunities, and ongoing

technical support. In another United States study, Franklin et al. (2002) highlighted the

role of mentoring in enhancing teachers’ ability to integrate technology across the

curriculum. Their study involved instructional technology doctoral students mentoring

K-6 teachers in classrooms for around six months. According to the researchers, these

one-on-one relationships provided opportunities for modelling the curriculum

integration of technology, redesigning lessons around technology-rich resources,

overcoming common barriers to technology use, and applying troubleshooting skills.

A review of current literature reveals that preservice initiatives and models

designed to equip students with requisite technology skills and knowledge are now

many and varied. Presented in Table 6.3 is a summary by Downes et al. (2001) of the

current strategies and approaches typically used within teacher education programs in

Australia and overseas to facilitate technology integration.

127

Table 6.3 Models of ICT Integration in Teacher Education Programs (Downes et al., 2001, p. 32)

This table is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library.

Downes et al. (2001) note institutions will use one or more models of integration

at any given time although international and Australian research indicates that models

A, B, D and E currently dominate preservice teacher education courses. Emerging

evidence from overseas, however, suggests that model L may be a more effective

alternative (Downes et al., 2001).

Since 1997, there have been numerous attempts to validate the relative worth of

various approaches adopted by preservice teacher education institutions. For instance,

research at a university in the United States by Whetstone and Carr-Chellman (2001)

128

outlined the value of specific technology-based subjects – an example of what Downes

et al. (2001) refer to as Model Type A - throughout preservice teacher education. They

noted that after completing a computer subject, most preservice students felt partially or

very comfortable with computers, while few reported feeling anxious about using

computers. Specifically, three quarters felt prepared to use email, almost two thirds felt

prepared to use content area software although less than half felt prepared to use the

Internet. At first glance, these reports from students are encouraging, however,

Whetstone and Carr-Chellman (2001) maintained that, generally speaking, preservice

student teachers (PSTs) “show over confidence with their computer skills and their

ability to implement them into schools in a meaningful way” (p.7). They cautioned that

students’ usage of technologies (mainly word processing) “indicates that they exhibit

little critical thinking about computer usage or the implementation of computers” (p. 6)

and recommended that “mandatory instruction is necessary so that PSTs’ skills and

practices equal beliefs and confidences” (p. 6).

A study in an Australian university by McRobbie et al. (2000) also provided

support for the value of discrete technology units within preservice teacher education

courses. McRobbie et al. noted that, because the introduction of technology as a key

learning area into Australian primary schools had occurred only within the last 5-10

years, very few practising primary school teachers had received any exposure to

technology during their schooling and preservice teacher education. In their study, a

cohort of preservice teachers participated in independent technology projects during a

compulsory technology unit within their one-year postgraduate teacher education

program. Findings from the study revealed that students’ engagement in the projects had

increased their awareness of ways for teaching with technology in the classroom.

According to a number of writers, though, compulsory or discrete units in

computer training are not sufficient to equip preservice teachers to use technology in

their teaching. To add weight to this claim, recent United States research by Willis and

Sujo de Montes (2002) on the effects of a newly introduced one-semester technology

course produced disappointing findings. Participation in the course apparently had little

impact on attitudes towards technology and the usage of technology during teaching

practicum. The researchers surmised that a single course in technology is not enough to

influence technology use and integration. Similar concerns were raised by Rice et al.

129

(2001) who explained that while many preservice teacher education institutions offer

technology units to aid skill acquisition, they are taught as isolated subjects and

therefore, do not demonstrate how technology can be integrated across the curriculum.

Likewise, the Milken Exchange on Education Technology (1999; cited in Hasselbring et

al., 2000) cautioned that ‘stand-alone coursework’ was not a good predictor of

technology proficiency among graduating teachers.

Since 1997, literature continues to espouse the importance of academic staff in

preservice courses modelling and demonstrating integrated technology experiences

(Hasselbring et, al. 2000). Willis and Tucker (2001), for instance, note

If we at the university preservice level of education, expect to make changes

in how technology is used in the PK-12 environment, we must be models for

our students, willing to be innovative, and risk-taking ourselves, to explore

new strategies, methods and technologies.

(Willis & Tucker, 2001, p. 7)

Indeed, a major study conducted in the United States by the International

Society for Technology in Education concluded that teacher education programs are not

preparing teachers to teach effectively with technology because teacher educators do not

model technology use (Matthew et al., 2002). Matthew et al. (2002) explained that

teacher educators who integrated technology into their teaching provided preservice

teachers with models to emulate as they attempted to integrate technology into their own

teaching. Students, on the other hand, who did not see technology modelled by faculty

members were unlikely to use it in their own classrooms. Pope et al. (2002) also

endorsed the benefits of faculty modelling. In their study, preservice students received

modelling and gained experience in a variety of classroom uses of technology by

university technology staff. In addition, staff and students worked together to develop

plans for students’ future practicum technology experiences. According to the

researchers, pre- and post-testing revealed significant gains in students’ confidence for

using several technology applications in their classroom teaching.

The importance of faculty modelling was also stressed by Yelland et al. (2000).

They advocated that exposure to technological applications should begin in preservice

130

teacher education program, permeating core and elective courses so that students were

confident and competent technology users. They maintained that technology should be

integrated into subjects so that its use becomes a “seamless aspect of the learning

processes that are a daily occurrence in education” (p. 102) but claimed that faculty

modelling of technology use remains the exception rather than the rule.

Strudler et al. (1999) argue that although exposure to educational computing and

technology coursework at university lays a much needed foundation, preservice

integration of technology into field experiences is the most effective means of preparing

graduates to use technology. Findings from a number of recent university-school

initiatives in the United States endorse this view. Vannatta (2000a), for instance reported

on a collaborative school-university venture involving “expert” school teachers

modelling technology integration ideas, sharing technology-rich lessons, demonstrating

applications and providing practicum students with hands-on technology use. Pre- and

post-study surveys from students, revealed significant increases in technology

proficiencies and integration experiences.

A similar project using school mentors during practicum also reported

substantial gains for those involved (Brush et al., 2001). In this project, university

computing and education faculty collaborated to develop a set of technology

competency activities that reflected national competency standards. Computing faculty

then mentored school-based teachers in the use of the activities. Once trained, these

teachers then mentored school-based preservice students in technology activities. Brush

et al. noted that through their participation in the program, preservice teachers became

aware of a range of options for using and integrating technology, were able to

demonstrate the use of state-of-the-art technology in their teaching and gained

understanding in how technology could be used to enhance numerous learning activities.

In Australia, the quality of preservice teacher education has attracted criticism.

A recent discussion paper by the Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher

Education (2003) claimed that teachers need more effective training in new and

changing technologies and called for teacher education providers to re-evaluate their

programs. Likewise, Russell et al. (2000) claimed that provision for preservice teachers

131

must be revamped. Citing data from the national DETYA (1999) study, they noted that

few participating teachers acknowledged their preservice teacher education as a source

of either basic or advanced skill acquisition. A recent survey of heads and course

coordinators from teacher education programs in Australia (representing 900 academic

staff and 21, 246 students) by Downes et al. (2001) may go someway to explaining this.

According to the researchers, responses from heads were characterised by high

expectations but limited realisation of technology integration by academic staff and little

or no provision of rewards for such integration. Although 90% agreed that it was very or

moderately important for their faculty or school to have in place strategic plans and

resources allocations promoting the use of technologies in their teacher education

programs, only 70% of institutions did. Furthermore, while 75% of heads expected

teacher education staff to integrate technology in teaching of their subjects, only 30%

reported that staff did on regular basis and only 40% of institutions had in place rewards

or special recognition for such integration. According to course coordinators in the

study, in terms of technology, the area of most rapid expansion in teacher education

courses was the proliferation of online teaching modules. Course coordinators’

responses indicated that online teaching and learning was part of preservice teacher

education coursework in 82% of institutions. In contrast however, computer skills’

subjects were compulsory in only 64% of courses and substantial opportunities for

modelling in only 19% of courses. In terms of competencies, responses from

coordinators indicated that only 58% of courses required students to demonstrate

competence in their pedagogical uses of computer technologies. Downes et al. (2001)

acknowledged that while a great deal of progress had been made in recent years in the

preservice preparation of teacher education students, preparation was still failing

because technologies were not yet effectively embedded throughout university

programs.

Immediate Research Context By the time of the second phase of this research, the heightened role of

technologies at the university was clear. Apart from increasingly explicit references to

technology in yearly strategic (QUT, 1997) and Teaching and Learning plans (QUT,

2002), QUT, in 1998, established a specific policy on flexible delivery. Defined as the

use of a “range of strategies and technologies to meet the diverse needs of students

132

regarding the location and time of study” flexible delivery was noted to incorporate both

traditional delivery and technological delivery (QUT, 1998, p. 2). Underpinning the

policy was the rationale that the university had to

reposition itself in terms of the changing teaching and learning environment,

develop specific strategies to support flexible delivery and have these

enshrined in our policies and procedures, devote specific resources to this

area at a strategic level and support staff to make significant changes in their

work.

(QUT, Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee (VCAC), 1997 p. 3.)

Since its official university-wide introduction in 2000, the Online Teaching

(OLT) system has become a principal strategy in the realisation of flexible teaching and

learning at the university (Goss, 2002). The OLT system was “designed to facilitate

improved and more efficient university operations through the development of

sustainable support systems an strategies essential for contemporary, high quality,

accredited online teaching service delivery to ... students, staff and other stakeholders”

(p. 6). One of the objectives of the OLT system is that it becomes “a student’s best

friend” (p. 10). By 2001, a platform for using OLT was available with every unit offered

at the University. The choice then rested with each unit coordinator as to how, and to

what extent, they would use this universal facility.

At the Education Faculty level at QUT, the 1998-2002 Strategic Plan made two

references to technology (QUT, 1998). One reference, relating to “Objectives stated to

provide a sustainable technological environment for staff and students which is

accessible, flexible and supportive of Faculty and University goals” (p. 3). The other

reference, relating Strategies noted “Enhance the range and quality of learning

environments through the ongoing introduction of open learning, including flexible

delivery; communication technologies and improved field experiences” (p. 3). There

was no reference to technology in the context of preparing teachers to use it in their

future careers.

133

SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE

LITERATURE

Findings from the first phase of research and this second review of literature

raised several questions in relation to academic staff and graduate teachers’ perceptions

and use of technologies. These questions are addressed in the second phase of the

research and link to the overall research objectives outlined on p. 9.

Literature, since 1997, indicated that technologies had continued to reshape

academic work and the academic profession (Marginson, 2000). Several studies

suggested that faculty were more knowledgeable about technologies and used them

more frequently in their teaching (Groves & Zemel, 2000). This increased knowledge

and use seemed to have occurred despite the persistence of barriers to technology use,

particularly the lack of evidence of improved learning outcomes, availability of

administrative or technical support, time to learn, and training (Beggs, 2000; Groves &

Zemel, 2000). Recent years had seen an increasing awareness of the importance of

effective technology training with new studies suggesting that training is most effective

when provided by mentors (Cooper, 1999; Haile & Payne, 1999; Matthews et al., 2002;

Vannatta, 2000) who have an understanding of pedagogical issues. At the time of the

second study, literature continued to support the notion that university valuing of

teaching also impacted on faculty use of technology in their teaching (Spotts, 1999).

In relation to academic staff in the second phase of research then, What have

been the greatest impacts in recent years as a result of technologies? (Academic staff

research objective 1). Are academic staff more knowledgeable and confident about

technologies and do they use them more frequently than their 1997 counterparts?

(Academic staff research objective 1). In 2002, what factors continue to influence

technology use? Academic staff research objective 2), and which method of technology

training would academic staff most prefer? (Academic staff research objective 2). Did

academic staff, in 2002, continue to feel that teaching was undervalued at their

university (Academic staff research objective 3).

This review of literature also suggested that teachers’ confidence with and usage

of technologies had increased (Russell et al., 2000; Williams et al., 2000; Zhao et al.,

134

2001), although there were growing concerns that technology use was largely limited to

low-level, supplemental tasks such as drill-and-practice activities, word processing,

educational games, and computer-based tutorials (Brush et al., 2001; Russell et al.,

2000; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Willis et al., 1999). Literature suggested that barriers

such as time, support, and resources (Dias, 1999; Franklin, et al., 2002; Rice et al., 2001;

Schrum 1999; Strudler et al., 1999; Williams et al., 2000) were influential in technology

use but opportunities for inservice training had increased dramatically (Hasselbring et

al., 2000). New studies were indicating, however, widespread dissatisfaction with

training that tended to focus more word processing and operating systems than

integrating technology across the curriculum (Franklin et al., 2002; McCannon &

Crews, 2000; Williams et al., 2000). Concerning optimum training in technology at the

preservice level, new research advocated approaches based on university and school

partnerships. These partnerships featured a variety of strategies such as “expert” school

teachers modelling technology integration ideas, sharing technology-rich lessons,

demonstrating applications, providing practicum students with hands-on technology use,

and the development of one-on-one mentoring relationships (Dawson & Norris, 2000;

Johnson-Gentile et al., 2000; Vannatta, 2000a; Vannatta & O’Bannon, 2002). Although

these recent initiatives were encouraging, studies continued to indicate that many

teachers were still unprepared to use technology in the classroom (Hasselbring et al.,

2000; Jerald & Orlofsky, 1999, Pope et al., 2002; Wright, 2001). It seemed that, even

when teachers did report feeling well prepared, they rarely attributed their preparation to

preservice teacher education (Pope et al., 2002).

In relation to graduate teachers in the 2002 study then, were they more

knowledgeable and confident of their use of technologies than their 1997 counterparts?

(Graduate teacher research objective 1). How were these technologies used in the

classroom? (Graduate teacher research objective 1). What factors continued to influence

graduate teachers’ use of technology? (Graduate teacher research objective 2). What

opportunities did graduate teachers have for inservice technology training and were they

satisfied with this training? (Graduate teacher research objective 2). Did graduate

teachers and academic staff believe that preservice training in technology use was

adequate? (Graduate teacher research objective 3, Academic staff research objective 4).

135

And, how could this training be improved? (Graduate teacher research objective 3,

Academic staff research objective 4).

136

CHAPTER 7

PHASE 2 (2002): RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the methodology for the second phase of research. It

commences with a description of the research design, then describes the method, the

subjects and procedure. The measures used in this phase of the research are then

detailed, highlighting any changes in instruments between the two phases. Literature

sources to support these changes are also provided. The chapter concludes with a

discussion of the data analysis techniques used.

Research Design As noted earlier, this study has featured a repeated cross-sectional design. It

involved cases that were comparable from the first to the second phase of research and

collected data on items or variables on two occasions with the purpose of comparing

that data over time. To ensure comparability, sampling and administration of the

questionnaires, along with coding categories of data, were replicated. However, the

questionnaire was modified in various ways that took account of the findings in Phase 1

and the emergent issues in the research literature.

Method

Self-administered questionnaires were used to gather the data on academic staff

and graduate teachers' perceptions and usage of computer-based technologies and the

effectiveness of preservice teacher education programs in preparing new teachers to use

computer-based technologies in schools. The data gathered in the research were both

descriptive and explanatory because they established frequency patterns among

variables and identified relationships between variables. While the questionnaires

featured mostly select-response questions, several open-ended questions were also

included.

137

Participants

Participants in the second phase study were academic staff members and

graduate teachers from two four-year degree courses in the Faculty of Education at

QUT. As in Phase 1 of the research, academic staff participants in Phase 2 comprised

full-time teaching staff within the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of

Technology who taught in either the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) or the

Bachelor of Education (Primary) courses. Graduate teachers in Phase 2 comprised those

who had completed their final year of study in these courses in 2000 or 2001. At the

time of the studies, these graduate teachers, like those in the first phase, had embarked

on their first or second year of teaching.

While the single context of the study no doubt limited the generalisability of

findings to other settings, it was important to maximise homogeneity among participants

in terms of their recent experiences with, and exposure to, technologies. Furthermore,

current literature on technology use confirms that studies conducted in single university

faculties are commonplace (Beggs, 2000; Brush et al., 2001; Dawson & Norris, 2000;

Groves & Zemel, 2000; Haile & Payne, 1999; Kinslow et al., 2002; Matthew et al.,

2002; McRobbie et al., 2000; Pope et al., 2002; Spotts, 1999; Vannatta, 2000;

Whetstone & Car-Chellman, 2001; Willis & Sujo de Montes, 2002; Willis & Tucker,

2001; Yelland et al., 2000).

Procedure

The methods of participant recruitment and questionnaire distribution and return

utilised in Phase 1 were repeated in Phase 2. Staff members were identified via the

computer-based data warehouse system available at the university and questionnaires

were distributed and returned via the internal mailing system. Contact details for

graduate teachers were obtained via the graduate Student Information System. Their

questionnaires were distributed and returned by mail. Graduate teachers were provided

with reply-paid envelopes. To maximise response rates, reminder letters were

distributed to academic staff and graduate teachers two weeks after the initial mail-out.

138

Measures

In order to determine differences in responses between 1997 and 2002, most

items in the 2002 questionnaires were replicated from those in the 1997 questionnaires.

It was anticipated that differences in responses between Phase 1 and Phase 2 would

suggest that change may have occurred. However, based on findings from the 1997

studies, some items considered to be of limited value were omitted from the 2002

questionnaires while several new questions were added. These items are discussed in the

following sections. Some changes were also made in light of technological advances

and redundancies since the time of the 1997 phase. For instance, CAI was omitted from

the 2002 questionnaire. This decision was based on findings from the 1997 study

relating to future usage and value to teaching of CAI indicating that this older

technology was all but redundant in the university setting. In addition, the term

Audiographics had been largely superseded by the term Audioconferencing.

Furthermore, videoconferencing technologies were now also available at the university.

To reflect these developments, Audiographics was, therefore, replaced in the 2002

questionnaires by Audio/videoconferencing. In addition, due to its high profile and

university-wide promotion at QUT in recent years, OLT was added to the

questionnaires. The following definitions of these new technologies were provided in

the 2002 questionnaires:

Audio/videoconferencing – refers to the simultaneous use of telephones, video

and computers to link people (for example, groups of students and teachers) at a

distance.

OLT (Online Teaching) refers to the unit-specific lecture notes and resources

available through the university online system.

The 2002 Academic Staff Questionnaire

The 23-item Academic Staff Questionnaire comprised 20 items from the 1997

questionnaire, along with three new items. This questionnaire is presented in Appendix

C. Like the original questionnaire, the Phase 2 questionnaire was divided into the

following sections:

139

Section A - Demographics and Computer Ownership

This section of the questionnaire, focusing on demographic information and

computer ownership, remained unchanged. Data from these questions ensured that the

1997 and 2002 groups were comparable.

Section B – Knowledge and Use of Computer-Based Technologies

The second section of the questionnaire featured the same items on knowledge

levels, sources of knowledge acquisition, confidence, frequency of use in teaching and

non-teaching, nature of technology usage, and preferred future use of technologies that

featured in the initial survey. However, two new items were also included. Based on

findings from the Phase One study that pointed to the importance of training, and recent

literature about the relative merits of various technology training programs (Cooper,

1999; Hayle & Payne, 1999; Matthew et al., 2002; Vannatta, 2000), academic staff were

asked about their preferred method of training. Respondents were asked to rank- order

four training methods, Group workshops; Online Tutorials; Faculty Colleague Mentor

Program; and Faculty Technology Coordinator on a 4-point rating scale which was most

(1) and least desirable (4). In addition, based on recent literature highlighting the

immense changes brought about in universities by technologies (Marginson, 2000;

Nunan et al., 2000, Taylor, 2001), an open-ended question asked respondents to

describe the impact of technologies on their work over the last three years.

Section C – Preparing Students for using Computer-Based Technologies

Part three of the questionnaire comprised two items related to preparing student

teachers to use technology. These questions asked about the relative importance of the

technologies to preservice teacher preparation and the adequacy of this preparation. In

addition, respondents were asked in an open-ended question to comment on how this

preparation might be improved.

Section D – Multimedia use in Higher Education

This fourth section comprised three questions from the original questionnaire.

These questions related to barriers and incentives to use technologies and were

considered to still be relevant in light of Phase One study findings and recent research

(Beggs, 2000; Groves & Zemel, 2000: Spotts, 1999).

140

Section E – Valuing and Recognition of Teaching in Higher Education

The final items in the questionnaire about valuing of academic activities

remained unchanged from the original questionnaire. These questions asked respondents

to rank-order teaching, research and publishing according to how respondents felt they

were valued in the workplace, and according to how they felt they should be valued in

the workplace. The final question asked respondents to indicate on a 5-point rating scale

the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that greater recognition for teaching would

encourage their use of technology in teaching. The focus of the questionnaire sections

and the recent literature support for the questions in each section are summarised in

Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Academic Staff Questionnaire Sections and Literature Support Section Focus of sections Literature sources and support for

questions A

Demographics and computer ownership Gender, main teaching area, number of years teaching and rates of computer—ownership

B

Knowledge and use of computer-based technologies Knowledge, confidence, sources of knowledge, training preferences, frequency and examples of use, future use, usefulness to teaching, importance to higher education, changes to work

Groves and Zemel (2000), Beggs (2000), Spotts (1999), Cooper (1999), Haile and Payne (1999), Matthew et al. (2002), Vannatta (2000), Marginson (2000)

C

Preparing students for using technologies Adequacy of preparation and ideas for improving this preparation

Hasslebring et al. (2000), Pope et al. (2002), Wright (2001), Dawson and Norris (2000), Johnson-Gentile et al. (2000), Vannatta (2000a), Vannatta and O’Bannon (2002)

D Multimedia use in higher education Barriers and incentives

Groves and Zemel (2000), Beggs (2000), Mueller et al. (2001). Strudler and Wetzel (1999)

E

Valuing and recognition of teaching in higher education Valuing of teaching, research and publishing, effect of recognition of teaching

Spotts (1999) Weeks (2000)

141

2002 Graduate Teacher Questionnaire

The 24-item Graduate Teacher Questionnaire comprised 18 items from the

original questionnaire used in Phase 1 and six new questions. Like the original

questionnaire, the phase two questionnaire was divided into the following sections:

Section A – Demographics and Computer Ownership

This section remained unchanged from the original questionnaire and sought

information on gender, age, teaching specialisation (early childhood or primary), months

of teaching experience, and home computer ownership. Data from these questions

ensured that the 1997 and 2002 groups were comparable.

Section B – Attitudes Towards and Usage of Computer-Based Technologies at Work

Section B of the questionnaire featured the same items addressing knowledge

levels, acquisition of knowledge, confidence, and current and future usage of

technologies that appeared in the first questionnaire. In addition, a question based on

new interest in teachers’ classroom usage of technologies (Brush et al., 2000; Russell et

al., 2000, Strudler & Wetzel, 1999, Willis et al., 1999, Wright, 2000) was included.

Using categories of activities identified in the Australian DETYA study, teachers were

asked to select those that they engaged in during class (Russell, et al., 2000). These

options included; “get information from a CD-ROM”, “send and receive email”, “get

information from the Internet/web”, and “take part in a videoconference”. Three further

questions were based on recent evidence about the increasing availability and nature of

inservice training opportunities in technology use (Downes, et al., 2001; Franklin et al.,

2002; Hasselbring et al., 2000; Rice et al., 2001). These questions asked respondents to

indicate if such training was available at their school, and, if so, to describe this training;

to indicate whether or not such training was satisfactory, and to make further comment;

and to comment on the areas that they would most like to be trained in. A final question,

in this section, based on findings from the 1997 study and current literature, (Dias, 1999;

Franklin, et al., 2002; Rice et al., 2001; Schrumm, 1999; Strudler et al., 1999; Williams

et al., 2000) asked respondents to select from 10 options those that were barriers to their

technology use in teaching. These options included lack of equipment/resources, no

time to learn how to use technology, lack of training options and lack of school/centre

142

support. Respondents were also invited to note any additional barriers to their use of

technology.

Section C – Computer-Based Technologies and Preservice Teacher Education

The final section of the questionnaire comprised six items from the original

questionnaire that focused on teachers' retrospective experiences with computer-based

technologies throughout their preservice teacher education. These questions asked about

frequency of use of the technologies, the nature of usage, future usage, the relative

importance of the technologies to preservice teacher education, and the adequacy of

preparation in the use of technologies. A new question, based on recent insights into

successful preservice teacher education initiatives (Dawson & Norris, 2000; Johnson-

Gentile et al., 2000; Matthew et al., 2002; McRobbie, et al., 2000; Pope et al., 2002;

Vannatta, 2000; Vannatta & O’Bannon, 2002; Whetstone & Carr-Chelman, 2001)

invited graduate teachers to comment on how preservice training in technology use

could be improved. The focus of the questionnaire sections and the recent literature

support for the questions in each section are summarised in Table 7.2.

143

Table 7.2 Graduate Teacher Questionnaire Sections and Literature Support

Section Focus of questionnaire sections Literature sources and support for questions

A Demographic and computer ownership information Gender, age, training specialisation, number of months teaching, and computer ownership

B Knowledge and use of technologies Knowledge and confidence, sources of knowledge, frequency and nature of technology use, future use, usefulness to teaching, training opportunities barriers to technology use.

Brush et al. (2000), Cole (2000), Dias (1999), Downes et al. (2001), Franklin et al. (2002), Hasslebring et al. (2000), McCannon and Crews (2000) Rice et al. (2001), Russell et al. (2000), Schrumm (1999), Strudler et al. (1999), Strudler and Wetzel (1999), Thompson and Sadera (1999) Williams et al. (2000) Willis et al. (1999), Wright (2001)

C Technology use in preservice and higher education frequency of use, nature of use, future use, importance of individual technologies, importance and types of technology preparation, adequacy of preparation, and ideas for improving this preparation

Dawson and Norris (2000), Johnson-Gentile et al. (2000), Hogaboam-Gray and Hannay (1999), Matthew et al. (2002), McRobbie et al. (2000), Pope et al. (2002), Vannatta (2000),Vannatta and O’Bannon (2002), Whetstone and Carr-Chelman (2001)

Analysis of data

As in Phase 1, prior to data analyses, quantitative data from questionnaires were

screened for accuracy of data entry and missing values. These data were then analysed

using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows. Descriptive

statistics were again employed to identify themes or patterns among responses such as

knowledge, valuing, confidence, and usage related to the computer-based technologies.

Chi-square analyses were used to identify significant differences in quantitative

responses on the repeated variables across the 1997 and 2002 data sets. Because the

response scales for items throughout the questionnaires were a mix of ordinal,

categorical, interval, and rank-order, the Chi-square procedure was considered most

144

appropriate for these analyses. An alpha level of .05 was used as the level for

significance.

In relation to open-ended responses, the process of qualitative analysis used in

Phase 1 was again employed. Based on data “reduction” and “interpretation” (Marshall

& Rossman, 1995, p. 113), this involves systematically reducing responses by searching

for patterns or themes and then interpreting the themes. As described in Chapter 3, the

first stage in this process involved transcribing verbatim responses to each open-ended

questionnaire item. Transcriptions for each question were then read and re-read to obtain

a general sense of the information and to consider its overall meaning (Creswell, 2003).

Data were then coded by organising the various responses into topics or themes. These

themes were then colour-coded and assigned descriptive labels or codes. As themes

emerged during analysis, the data were organised categorically. These categories were

reviewed repeatedly and reduced by grouping topics or themes that related to each other.

Numbers of responses within each category were then tabulated to provide a frequency

statistic.

145

CHAPTER 8

PHASE 2 (2002): ACADEMIC STAFF EXPERIENCES

WITH TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the experiences and perceptions of academic staff involved in

two preservice teacher education courses in 2002 are reported. The chapter

commences with a summary findings from the 1997 study. It then provides a brief

review of literature that, along with the Phase 1 findings, informed the second phase

of research. Objectives of the study are then outlined, as are the participants,

procedure, and the measures. Findings from the study are presented and compared

with those from the first phase. A discussion of these findings in light of recent

literature concludes the chapter.

Background to Phase 2 The purpose of this investigation was to explore, at a second interval, the

perceptions of academic staff involved in two preservice teacher education courses

as they related to the use of technologies and to identify any changes in these

perceptions since the previous phase of research. As discussed in Chapter 4, data

from the 1997 investigation revealed that although academic staff considered

technology preparation to be important for preservice education teachers, they

acknowledged that this preparation was less than satisfactory. They were positive

about the use of and benefits associated with technologies and anticipated making

more use of technologies in the future. However, in 1997, they appeared to lack

confidence in using technologies and made only limited use of them in their

teaching. A number of barriers to the use technology were noted, namely lack of

technical support, equipment, resources, Faculty support and training. Most noted the

lack of available training and claimed to be self-taught. While they valued teaching

over research and publishing, they believed that the university more strongly valued

research.

146

Nunan et al. (2000), noted that technology continues to be both a source and

agent of change within university environments where reduced government funding,

increased sizes and numbers of classes, larger marking loads and growing

administrative tasks have become the norm. These factors have had considerable

impact on academic staff in recent years. Challenges are also posed by competition

between universities for online students (Taylor, 2001). These changes, noted

Marginson (2000), are reshaping academic work and the academic profession who

must engage more fully in technology use if they are to maintain control of

scholarship and research.

Several studies, since 1997, have suggested that academic staff are, indeed,

changing their perceptions and usage of technologies, despite the existence of

persistent barriers to technology use. There are indications that academic staff are

more aware of the importance of technology in their teaching when the findings of

Spotts and Bowman (1995) and Groves and Zemel (2000) are compared. The same

studies also suggested that in 2000 academic staff were more knowledgeable about

technologies and used technologies more frequently than their 1995 counterparts

(Groves & Zemel, 2000; Spotts & Bowman, 1995).

Work by Spotts and Bowman (1993) shed light on the factors that influenced

academic staff technology use. Follow-up studies indicated that these factors are

more influential than ever, particularly the availability of administrative or technical

support, time to learn, and training (Beggs, 2000; Groves & Zemel, 2000). In terms

of barriers, Beggs (2000) noted that lack of time, equipment and training were the

most salient, while Mueller et al. (2001) found lack of training, followed by lack of

technical support and lack of equipment were the greatest hindrances.

Research findings since 1997 reflected an increasing awareness of the

importance of effective technology training. New insights suggested that training

should be provided by those with an understanding of curriculum integration and be

offered in a variety of formats including group workshops and one-on-one

opportunities (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999). Several studies in the United States

suggested that the most successful programs and those most desired by academic

staff were those that involved individualised training and one-on-one mentoring

147

relationships (Cooper, 1999; Haile & Payne, 1999; Matthew et al., 2002; Vannatta,

2000).

In 1997, literature continued to support the notion that university valuing of

teaching also impacted on academic staff use of technology in their teaching.

Academic staff in Spotts and Bowman’s (1999) study commented that their time was

best spent pursuing activities that the university promoted as necessary for promotion

or tenure, namely research and publishing. Weeks (2000) noted that academic staff in

Australia were less likely than their counterparts in the United Kingdom and United

States to be rewarded (in the form of credentials) for attempts to improve their

teaching.

In terms of the immediate context, the university’s push for flexible delivery

since the first phase of this research had seen the widespread development and

implementation by academic staff of online teaching and learning resources.

The purpose of this 2002 investigation was to explore the experiences and

perceptions of academic staff relating to several computer-based technologies and to

changes in these experiences and perceptions since the previous investigation.

In light of the aforementioned context and research findings, specific objectives of

this 2002 investigation were to:

1. Explore the attitudes of academic staff towards, and usage of, computer-

based technologies and compare these with findings from 1997.

2. Identify the factors that encouraged or hindered academic staff usage of

computer-based technologies including multimedia and compare these with

findings from 1997.

3. Determine the perceptions of academic staff concerning preparing students to

use technologies in their teaching and compare these with findings from 1997.

4. Examine perceptions surrounding the personal and university valuing of

teaching and compare these with findings from 1997.

148

METHOD

Participants and procedure In 2002, the academic staff questionnaire was distributed to the 95 staff

members involved in teaching in the Bachelor of Education (Primary) and the

Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) courses in the Faculty of Education at

QUT. Staff member names were obtained via the on-line university data warehouse

system. Questionnaires were distributed and returned via the university internal

mailing system. Reminder letters to complete the questionnaires were sent two weeks

after the initial distribution. In all, 40 completed questionnaires were returned,

representing a return rate of 42%. This return rate was comparable to that of Phase

One of the study. It was also comparable with return rates reported in similar studies

by Beggs (2000), (44%, 156/348), Groves and Zemel, 2000), (49%, 64/135), and

better than that reported by Mueller et al. (2000), in their study (31%, 138/450). The

failure to achieve the minimum 50% return rate as recommended by Babbie (1992),

means that results must be interpreted with caution.

Measurement As discussed in Chapter 7, in order to enable comparability with findings

from the first phase of research, the phase two questionnaire comprised 21 items

from the 1997 survey. Like the 1997 questionnaire, this survey sought the following

information - demographic information; knowledge and use of technologies; use of

technologies in preservice teacher education; multimedia technology use in higher

education; and valuing and recognition of academic activities. The section on

knowledge and use of technologies included the two new items. One question asked

respondents to rank-order types of training in technology integration from most to

least desirable. Another question asked respondents to describe the impact of

computer-based technologies on their work over the last three years. The second

survey also differed from the first in that it excluded any reference to CAI. Where

appropriate, instead it sought information about online teaching (OLT), the

computer-based technology currently used as the Internet interface for teaching of

units at the university. In addition, Audiographics was replaced in the 2002

questionnaire by the term “Audio/Videoconferencing” to reflect the availability, at

149

the university, of these new conferencing technologies. For simplicity, however, the

term “Conferencing technologies” is used in discussions comparing 1997 and 2002

findings relating to these technologies. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix

C.

Data Analysis

As in Phase 1, quantitative data from questionnaires were screened for

accuracy of data entry and missing values prior to data analyses. Data were then

analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows.

Descriptive statistics were again employed to identify themes or patterns among

responses such as knowledge, valuing, confidence, and usage related to the

computer-based technologies.

In this second phase, Chi-square analyses were used to identify significant

differences in quantitative responses on the repeated variables across the 1997 and

2002 data sets. As discussed in Chapter 7, the response scales for items throughout

the questionnaires were a mix of ordinal, categorical, interval, and rank-order scales,

hence the Chi-square correlation procedure was considered an appropriate technique.

An alpha level of .05 was used as the level for significance.

In relation to open-ended responses, the process of qualitative analysis used

in Phase 1 was again employed. As noted, this process was based on the data

“reduction” and “interpretation” outlined by Marshall and Rossman (1995, p. 113)

and involved systematically reducing responses by searching for patterns or themes

and then interpreting, coding and categorising these themes. Numbers of responses

within each category were then tabulated to provide a frequency statistic.

RESULTS

In the reporting of the results in this chapter, many tables presenting

frequencies and percentages on the responses for various questions have been placed

in Appendix E. This was thought to facilitate the reading and understanding of the

survey findings because of the extensive number of questions involved. Instead,

150

tables presented in this chapter tend to be those depicting categorised themes that

have emerged from the responses to open-ended questions. Where significant

differences exist between 1997 and 2002 responses, figures are used to provide a

visual presentation of these differences.

Demographic characteristics of the respondents Of the 40 academic staff who responded to the 2002 questionnaire, 43%

taught in the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) and 43% taught in the

Bachelor of Education (Primary) (refer Table 8.1). In addition, 15% of academic

staff reported teaching in both the early childhood and primary courses. The sample

comprised 73% females and 28% males. In 2002 there were no male teachers

involved in the Early Childhood course.

In 2002, 55% of the respondents had taught in higher education for more than

10 years. All but one academic staff member owned a computer at home, and of

those with computers at home, 85% had a CD-ROM and 88% had a modem.

Comparison of 1997 and 2002 participants

Chi square tests revealed that there were no differences between the 1997 and

2002 groups on demographics. There were no significant differences according to

gender, teaching specialisation and experience, and computer ownership between the

1997 and 2002 groups of academic staff. There were, however, increases in 2002 for

ownership of computers with CD-ROMs and modems.

151

Table 8.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________

1997 (n = 43) 2002 (n =40) ____________________________________________________________________ Taught Early Childhood students 40% (17) 43% (17)

Taught Primary students 49% (21) 43% (17)

Female 63% (27) 73% (29)

Male 37% (16) 28% (11)

Taught more than 10 years 61% (26) 55% (22)

Home computer ownership 95% (41) 98% (39)

with CD-ROM 72% (31) 85% (34)

with modem 63% (27) 88% (35)

____________________________________________________________________ Knowledge and use of technologies

Using the response scales employed in the 1997 study, academic staff were

asked about their level of knowledge, the means by which they developed their

knowledge and their level of confidence as well as the frequency and nature of usage

in teaching and non-teaching activities. The 2002 survey also asked academic staff to

rank order items according to the most to least preferred training option. These

options were Group workshops, Online tutorials, Faculty colleague mentor program,

and Faculty technology coordinator.

In 2002, academic staff appeared most knowledgeable about the Internet and

email. Advanced levels of knowledge were reported by 48% of the respondents for

the Internet and 63% of the respondents for email. In contrast, an advanced level of

knowledge for the conferencing technologies was reported by only eight percent.

Frequency statistics in relation to knowledge of the technologies are presented in

Table E.1 (Appendix E).

With the exception of OLT, professional or work-based training had played a

limited role in knowledge acquisition of the technologies Instead, most of the 2002

sample reported that they were either self-taught or received assistance from

colleagues (refer Table E.2 Appendix E).

152

In order to ascertain which types of technology training would appeal to

academic staff, they were asked to rank order from most desirable to least desirable,

Group workshops, on-line tutorials, faculty colleague mentor program and faculty

technology co-ordinator. Analysis of responses revealed that the most popular form

of training was a mentor program operating within the Faculty of Education. As

Table 8.2 shows, 45% of respondents ranked this as their preferred method of

learning about technology. A further 23% ranked group workshops as their preferred

training method, while only 15% of respondents preferred online tutorials and a

technology co-ordinator as training options. On line tutorials appeared to be the least

favourite form of training with 43% ranking it 4th in preference.

Table 8.2 Rankings of Preferred Method of Training ____________________________________________________________________ Ranking 1st 2nd 3rd 4th ____________________________________________________________________ Group workshops 23% (9) 25% (10) 28% (11) 10% (4)

Online tutorials 15% (6) 8% (3) 13% (5) 43% (17)

Faculty colleague mentor

program 45% (18) 25% (10) 13% (5) 3% (1)

Faculty technology

coordinator 15% (6) 20% (8) 23% (9) 20% (8)

____________________________________________________________________

Despite the reported lack of opportunities for professional or work-based

training, the majority of academic staff expressed confidence in using the

technologies in their teaching. Frequencies presented in Table E.4 (Appendix E)

show that more than half of the sample reported that they were confident or very

confident in using all of the technologies except conferencing technologies. In 2002,

they appeared particularly confident in their use of email and OLT.

In 2002, academic staff indicated that with the exception of multimedia and

conferencing technologies, the technologies were used at least weekly in teaching

(refer Table E.5 Appendix E). Multimedia, on the other hand, was used on a daily or

weekly basis by only one-quarter (25%) of respondents, while conferencing

technologies were used regularly by only one respondent. In relation to non-teaching

153

uses of technologies, 90% and 98% of respondents reported daily or weekly use of

the Internet and email (refer Table E.6 Appendix E). Considerably fewer respondents

(28%) made daily or weekly use of multimedia with another one-quarter (25%) of

the sample noting that they never used this technology. Not surprisingly, 50% of

respondents also made no use of conferencing technologies in their non-teaching

activities.

There were 32 responses to an open-ended question about how the

technologies were used. Four broad categories of usage were identified from the

responses. Apart from many references to OLT for unit delivery, the largest category

comprising 66% (21) of responses was email communication. Responses in this

category encompassed those that referred to the use of email to contact students and

colleagues. Research/locating information (predominantly via the Internet) was the

second largest reported use of technologies with 38% (12) of responses. A further

25% (8) of responses mentioned using conferencing technologies or video

conferencing for teaching external students or other ‘professional purposes’.

Another 9% (3) responses noted the use of technologies for modelling or

demonstrating to students.

Comparison between 1997 and 2002

Frequency statistics suggested that academic staff in 2002 were more

knowledgeable, more confident and used technologies more frequently than their

1997 counterparts. Chi-square tests revealed that many of these differences were

significant, although only one of these differences related to knowledge of the

technologies. This difference related to the conferencing technologies and confirmed

that there had been significant knowledge gains since 1997, χ2 (2, n = 83) = 9.94, p =

.019. Differences between 1997 and 2002 data are presented graphically in Figure

8.1.

154

advancedintermediatenovicenot literate

Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.1 Knowledge Levels for Conferencing Technologies: 1997 and 2002

In relation to confidence in using the Internet, χ2 (2, n = 82) = 19.95, p =

.000, significantly more 2002 respondents reported being confident, and significantly

fewer reported being not, or not at all, confident. Likewise with email, χ2 (2, n = 82)

= 9.80, p = .020, significantly fewer respondents in 1997 than in 2002 reported

feeling not confident about using this technology in their teaching. These differences

are presented graphically in Figures 8.2 and 8.3.

155

very confidentconfident

not confidentnot at all confident

Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.2 Confidence Levels for the Internet: 1997 and 2002



Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.3 Confidence Levels for Email: 1997 and 2002 Significant differences were also found for the role that work-based training

played in the acquisition of knowledge of the Internet and email. According to Chi-

156

square analyses, work-based training for knowledge of the Internet, χ2 (2, n = 83) =

3.83, p = .050, and email χ2 (2, n = 83) = 6.20, p = .013, differed between 1997 and

2002 indicating that this form of training played less of a role in 2002 than it had in

1997. In contrast there were significant increases in the numbers of academic staff

reporting to be self-taught in the Internet χ2 (2, n = 83) = 11.22, p = .001 and email

χ2 (2, n = 83) = 6.22, p = .013. These differences are presented graphically in Figures

8.4, 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7.

yesno

Perc

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.4 Knowledge Development of Internet from Work-Based Training: 1997 and 2002

157

yesno

Perc

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.5 Knowledge Development of Email from Work-Based Training: 1997 and 2002

yesno

Perc

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.6 Knowledge Development of Internet from Being Self-Taught: 1997 and 2002

158

yesno

Perc

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.7 Knowledge Development of Email from Being Self-Taught: 1997 and 2002

Differences between the 1997 and 2002 groups were also apparent for the

frequency of use of technologies in teaching (refer Figures 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, and 8.11).

Chi-square analyses indicated, that for both multimedia and conferencing

technologies, χ2 (2, n = 80) = 13.65, p = .018, the 2002 group were less likely to

report no use of the technologies, but more likely to report using the technologies

once per semester. In relation to the Internet, χ2 (2, n = 81) = 23.91, p = .000) and

email, χ2 (2, n = 80) = 13.65, p = .018), the 2002 group, compared to the 1997 group

were significantly less likely to report never using the technologies and significantly

more likely to report using the technologies on a daily-basis. In relation to use for

non-teaching, the only apparent significant increase was use of the conferencing

technologies in 2002 χ2 (2, n = 81) = 23.91, p = .000.

159

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly

once a semesternever

Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.8 Frequency of Use of Multimedia in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.9 Frequency of Use of Conferencing Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and

2002

160

dailyw eekly

monthlyonce a semester

never

Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.10 Frequency of Use of the Internet in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.11 Frequency of Use of Email in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

161

The role of technologies in higher education The 2002 survey asked academic staff about their preferred future technology

use and the impact that the technologies have had on their work over the last three

years. In terms of preferred use, a majority (55% and 53%) of academic staff would

like to increase their use of multimedia and OLT only. In relation to email and the

Internet, however, most (73% and 60%) academic staff favoured no change in usage

levels, while 10% also favoured less use of email. These results are presented in

Table E.10 (Appendix E). Despite their lack of confidence in using conferencing

technologies, 45% of respondents indicated that they favoured increased use of this

technology. A further 45%, however, indicated that they did not wish to change their

current level of usage.

An open-ended question in the 2002 questionnaire asked about the impact of

the technologies on work over the last three years. The question elicited 34 responses

from which five broad categories emerged. Many respondents provided multiple

comments. With 47% (16) of comments, the largest category comprised responses

relating to increased workload or time commitment. Many noted Email as the

primary source of this additional work. For instance, one respondent explained Email

is a tyrant, not a tool…it has generated a huge amount of extra work. On a more

positive note, 44% (15) of respondents commented that the technologies had

improved their communication with students (particularly off-campus students) and

colleagues, while 34% (11) felt that technologies had improved or added variety to

their teaching. As one respondent noted OLT has sharpened my presentation of

course material. According to 27% (9) of responses, computer-based technologies

had also improved or made more efficient their ability to access resources or

information although a further 9% (3) felt that this had made students lazy, passive or

demanding.


Significant changes between the 1997 and 2002 groups were apparent for

preferred change in use of two of the technologies. Chi square analyses revealed that

for both the Internet, χ2 (2, n = 79) = 12.57, p = .002, and email, χ2 (2, n = 79) =

162

22.12, p = .000, the 2002 group, compared to the 1997 group, were more likely to

prefer no change in use or less use of these two technologies. These results are

presented graphically in Figures 8.12 and 8.13.

more useno changeless use

Perc

ent

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.12 Preferred Future Usage of Internet in Work: 1997 and 2002


Perc

ent

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.13 Preferred Future Usage of Email in Work: 1997 and 2002

163

The role of technologies in preservice teacher education To determine any changes in perceptions since 1997, respondents in 2002

were again asked to rank the relative importance of the individual technologies to

preservice teacher education and to rate the adequacy of such preparation.

Respondents in 2002 were also invited to suggest ways in which preparation in

technology use could be improved.

In relation to which technologies were considered most and least important to

teacher preparation, responses were reasonably consistent (Table E 11, Appendix E).

More than half (53%) the group ranked the Internet as the most important technology

to preservice teacher education, while a further 28% and 23% of respondents ranked

email and multimedia as the most important technologies to preservice teacher

education. In contrast, 60% nominated conferencing technologies as the least

important of the technologies.

In terms of adequacy of this preparation, Table 8.3 shows that 60% of the

2002 sample believed that students were adequately prepared, 13% believed that

students were well prepared and a further 3% considered students to be very well

prepared. In contrast, only 15% of respondents considered students to be not very

well, or, not, prepared.

Table 8.3 Adequacy of Preparation in Technology Use: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________ Level of preparation 1997 (n =38) 2002 (n = 36) ____________________________________________________________________ Not prepared 16% (7) 3% (1)

Not very well prepared 42% (18) 13% (5)

Adequately prepared 21% (9) 60% (24)

Well Prepared 9% (4) 13% (5)

Very well prepared 0% (0) 3% (1)

____________________________________________________________________

When asked how preservice preparation in technology use could be

improved, 55% (22) of respondents offered suggestions. From these responses, six

broad categories emerged. As can be seen in Table 8.4, the largest single category

comprising 46% of responses was Increased technology-specific units, while the

164

second most frequently cited suggestions were Incorporating technological literacy

into assessment and Learning how to critically evaluate software (18%). Further

suggestions were Improving access to computers /resources, (14%), Modelling/

demonstrating technologies, (9%) and Exposure to technology on practicum (9%).

Additional, one-off responses included Training of faculty; More staff; and

developing Skills in coping with whatever they might find in the classroom.

Table 8.4 Suggested Improvements to Technology Preparation ____________________________________________________________________ Suggested improvements (n = 22)

____________________________________________________________________

Increased technology-specific units 45% (10)

Incorporating technological literacy into assessment 18% (4)

Learning how to critically evaluate software 18% (4)

Improving access to computers/resources 14% (3)

Modelling/demonstrating technologies 9% (2)

Exposure to technology on practicum 9% (2)

____________________________________________________________________


Chi-square analysis of 1997 and 2002 responses to the question about

adequacy of preparation revealed a significant difference, χ2 (2, n = 74) = 19.73, p =

.001. Compared with the 1997 group, academic staff members in 2002 were

significantly more likely to report that preparation in the use of technologies was

adequate (refer Figure 8.14).

165

very w ell preparedw ell prepared

adequately preparednot v w ell prepared

not prepared

Perc

ent

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.14 Adequacy of Preservice Teacher Education in Technology Use: 1997 and 2002 Multimedia use in higher education

As in the 1997 questionnaire, respondents were asked to consider eleven

items in terms of the degree to which they were perceived as incentives or barriers to

multimedia use. As Table 8.5 indicates, all but two items, comfort with technology

and contribution to promotion/tenure were nominated by a majority of respondents

as being significant incentives to multimedia use. Comfort with technology was

nevertheless rated as a moderate or significant incentive by 88% of respondents,

while contribution to promotion/tenure was indicated as a moderate or significant

barrier to multimedia use for more than half (53%) of the respondents. Evidence of

improved student interest and available technical advice or support appeared to be

the most salient.

166

Table 8.5 Incentives to Using Multimedia in Teaching (n = 40) _________________________________________________________________________________

No Moderate Significant Item Incentive Incentive Incentive ____________________________________________________________________

Available equipment /resources 18% (7) 23% (9) 55% (22)


learning 5% (2) 23% (9) 70% (28)


interest 8% (3) 30% (12) 60% (24)

Easy to integrate into subject 3% (1) 28% (11) 68% (27)

Available quality materials 5% (2) 25% (10) 68% (27)

Available training 10% (4) 35% (14) 53% (21)

Time out to learn about technology 5% (2) 25% (10) 67% (27)

Available technical advice /support 3% (1) 25% (10) 70% (28)

Support from faculty 5% (2) 43% (17) 50% (20)

Comfort with technology 5% (2) 45% (18) 43% (17)

Contribution to promotion/tenure 45% (18) 28% (11) 25% (10)

____________________________________________________________________

When asked to identify additional incentives to using technology in teaching,

six responses were given. These one-off responses were:

Incorporation of skills in assessment tasks

Incentives could be improved to ensure a uniform level of competency of all staff to

use technology in their teaching.

Acknowledgement of extra effort by university

Still promote interactional processes as well as technologies

Models of how others have successfully integrated technology into their teaching.

Regular staff updates of new acquisitions.

Respondents were also asked to rate the degree to which 11 factors outlined

in Table 8.6 acted as barriers to technology use in teaching. As the table shows, with

the exception of contribution to promotion/tenure, all of the items were nominated as

being moderate or significant barriers to multimedia use by a majority of 2002

167

respondents. However, the barrier most often nominated as significant in 2002 was

lack of equipment/resources. Three-quarters (75%) of academic staff regarded this as

a significant barrier to their use of multimedia. Other barriers considered by more

than half of the respondents to be significant were lack of quality materials (68%),

lack of technical advice and support (58%), lack of time (55%), lack of faculty

support (53%) and no evidence of improved student learning (53%). Lack of

contribution to promotion appeared to be the least influential to multimedia use with

more than half (58%) indicating that it was not a barrier.

Table 8.6 Barriers to Using Multimedia in Teaching (n = 40) _________________________________________________________________________________

Not a Moderate Significant Item Barrier Barrier Barrier __________________________________________________________________ Lack of equipment/resources 3% (1) 23% (9) 75% (30)


learning 15% (6) 30% (12) 53% (21)


interest 17% (7) 43% (17) 40% (16)

Difficult to integrate into subject 8% (3) 45% (18) 45% (18)

Lack of quality materials 8% (3) 20% (8) 68% (27)

Lack of training options 3% (1) 45% (18) 45% (18)

Lack of time 5% (2) 40% (16) 55% (22)

Lack of technical advice /support 5% (2) 35% (14) 58% (23)

Lack of faculty support 8% (3) 38% (15) 53% (21)

Discomfort using technology 30% (12) 38% (15) 30% (12)

Doesn’t contribute to promotion/

tenure 58% (23) 33% (13) 8% (3)

___________________________________________________________________

When asked to identify additional barriers to multimedia use, 11 responses

were provided. Three respondents indicated that there were insufficient funds or

resources to facilitate technology integration for students. Two respondents noted

that unreliable technology was a barrier, two suggested that their already high

workloads impeded technology use, and two focused on pedagogical issues. For

168

instance, one respondent commented that a focus on technology was not resulting in

due attention to the pedagogy. A final suggestion made by one respondent was that

costs to students could be a barrier.


Comparison of 1997 and 2002 data revealed two significant differences.

These differences related to the barriers, lack of evidence of improved learning, and

difficulty integrating into teaching. Chi square tests revealed that the 2002 group

were significantly more likely to note that lack of evidence of improved learning was

a barrier, χ2 (2, n = 79) = 9.66, p = .008. This difference is presented graphically in

Figure 8.15. Similarly, chi square tests indicated that, in 2002, significantly more

academic staff felt that difficulty integrating into teaching was a barrier, χ2 (2, n =

81) = 9.30, p = .010. This difference is presented graphically in Figure 8.16.

signif icant barriermoderate barriernot a barrier

Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.15 Extent of Barrier – Lack of Evidence of Improved Learning: 1997 and 2002

169

signif icant barriermoderate barriernot a barrier

Perc

ent

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.16 Extent of Barrier – Difficulty Integrating into Teaching: 1997 and 2002 Valuing of teaching

Academic staff were again asked to rank-order three activities, teaching,

research and publishing, according to how each was valued personally and how the

respondents felt each was valued by their university. Some respondents gave the

same ranking to two or three activities. As Table 8.7 indicates, academic staff

valuing of the activities and their perceptions of university valuing were at odds.

While 80% of academic staff indicated that they valued teaching most highly,

followed by research and then publishing, only 20% felt that teaching was valued

higher than research and publishing by the University.

When asked whether greater recognition for teaching would encourage their

use of technology in teaching, Table 8.8 shows that more (40%) agreed or strongly

agreed than disagreed or strongly disagreed (28%). However almost one-third (33%)

of respondents were undecided.

170

Table 8.7 Personal Valuing and University Valuing of Teaching, Research and Publishing (Rankings of 1): 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________ Personal Valuing University Valuing

1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________

Teaching 86% (37) 80% (32) 12% (5) 20% (8)

Research 28 % (12) 50% (20) 37% (16) 45% (18)

Publishing 12% (5) 23% (9) 54% (23) 38% (17)

____________________________________________________________________ Table 8.8 Influence of Greater Recognition on Technology Use: 1997 and 2002 ___________________________________________________________________

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree agree

____________________________________________________________________ 1997 (n = 42) 2% (1) 16% (7) 30% (13) 19% (8) 30% (13)

2002 (n = 40) 8% (3) 20% (8) 33% (13) 28% (11) 13% (5)

____________________________________________________________________


In relation to valuing of academic activities, one significant difference

between the 1997 and 2002 groups emerged. A Chi square test revealed that in 2002,

significantly more respondents valued research first and significantly less valued

research last, χ2 (2, n = 81) = 6.32, p = .042. This difference is presented graphically

in Figure 8.17. There were no significant differences between 1997 and 2002

responses for recognition of technology use.

171

value 3rd mostvalue 2nd mostvalue most

Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 8.17 Ranking of Personal Valuing of Research: 1997 and 2002

DISCUSSION

Comparison of findings from the 1997 and 2002 surveys indicated significant

changes had occurred across the period. Although multimedia had been touted in the

mid 1990s as the most likely technology to transform higher education, increasingly,

the Internet and its associated online applications had become the focus of attention.

As noted by Marginson (2001) and Taylor (2001), academic work and the academic

profession were being reshaped by the challenges posed by competition for online

students. This was certainly the case at the university, where the policy on flexible

delivery had seen that all available units were now offered in online teaching (OLT)

format. By their own admission, academic staff in the 2002 study had been

confronted by profound changes in recent years, most of which stemmed from

initiatives in online teaching and learning. According to academic staff the

associated impact of these initiatives was, overwhelmingly, substantial increases in

workload and time commitment.

172

Not all the changes were regarded as negative however. Numerous academic

staff acknowledged that the changes made possible by technologies in the last few

years had heightened communication with students and colleagues, enhanced or

added variety to their teaching or improved or made more efficient their ability to

access information or resources.

Comparison of 1997 and 2002 data revealed numerous differences between

the groups. Somewhat surprising, however, was that despite slight increases in home

ownership of computers equipped with CD-ROMs and Modems coupled with

experience gained through developing online teaching and learning resources, the

increases in knowledge of most of the technologies since 1997 were only marginal.

Nevertheless, reports from academic staff in the current study suggested that they

were more knowledgeable about the technologies compared to those in Groves and

Zemel’s (2001) study. In that study, the number of academic staff reporting good to

expert knowledge of multimedia, the Internet and computer conferencing was only

half that of academic staff reports of intermediate to advanced knowledge in the

current study. It is noteworthy that academic staff in both these studies appeared

substantially more knowledgeable about the technologies compared with those in

Spotts and Bowman’s (1995) study.

Confidence, on the other hand, had clearly increased since 1997, with more

2002 respondents reporting that they were confident or very confident in the use of

technologies and less reporting that they were not at all confident. In relation to the

Internet and email these differences were significant. Somewhat perplexing,

however, were significantly increased confidence levels, along with marginal

increases in knowledge levels for the Internet and email, but significantly decreased

reports in 2002 of knowledge acquisition of these technologies through work-based

training. As noted earlier in the literature, work-based training plays a significant

role in equipping academic staff with the skills to use technology in their teaching,

yet reports from 2002 respondents indicated that there was an increased reliance on

self-training in the use of the Internet and email. Puzzling too, were reports

indicating increased knowledge of multimedia through work-based training in 2002,

yet only marginal increases in confidence levels.

173

There also appeared to be increased usage in 2002 for all of the technologies.

In relation to use for teaching, increases were particularly notable for Email and the

Internet but less notable for multimedia. Usage rates in the current study also tended

to be higher than those reported by academic staff in Groves and Zemel’s (2000)

study. Although no academic staff in either study made daily use of conferencing

technologies, academic staff in the current study were marginally more likely to

make daily or weekly use of the Internet and more than twice as likely to make daily

or weekly use of multimedia and email. Again, academic staff in both these studies

made considerably more use of the technologies compared with those in Spotts and

Bowman’s (1995) study five years earlier. This increased technology use in 2002

undoubtedly contributed to greater confidence levels among academic staff.

The most striking difference between the 1997 and 2002 groups in terms of

how they used the technologies related to tasks associated with the provision of

online teaching and learning. Many noted that in preparing their units for OLT

delivery they also established online discussion forums, developed online exercises

and linked their units to interactive multimedia learning activities and reference sites.

As such, OLT could be seen as the catalyst for the development of a range of related

technology skills.

Unlike their 1997 counterparts, considerably fewer academic staff in the 2002

group preferred to see an increase in their usage of the technologies, particularly

usage of the Internet and email. In relation to these technologies, a majority of

academic staff in 2002 instead preferred that there be no change in usage levels and

several preferred to use the technologies less. Given academic staff comments about

the demands associated with managing vast quantities of email, it was not surprising

that academic staff did not wish to see further increases in its use. As one academic

staff member noted, email had become a “tyrant, not a tool”. There was also a

perception among some academic staff members that email had created a climate of

learned helplessness among students who preferred to email academic staff with

queries rather than finding out information for themselves. Interestingly, a majority

of academic staff in 2002 still preferred to increase their usage of multimedia in

teaching. As discussed earlier, academic staff appeared to be less knowledgeable

about and confident in their use of this technology, compared with email and the

174

Internet, and used it less frequently in their teaching, yet they were more likely to

have reported gaining knowledge through work-based training. Some insight into

this can be gained from perceptions surrounding barriers to multimedia use.

There was little indication among academic staff in the 2002 group that most

factors considered to be significant barriers to multimedia use in 1997 were any less

salient in 2002. Indeed, frequency statistics suggested that the significance of most of

the barriers had grown, particularly in relation to evidence of improved student

learning and difficulty integrating into subject. There were also some subtle changes

in the strength of the barriers relative to one another. In 1997, lack of time was the

most likely barrier to be nominated as significant, followed by lack of equipment and

resources, lack of quality materials and lack of training options/ technical advice and

support. In 2002, the most frequently cited significant barrier was lack of equipment

and resources, followed by lack of quality materials, lack of technical advice and

support, and then lack of time. This contrasted with findings from Mueller et al.’s

(2001) study in which lack of training remained the primary obstacle to technology

use. In relation to training in the current study, the shift in its importance relative to

other barriers may be linked to reports from academic staff about work-based

training. As noted earlier, significantly more academic staff in 2002 attributed their

knowledge of multimedia to work-based based training. This indicated greater access

to work-based training in multimedia since 1997.

The availability of training, nonetheless, remained an important incentive to

multimedia use for all but a handful of 2002 respondents. When we consider, too,

that lack of training options, difficulty in integrating technologies into teaching and

discomfort using technology persisted as significant barriers to multimedia use in

2002, there are indications that both the availability, nature or effectiveness of

training options at the university are falling short. Research into technology training

indicates that a range of strategies is required but that the single most effective

strategy is individualised support in the form of mentoring (Cooper, 1999; Haile &

Payne, 1999; Matthew et al, 2002; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999). Arguably though, this

mentoring should be provided by those with more than just an understanding of

technology applications, it should be provided by those with an understanding of

pedagogy, (i.e., academic staff colleagues). Support for this type of training was

175

clear among academic staff in the 2002 study. When asked to rank four training

options from least to most desirable, academic staff consistently ranked a Faculty

colleague mentor program well above group workshops, online tutorials and Faculty

technology coordinator.

There were few changes between the 1997 and 2002 groups in terms of the

factors that would encourage their use of multimedia, although there was some

variation in the nomination of the incentives relative to one another. In 1997, the

most frequently nominated significant incentives were firstly, increased time,

followed by available technical support, and evidence of improved learning and

interest. In 2002, evidence of improved learning and available technical advice and

support had become the most frequently nominated significant incentives followed

by ease of integration and available quality materials, then available time. This focus

on evidence of improved learning outcomes was also apparent among responses

pertaining to barriers. As noted earlier, significantly more academic staff in 2002

than in 1997 indicated that lack of evidence of improved learning outcomes was a

significant barrier to their use of multimedia. Referring to similar study findings of

his own, Beggs (2000) explained that academic staff needed to know that technology

would have a positive impact on instruction before they would adopt it. In his study,

along with that of Groves and Zemel (2000), academic staff reports indicated that

improved student learning was the single greatest influence on technology use. Other

critical influences reported by academic staff in the study by Groves and Zemel

(2000) were available equipment, improved student interest, training, time, and ease

of use.

Similar to findings by Groves and Zemel (2000), ease of integration was, in

2002, one of the most frequently cited significant incentives to using multimedia.

Likewise, difficulty integrating into subject matter was one of only two barriers to

significantly increase in importance in 2002. Given the higher incidence of reports

of knowledge acquisition through training, this finding was surprising and raises

questions about the effectiveness of such training. It is possible that training has

focused more on teaching about multimedia rather than teaching with multimedia.

Alternatively, difficulty may be less indicative of lack of skill in integrating

technology into a subject and more indicative of lack of compatibility with beliefs

176

surrounding the teaching of a particular subject, referred to by Strudler and Wetzel

(1999) as lack of “pedagogical fit”. As explained by Strudler and Wetzel (1999),

academics must see the fit between their philosophies of teaching and learning and

technology applications. Rather than use technology for technology’s sake, Strudler

and Wetzel (1999) noted that academics in their study used technology when it they

believed that it would enhance their instructional styles and practices.

Responses in 2002 indicated that support from the Faculty continues to be

highly influential in technology use. Since 1997, there was an increased number of

academic staff claiming that a lack of Faculty-level support was a barrier to

technology use. Not unexpectedly, then, the availability of faculty support continued

to be a potent incentive to technology use. Faculty and administrative support was an

important influence on technology use for academic staff in Groves and Zemel’s

(2000) study and, in Strudler and Wetzel’s (1999) study, was also found to underpin

successful technology integration. As noted previously, Strudler and Wetzel’s (1999)

investigation of preservice institutions rated as exemplary in their ability to prepare

graduates to teach with technology found that common to each institution was the

informed and committed leadership of deans, administrative support and faculty

leaders who had vision and goals related to technology integration. Strudler and

Wetzel (1999) explained that this faculty level support ensured that a complex web

of enabling factors were in place to support technology integration, factors including

ongoing training, technical assistance, availability of equipment and resources and

time out for training. Also in place at the colleges, were “active college-level

technology committees” comprising teacher educators, instructional technology

educators, students, and support personnel whose task involved prioritising

technology needs, sharing practices and making recommendations to the dean.

Despite the importance of faculty support, the recent study of Australian teacher

education institutions by Downes et al. (2001), revealed that many institutions still

did not have in place strategic plans and resource allocations relating to the use of

technologies in teacher education programs.

Although questions about pressure to use technologies were not included the

second academic staff survey, the debate around this issue remains worthy of

discussion. As noted earlier, academic staff reported in 1997 that they made little or

177

no regular use of technologies, and, for the most part, there was little or no pressure

from the university to adopt technologies. While pressure to change has been linked

to the undermining of academic staff decision-making and the cause of resistance

(Bailey & Palsha, 1992; Sikes, 1992), writers such as Strudler and Wetzel (1999)

maintain that some pressure is necessary for technology integration to occur. They

note that pressure, in the form of implicit and explicit expectations to adopt

technology, fosters a sense of accountability. The challenge for the Faculty, however,

is ensure that pressure is underscored by adequate support. If we accept Strudler and

Wetzel’s (1999) proposal, then, it is possible that the recent gains in technology by

academic staff are, indeed, resultant of implicit and explicit pressures. At the

university, this pressure appears to have been both implicit, in the form of policy

documents, however, it has also been explicit, in the form of rewards and incentives

in recognition of excellence in teaching, the financing of technology-based teaching

and learning projects, and pressure to achieve targets associated with online unit

delivery.

As noted in the literature, perceived valuing of teaching has been implicated

in the adoption of technologies by academic staff. Although reliable inferences could

not be drawn from the data because of the numbers of academic staff in the 2002

group who rated two or more activities as being of equal value, there did appear to be

differences between the 1997 and 2002 groups. In 1997, personal valuing of

teaching clearly outweighed valuing of research and publishing. At the time, this was

in marked contrast to what academic staff perceived was the university’s valuing of

publishing and research over teaching – according to Hesketh et al (1996) and

others, a situation all too common in institutions of higher education. In 2002,

teaching still remained the most personally valued activity, however, there was a

significant increase in the numbers of academic staff indicating that they valued

research, in particular, or publishing, to a lesser extent, equally or more highly than

teaching. There also appeared to be a perception among academics that publishing

was not as highly valued by the university in 2002 as it was in 1997, whereas the

value of teaching and research had increased. By way of explanation, it is possible

that personal valuing of teaching may have decreased in recent years due to factors

outlined by Nunan et al. (2000) namely increased class sizes and numbers of classes,

178

larger marking loads and more administrative responsibilities in each course. In the

absence of commensurate increases in recognition by the university of the extra

effort required by academic staff, it is probable that some feel disillusioned with the

teaching process. On the other hand, the tangible rewards and recognition associated

with research project grants, along with the potential for time out from teaching to

conduct research may have contributed to the increased personal valuing of research.

It is possible too, that technology itself has made teaching less rewarding, and

therefore of less personal value to academic staff.

There were also dramatic changes between 1997 and 2002 in the views of

academic staff relating to the adequacy of preservice teacher education to prepare

graduates to use technology. Those rating technology preparation as adequate or

better in 2002 had more than doubled since 1997. What had not changed, however,

was the consistent and arguably perceptive view that the Internet was the most

important technology to this preparation.

Contrary to research linking improved technology preparation among

preservice teacher education students to more co-ordinated school-university

approaches and enhanced practicum experiences (Brush et al., 2001; Dawson &

Norris, 2000; Johnson et al., 2000; Strudler et al., 1999; Vannatta, 2000; Vannatta &

O’Bannon, 2002), academic staff suggestions for improved technology preparation

centred on the provision of technology units and technology skill evaluation at the

university. This perception is interesting in light of 1997 reports overwhelmingly

indicating that preparation should be a joint university-school responsibility. There

was little mention among the 2002 respondents, however, of practicum experiences

or coordination or partnerships with schools. Downes et al. (2000) noted that such

initiatives were rare in Australia, where the provision of discrete technology units

was indeed the norm. Interestingly too, there was no mention of providing training in

the skills articulated in Education Queensland’s Minimum Standards for Teachers –

Learning Technology initiative. Undoubtedly, academic staff are aware of the

potential advantages associated with successful university-school collaborations.

However, perhaps because of the perceived improvement in recent years of

preservice teacher preparation, academic staff cannot justify the enormous

commitment that would be required to establish and sustain such partnerships.

179

CHAPTER 9

PHASE 2 (2002): GRADUATE TEACHERS’

EXPERIENCES WITH TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the experiences and perceptions of graduate teachers in the 2002

study are reported. The chapter commences with findings from the prior phase of

research and a brief review of the literature that, together, influenced this study.

Following, the objectives for this study are outlined, and the participants, procedure and

measure described. The chapter then presents the findings from the 2002 study and

compares these with findings from the 1997 study. These findings are discussed in light

of recent literature.

Background to Phase 2

As noted in Chapter 5, data from the 1997 investigation indicated that many

graduate teachers lacked knowledge of most of the technologies and were not confident

in their use. They tended to make only infrequent use of the technologies in their

teaching and cited barriers such as lack of equipment and resources and lack of training

or knowledge as reasons for non-use of technologies. Nevertheless, graduate teachers

anticipated that their use of technologies would increase and believed they offered

numerous advantages to teaching. Reports from these teachers indicated that they and

academic staff made little use of the technologies at university. Although, like academic

staff, they considered preservice preparation in the use of technologies to be important,

they rated this preparation as inadequate. Despite most graduates reporting to have

studied at least one unit in technology whilst at university, they rarely acknowledged

this education as a source of technology knowledge acquisition. Instead, most reported

that they were self-taught.

The review of the recent research since 1997 suggested that, in relation to

technologies, teachers’ confidence and usage appeared to have increased in recent years

(Russell et al., 2000; Williams et al, 2000; Zhao et al., 2001). Despite this, or perhaps

180

because of it, concerns now tended to focus on the ways in which teachers were using

technologies in the classroom. This change in focus stemmed from research findings

indicating that teachers were using computers for low-level, supplemental tasks such as

drill-and-practice activities, word processing, educational games, and computer-based

tutorials (Brush et al., 2001; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Willis et al., 1999). In contrast, it

appeared that few teachers used technologies as an integral part of their teaching

(Williams et al., 2000; Wright, 2001). A large scale study in Australia revealed that

many teachers did not possess advanced technological skills and made little or no use of

technologies for communicating with others (such as communicating with schools in

other countries, participating in an email or Internet Relay chat or desktop

videoconference) (Russell et al., 2000).

A variety of studies revealed that teachers were strong supporters of technology

use (Russell et al., 2000; Williams et al., 2000; Zhao et al., 2001) but that their use of

technologies continued to be impeded by a variety of factors including lack of time,

support, resources and training (Dias, 1999; Franklin, et al., 2002; Rice et al., 2001;

Schrum 1999; Strudler et al., 1999; Williams et al., 2000). Whereas literature prior to

1997 pointed to a lack of training, there was evidence that both the variety and

availability of training opportunities had increased dramatically in recent years

(Hasselbring, et al., 2000). As a consequence, attention had shifted from the availability

of opportunities to the nature and associated shortcomings of such opportunities. What

was emerging from the research was a plethora of training programs on word processing

and operating systems and, not surprisingly, widespread dissatisfaction among teachers

(Franklin, et al., 2002; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Williams et al., 2000).

While inservice training opportunities have grown dramatically, for many,

preservice teacher education remains the defining influence in teachers’ adoption of

technology. Some studies of preservice training have continued to endorse the benefits

of technology-specific units (McRobbie, et al., 2000; Whetstone & Carr-Chelman,

2001) and faculty modelling of technology use in classes (Matthew et al., 2002; Pope et

al., 2002). However, increasingly, research has provided support for university and

school partnerships in facilitating students’ exposure to and skills in technology use.

These partnerships, featuring a variety of strategies such as “expert” school teachers

modelling technology integration ideas, sharing technology-rich lessons, demonstrating

181

applications, providing practicum students with hands-on technology use, and the

development of one-on-one mentoring relationships, have resulted in significant gains in

technology integration skills and confidence in using technology in the classroom

(Dawson & Norris, 2000; Johnson-Gentile et al., 2000; Vannatta, 2000; Vannatta &

O’Bannon, 2002).

Although these recent initiatives are encouraging, studies as late as 2002

indicated that many teachers were still unprepared to use technology in the classroom

(Hasselbring et al., 2000; Jerald & Orlofsky, 1999, Pope et al., 2002; Wright, 2001). As

already noted, even when teachers do indicate that they feel well prepared, few attribute

their preparation to preservice teacher education (Pope et al., 2002). Findings such as

these prompted Hasselbring et al. (2000) to conclude that inservice technology training

was still insufficient to produce the kinds of changes that are needed in today’s teachers.

From their extensive international review of research they called for more opportunities

for, and emphasis on, integrating technology across the curriculum.

In terms of the immediate context of this research, the implementation of a

university-wide Online Teaching (OLT) system commenced at the university in 2000. It

therefore would have begun to impact on the experiences of 2000 graduates while they

were in their final (fourth) year of study and on 2001 graduates throughout their third

and fourth years of study. In addition, Education Queensland had, in 2000, introduced

its Minimum Standards in relation to teachers’ technology competencies. It was

expected that these changes may have bearing on teacher experiences and expectations.

The purpose of the investigation was to explore, at a second interval, the

experiences and perceptions of preservice teacher education graduates as they related to

the use of technologies and to compare these experiences and perceptions with those of

the 1997 cohort.

Specific objectives of this 2002 investigation were to:

1. Explore the attitudes of graduate teachers towards, and usage of, computer-

based technologies and compare these with findings from 1997.

2. Identify the factors that influenced graduate teachers’ usage of technologies

in the classroom and compare these with findings from 1997.

3. Determine the perceptions of graduate teachers concerning their preparation

182

in the use of technologies and compare these with findings from 1997.

METHOD

Participants and procedure In 2002, the revised graduate teacher questionnaire was distributed to the 618

graduates who completed their Bachelor of Education (Primary) or Bachelor of

Education (Early Childhood) courses in 2000 or 2001. This information was obtained

from the university’s graduate destination records. Again, questionnaires were

distributed and returned via mail. One hundred and thirty-one questionnaires were

returned as undeliverable as these graduates had since changed addresses. Two weeks

after the distribution of questionnaires, reminder letters were mailed to those who had

not yet returned their questionnaire. A total of 123 questionnaires were returned.

Accounting for those questionnaires known to not have been received, this represented a

return rate of 25% which was comparable to that of the 1997 study. Again, however,

this low return rate had implications for the generalisability of the findings.

Measurement As noted in Chapter 7, the 24-item Graduate Teacher Questionnaire comprised

18 items from the 1997 questionnaire so that responses on these items could be

compared across the two phases. In addition, the 2002 questionnaire included several

new items. Like the 1997 questionnaire, the 2002 survey again sought the following

information - demographic information; knowledge and use of technologies for

teaching; use of technologies in preservice teacher education; and multimedia

technology use in higher education. The section, knowledge and use of technologies,

featured new questions about inservice training opportunities and needs, as well as

questions about how the technologies were used, and barriers to their use, in the

classroom. In the section on technology use in preservice teacher education, 2002

respondents were also invited to suggest how preparation in technology use could be

improved. The 2002 survey also differed from the first in that it excluded any reference

to CAI. Furthermore, instead of Audiographics, the new questionnaire sought

information about Audio/video conferencing in order to reflect advances in this type of

183

technology. To simplify discussion comparing 1997 and 2002 findings related to these

technologies however, the term Conferencing technologies is used.

Data Analysis As in Phase 1, quantitative data from questionnaires were screened for accuracy

of data entry and missing values prior to data analyses. Data were then analysed using

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows. Descriptive statistics

were again employed to identify themes or patterns among responses such as

knowledge, valuing, confidence, and usage related to the computer-based technologies.

In this second phase, Chi-square analyses were used to identify significant

differences in quantitative responses on the repeated variables across the 1997 and 2002

data sets. As discussed in Chapter 7, the response scales for items throughout the

questionnaires were a mix of ordinal, categorical, interval, and rank-order scales, hence

the Chi-square correlation procedure was used in these analyses. An alpha level of .05

was used as the level for significance.

The process of qualitative analysis used in Phase 1 was again employed to

analyse open-ended responses to questionnaire items. This process, described in Chapter

3, was based on the data “reduction” and “interpretation” outlined by Marshall and

Rossman (1995, p. 113) and involved systematically reducing responses by searching

for patterns or themes and then interpreting, coding and categorising these themes.

Numbers of responses within each category were then tabulated to provide a frequency

statistic.

RESULTS

In order to assist in reading and understanding the many findings discussed in

this chapter, many tables presenting frequencies and percentages on the responses for

various questions have been placed in Appendix F. Tables presented in this chapter tend

to be confined to those depicting categorised themes that have emerged from the

responses to open-ended questions. Where significant differences were found between

1997 and 2002 responses, figures have been included to present a visual representation

of these differences.

184

Demographic characteristics of respondents

The 123 teachers who responded to the 2002 questionnaire comprised 35% (43)

Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) graduates and 65% (80) Bachelor of

Education (Primary) graduates. As can be seen in Table 9.1, females dominated the

sample accounting for 89%. The mean age of the teachers was 25.6 years (SD = 5.74),

while the mean score for months of teaching experience was 19.2 (SD = 6.42). The 2002

respondents reported high rates of computer-ownership with 85% (105) reporting

owning a computer that had a CD-ROM (79%, 97) and a modem (72%, 88). Ownership

rates across the early childhood and primary graduates were comparable.

Table 9.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________ 1997 (n=72) 2002 (n = 123) ____________________________________________________________________ Early Childhood graduates 46% (33) 35% (43)

Primary graduates 54% (39) 65% (80)

Female 93% (67) 89% (110)

Male 7% (5) 11% (13)

Age (mean) 24.6 (SD = 3.6) 25.6 (SD=5.7)

Months teaching (mean) 15.0 (SD = 5.8) 19.2 (SD=6.4)

Own Computer 76% (55) 85% (105)

with CD-ROM 47% (34) 79% (97)

with Modem 31% (22) 72% (88)

____________________________________________________________________

Comparison of 1997 and 2002 participants

Table 9.1 shows that apart from the larger sample size in 2002, there were only

two significant differences between the groups according to demographic

characteristics. Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences in both ownership

of a CD-ROM, χ2 (2, n = 159) = 12.79, p = .000, and ownership of a modem, χ2 (2, n =

139) = 18.78, p = .000. In both cases, ownership rates increased between 1997 and

2002.

185

Knowledge and use of technologies

Using the response scales adopted in the 1997 study, graduate teachers in 2002

were again questioned about their knowledge of the technologies, how knowledge was

acquired, their level of confidence, and the frequency of usage and anticipated future

usage. They were also asked to select from 13 activities those that were undertaken in

their classroom, to indicate and comment on the availability of inservice training in

technology use and their satisfaction with any training experiences. Finally, an open-

ended question asked respondents to describe their further training requirements.

In terms of knowledge levels, responses indicated that graduate teachers

possessed intermediate to advanced levels of knowledge for all technologies except

Audio/video conferencing. Forty percent possessed no knowledge of this technology.

Reports from graduate teachers indicated that intermediate to advanced levels of

knowledge were greatest for email (91%), the Internet (87%), followed by multimedia

(62%). Frequencies for knowledge of the technologies are presented in Table F.1

(Appendix F).

Graduate teachers appeared to be largely self-taught in their use of the

technologies (refer Table F.2, Appendix F). Almost two-thirds (63%) reported being

self-taught in the use of the Internet and email and more than half (53%) in the use of

multimedia. Unlike in-service training, preservice teacher education also played a

significant role in knowledge acquisition with around one-third attributing their

knowledge of multimedia (29%), the Internet (34%) and email (33%) to their

experiences at university.

In relation to training, 70% (82) of the graduate teachers indicated that

opportunities for inservice training were available to them. Descriptions of such training

included training for “level 1 basic competencies and standards”, “using a data

projector, on line search engines and library catalogues”, “creating online modules”, and

“web pages”. Training appeared to be provided by a variety of personnel including

heads of school, school technology advisors/computer teachers, and staff at specific

training centres.

186

Of the 50% (62) of teachers who indicated that they had participated in such

training, 81% (50) noted that they were satisfied with their training. Of the remaining

twelve teachers who expressed dissatisfaction with training, seven provided reasons for

their dissatisfaction. These explanations included “It was stuff I already learnt at uni”

and “Not valuable as it was back to the very basics”. Two teachers also made reference

to the Minimum Standards set by the state government, noting that the skill levels

dictated in the Minimum Standards were, again, too basic and had already been taught at

university.

In relation to training needs, 79% (97) graduate teachers commented on the

training that they would like to receive. As Table 9.2 shows, the most frequently cited

training requirements related to learning how to use or select multimedia programs and

software (28% of responses) and learning how to conduct audio/video or

teleconferences (27% of responses).

Table 9.2 Perceived Training Needs ____________________________________________________________________ Training needs (n = 97) ____________________________________________________________________ Using/selecting Multimedia programs/software 28% (27)

Audio/video/teleconferencing 27% (26)

Designing/constructing web pages 15% (15)

Using the Internet 14% (14)

Communicating with other schools 10% (10)

Fixing problems/troubleshooting 5% (5)

Using Macs 4% (4)

____________________________________________________________________

Despite the apparent lack of in-service training opportunities for some graduate

teachers, and their varied training requirements, reports nevertheless indicated that most

were highly confident in their use of three of the technologies in classroom teaching.

Analysis of responses presented in Table F.3 (Appendix F) revealed that 89% were

confident or very confident in their use of email, 87% were confident to very confident

about using the Internet and 73% were confident to very confident about using

187

multimedia. However, only 22% expressed the same level of confidence in the use of

conferencing technologies.

Reports from new teachers indicated that multimedia was the most used

technology in the classroom with half (50%) using it on a daily or weekly basis (refer

Table F.4, Appendix F). More than one-third (36%) of the group also reported using the

Internet daily or weekly, while 26% used email this regularly in their teaching. In

contrast, conferencing technologies were rarely used.

In order to determine how technologies were being used in the classroom,

teachers were asked to select from a list of 13 items those activities that they engaged in.

As can be seen in Table 9.3, many of the teachers were using the technologies for a

variety of purposes. Teacher reports suggested that the most frequent use of

technologies involved using an educational program or game to help children learn

(82%), followed by creating pictures (74%), creative writing (72%), getting information

from CD-ROMs (71%) or the Internet (71%).

Table 9.3 Classroom Activities Using Technologies ____________________________________________________________________ Classroom activities (n = 117) ____________________________________________________________________ Use an educational program or game to help children learn 82% (96)

Create pictures 74% (87)

Creative writing 72% (84)

Get information from CD-ROM 71% (83)

Get information from Internet/Web 71% (83)

Use computerised library catalogue 51% (60)

Send receive Email 49% (57)

Make music or sound 22% (26)

Use spreadsheets or databases 21% (25)

Create graphs or diagrams 19% (22)

Communicate with other schools 19% (22)

Take part in an online chat group 5% (6)

Take part in a video conference 2% (2)

____________________________________________________________________

188

To determine impediments to technology use, teachers were asked to select from

10 items those that were barriers to their current use of technology in the classroom.

Incidentally, these items were also included in the 1997 and 2002 Academic Staff

questionnaires. According to teacher reports, the primary impediment to technology use

was a lack of equipment or resources in schools (71%) (refer Table 9.4). The second

most selected barrier was lack of technical advice or support in the schools (39%),

followed by lack of quality teaching materials (36%), and no time for learning how to

use the technology (29%).

Table 9.4 Barriers to Classroom Use of Technologies ____________________________________________________________________ Barrier (n = 117) ____________________________________________________________________ Lack of equipment/resources 71% (83)

Lack of technical advice or support 39% (46)

Lack of quality teaching materials 36% (42)

No time to learn how to use the technology 29% (34)

Difficult to integrate into the curriculum 16% (19)

Lack of training options 16% (19)

Lack of school/centre support 13% (51)

Discomfort using technology 9% (11)

No evidence of improved child learning 5% (6)

No evidence of improved child interest 0% (0)

____________________________________________________________________

Twenty-six percent (30) of respondents cited additional barriers that prevented

their use of technologies in the classroom. The most frequently cited of these barriers

concerned difficulties stemming from supervising large groups of children and

managing turn-taking on computers. One of the 40% (12) of teachers who highlighted

this barrier referred to it as an “Organisational nightmare”. Other barriers were

Unreliable equipment (23%), Not enough time in the school day (20%), and Distracting

to other children (7%). Although numerous barriers to technology use existed, when

asked to indicate if they foresaw less use, more use or no change in their usage of the

technologies, graduate teachers were largely optimistic about their future usage. The

majority of the teachers envisaged increasing their use of the Internet (59%) and email

189

(57%) in their teaching. Although a majority (47%) also anticipated using multimedia

more often, almost as many (44%) expected no change to their current usage. These

results are presented in Table F. 7 (Appendix F).


Significant differences were found between the groups on a number of variables

relating to knowledge, development of knowledge, confidence, frequency of usage and

anticipated usage of the technologies. In relation to knowledge levels, chi-square

analyses revealed, that compared with the 1997 group, the 2002 group were more

knowledgeable about multimedia, χ2 (2, n = 189) = 10.52, p = .015, the Internet, χ2 (2, n

= 189) = 76.92, p = .000, and email, χ2 (2, n = 189) = 81.52, p = .000. These differences

are presented graphically in Figures 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3. In terms of how knowledge was

developed, graduate teachers in 2002 were significantly more likely than those in 1997

to attribute their knowledge of multimedia, χ2 (2, n = 186) = 18.84, p = .000, the Internet

χ2 (2, n = 188) = 26.97, p = .000, and email χ2 (2, n = 187) = 5.25, p = .022, to their

preservice teacher education. These results are presented in Figures 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6.


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.1 Knowledge Levels for Multimedia: 1997 and 2002

190


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.2 Knowledge Levels for the Internet: 1997 and 2002


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.3 Knowledge Levels for Email: 1997 and 2002

191

yesno

Perc

ent

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.4 Multimedia Knowledge Development from Preservice Teacher

Education: 1997 and 2002

yesno

Perc

ent

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.5 Internet Knowledge Development from Preservice Teacher Education:

1997 and 2002

192

yesno

Perc

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.6 Email Knowledge Development from Preservice Teacher Education:

1997 and 2002

Differences were also apparent between the two groups for confidence in using

the technologies (refer Figures 9.7, 9.8 and 9.9). Chi-square analysis confirmed

significantly increased confidence levels among the 2002 teachers for multimedia, χ2 (2,

n = 188) = 9.02, p = .029, the Internet, χ2 (2, n = 186) = 58.77, p = .000, and email χ2 (2,

n = 186) = 74.31, p = .000. Usage in the classroom was also significantly higher among

the 2002 group for the Internet χ2 (2, n = 183) = 24.04, p = .000, and email χ2 (2, n =

183) = 32.54, p = .000, (refer Figures 9.10 and 9.11), while, in relation to future usage,

the 2002 group were significantly less likely to predict an increase in their future usage

of multimedia, χ2 (2, n = 184) = 7.89, p = .019 (refer Figure 9.12).

193



Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.7 Confidence Levels for Use of Multimedia: 1997 and 2002

veryl confidentconfident


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.8 Confidence Levels for Use of the Internet: 1997 and 2002

194



Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.9 Confidence Levels for use of Email: 1997 and 2002

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.10 Use of the Internet in Class: 1997 and 2002

195

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

100

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.11 Use of Email in Class: 1997 and 2002


Perc

ent

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.12 Anticipated Future Use of Multimedia: 1997 and 2002

196

The role of technologies in higher education

Graduate teachers were again asked about the frequency of use of technologies

at university, the types of usage made of the technologies, the relative importance of the

technologies, and the future use of technologies in higher education.

Reports from these teachers revealed that, while at university, they had made

frequent use of two technologies. Analysis of responses presented in Table F.10

(Appendix F) revealed that 82% made daily to weekly use of email and 81% made daily

to weekly use of the Internet. Multimedia was used this frequently by only 30%, while

few (7%) reported using teleconferencing this frequently. Graduate teachers also

reported that academic staff made regular use of the technologies in teaching. More than

half reported that multimedia (56%) and the Internet (53%) were used daily or weekly

by faculty, while 47% reported that email was also used this frequently by academic

staff (refer Table F.9, Appendix F).

Comments from104 graduate teachers provided insight into how the

technologies were used. Most uses could be grouped into one of the seven categories

presented in Table 9.5. As can be seen, the most frequently cited use of the

technologies, attracting 68% of responses, was the use of email for communicating

(with lecturers and peers) and submitting assignments. Almost half (48%) of the

responses mentioned that the technologies were used to present lectures, while 47%

noted that they used the Internet for research or information retrieval. The impact of

OLT was reflected in more than a third (36%) of the teacher’s comments. These

teachers noted that they used the Internet to access their online lecture notes or

resources. Other uses included the demonstration by lecturers of technologies or

programs or the evaluation of these (15%) and participation in video or teleconferences

with schools. One-off examples of use not represented in the table included “Online

chat forums” and “Animated stories and games”.

197

Table 9.5 Academic Staff Use of Technologies:1997 and 2002 _____________________________________________________________________ Type of use 1997 2002

(n =36) (n = 104) _____________________________________________________________________ Email communication/assignment submission 31% (11) 68% (71)

Presentation of lectures 19% (7) 48% (50)

Internet for research/information retrieval 33% (12) 47% (49)

Access online unit lecture notes/resources 0% (0) 36% (37)

Demonstration/assessment of technologies/programs 12% (4) 15% (16)

Video/teleconferencing 3% (1) 9% (9)

Creating web pages 0% (0) 3% (3)

_____________________________________________________________________

When asked whether usage of the technologies in higher education should be

reduced, increased or remain unchanged, Table F12 (Appendix F) shows that a majority

of graduate teachers favoured increased usage of multimedia (64%) and conferencing

technologies (76%), however over half favoured no change in the usage levels of the

Internet (56%) and email (56%).


Chi-square analyses confirmed significant differences between the groups for

frequency of use of the technologies. Concerning use by academic staff, chi-square tests

revealed significant increases in usage of multimedia, χ2 (2, n = 194) = 66.53, p = .000,

conferencing technologies, χ2 (2, n = 194 =16.00, p = .007, the Internet, χ2 (2, n = 194)

= 71.76, p = .000 and email, χ2 (2, n = 193) = 36.05, p = .000. These differences are

presented graphically in Figures 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, and 9.16). Usage at university by self

also increased significantly since 1997 for multimedia, χ2 (2, n = 193) =36.20, p = .000,

the Internet, χ2 (2, n = 194 =128.46, p = .000 and email, χ2 (2, n = 194) = 111.44, p =

.000 (refer Figures, 9.17, 9.18 and 9.19).

198

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.13 Academic Staff Use of Multimedia in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

80

60

40

20

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.14 Academic Staff Use of Conferencing Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

199

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.15 Academic Staff Use of the Internet in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.16 Academic Staff Use of Email in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

200

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.17 Use of Multimedia by Self at University: 1997 and 2002

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.18 Use of the Internet by Self at University: 1997 and 2002

201

dailyw eekly

fortnightlymonthly


Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.19 Use of Email by Self at University: 1997 and 2002 The role of technologies in preservice teacher education

Graduate teachers were again asked to rank the relative importance of four

technologies to preservice teacher education and to rate the adequacy of their

preparation to use technology. In 2002, they were also invited to suggest how

preparation might be improved.

Regarding which of the technologies was the most important to preservice

teacher education, figures presented in Table F. 13 (Appendix F) reveal that 54% of new

teachers selected multimedia, 37% selected the Internet, and nine percent selected email.

No one ranked conferencing technologies as the most important. Indeed, 81% ranked

this as the least important technology.

Ratings for the adequacy of preservice teacher education to prepare new

teachers to use technologies in their teaching were encouraging. As seen in Table 9.6,

one-third (33.3%) in 2002 rated teacher preparation as adequate, almost one-quarter

(24%) felt that they were well prepared and a further five percent indicated that they

202

were very well prepared. In contrast, one-third (33.3%) maintained that they were not

well prepared while a further five percent claimed that they were not prepared at all.

Table 9.6 Adequacy of Preparation in Technology Use: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________ Level of Preparation 1997 (n = 72) 2002 (n = 123) ____________________________________________________________________ Not prepared 38% (27) 4% (5)

Not very well prepared 42% (30) 33% (41)

Adequately prepared 19% (14) 33% (41)

Well prepared 1% (1) 24% (30)

Very well prepared 0% (0) 5% (6)

____________________________________________________________________

In light of 1997 expressions of dissatisfaction with technology preparation, 2002

respondents were invited to suggest how technology preparation could be improved.

Suggestions were received from 91% (112) of the graduate teachers. The majority of

responses could be grouped into one of the categories presented in Table 9.7. Most

frequently cited among the responses (38%) was the suggestion that there be more

technology-specific units or subjects throughout the four-year course. Many stated that

these units should be compulsory and that technological competency should contribute

to assessment. Related to this, a further 22% recommended increased exposure to, and,

availability of, specific programs and software (such as CD-ROMs), while the same

number of teachers requested that ideas for integrating technology into the curriculum

and classroom activities and planning be included in their course. More ‘hands-on’

practice in the use of technologies was also recommended by 21% of teachers, along

with the modelling or demonstration of classroom technology use by lecturers or

visiting classroom teachers (7%). Additional suggestions that could not be categorised

included “More real world links to the classrooms”, “A task to be completed during prac

that involves computer-based technology”, “More reliable equipment at uni”,

“Technology support networks and supportive, patient staff”, “A stronger relationship

between schools and uni”, “A handbook for future teachers to use”.

203

Table 9.7 Suggested Improvements to Technology Preparation ____________________________________________________________________ Improvement (n = 112) ____________________________________________________________________ Increased technology-specific units & assessment 38% (43)

Exposure to/availability of specific programs/software 22% (25)

Ideas for classroom/curriculum integration 22% (25)

Hands-on practice 21% (24)

Demonstration/modelling from lecturers/classroom teachers 7% (8)

____________________________________________________________________ Comparison between 1997 and 2002

No significant differences were found between the 1997 and 2002 groups for the

technology that was considered to be the most important to teacher preparation. In both

years, more than half of each group nominated multimedia as the most important

technology. In relation to ratings of preparation in the use of technologies for teaching,

however, Chi-square analysis confirmed a significant difference between the groups, χ2

(2, n = 195)= 53.53, p = .000. As Figure 9.20 illustrates, the 2002 group were more

likely than the 1997 group to indicate they were well prepared or very well prepared and

significantly less likely to indicate they were not prepared in the use of technologies.

204

very w ell preparedw ell prepared

adequately preparednot very w ell prepar

not prepared

Perc

ent

50

40

30

20

10

0

group

1997

2002

Figure 9.20 Adequacy of Preparation in the use of Technologies: 1997 and 2002

DISCUSSION

In 2002, graduate teachers appeared to be substantially more

knowledgeable and confident than their 1997 counterparts in relation to their use of

multimedia, the internet and email. Research in the United States (Zhao et al., 2001) and

Scotland (Williams et al., 2000) also revealed highly confident teachers although in the

latter study, along with a United States study discussed by Hasselbring et al. (2000),

confidence did not always translate to usage rates. In both studies, the researchers noted,

numerous teachers continued to make only limited use of technologies.

Contrary to these studies, though, several others since 1997 have pointed

to a gradual uptake of technology by teachers in schools. For instance, research in the

United States by McCannon and Crews (2000) and the National Center for Education

Statistics (Wright, 2001) revealed that the majority of teachers were making frequent

use of technologies in their teaching. Given these findings, coupled with indications of

increased knowledge and confidence among teachers in the current study, it was not

unanticipated that these respondents should also report more frequent use of the

205

technologies compared with the 1997 cohort. Although the increases were only

marginal for multimedia (which continues to be used daily or weekly by around half the

group and remains the most frequently used technology), daily or weekly use of the

Internet and Email has at least doubled during the five-year period.

It is possible that the significant growth between 1997 and 2002 of home

ownership of CD-ROMs and Internet connections has contributed to the 2002 teachers’

increased knowledge, confidence and usage rates of technology. As discussed earlier,

home computer ownership has been linked to both positive attitudes towards, and

increased usage of computers (Spotts & Bowman, 1995). It is also feasible that gains in

knowledge are connected to the increasing use at the university of OLT which relies

predominantly on the use of the Internet and Email. Bearing in mind that these teachers

were in their first and second year of teaching, their reports of frequent technology use

are promising. Wright (2001) noted that teachers with 4-10 years experience tended to

be the greatest users of technology because those with less than four years experience

were still struggling to come to terms with their new profession, while those with more

than 10 years experience were content with their existing teaching methods.

Since 1997, research focused not so much on rates of technology use in the

classroom but on the ways in which teachers are using technology. This change of focus

is perhaps in some way illustrative of the move away from what Davis (2000) refers to

as the ‘simplistic’ to the ‘more mature’ view of technology usage in which technologies

should be seen to enhance, not simply facilitate, teaching and learning. Underscoring

this new thinking, however, are growing concerns about the nature of classroom

technology use. Emerging research from the United States and Scotland suggested that,

for the most part, technologies were being used in the classroom for ‘low-level’

administrative or word processing tasks and rote learning exercises (Brush et al., 2001;

Hasselbring et al., 2000; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999;

Williams, et al., 2000; Willis et al.,1999; Wright, 2001). In Australia, recent data from

the DETYA study in which teachers’ skills and computer usage across a range of

domains and activities were examined, presented a similar picture. According to Russell

et al. (2000) the study highlighted inadequate skill levels among teachers across a

variety of ‘advanced’ computer uses (Russell, et al., 2000), prompting Yelland et al.

206

(2000) to conclude that computers in classrooms in Australia were being used as low

level educational tools.

Data from this current study, however, indicated that teachers were generally

more likely than those in the DETYA study (Russell, et al., 2000) to use computers in

‘advanced’ ways. For instance, teachers in the current study reported more frequent use

of computers for educational programs or games, creating pictures, getting information

from the Internet, sending and receiving email, making music or sound, communicating

with other schools, and participating in online chat groups. Using the five-stage model

of technology integration proposed by Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) as a

guide, it is possible to speculate that this breath and level of technology use was

indicative of teachers who were already at the adaption phase of technology integration.

In contrast, Williams et al. (2000) surmised that teachers in their study appeared to only

be at the entry or adoption stages of technology integration. The researchers reached this

conclusion because of the tendency among teachers to use technologies for word

processing as well as their limited use of technologies such as the Internet and Email.

These teachers also tended to use technology as an add-on or reward for children rather

than an integral teaching tool. Interestingly, as noted in Chapter 5, a frequently noted

use of technology among the 1997 cohort was to extend or reward children indicating

perhaps, that this earlier group was also at the entry or adoption stages of technology

integration.

In terms of what prevented teachers from using technologies in the classroom,

similarities and differences were evident between the 1997 and 2002 groups.

Insufficient equipment and resources persisted in 2002 as the primary barrier, however

lack of time, rarely noted in 1997, was a commonly cited barrier in 2002. In 1997, lack

of training options also figured prominently among the responses and only a handful of

these graduates attributed their knowledge of the technologies to inservice or

professional training. In 2002, lack of training appeared to be less of a concern although

many did acknowledge that difficulty integrating into the curriculum and discomfort

using technology were also barriers to their use.

207

Findings from the 1997 study prompted a closer examination in the 2002 study

of the current nature, availability and perceived effectiveness of inservice training

programs. Since the original study, much has been written about the role of professional

inservice development opportunities. Recent literature, both in Australia and overseas,

indicates that inservice training in technology use was now widely available to teachers.

What was also apparent from several studies, however, was the failure of many of these

programs to meet the needs and expectations of teachers. Common criticisms centred on

the limited scope of such programs and their focus on word processing and

administrative applications as opposed to curriculum integration strategies (Cole, 2000;

Franklin, et al., 2002; Hasselbring et al., 2000; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Russell et

al., 2001; Williams, et al., 2000). In support of this research, a majority of teachers in the

current study acknowledged that inservice training was available to them. This finding is

further supported by the greater likelihood, since 1997, of teachers attributing their

knowledge of the technologies to inservice training. However, there was mixed support

for previous studies which reported that teachers were dissatisfied with their inservice

training (Cole, 2000; Franklin et al., 2002; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Russell, et al.,

2000) or had declined opportunities for training due to factors such as lack of time

(Cole, 2000). In the current study, it appeared that almost half of the teachers had not

taken part in this training, although those who did were satisfied with it. Several teachers

in the current study did, however, express dissatisfaction with their training noting that it

was too basic or that they had already developed particular skills at university. As

discussed earlier, some students referred to training in the Minimum Standards,

established by the state government, and noted that the standards themselves were too

basic and had been addressed in their preservice teacher education. What teachers did

want, in terms of training, was to develop skills in selecting and using multimedia

programs and software, constructing web pages and using the Internet. In addition,

perhaps due to their geographic isolation, many graduate teachers also expressed a need

for training in the use of audio/video conferencing technologies and communicating

with other schools.

Despite the growing availability in recent years of inservice training programs in

technology use, writers the world over continue to maintain that preparation in the use

of technologies is primarily a university responsibility. Kinslow et al. (2002) for

208

instance, noted that teacher education institutions must accept responsibility for

preparing teachers to use technology now and into the future. Likewise Russell et al.

(2000) claimed that beginning teachers should enter the profession with appropriate

skills.

However, research prior to and since 1997 has indicated widespread

dissatisfaction among new teachers with their preservice teacher education (Colon et al.,

1995; Davis et al., 1995; Fratianni, 1990; Handler, 1993; Hasselbring, et al., 2000;

Jerald & Orlofsky, 1999; Oliver, 1994; Topp, 1995; Wright, 2001). As recently as 2002,

reports from teachers continued to indicate that many were dissatisfied with their

preservice preparation in technology use, or, even when satisfied, were unlikely to

attribute their knowledge acquisition to preservice teacher education (Hasselbring et al.,

2000; Jerald & Orlofsky, 1999; Pope et al., 2002; Wright, 2001). In contrast though,

reports from teachers in the current study suggested widespread satisfaction with their

preparation, representing a dramatic improvement on findings from the 1997 study.

Whereas the majority of 1997 respondents claimed that they were unprepared to use

technology in their teaching, most respondents in the 2002 study reported that they were

adequately or well prepared to use technology. Additionally, in marked contrast to the

1997 cohort, some of the 2002 group reported that they felt very well prepared. This

finding is reinforced by other data from the study indicating that preservice teacher

education has become a source of technology knowledge acquisition for a growing

number of students. As noted earlier, 2002 respondents were significantly more likely

than their earlier counterparts to attribute their knowledge of multimedia, the Internet

and email to their experiences at university. For the university in general, and the

academic staff in the Faculty of Education, in particular, this feedback is encouraging.

It is plausible that this increased satisfaction is related to the apparent increase

by 2002, of technology use by faculty. Since 1997, literature has continued to endorse

the benefits to students of observing academic staff using technology in their teaching

(Hasselbring et al., 2000; Willis & Tucker, 2001; Yelland et al., 2000). Indeed recent

studies have confirmed that preservice students who have opportunities to see academic

staff using technology as they teach are more likely than those who have not had such

opportunities to use technology in their own teaching (Mathew et al., 2002; Pope et al.,

2002). Reports from 2002 graduate teachers indicated that faculty use of email in

209

teaching had more than doubled since 1997, use of multimedia and the Internet had

more than tripled, while use of OLT, non-existent in 1997, was now commonplace.

Comments from the 1997 and 2002 groups surrounding the nature of technology usage

shed light on this increased usage. For instance, reports from the 2002 group indicated

that email was now used for assignment submission as well as communication. 2002

teacher reports also indicated that technologies were used more frequently in teaching

for the presentation of lectures, accessing and retrieving information, demonstrating and

critiquing of technologies and programs, video/teleconferencing, and creating web

pages. Compared with 1997 data, reports from the 2002 group also highlighted

significant increases in their usage throughout their preservice teacher education of

multimedia, the Internet and email. Undoubtedly, this exposure to and increased usage

of the technologies contributed to teachers heightened sense of confidence as well as

their satisfaction with technology preparation.

In view of this increased satisfaction, the abundance of suggestions for

improving preservice preparation was somewhat surprising, as were the suggestions

themselves. As noted in the literature from both Australia and overseas, there is growing

conviction in the idea of more coordinated and collaborative approaches between

schools and preservice teacher education institutions (Downes et al., 2001; Strudler, et

al., 1999). This view is underscored by numerous recent studies documenting successful

outcomes arising from closer school-university partnerships (Brush, et al., 2001;

Dawson & Norris, 2000; Johnson-Gentile et al., 2000; Vannatta, 2000; Vannatta &

O’Bannon, 2002). Most of these studies centre upon jointly planned and monitored

practicum experiences that provide opportunities for hands-on use and modelling of

technologies. Common to all is sustained dialogue between teacher educators,

technology experts and a range of school personnel. While such a collaborative

approach appears to be highly successful in improving preservice teachers’ technology

preparation, it was rarely articulated in the responses of the 2002 group. Instead,

graduate teachers’ suggestions for improving technology preparation centred primarily

on increasing the availability and variety of technology-specific units at the university.

To a lesser extent, they also called for increased exposure to, better availability of

programs and software as well as ideas/strategies for classroom integration or hands on

practice. Only a handful of respondents made mention of university-school links or

210

referred specifically to practicum experiences that provided opportunities to see

technologies used in the classroom. Surprisingly, too, there were few requests for

demonstration/modelling from lecturers or classroom teachers. It is possible that

students are unaware of the potential of technology enhanced practicum experiences or

school-university partnerships because these initiatives are outside their current realm of

experience. Perhaps, too, their general satisfaction with preservice teacher education did

not warrant changing or critiquing current preservice teacher education practices.

211

CHAPTER 10

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

The research reported in this thesis examined the perceptions and experiences of

academic staff and graduate teachers in using computer-based technologies. This final

chapter commences by reviewing the major findings from each of the studies according

to the specific research objectives and highlighting key similarities and differences in

the perceptions of academic staff and graduate teachers. Following this is a discussion of

issues arising from these findings as they relate firstly, to academic staff, and secondly,

to graduate teachers. Suggestions for advancing technology integration are then

discussed. The methodological limitations of the research are outlined and future

research directions are proposed. Finally, the contributions of this research to this

knowledge area are described.

Summary of Main Findings Principal findings from the studies are presented according to the research

objectives relating to the studies on academic staff, and secondly, to objectives relating

to the studies on graduate teachers.

Academic Staff

1. Explore attitudes towards and usage of computer-based technologies from 1997 to 2002

Findings from the 1997 study indicated that, contrary to assumptions made by

writers such as Massy and Zemsky (1997), Forgo and Koczka (1996), Heron (1996),

and Benavides and Surry (1994), the majority of academic staff were positive in their

views towards technology and possessed some knowledge of most of the technologies.

Like academic staff in the study by Spotts and Bowman’s (1995), most agreed that the

technologies were important to their teaching. Despite assertions about the potential of

multimedia (Fyfe & Fyfe, 1994; Issing, 1996; Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996) these academic

staff felt that the Internet and email were most important to teaching and they were

reasonably confident in their usage of these technologies. They expressed less

212

confidence, however, in their use of CAI, multimedia and audiographics. In support of

previous research, staff acknowledged that multimedia-delivered instruction offered

numerous advantages over the traditional lecture including increased control over

learning, greater flexibility, interactivity and motivation (Felix & Askew, 1996;

McLoughlin & Oliver, 1994; Simpson, 1994; Sims & Hedberg, 1995; Stedman, 1995;

Waddick, 1995). At the time of this study, however, academic staff made little use of

any of the technologies in their teaching. This finding supported those of Spotts and

Bowman (1995) and Wetzel (1993) whose studies also revealed limited usage of

technologies by academic staff. However, unlike academic staff in Spotts and

Bowman’s (1995) study, most staff in the current study foresaw an increase in their

future usage of the technologies and, importantly, were also in favour of this increase.

Comments from staff in the current study indicated that when technologies were used,

most usage involved email for communicating with students and colleagues, multimedia

for presenting lectures, and the Internet for locating and sharing information and

conducting research.

Responses from the 2002 study indicated that this group made substantially

more use of the technologies than their 1997 counterparts, were more confident in their

use of email and the Internet and more knowledgeable about conferencing technologies.

They also appeared to be more knowledgeable and made more regular use of the

technologies than the academics in Groves and Zemel’s (2000) study. In terms of future

usage, however, there was no longer a desire among academic staff in the current study

to increase usage of all of the technologies. Most of the 2002 group preferred that there

be no change in their usage levels of the Internet and email, although, like the 1997

group, they preferred to increase their usage of conferencing technologies and

multimedia. Along with usage rates, the manner in which the technologies were used in

2002 had also changed. Open-ended comments reflected the increased development and

use of online discussion forums, online exercises, and links to interactive multimedia

learning activities and reference sites which had been made possible by the university-

wide system for online teaching (OLT). This had provided academic staff with a

platform that was easily accessible and user-friendly and which does not require a high

level of technological sophistication.

213

2. Identify factors that encouraged or hindered the use of computer-based technologies from 1997 to 2002

Numerous factors previously found by Spotts and Bowman (1993) to influence

academic staff usage of technologies were also found to be influential in the current

study. In relation to multimedia use, factors that impeded use included lack of technical

advice and support, equipment and resources, quality materials, Faculty support, time,

and training. Lack of time and training were also found to be critical factors in

technology use in previous studies (Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Willis et al., 1995). In the

current study, lack of training potentially impacted on the use of all of the technologies,

with few academic staff attributing their knowledge of any of the technologies to work-

based training. Instead, like the academics in Lyons and Carlson’s (1995) study, most

indicated that they were self-taught.

Concerning factors that would encourage their use of multimedia, available

time, technical advice and support, evidence of improved student learning and interest,

along with training, equipment, quality materials and Faculty support appeared to be the

most salient. Reward or recognition of teaching efforts appeared to be less of an

incentive compared with other factors, something also found by Spotts and Bowman

(1995). There was agreement with academic staff in previous studies (Davis et al., 1995;

Hesketh et al., 1996; Willis et al., 1995), though, that innovation in teaching went

unnoticed. The vast majority of academic staff believed that such innovation deserved

greater recognition, while many agreed that increased recognition would encourage their

use of technologies.

There were a number of changes in 2002, in terms of the factors reported to be

influential in technology use. In relation to multimedia, significantly more academic

staff in 2002 indicated that lack of evidence of improved learning and difficulty

integrating technology into teaching were barriers to usage. Other barriers such as lack

of technical advice and support, time, equipment and resources, quality materials,

Faculty support, and training continued to hamper usage in 2002. Significantly fewer

academic staff in 2002 attributed their knowledge of the Internet and email to work-

based training, while significantly more attributed their knowledge of these technologies

to being self-taught. When asked about their preferred method of technology training,

most indicated a desire for a Faculty colleague mentor program. Academic staff in

214

previous studies also indicated a preference for this type of technology training (Cooper,

1999; Haile & Payne, 1999; Matthew et al., 2002; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999).

3. Examine perceptions surrounding personal and university valuing of teaching from 1997 to 2002

Previous research by Hesketh et al. (1996) and Ramsden and Martin (1995)

revealed a perception among academic staff that teaching was less important to

universities than publishing or research. Staff in Hesketh et al.’s (1996) study

maintained that, because of this, the extra effort involved in using technology was not

worth it. Findings from the current 1997 study also revealed dissonance between what

academic staff valued and what they believed was valued by the university.

Overwhelmingly, academic staff valued teaching above research and publishing.

However, there was a widely held belief that teaching was valued least by the

university. It was not unexpected, therefore, that almost all academic staff should agree

that innovation in teaching deserved greater recognition.

In 2002, the perception that the university valued research and publishing above

teaching persisted. However, the dissonance between personal and academic valuing of

teaching that was so evident in 1997 was tempered in 2002 by a significant increase in

the numbers of academic staff reporting that they valued research equally as much, or

more than, teaching.

4. Determine perceptions concerning preparing students to use technologies in their teaching from 1997 to 2002

As in previous studies (Davis et al., 1995; Wetzel, 1993; Willis et al., 1995),

there was widespread agreement among academic staff, in 1997, that preparation in the

use of technologies was an important aspect of preservice teacher education. Unlike

Thompson and Schmidt (1994) and Munday et al. (1991; cited in Lyons & Carlson,

1995) who proposed that the responsibility for preparing teachers to use technology lay

with universities, most staff in the current study believed that preparation should be

shared responsibility of schools and universities. They also maintained that the most

important technology to this preparation was the Internet. Although academic staff

recognised the importance of preparing students to use a range of technologies in their

215

teaching, few believed that students were well prepared. Instead, most rated this

preparation as inadequate.

In 2002, the Internet again prevailed as the most important technology to

preservice teacher education. There were, however, significant changes between the

1997 and 2002 groups concerning beliefs surrounding the adequacy of preparation in

technology use. In 2002, academic staff were almost three times more likely than their

1997 counterparts to rate preparation as adequate. Although, academic staff were clearly

more optimistic about the adequacy of this aspect of preservice teacher education, many

offered suggestions as to how preparation could be improved. The most frequent

suggestion centred on the increasing provision of technology units and assessment at

university.

Graduate Teachers

1. Explore attitudes towards and usage of computer-based technologies from 1997 to 2002

Reports from graduate teachers in 1997 revealed positive attitudes towards

technologies. Most reported feeling confident in their use of CAI and multimedia,

although they lacked confidence in the use of conferencing technologies, the Internet

and email. Similarly, most graduate teachers appeared to be knowledgeable about

multimedia, and to a lesser extent CAI, but lacked knowledge of the other technologies.

This finding lent some support to earlier studies (Handler, 1993; Hochman, et al., 1993;

Lui et al., 1990; cited in Gabriel & MacDonald, 1996) which found that new teachers

were not confident about their use of technologies in the classroom. Despite this lack of

confidence, graduate teachers cited numerous advantages associated with using

multimedia technology in their work. Among these advantages were those related to

improved children’s interest and motivation, access to information, facilitating

independent learning and promoting computer literacy. Several disadvantages were also

noted, although all but two (“over or inefficient use by children” and “need for constant

supervision of children”) were more indicative of barriers than disadvantages.

Regardless of any perceived disadvantages, graduate teachers still ranked multimedia

well ahead of the other technologies in terms of its usefulness in their work.

216

Although positive about the potential of technologies such as multimedia,

graduate teachers made little use of CAI, audiographics, the Internet, and email in their

teaching. Given reports of limited technology use by new teachers in previous studies

(Huang, 1994; Oliver, 1994), this finding was not unexpected. Usage by teachers in the

current study tended to rely largely on multimedia for class research, projects and

educational programs. In terms of future usage, graduate teachers anticipated increasing

their use of all of the technologies in the future and were positive about this increase.

Attitudes towards the use of technologies in higher education were also positive.

In support of previous claims about multimedia (Crosby & Stevlosky, 1995; Gooley et

al., 1994; Iynkaran & Crilly, 1994, Stedman, 1995; Waddick, 1995), graduate teachers

indicated that multimedia-delivered instruction offered numerous advantages over the

traditional lecture including increased control over learning, greater flexibility,

interactivity and motivation. There was widespread agreement that the use of all of the

technologies in higher education be increased.

Responses from the 2002 study indicated that this group made substantially

more classroom use of the Internet and email than their 1997 counterparts and were

more knowledgeable and confident in their usage of multimedia, the Internet and email.

Although usage of the Internet and email still lagged well behind that of multimedia,

there were clear indications from new teachers that the technologies were being used

more regularly in classrooms. This finding provides support for research by Williams et

al. (2000), McCannon and Crews (2000), and Wright (2001) which pointed to a gradual

uptake in technology use by teachers in recent years. Most teachers in 2002, like those

in 1997, also expected to increase their use of the Internet, email and multimedia,

although, in relation to multimedia, significantly fewer 2002 teachers expected to

increase their use of this technology. Given the already high rates of multimedia usage

in 1997, this finding was not surprising.

Other principal findings stemming from this study related to the nature of

teacher’s classroom technology usage. Recent research had indicated that teachers were

using technologies primarily for low-level administrative or rote-learning tasks (Brush

et al., 2001; Hasselbring et al., 2000; McCannon & Crews, 2000; Strudler & Wetzel,

1999; Williams et al., 2000; Willis et al., 1999, Wright, 2001). However, in the current

217

study, teachers’ reports of technology use for communicating with other schools,

creating music, sound and pictures, locating information on the Internet, for instance,

suggested that they were finding more innovative ways to use technologies in their

classrooms.

2. Identify factors that encouraged or hindered the use of computer-based technologies from 1997 to 2002

In 1997, graduate teachers cited numerous barriers to their classroom use of

technologies, namely lack of funding, resources and equipment and lack of knowledge,

confidence and training. Previous research revealed that lack of knowledge, confidence

and training were also issues for new teachers that impacted on their technology use

(Colon, et al., 1995; Handler, 1993). In relation to training, most graduate teachers in the

current study claimed to be self-taught in the use of technologies, with inservice or

preservice training apparently playing only a limited role.

In 2002, issues such as those associated with lack of resources and equipment

continued to hinder technology use, although training appeared to be less of an issue.

This reduced need for training appeared to be linked to the significant increase in the

numbers of graduate teachers citing preservice education as a source of knowledge

about multimedia and the Internet. In 2002, it was also apparent that inservice training

opportunities were now widely available, although reports from graduate teachers

indicated that many had not taken up such opportunities. This finding supports research

findings by Cole (2000) that found many teachers decline opportunities for inservice

training. There was only limited support, however, for research by Cole (2000), Franklin

et al. (2002), McCannon and Crews (2000), and Russell et al. (2000) that highlighted

dissatisfaction among teachers with their inservice technology training. In the current

study, graduate teachers were mostly satisfied with their training although several did

voice their concerns. These concerns related to the level of training with most

commenting that it was too easy or repetitive. In relation to their perceived needs,

graduate teachers commented that they would like to develop skills in the selection and

use of multimedia programs and software, constructing web pages, using the Internet,

and using conferencing technologies and other techniques for communicating with

schools.

218

3. Determine perceptions concerning preparing preservice students to use technologies in their teaching from 1997 to 2002

Graduate teachers in 1997, like those in studies by Colon et al. (1995) and

Handler, (1993), overwhelmingly agreed that preparation in the use of technologies was

a highly important aspect of preservice teacher education. They also concurred that this

task should be a shared school-university responsibility. There was strong agreement

that the most important technology to their preparation was multimedia. Although most

graduate teachers reported studying at least one technology-related subject in their

preservice education, most maintained that their preparation to use technology was

inadequate. Similar reports of dissatisfaction among new teachers were evident in

research by Colon et al. (1995), Oliver (1994), and Topp et al. (1995). Even in studies in

which preservice teacher education students had undertaken technology-specific

subjects dissatisfaction was common (Davis et al., 1995; Handler, 1993). Although staff

modelling technology use has been positively implicated in technology use by new

teachers (Huang, 1994; Wild, 1994) graduate teachers in the current study, like those in

Colon et al’s. (1995) study, reported that academic staff made little or no use of the

technologies in their teaching. Furthermore, graduate teachers reported that they,

themselves, rarely used the technologies while at university.

In 2002, there was no change in relation to which technology was considered by

graduate teachers to be the most important to preservice teacher education. Again, this

technology was multimedia. There was, however, a significant increase in the level of

satisfaction with preparation in technology use. In 2002, graduate teachers were

significantly more likely than their 1997 counterparts to report feeling well or very well

prepared. These findings contrast markedly with reports by Hasselbring et al. (2000),

Jerald and Orlofsky (1999), Pope et al. (2002), and Wright (2001) which claimed that

new teachers remained dissatisfied with their preservice technology training or rarely

attributed their technological knowledge to preservice education. If we accept reports by

Matthew et al. (2002) and Pope et al. (2002) that faculty modelling of technology is

positively correlated with new teachers’ technology use, then the increased usage of

technology by faculty had clearly been beneficial. As noted earlier, reports from both

academic staff and graduate teachers indicated that there had been significant increases

in academic staff usage of multimedia, conferencing technologies, the Internet and email

219

in teaching. Likewise, graduate teachers appeared to have significantly increased their

own usage of multimedia, the Internet and email.

Academic staff and graduate teachers compared Findings reported in this thesis, therefore, indicated that extensive

changes occurred between 1997 and 2002 in terms of academic staff and graduate

teachers’ perceptions and usage of technologies. Reports from both graduate teachers

and academic staff indicated that there had been considerable increases in their

knowledge, confidence levels and usage rates of the technologies. These increases were

most apparent for graduate teachers, who experienced significant gains in knowledge

and confidence of multimedia, the Internet and email, and significant increases in use of

the Internet and email in their teaching. Despite these gains, multimedia remained the

most frequently used technology in the classroom. Though less widespread, significant

gains were also evident for academic staff. In 2002, they were significantly more

knowledgeable about conferencing technologies, more confident in their use of the

Internet and email, and significantly more likely to use multimedia, conferencing

technologies, the Internet, email, and, of course, OLT in their teaching. In other words,

both groups, in 2002, appeared more competent and more at ease with various

technologies.

There was also considerable consensus between the graduate teachers and

academic staff in relation to the university context. Both groups were in agreement that

academic staff usage of technologies in teaching had increased dramatically and that the

quality of preparation in the use of technologies had vastly improved. There was also

sustained consensus between the groups surrounding the future use of technologies in

higher education. In 1997, both academic staff and graduate teachers preferred to see an

increase in the use of the all of the technologies except CAI. In 2002, however, both

groups were more likely to prefer no increases in the use of the Internet and email but

they still preferred increases in the use of multimedia and conferencing technologies.

Graduate teachers and academic staff, however, consistently differed in their opinions

surrounding which technology was the most important to preservice teacher preparation.

According to graduate teachers in 1997 and 2002, the most important technology was

multimedia. According to the 1997 and 2002 groups of academic staff, however, this

technology was the Internet. It is possible that the appeal of multimedia for classroom

220

teachers lies in its potential to provide children with stand-alone, self-directed learning

experiences that require a minimum of teacher supervision. Academic staff members, on

the other hand, may well be more concerned with the Internet’s potential to facilitate

access to the type of information and resources that can contribute to preservice

teachers’ knowledge and skill development.

Despite the perceived improvement in technology preparation, there was no

shortage of suggestions from the groups as to how preparation could be improved.

Again, there was consensus with both academic staff and graduate teachers groups

tending to suggest an increase in the provision of technology specific subjects and

evaluations. Few of the academic staff or graduate teachers made mention of modelling

or demonstration of technology by faculty teachers or greater exposure to technologies

during practicum.

Issues emerging from the research Notwithstanding the many encouraging findings in 2002, several issues for

academic staff and graduate teachers emerged from the data. For academic staff, these

issues centred upon training, Faculty level support and the need for a shared vision of

technology integration. For graduate teachers, issues related to the nature and

availability of training, school-based barriers to use and inadequate exposure to

technologies at university. Issues related to both groups will be discussed in turn.

Issues for Academic Staff

As discussed, academic staff in 2002 appeared to be making significantly greater

use of technologies and were far more confident in their use of technologies than their

1997 counterparts. If we accept the potential impact of modelling, therefore, it is not

inconceivable that this increased confidence and usage helped to bring about the

concomitant increases in graduate teachers’ technology confidence and usage. What was

surprising, was that increases in confidence and usage appeared to have occurred despite

the absence of many of the enabling factors that Strudler and Wetzel (1999) claimed

were so necessary for the adoption of technology.

Of these enabling factors, training was a primary issue for academic staff. Work-

based and professional training appeared to play a declining role in knowledge

221

acquisition of most technologies and lack of training was cited as a persistent barrier to

multimedia use. Given the assumption that teacher education institutions are largely

responsible for producing graduates who are confident and competent users of

technology, the diminishing availability of academic staff training was particularly

surprising. Yet, this lack of attention paid to training needs of academic staff is not

confined to the university context. Worldwide, the literature on technology training

overwhelmingly focuses of the needs and expectations of preservice and graduate

teachers as opposed to those of their educators.

In the absence of ongoing training, then, it was not unexpected that knowledge

gains across the academic staff group would be limited. Indications of significant

knowledge gains appeared limited to the use of conferencing technologies. It was also

not surprising that problems associated with integrating technology into subject areas

and discomfort with technology persisted as significant barriers to multimedia use.

Central to many of the issues emerging from the academic staff data was a

perceived lack of faculty-level support for technology use. As Bielefeldt (2001) noted,

infusing technology into teacher education requires a comprehensive approach that

attempts to balance facilities, academic staff professional development, coursework, and

field experiences. He explains that supporting the innovation actually means supporting

the innovators (p. 11). Yet, according to academic staff in this study, lack of support at

the Faculty level remained an ongoing barrier.

In light of the university’s policy on online teaching, support for academic staff

is particularly important. As Williams (2002) noted, the shift to online teaching requires

a considerable cultural change for both academic staff and students. She notes that

preparing a course for online delivery is a huge task that can take as much time, if not

more, than running a more conventional course. Williams (2002) recommends that, in

order to generate a commitment to change and agree on ways to achieve this,

professional development activities should include all members of a work group.

Whilst it was clear that a great deal of change had occurred at the university and

that most academic staff were making increased use of technology, it was also apparent

that many were not. For these, the motivation to use technology may not be sufficient

enough for them to change their existing practices. Surry and Land (2000) noted that

222

most university-level technology strategies overlook the central role that academic staff

play in the change process and caution that academic staff motivation to use technology

will not be increased simply by purchasing more technology. Increasing academic staff

motivation, they add, should be part of the university’s overall change strategy. Where

academic staff motivation to use technology is lacking, Surry and Lend (2000)

recommended implementing a range of specific strategies. Based on Keller’s (1983)

earlier work, these strategies are:

Attention gaining strategies such as demonstrations to increase awareness of the

different types of technologies and showcase the potential and practical uses of

different types of technology;

Relevance strategies such as linking technology integration to the decisions about

retention, tenure and promotion to make the use of technology seem relevant to the

expectations, needs and goals that faculty members may have.

Confidence building strategies such as hands-on training workshops and peer

mentoring to provide academic staff opportunities to master various types of

technology the skills and the necessary support systems and infrastructure.

Satisfaction strategies such as teaching awards, funds for conference travel and

release time that will provide rewards to academic staff who use technology and

incentives to academic staff who don’t.

Relevant to all of these strategies, however, is the value of technology to

pedagogy. Embodied in any strategies designed to gain attention, promote relevance,

confidence and satisfaction should be explicit references to the pedagogical potential of

various technologies and their associated applications. As Schrumm (1999) noted,

teachers need compelling reasons to dramatically change their practice. In other words,

they need to know that technology has the capacity to enhance both teaching and

learning. For academic staff in this study, however, a lack of evidence that technologies

such as multimedia could improve student learning and interest continued to be

fundamental barriers to multimedia use.

Undoubtedly, what is also needed at the university is a shared vision for

technology integration in teacher education. According to Vannatta and O’Bannon

(2002), the adoption and communication of a shared vision is one of the most important

223

conditions for technology integration in teacher education. Vannatta and O’Bannon

(2002) explained that such a vision facilitates enabling factors such access, incentives,

professional development and support and policies that underpin the creation of

environments conducive to effective technology use. It should include a primary

purpose and outcome for technology use that is the foundation and guiding principle for

technology integration in teacher education. Importantly, too, this shared vision must

communicate to academic staff that teaching is valued.

The recent discussion paper by the Australian Federal government’s Committee

for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education (2003) also reiterated the need for a

shared view or vision. The paper claimed that in order to equip teachers with the

necessary skills, knowledge and attitudes to enable them to “develop innovative

capacity in students, and to contribute to the culture of innovation in schools” (p. 20),

universities need to value and encourage innovation. A shared view about how to

facilitate innovation in teacher education, the paper stated, was central to this process.

Issues for Graduate Teachers

It was clear from their reports that graduate teachers were embracing technology

and were enthusiastic about its potential to enhance teaching and learning. What was not

so apparent was that the training needs of these new teachers were being adequately

met. Although there had been significant increases in reports of knowledge acquisition

through inservice and preservice training, reports of being self-taught in the use of

technologies continued to dominate responses as did, to a lesser extent, relying on

colleagues for assistance.

Reports from graduate teachers indicated that, at best, the contribution of

inservice training to knowledge development was modest. Although many

acknowledged that inservice training in technology use was available at their school or

centre, half of these teachers had not taken up such opportunities for training. Reasons

for non-participation in training were not asked in the questionnaire but based on

previous studies, it is possible to speculate that lack of time and lack of incentives were

instrumental. Previous research has indicated that many teachers simply do not have the

time to participate in inservice training (Cole, 2000) and that incentives, in the form of

time out from teaching, replacement by substitute teachers or financial rewards are

224

rarely provided. There is growing recognition that incentives such as these are critical to

encouraging teachers to take up training opportunities (McCannon & Crews, 2000;

Russell et al., 2000), yet what typically occurs in Australia is that inservice training is

held on pupil-free days or after a full day’s teaching (Russell et al., 2000).

It is possible, too, that many graduate teachers did not participate in training

programs because the type of training on offer was irrelevant or unnecessary to their

requirements. Findings from other studies have found that much inservice training

focuses on word processing or operating systems and little on how to integrate

technology across the curriculum (Cole, 2000; Franklin et al., 2002; McCannon &

Crews). Yet, as noted by McCannon and Crews (2000), integration is the heart of

infusing technology into student learning as it enables the computer to become part of

the teacher’s repertoire rather than just being a machine that allows students to play

games. What graduate teachers in the study most claimed to need was training in the use

and selection of programs and software for classroom teaching and how to use

conferencing technologies.

Another issue stemming from the study findings was the dissatisfaction among

some new teachers with their inservice training. Although most graduate teachers who

had participated in inservice training were satisfied with their training, some were not.

Dissatisfaction tended to arise from training that was too basic or had covered areas that

had already been taught at university. Specific references were also made to the

Minimum Standards as set out by Education Queensland (1999) with an explanation that

the standards themselves were too basic and therefore the training was unnecessary,

repetitive or boring. Indeed, in 2000, Russell et al. were already suggesting the

professional development of teachers needs to move beyond Minimum Standards. While

the teachers acknowledged that this initiative was a good starting point for identifying

required technology skills, they also cautioned that the skills outlined in the Minimum

Standards document were “very basic”. Similarly, Boston (1999) noted that the focus on

“minimum” standards, as opposed to “optimal” standards, was cause for concern.

Boston (1999) stated that in advocating minimum standards, “we will simply

institutionalise mediocrity by accepting the lowest common denominator as the norm”,

thereby reinforcing “a deficit view of teaching and further contribute to lowering the

public status of teachers” (Boston, 1999, p. 11).

225

Russell et al. (2000) explained that if teachers display only basic skills, it is

unlikely that their students will be adequately prepared for the 21st century. What is

needed, they recommend, is a teacher professional development model that is more

comprehensive than a list of IT skills to be taught, a model that requires not only

advanced computing skills but the pedagogical skills necessary to seamlessly integrate

technology into the curriculum. With these elements in mind, Russell et al. (2000)

recommended that an appropriate teacher development model requires:

Knowledge of curriculum issues for successful classroom implementation;

The ability to integrate technology across the curriculum in a supportive school

environment;

Sustained and broad ranging staff development in the use of information

technologies;

Time to design a plan for using technology software in the classroom and to

restructure curriculum around technology;

Knowledge of what teachers can achieve through the informed use of

technologies; and

Knowledge of what is available for educational uses of technology (p. 163).

Further school-based issues raised by graduate teachers related to the lack of

equipment and resources and the lack of quality teaching materials at the schools

where graduate teachers had been placed. For many teachers, these factors presented

tangible barriers to their use of technology, barriers that must be addressed if

technology integration is to be realised. However, Hasselbring et al. (2000)

maintained that equipment and resources are superfluous in the absence of skills and

knowledge. They explained that a school can have the best technology hardware and

software available but it is unlikely to be well used, or even used at all, if teachers

are not adequately trained. The extent of benefits to students, they believe, will

increasingly depend on how well teachers are prepared to integrate the new

technologies into their teaching.

In relation to preservice teacher education, if we compare 1997 and 2002 data,

there were clear signs that the adequacy of preservice preparation in technology use had

vastly improved. Whereas both academic staff and graduate teachers in 1997 appeared

largely dissatisfied with this preparation, in 2002, they were generally satisfied.

226

Nevertheless, reports of dissatisfaction from a considerable number of graduate teachers

and several academic staff cannot be overlooked. These reports, coupled with the

abundance of suggestions from respondents for improving technology preparation

clearly indicated that there was room for improvement in preparing preservice teachers

to use technology.

Although both graduate teachers and academic staff were in favour of the

increased provision of technology specific units throughout preservice teacher

education, it is likely that this will have only limited effect. Research has indicated that

stand alone coursework is not a good predictor of technological proficiency

(Hasselbring et al., 2000). As noted in the 1997 study, most graduate teachers had

completed at least two or more technology specific units throughout their preservice

teacher education yet they were highly dissatisfied with their preparation in technology

use. In relation to technology-specific subjects, Yelland et al. (2000) recommended that

technology should be integrated in such a way that its use becomes “a seamless aspect

of the learning processes that are a daily occurrence in education” (p. 102).

While graduate teachers called for increasing the availability of technology-

specific units, what was both implicitly and explicitly requested was more hands-on use

of technologies. Students, it appeared, wanted to be actively engaged with technologies

and saw more merit in this engagement than that associated with simply observing

academic staff using technologies. Without doubt, the 2002 graduate teachers had

benefited substantially from the increased opportunities to see technology use modelled

by academic staff. However, if academic staff and graduate teachers’ reports of usage

are accurate, these increases centred primarily on the online teaching platform and

email. It is likely, then, that observing academic staff using technologies for these

purposes has only limited applicability to the situations that preservice teachers will later

find themselves in. Arguably, what is of more benefit to preservice teachers is seeing

technology modelled by classroom teachers in everyday classroom situations.

Advancing Teacher Education It is possible that additional technology-specific units, frequent opportunities to

observe academic staff using and demonstrating technologies, coupled with a shared

vision of technology and continued usage of online teaching just might be sufficient to

227

develop the technological competencies and integration skills that new teachers need in

order to truly enhance teaching and learning. Overseas trends, however, suggest that this

is unlikely.

As Downes et al. (2001) explained, the lack of linkage between preservice

teacher education and educational systems in Australia creates a cycle of difficulties for

any innovation or change within the education sector. On the one hand, they note, those

involved in teacher education programs frequently find that the schools in which

students undertake teaching practice do not have the resources or expertise or classroom

practices that support students to become competent and confident users of technology.

On the other hand, schools frequently find that teacher graduates do not have the

necessary skills and understandings required for effective teaching. What may be the

solution, therefore, are working partnerships between schools and teacher education

providers.

According to growing research from the United States (Brush et al., 2001;

Johnson-Gentile et al., 2000; Vannatta, 2000; Vannatta & O’Bannon, 2002), sustained

partnerships between universities and schools are achieving positive outcomes for all

stakeholders. Underpinning these partnerships is the sharing of knowledge and

expertise, the collaborative planning and implementation of technology enhanced

experiences for preservice students and the involvement of school-based mentors. As

noted by Dawson and Norris (2000), effective school-university partnerships can help

bridge the gap between the theory and practice of designing effective teaching and

learning experiences. They can also enable teacher education providers to look beyond

the university classroom to the realities that their graduates face in schools where they

begin their careers (Strudler, McKinney, Jones & Quinn, 1999).

However, adding to the difficulties of preparing technology savvy teachers is the

absence, in Australia, of a clear vision for teacher education (Downes et al., 2001). In

their report Making better connections, Downes et al. (2001) noted, that what is

noticeable in Australia, compared to the United Kingdom and the United States, is the

“lack of clear standards or benchmarks for student teacher outcomes, teacher

behaviour, school capabilities, teacher education institutional capabilities and

228

education system capabilities that collectively focus on an agreed set of

outcomes”

(Downes et al., 2001, p. 72).

In line with this view, the Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher

Education (2003) recommended that the planning and implementation of goals for

teacher education should be a collaborative process. A process informed by the

“productive engagement” of a diverse range of stakeholders, namely teacher educators,

employers, the teaching profession, business, industry and the wider community (p.21).

Undoubtedly, what is needed then, is a new paradigm for teacher education in

Australia. A paradigm based on the shared vision, cooperation and collaboration of

teacher education institutions, governments, schools, and professional associations.

Only then, can we expect teachers to demonstrate the types of technological skills and

competencies that truly enhance teaching and learning. Foreshadowing such a

paradigm, Russell et al. (2000), noted:

“the challenge for those involved in teacher education will be to revise

training and professional development opportunities at both the preservice

and inservice levels, to match teacher preparation with student’s future lives

in a digital world” (p. 164).

Returning to the overarching purpose of the study (p. 9), it is evident that

between 1997 and 2002, numerous changes in terms of policy, institutional support

and personal factors had impacted on academic staff and graduate teachers’

experiences with computer-based technologies. Figure 10.1 presents a summary of

changes that occurred throughout this period and the changes that are needed in order

to maximise the skills, competencies and understandings of preservice teacher

education staff and students.

229

Figure 10.1 Study Purpose and Outcomes

Changes - ACADEMIC STAFF Policies Evident:

Overarching university technology policy

Introduction of OLT system Needed:

Shared vision for technology integration

Specific Faculty policy for technology use in teacher education

Institutional support Evident:

Recognition and reward for teaching Funding for technology-based

teaching grants Needed:

University/School/ partnerships Faculty-level leadership and support Faculty colleague technology mentors Time out for training Technical advice and support

Personal factors Evident:

Growing confidence using technologies

Valuing of technologies Needed:

Evidence that technologies can enhance learning

Overarching purpose of the study To investigate the experiences of academic staff and graduate teachers related to computer-based technologies and to identify changes in these experiences over time

Changes - GRADUATE TEACHERS Policies Evident:

Minimum Standards for teachers Needed:

Upgrading of Minimum Standards Articulation of specific skills/

competencies required for graduation Institutional support Evident:

Increased technology use by academic staff at university

Availability of inservice training Improved access to technology

Needed: University/School/Government

partnerships Improved nature of inservice training Hands-on technology-specific units

in preservice education Classroom modelling of technologies

Personal factors Evident:

Growing confidence using technologies

Valuing of technology Needed:

Knowledge of Online technologies

230

Methodological issues and future research directions A number of methodological limitations associated with the program of research

require discussion. These limitations related to the reliance on survey methodology and

low response rates, the single context in which the study was conducted and the nature

of cross-sectional longitudinal research designs.

Concerning survey methodology, Rea and Parker (1992) maintained that, in

situations when accurate information on large populations is required and when the

researcher is sufficiently knowledgeable about the potential respondents to formulate

specific questions, there is no more effective method of research than the survey

process. Furthermore, when the intention of the research program is to identify trends or

behaviours over time and across potentially large populations, replicated surveys can

provide an efficient yet consistent alternative to experimental designs. However, several

shortcomings related to survey methodology impacted on the studies outlined in this

thesis.

Firstly, the unsolicited surveys used in the studies were subject to low response

rates. In the case of graduate teachers, return rates were further reduced in cases because

individuals had changed addresses and new contact details had not been provided to the

university. Related to this, surveys can also be subject to response bias, because, as

Fowler (1988) cautioned, sometimes only those who are interested in the research topic

make the effort to complete and return the questionnaire. As a result, it is possible that

those who did complete questionnaires differed in their attitudes towards and usage of

technologies, or felt more strongly than those who not.

A further weakness of the survey methodology used in this research program

was that it was limited in its ability to identify and illuminate particularly innovative

uses of technologies. Undoubtedly, many academic staff and graduate teachers were

using technologies in unusual ways, however, the quantitative orientation of the survey

process did not shed light on this.

In order to overcome some of the aforementioned limitations, future studies

could adopt a mixed-method research design. While surveys were considered an

efficient means of gathering data for this study, data collection for longitudinal and cross

231

sectional research can involve a combination of techniques (Menard, 1991). Future

studies could use of observations and interviews. Observations could help establish the

extent to which self-reported practices aligned with actual behaviours while interviews

with a sub-set of participants would enable the further exploration of issues raised by

questionnaire responses. Combined with survey data, these techniques would contribute

to a deeper understanding of the respondents’ perceptions and usage of technologies,

and also of innovations in practice.

Another methodological issue of the research was its limited generalisability due

to the specific context in which the study occurred. Respondents were associated with a

single Faculty of Education. Differences on particular responses were likely to be the

result of differences among respondents, rather than differences to which the

respondents had been exposed (Fowler, 1988). The conduct of the research in a single-

site is thus a limitation but also a strength. Future studies, nevertheless, could investigate

other providers of preservice teacher education and the graduates from such programs.

In an addition, it would be fruitful to expand such a study to include the views of

students currently enrolled in preservice teacher education courses. Broadening the

study to encompass other contexts and participants would also assist in validating the

instruments used which, in the absence of established measures, were developed

specifically for this program of research. It would also establish the reliability of the

technology definitions used in the questionnaires.

A final limitation of the research was that links between respondents’ prior

knowledge and experiences of technologies and their responses on questionnaire items

were not explored. The contribution of prior knowledge, along with the effect of

particular personality dispositions may help to illuminate why some individuals are

more inclined than others to adopt technologies.

Contributions to the field The current program of research was conducted to address the paucity of

research into technology use in preservice teacher education programs and to examine

the potential impact of this technology use on new teachers’ usage of technology.

Previous research comprised isolated investigations of either academic staff usage, or

teacher usage of technologies. Prior to, and throughout the period of the research, there

232

had been few attempts to examine the nexus between the two and none that had been

conducted in Australia. In the context of world-wide calls to equip teachers with

technological skills and competencies, this lack of research was surprising.

The research outlined in this thesis made several important contributions to the

field. Firstly, it reiterated the importance of familiarising preservice teacher education

students with a range of technologies throughout their preservice education. Specifically

it drew attention to the positive contribution that exposure to technologies throughout

preservice teacher education can make. The effect of this exposure was notable in the

comparison of findings from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Phase 1 of the research that revealed

new teachers rarely used technologies in their teaching and, according to their reports,

received little exposure to technologies during their preservice education. In Phase 2,

however, the use of technologies by new teachers had increased significantly in line

with reports indicating significant increases in exposure to technologies throughout

preservice education. Concomitant increases were also found in teachers’ levels of

confidence, in the level of sophistication apparent in how the technologies were being

used, and in their degree of satisfaction with their preservice teacher education.

Another contribution of the research program was a heightened understanding

surrounding inservice training for teachers. Findings in the second phase of the research

indicated that inservice training for teachers was widely available but that only half had

undertaken such training. Furthermore, few of these teachers acknowledged inservice

training as a source of their knowledge acquisition of any of the technologies. This

research, therefore, reinforced the importance of providing incentives, such as time out

from teaching, to encourage teachers’ participation in training. However, the research

also highlighted the importance of consulting teachers about their existing skills and

their specific training needs and expectations.

A further contribution of the research program related to the impact of

technology training on academic staff. As noted in the second phase of the research,

more academic staff attributed their knowledge acquisition of conferencing technologies

to work-based training. The outcome of this training appeared to be significantly

increased levels of knowledge of these technologies. The impact of training was further

highlighted in 2002, by findings showing that the absence of knowledge gain for the

233

Internet was paralleled by significantly fewer opportunities for training in this

technology. Academic staff reports instead indicated an increasing reliance on being

self-taught and suggested that the recent increases in technology use had occurred in a

vacuum of training.

The current research also furthered our understanding of the barriers that

academic staff encountered in their attempts to use technologies and confirmed that

these barriers are not country-specific, or even university-specific. Academic staff in the

current study, like those in previous overseas studies, were hindered in their technology

use by lack of training, time, doubts that technologies could enhance learning, and a

perception that teaching was less valued than other academic activities. The

development and maintenance of programs that support technology use and integration

into teaching remains an important goal for the Faculty.

CONCLUSION

In the context of a digital world, there are growing expectations that teachers are

equipped with the capabilities necessary to develop new skills, attitudes and

competencies in their students (Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher

Education, 2003). Clearly, teacher education institutions have a pivotal role in preparing

these teachers. Yet, as recently as 2002, research from around the world suggested that

new teachers continue to feel unprepared to use technologies in the classroom (

Hasselbring et al., 2000; Pope et al., 2002; Wright, 2001) and that many providers of

preservice education were failing in their responsibility to equip teachers with these

skills (Brush et al., 2001; Pope, et al., 2002; Willis & Tucker, 2001).

This study demonstrated that preservice teachers’ experiences with technology

at university appear to have a bearing on their subsequent use of technologies in their

own teaching. The first phase of research, confirmed that against a background of

limited exposure to technologies at university, teachers made little or no use of

technologies in their teaching. However, some years later, there was evidence that

increased exposure at university appeared to contribute to an increased use of

technologies.

234

The findings of this research have shown that both new teachers and academic

staff have made significant gains in both their understandings and usage of computer-

based technologies in recent years. Nevertheless, the study revealed that a complex

range of factors continues to hamper technology integration in both schools and

universities and that a reconceptualisation of the nature, purpose and contribution of

stakeholders is urgently required.

235

CHAPTER 11

POSTSCRIPT - LOOKING BACK: LOOKING

FORWARD Introduction

This two-phase study was conducted across the period 1997 to 2002 to shed new

light on existing and emerging technologies in use in teacher education. The study

involved preservice teacher education faculty members from a Brisbane university and

graduate teachers from the same university. Commencing in 1997, the study collected

baseline data on knowledge, confidence, extent and nature of usage, barriers and

incentives to use the technologies along with the importance and adequacy of preservice

teacher preparation in the use of technologies. Data on these same issues were collected

again in 2002 from staff members and graduate teachers. Findings from these data sets

were compared in order to determine change in perceptions and usage over time.

The study was conducted at a time of unprecedented technological change and

innovation in many sectors of society. The convergence of computers, telephones and

digital technologies enabled faster and more pervasive links to commerce,

communication, culture, and information, new technologies in effect transforming the

way we work, the way we communicate and the way we learn. It was becoming

increasingly evident in this context of globalisation, rapid social change and the

burgeoning information economy, that our daily activities would not only involve the

incorporation of new technologies, they would be premised on the assumption that new

technologies were integral to life and work According to Hasselbring et al. (2000), our

future educational, employment and cultural opportunities would be determined by our

ability to understand and manage new and emerging technologies.

In recent years, technologies have also profoundly changed our conceptions of

knowledge itself. Easy access to the Internet has created an expectation that information

will be readily available in print, on video or online. As a result we have had to reassess

how new knowledge is constructed, how new information is best obtained, which

236

information is the most reliable, and how people now make meaning from competing

sources of information.

The rapid development of new information technologies has been the catalyst

for educators at all levels to radically change their instructional approaches and their

curriculum (Haile & Payne, 1999). For universities, new technologies represent a way

of improving efficiency, productivity and meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse

population of students who require greater flexibility in terms of when, where and how

they study. As such, universities are now struggling with the dilemma of how to

integrate technology into current teaching and learning and how to develop strategic

plans and processes that will take them forward in sustainable ways (Oliver, 2001).

New technologies have also become a driving force for reform at the school

level. In recent years technologies have brought about fundamental changes to

curriculum and assessment frameworks, modes of school organisation, the nature of

work that students and teachers do, and the nature of school itself (Downes et al., 2001).

In this context of profound change there is an increasing expectation that teachers are

willing and able to capitalise on technology’s enormous potential to enhance teaching

and learning (Willis & Sujo de Montes, 2002). This expectation has also resulted from

the emergence of a new demographic of students referred to by Wright (2001) as the

“net generation” (p. 37). These students are confident and productive users of

technologies who have high expectations concerning the availability of technology in

school. These students expect learning to be entertaining and they expect it to be

customised, flexible and immediate (Wright, 2001).

As such, there is a growing realisation that, it is no longer useful for teachers,

parents and educational professionals to rely on the way they were taught or what they

were taught as a basis for today’s education (Spender, 2000). In order to realise the

learning outcomes that students need and expect, though, teachers must not only be

proficient users of technology, they also need to be able to use technology as an

effective educational tool (Pettenati et al., 2001). Research indicates that the teacher

shapes the eventual success or lack of success of any computers-in-education initiative

(Schrumm, 1999). However, technological advances are said to have created a “digital

237

divide” between what teachers learn about technology in preservice education and how

they are expected to use the technology as classroom teachers (Pope et al., 2002, p. 191).

Looking back: Research findings and key issues

Despite the forecasted demands on teachers in this new information age and

concomitant expectations that tertiary education institutions will prepare new teachers to

use technologies, at the commencement of this study there was a paucity of research that

investigated the role and nature of computer-based technologies in teacher education.

Instead, most studies that investigated computer-based technologies in higher education

tended to focus on patterns of usage or behavioural characteristics of learners. More

often than not these learners were undergraduate students from scientific or engineering

disciplines.

Little attention had been paid to academic staff usage of technologies. Literature

in this area suggested under-utilisation of technology resulting from a range of factors

such as negative attitudes towards technology, lack of equipment, time, training and a

lack of evidence that technology could enhance learning (Benavides & Surry, 1994;

Davis et al., 1995; Forgo & Koczka, 1996; Heron, 1996; Murphy, 1994; Spotts &

Bowman, 1995; Wetzel, 1993; Willis et al., 1995). The handful of existing studies into

new teachers’ usage of technology indicated positive attitudes towards technology but

underutilisation in teaching due to lack of knowledge, confidence, access to equipment,

and limited exposure to technologies throughout preservice teacher education (Colon et

al., 1995; Davis et al., 1995; Handler, 1993; Lyons & Carlson, 1995; Oliver, 1994. At

the time, there had been no attempt to investigate usage and perceptions of new

computer-based technologies from the perspectives of both teacher educators and their

graduate students and there had been no longitudinal research in this area.

Notwithstanding the potential impact of technological change on staff and

graduate teachers, the study itself was also at the mercy of technological advances that

had occurred both in the wider world and the immediate context of the university. At the

commencement of the study, questions focused on five computer-based technologies

that were in use at the university (computer-assisted instruction (CAI), multimedia,

audiographics, the Internet, and email). However, the speed of technological change

238

throughout the 1990s was such that by the second phase of data collection, a shift in the

focus technologies was necessary. By 2002, CAI had been largely superseded by the

cheaper, more widely available and infinitely more engaging multimedia technology

and was consequently omitted from the 2002 study. Similarly, developments in digital

technologies had seen audiographics replaced at the university by more sophisticated

forms of audio or videoconferencing. A further change to the study focus resulted from

the enormous investment by the university in the implementation of a university-wide

Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) system that affords online facility to all staff to

enable them to provide online resources and activities to students.

Key findings from the study told us that many changes had occurred between

1997 and 2002 in the perceptions and practices of both academic staff members and

graduate teachers. Numbers of participants in the different phases of the study are

presented in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 1997 and 2002 Participant numbers ____________________________________________________________________ Year Participant group N ____________________________________________________________________ 1997 Academic staff 43 Graduate teachers 72 2002 Academic staff 40 Graduate teachers 123 ____________________________________________________________________ Academic Staff: Change from 1997 to 2002

In 1997, a typical staff member was self-taught or relied on colleagues to learn

about the technologies. Most staff possessed some knowledge of multimedia, the

Internet and email but minimal or no knowledge of CAI and audiographics. The less

knowledge the staff member possessed about a particular technology, the less confident

they were in their ability to use that technology. Lower levels of knowledge, in turn,

translated into lower rates of technology usage in teaching with the majority of staff

members reporting that they never used the technologies as part of their teaching. This

limited use did not appear to stem from negative attitudes towards technologies,

however, as (with the exception of CAI) most staff members hoped to increase their

usage of the technologies.

239

In 2002, however, a typical staff member was not only substantially more

confident than their 1997 counterpart about their use of the Internet and email

technologies, he or she was also using these technologies on a daily or weekly basis.

Given the frequency with which the Internet and email were being used, however, it was

not surprising that significantly fewer staff in 2002 wished to increase their usage of

these technologies. In fact, many staff wished to lessen their use of email. Further to

this, when asked to comment on the most significant impact of technologies on their

teaching in recent years, many staff singled out email explaining that it had become a

source of frustration and anxiety because of the time required to respond to student

enquiries. Many, however, also commented that email had enhanced their

communication with students and colleagues.

Aside from frequency of usage, there was also a change in how some staff made

use of technologies. Many of these uses stemmed from the provision of OLT which

appeared to have been the catalyst for increasing the repertoire of staff skills. Rarely

noted in 1997, many staff in 2002 commented that they were now involved in

establishing interactive exercises for students, online discussion forums and hyperlinks

to web-sites. By and large, however, the technologies appeared to be used

predominantly for contacting students and colleagues (via email) and locating

information (via the Internet).

Of no less importance to the study were those findings pointing to the lack of

change, between 1997 and 2002, in some staff perceptions and practices. Interestingly,

there were no significant increases in knowledge levels of multimedia, the Internet and

email. Given that multimedia was once touted as the panacea for technological reform in

higher education, it was also surprising to find only modest increases between 1997 and

2002 in confidence and usage levels of this technology. Again, lack of use did not

appear to be related to negative attitudes because, unlike the Internet and email, the

majority of staff indicated a desire to increase their usage of multimedia. Rather, the

lack of use of multimedia appeared to be underscored by a range of barriers including

lack of equipment, resources, time, training, and support that endured from the

commencement to the completion of data collection.

240

That said, there were two notable changes in staff perceptions relating to specific

barriers to technology use. Rather than easing, it was found that two of these barriers

had intensified, over the years. In 2002, staff were significantly more concerned that

multimedia was difficult to integrate into teaching and appeared even less convinced

than their 1997 counterparts that multimedia could improve student learning. The fact

that “evidence of improved student learning” had in 2002 become the most salient of all

incentives indicated that, in the ensuing years, a shift in focus appeared to have taken

place. This new focus suggested a more critical approach to technology use - an

approach based on the use of technology in meaningful and pedagogically sound ways.

Underlying this lack of confidence in the capacity of multimedia to enhance

learning and the ability to integrate it into teaching could be lack of professional

development. Reports from staff in 2002 indicated that only 10% were benefiting from

work-based training in their use of multimedia. There was also a significant reduction in

2002 of numbers of staff reporting work-based training as a source of knowledge for the

Internet. Data from the study were unable to reveal whether this was due to lack of

opportunity or lack of effectiveness of training. In contrast, half of the staff attributed

their knowledge of OLT to work-based training. Despite the relative newness of OLT to

the university, staff appeared more knowledgeable and confident about OLT than

multimedia. Moreover, they used this technology more frequently than all other

technologies except email and hoped to further increase their use of OLT.

A further finding of import was the change, since 1997, in the relative valuing

by staff of teaching, research and publishing. While the vast majority of staff in 2002

still valued teaching most highly, numbers of staff indicating that they valued research

equally or more than teaching had almost doubled. The perception among staff that

universities valued teaching less than research and publishing remained constant

between 1997 and 2002 and provided continued support for the much quoted “publish

or perish” adage.

241

Graduate teachers: Change from 1997 to 2002

Arguably the most important and encouraging finding of the study was the

perceived improvement in the ability of the preservice teacher education course at the

university to prepare graduate teachers to use technology in their classrooms. Between

1997 and 2002 there had been a dramatic increase (from 30.2% to 75.5%) in numbers of

staff reporting that students were now adequately, well prepared or very well prepared.

This change was also evident in graduate teachers’ ratings of their technology

preparation (from 20.8% to 62.6%) and it was further reflected in their reports of

technology knowledge, confidence and usage levels.

In 1997, a typical graduate teacher was most knowledgeable about multimedia

and CAI but had only limited knowledge of the other technologies, particularly

audiographics. This teacher was unlikely to attribute their knowledge of any of the

technologies to preservice teacher education and, instead, was largely self-taught or

relied on other teachers for assistance. This teacher’s use of technologies in teaching

appeared to be confined to weekly use of multimedia and CAI, with the other

technologies being rarely if ever used. Similarly, a typical graduate teacher at this time

was likely to report that academic staff had rarely or never used technologies in their

university teaching. The technology that this teacher was most likely to recommend

increased use of at university was multimedia. To this teacher, this was also considered

the most important technology to preservice teacher education.

The study revealed that by 2002 significant gains had occurred in both

confidence and knowledge levels of graduate teachers. This cohort was also far more

likely to attribute their knowledge to preservice teacher education. Related to this were

reports indicating a marked increase in the frequency with which academic staff had

used technologies in their teaching. According to most graduates, staff were using the

technologies in their teaching (with the exception of audio/ video conferencing) on a

weekly or daily basis.

Interestingly, despite most graduate teachers reporting the availability of

inservice training opportunities there were no significant increases from 1997 to 2002 in

reports of knowledge attainment due to professional development or inservice training.

It appeared, then, the availability of or participation in inservice or professional

242

development did not necessarily result in knowledge gains. While those who had

participated in training were generally satisfied, many teachers simply did not take up

opportunities because training was too basic or irrelevant to their needs.

The study told us that, despite the increased satisfaction since 1997 of graduate

teachers with preservice preparation in technology use, there remains much room for

improvement. Recommendations from 112 graduate teachers along with suggestions

from 20 staff provided insight into how such preparation for students might be

improved. Notable was the congruence in responses from staff and graduate teachers

with both groups primarily suggesting increasing the number of technology-specific

units within the course. Staff suggestions also included incorporating technological

literacy into students assessment, learning how to critically evaluate software,

improving access to hardware and software, more modelling and demonstration of

technology, and greater exposure to technology use throughout field-based experiences.

Additional recommendations from graduate teachers included increased exposure

to/availability/hands-on use of programs and software and ideas for classroom practice.

Implications for policy and practice

The study highlighted a range of findings that have implications for academic

staff, university managers and educational policy makers.

Implications for academic staff

Several findings have significance for academic staff involved in preservice

teacher education. Firstly, their practices appeared to have had a considerable impact on

the perceptions and practices of new graduate teachers. Data suggested that the growth

in staff technology use in preservice teacher education courses and the accompanying

increased usage of technologies in the classroom by graduate teachers were linked. It is

likely, too, that the substantial increase in graduate teachers’ satisfaction with their

technology preparation at university is also attributable to the increased use of

technology by university staff. The positive effect of this ‘technology modeling’ should

be heartening news for academic staff.

243

Secondly, feedback from new teachers provided valuable insights into how

preservice teacher education may be improved. For academic staff wishing to upgrade

or reconceptualise teacher education programs this source of information should not be

overlooked. With the benefit of ‘real world’ experience, new classroom teachers are

arguably better informed than preservice education students about the needs and

expectations associated with technology use in the classroom. Reflecting on their

university experiences, new teachers in the study offered numerous suggestions for

improving preservice education. They, along with academic staff, recommended a

greater number of specific technology units, more technology-based assessment and

increased opportunities for hands-on experiences with a variety of technologies. New

teachers would have also benefited from more opportunities to see classroom teachers

modelling the use of technology – both in the classroom and at the university. The

implications for academic staff, then, are to seek feedback from recent graduates when

evaluating course content; to ensure that field-based practice includes opportunities for

students to observe and utilise technology in the classroom; to locate technology-using

classroom teachers; and, to recruit these ‘role model’ teachers as guest speakers at the

university.

A further finding of significance for academic staff was the widely held

perception that their Faculty did not adequately support technology initiatives. This

perception, along with the notable absence of policies on technology integration in

teacher education, points to the urgent need for staff to collaborate on the development

and implementation of Faculty level policies, standards and support mechanisms that

will guide the effective integration of technology in their Faculty.

Finally, staff receptivity to change, as evidenced by findings of increased

technology usage and largely positive attitudes towards technologies, augurs well for the

future. There is little doubt that ongoing technological advancements will continue to

impact on the nature of teacher education. The success of future programs will continue

to rely on the openness of staff to new ideas and new ways of doing things. In such

uncertain times, Bober (2003) maintains that, more than ever, teacher educators must be

flexible and adaptable, receptive to new ideas, eager to change focus if and when

circumstances warrant, and committed to currency and relevance.

244

Implications for university managers

Many of the findings have particular relevance for university managers and

decision-makers. Firstly, contrary to the literature on technology use in higher education

pointing to widespread technophobia among academics (Forgo & Koczka, 1996; Heron,

1996; Marginson, 2000), many staff in this study possessed positive attitudes towards

technology. Most staff believed that new technologies had much to offer higher

education and throughout both phases of the study they anticipated increasing their

usage of technologies and were largely optimistic about this. According to both staff and

graduate students, academic staff also dramatically increased their usage of technology

over the years. These findings provided further evidence of a willingness to embrace

technology and ran contrary to the literature suggesting that university academics were

resistant to change, were “technologically challenged” and tended to teach in the

manner in which they were taught (Heron, 1996; Marginson, 2000; Spotts & Bowman,

1995).

University managers should be mindful that this increased technology use

occurred despite the persistence of numerous barriers. Data from the study revealed that

the barriers preventing technology use in 1997 were no less significant to academic staff

in 2002. According to a majority of staff, barriers such as lack of time, training,

equipment and resources, support from the faculty, training, and difficulty integrating

technology were major impediments to technology use. Clearly then, it is incumbent

upon university managers to address these barriers if expectations surrounding

technology can be realistically met. As Pettenati et al. (2001) noted, too many

expectations for faculty, without appropriate training and support, can create a

significant barrier to their use of technology.

Data from the study revealing limited or no improvement in the knowledge

levels of staff over the five-year period sends a clear message to university

administrators about the importance of continued professional development. Shrumm

(1999) noted that anyone who has struggled to learn about technology, or who has

taught others to use it, realises that brief exposure does not provide sufficient training or

practice to incorporate technology into teaching. She maintains that learning about

technology can be a life-changing event that is qualitatively different to learning other

245

new skills, knowledge and activities. Yet according to Ertmer and Hruskocy (1999) a

common misconception held by administrators and leaders of change is that once an

innovation has been introduced and initial training completed, the intended user will put

the innovation into practice. They warn that neither technical skills nor pedagogical

knowledge are likely to be fully integrated into teaching practice without ongoing

assistance and continued professional development.

In line with this view, Gess-Newsome et al. (2003) regard professional

development as a process, not an event. They maintain that professional development is

a “perennial challenge” in education and advise that it:

must be grounded within the context in which teaching takes place

must be developmentally appropriate and build on current concepts of teaching and

learning and goals and needs

can take 3-5 years of sustained effort to significantly impact on the teaching and

learning

must allow teachers to take charge of their own professional growth

must contain the elements that promote learning such as active social

engagement and collaboration that promotes change

In the context of continued technological change it is imperative that university

managers ensure that professional development remains central to university-wide

policies.

A further finding of interest to university managers related to staff preferences

for the delivery of professional development initiatives. Most staff in the study

expressed a preference for learning about technology through a faculty colleague

mentor. This preference may reflect the less than ideal situation that has arisen at many

universities where staff support has been provided by technology specialists who have

little understanding of pedagogy and curriculum issues. University managers, therefore,

need to appoint specialist staff with proven technological and pedagogical expertise who

can serve as role models to staff members. As the study indicated, though, no single

246

training method appeals to all. In order to address the learning needs and preferred

learning styles of staff, ongoing consultation is essential.

Another finding of relevance to university managers was the need among

academic staff for evidence that technologies can enhance learning. Understandably,

many academic staff remained sceptical about the merits of technology use in teaching.

They are aware that using new technologies does not automatically improve teaching

and realise that courses must be redesigned with references to pedagogical theories

(Williams, 2002). Yet, there have been many instances in higher education where the

use of technologies such as multimedia has stemmed more from an infatuation with

technology than a need for best practice (Felix & Askew, 1996). Walker and White

(2002) explain that such instances have been driven by ‘technophiles’ who have an

unrealistic and uncritical view of the potential value of technology. What university

managers need to ensure, then, is that decisions surrounding technology initiatives are

driven, not by technophiles, but by ‘technorealists’who are aware of both the pedagogic

potential and limitations of technology. The technorealist approach in teacher education

reasons that technology should only be used if it can facilitate powerful approaches to

teaching and learning based on meaningful, challenging, active and inquiry-based

applications (Walker & White, 2002).

A finding of further significance for university managers relates to the

perception among academic staff that teaching is undervalued. The vast majority of

1997 and 2002 staff personally valued teaching over research and publishing but still

believed that the university valued research and publishing above teaching. This finding

related to research in Australia by Hesketh et al. (1996) and Weeks (2000) who found a

reluctance on the part of university faculty to commit the time and effort required to use

technology in their teaching because of the second rate status accorded to teaching. The

message here for university managers is clear - if teaching staff are expected to change

their practices and embrace technology in their teaching, they need to know that

teaching is valued.

247

Implications for educational policy makers

Several of the study’s findings have significance for policy makers. These relate

primarily to the recommendations from staff and graduate teachers for improving

preservice teacher education and the comments from graduate teachers surrounding their

continued professional development needs.

In relation to how preservice teacher education could be improved, a number of

staff and graduate teachers commented that students required more exposure to

technology-using teachers whilst on practicum. It was also suggested that school

teachers visit the university to demonstrate how they used technologies in their own

classroom. In terms of school-based professional development activities, most graduate

teachers expressed the need for further training of some kind with a number

commenting that their school-based training had merely repeated what they had already

learnt at university.

Findings such as these point to the need for partnerships between universities,

government and non-government education agencies and schools. Collaborative

partnerships between these stakeholders can facilitate shared decision-making about the

specific roles, responsibilities and expectations of the individual partners as they relate

to the preparation of teachers. Such an approach would not only encourage the sharing

of expertise, it would minimise duplication in teachers’ preservice and later professional

development experiences.

Looking forward: Where to from here?

The study provided some valuable insights into this important area of

investigation. However, limitations in the scope and design of the study have meant that

many questions remain unanswered. Further research is needed if teacher education is to

keep pace with an uncertain and challenging future.

What we can be certain of is that technology is here to stay. With this in mind,

education systems at all levels must make a deliberate effort to prepare their students for

a technology-based society. The dilemma for teachers, lecturers, administrators and

educational policy makers, notes Spender (2002), is how to predict what the digital

248

world will look like in years to come. As noted by McDonald and Crotty (2000), the

hype surrounding future technologies is “denser than a Pentium 111 chip” (p. 53). In the

current context, it would seem that the only certainty is change.

In relation to education, Oliver (2002) forecasts that the influence of changing

technologies will increase considerably in years to come impacting on what is learned,

how it is learned, when and where learning takes place, and who is learning and who is

teaching. The general consensus surrounding universities is that technology will play a

large and growing role in the planning, development and delivery of the curriculum.

According to Oliver (2001), the challenge for universities will be to make decisions that

will set them on the preferred and appropriate path for the future.

In the context of continued change it is not possible to foreshadow specific

impacts on, and consequences for, teacher education. Much of the literature surrounding

technology integration in teacher education in the last 10 years has prioritised the need

for technological literacy. Research at that time revealed that technology literacy tended

to be measured in terms of word processing skills and the efficiency with which

individuals could gather vast amounts of information. This view of literacy, it seemed,

was more concerned with becoming proficient in the means to information, not in

creating meaning from that information with (Walker & Wright, 2002). Researchers

such as Walker and Wright (2002) claim that this mindset is not only limiting, it is not

forward thinking. They believe that many theories will be turned upside down as we

redefine learning and cognition in light of the rapid technological advances of this new

millennium.

While we cannot, with any certainty, predict future expectations surrounding

teacher education, we can ensure that future decisions and developments are informed

by continued research. If teachers and teacher educators are to capitalise on the potential

of new technologies to enhance teaching and learning, there is an urgent need for further

research to address the following key questions:

What pedagogic theories best underpin learning in these new environments?

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that it is no longer enough to strive

for technological competency. What we must aim for is the use of technology in creative

249

and innovative ways that enhance the teaching and learning process. Rather than

conducting studies into the efficacy of technologies for teaching and learning, therefore,

we should re-focus our attention on the pedagogic potential of new technologies. We

need to know, for example, how technologies can be integrated to facilitate powerful

approaches to teaching and learning and how they can be used to support traditional

methods in teacher education.

How are technologies being used in teaching?

Although we know that academic staff and graduate teachers are increasingly

incorporating technologies into their teaching practice we need to know more about the

ways in which technologies are being used. While surveys can help shed light on

perceptions, they are not always a reliable source of information on actual practices.

More appropriate sources of information for this purpose are observations and

interviews.

How effective are professional development opportunities?

Central to technology integration for both academic staff and graduate teachers

is effective and ongoing professional development. We need further research into the

nature of professional opportunities that are on offer to academic staff and teachers. For

instance, more information is required on the types of professional development

opportunities available to academic staff and graduate teachers, the strategies used to

deliver training programs (such as mentoring, workshops, online modules) and the

incentives (such as time out from teaching, a learning credential, monetary reward)

provided to participate in programs. Also needed is qualitative information on how

professional development initiatives met the participants’ needs, how initiatives could

be improved and the continued professional development requirements of individuals.

Given the widely documented potential of using technology mentors, we need more

rigorous evaluation of mentoring programs in this area.

How effective are technology-based teaching and learning initiatives?

We also need extensive and rigorous evaluations of technology initiatives.

Although positive attitudes or increased motivation among students may encourage

better learning outcomes, they are by no means evidence of improved learning. Without

250

scholarly evaluation, even well designed innovations are unlikely to achieve wider

dissemination while the potential benefits for learning are likely to remain unrealised

(Alexander, 1999). Evaluations, if they are to be effective, must take into account both

learners’ and teachers’ accounts and involve both qualitative and quantitative

techniques.

CONCLUSION

This research revealed that in the context of changing technologies and new

ways of thinking about teaching and learning at the university, many academic staff had

made significant gains in their usage of technologies across the five-year period. It is

likely, however, that much of this gain has been ad-hoc due to the lack of consistent

policies, strategies and support systems surrounding technology integration. For the

Faculty and policy makers at the university, this remains an ongoing challenge.

Without a crystal ball it is impossible to foreshadow the precise nature and

impact of future technological innovations. Likewise, expectations of teachers and

teacher educators in light of these developments are difficult to predict. Although there

is a widely held assumption that children are technologically savvy individuals whose

knowledge of technologies far exceeds that of their teachers, such claims are usually

anecdotal and rarely supported by research. Underpinning future planning for teacher

education should be a greater understanding of children’s technological skills, their

attitudes towards technologies, the ways in which they interact with various

technologies, and their ability to use technologies to achieve particular learning goals.

While we cannot determine the future we can ensure that new initiatives and

new ways of thinking and doing are grounded in extensive and scholarly research. Only

then, with systemic staff supports, can the true potential of technology be realised.

251

REFERENCES

Alexander, S. (1999). An evaluation of innovative projects involving communication

and information technology in higher education. Higher Education Research

and Development, 18(2), 173-183.

Aston, R., & Schwarz, J. (Eds.), (1994). Multimedia. Gateway to the next millennium.

Cambridge, MA: AP Professional.

Australian Vice Chancellors Committee. ( 1996). Exploiting Information Technology in

Higher education: An Issues Paper. Available online from

http://www.avcc.edu.au/avcc/pubs/EITIHE/ date accessed 30/07/97

Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research. (6th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bailey, D.B., & Palsha, S.A. (1992). Qualities of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire

and implications for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Research,

85(41), 226-232.

Barrett, J., & Jegede, O. J. (1994). Towards a functional model for the selection of a

valid technology mix for instructional purposes within interactive multimedia

environments. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd International

Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp. 23-31), Perth: Curtin University.

Beggs, T.A. (2000). Influences and barriers to the adoption of instructional

technology. Available from

http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/beggs.beggs.htm date accessed

11/01/2002.

Benavides, O. E., & Surry, D. W., (1994). Train the trainer: A model for faculty

development. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and

Teacher Education Annual 1994. (pp. 336-340). Charlottesville, VA:

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

252

Berry, L. H. (1994). Interactive video simulations: factors related to promoting teacher

effectiveness. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and

Teacher Education Annual 1994. (pp. 82-85). Charlottesville, VA: Association

for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Bielfeldt, T. (2001). Technology in Teacher Education: A closer look. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 4-15.

Bober, M. J. (2003). Using technology to spark reform in Preservice Education.

Contemporay issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(2).

http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss3/general/article2.cfm

Bonner, R. F., Berry, A., & Marjanovic, O. (1995). Distributed multimedia: From vision

to reality. In J. M. Pearce, & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian

Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE'95)

Conference, (pp. 36-42). Brisbane.

Boston, K. (1999). Enhancing the status of the Teaching Profession. Unicorn, 25, 7-14.

Bowes, J. (1994). Professional development as the common link in issues in computers

in education. In M. Ryan (Ed.), Proceedings of APITITE'94 Asia Pacific

Information Technology in Training and Education Conference and Exhibition,

(pp. 121-126) Vol. 1, Brisbane.

Brush, T., Igoe, A., Brinkerhoff, J., Glazewski, K., Ku, H.Y., & Smith, T.C. (2001).

Lessons from the field. Integrating technology into preservice teacher

education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 16-20.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.

CEO Forum (2000). Teacher Preparation StaR Chart: A self-assessment tool for

colleges of education. Author: Washington, DC. Available online at

http://www.ceoforum.org/home.cfm

Choo, K. C. (1994). Interactive multimedia for teaching, learning and presentations. In

C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd International Interactive Multimedia

Symposium (pp. 230-237), Perth: Curtin University.

253

Cole, S. (2000). Technology has found its way into our schools…now what?

TechTrends, 44(6), 23-29.

Colon, B., Willis, J., Willis, D. A., & Austin, L. (1995). Recent graduate perspectives on

instructional technology: A national Survey. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis

(Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1995. (pp.791-794).

Charlottesville. VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in

Education.

Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching. (1996). Improving University

Teaching 1996: National Teaching Development Grant Projects. Canberra:

CAUT.

Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching. (1993). Improving University

Teaching 1993. National Teaching Development Grant Projects. Canberra:

CAUT.

Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education. (2003). Young

people, schools and innovation: towards an action plan for the school sector.

Discussion Paper. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Employment,

Education and Science Training.

Cooper, S. B. (1999). Using the web as a tool for promoting the integration of

technology in teacher education. In J. D. Price, J. Willis, D. Willis, M. Jost,

& S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.) Technology and Teacher Education Annual,

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), (pp. 528-532).

Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in

Education.

Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviourism to

cognitivism to contructivism. Educational Technology, May, 12-19.

Cox, K. R. (1994). The use of computers in tertiary education. In M. Ryan (Ed.),

Proceedings of APITITE'94 Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training

and Education Conference and Exhibition, (pp. 939-944) Vol. 3, Brisbane.

254

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crosby, M. E, & Stelovsky, J. (1995). From multimedia instruction to multimedia

evaluation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(2/3), 147-

162.

Cunningham, D. J., & Brown, A. R. (1994). Multimedia in teacher education. In C.

McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd International Interactive Multimedia

Symposium (pp. 110-113), Perth: Curtin University.

Curtin, S. (1994). Implementing CD-ROM training. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson

(Eds.), 2nd International Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp. 114-117),

Perth: Curtin University.

Davis. N. (2000). International contrasts of information technology in teacher

education: multiple perspectives on change. Journal of Information Technology

in Teacher Education, 9(2), 139-147.

Davis, N., Willis, J., Fulton, K., & Austin, L. (1995). The current status of

technology teacher education: An international comparison. In J. Willis, B.

Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1995,

(pp. 801-804). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of

Computing in Education.

Dawson, K., & Norris, A. (2000). Preservice teachers’ experiences in a K-

12/University Technology-based field initiative. Journal of Computing in

Teacher Education, 17(1), 4-12.

Department of Employment, Education and Training (1997). Review of Higher

Education Financing and Policy. The Review Terms of Reference. January.

Available at: http://www.deet.gov.au/divisions/hed/hereview/terms.html

255

Department of Education, Training, and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (1999). Real time:

Computers, change and schooling. National Sample Study of the Information

Technology Skills of Australian School Students. Canberra: DETYA and

Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy. Also available on-line

at: http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/realtime.pdf

Dewert, M.H. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology: Asking the

right questions about essential conditions. Journal of Computing in Teacher

Education, 16(3), 3-5.

Dias, L.B. (1999). Integrating technology. Some things you should know. Leading

and Learning with Technology, 27(3), 10-21.

Dickinson, R. (1994). Diverse functions: The creative design of a hypermedia authoring

system. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd International Interactive

Multimedia Symposium (pp. 118-120), Perth: Curtin University.

Dolly, J. P. (1995). Technology and change in colleges of education. In J. Willis, B.

Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1995,

(pp. 836-839). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of

Computing in Education.

Dooley, D. (1995). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J:

Prentice Hall.

Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers,

M., & Williams, M. (2001). Making connections. Models of professional

development for the integration of information and communication

technology into classroom practice. Commonwealth Department of

Education, Science and Training. Canberra.

Education Queensland. (1999). Minimum Standards for Teachers – Learning

Technology. Education Services Directorate Learning, Teaching and

Technology Unit, Education Queensland.

256

Ertmer, P. A., Hruskocy, C. (1999). Impacts of a university-elementary school

partnership designed to support technology integration. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 81-97.

Espinoza, S., & McKinzie, L. (1995). Internet initiatives for teacher education. In J.

Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education

Annual 1995, (pp. 626-630). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the

Advancement of Computing in Education.

Felix, U., & Askew, D. (1996). Languages and multimedia: Dream or nightmare?

Australian Universities’ Review, 39(1), 16-21.

Fineman, E., & Bootz, S. (1995). An introduction to constructivism in instructional

design. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher

Education Annual 1995. (pp. 820-823). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the


Forgo, S., & Koczka, F. (1996). The use of multimedia in distance education.

Educational Media International, 33(1), 16-19.

Fowler, F. J. (1989). Survey research methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Franklin, T., Turner, S., Kariuki, M., & Duran, M. (2002). Mentoring overcomes

barriers to technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher

Education, 18(1), 26-31.

Fratiani, J.E., Decker, R.H., & Korver-Baum, B. (1989). Technology: Are future

teachers being prepared for the 21st century? Journal of Computing Research

in Teacher Education, 6, 15-23.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (rev. ed). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Fyfe, S. D., & Fyfe, G. M. (1994). "Click and drag the test tube": A role for interactive

multimedia in human biology. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd

International Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp. 152-158), Perth: Curtin

University.

257

Gabriel, M. A., & McDonald, C. J. (1996). Preservice teacher education students and

computers: How does intervention affect attitudes? Journal of Technology and


Gess-Newsome, J., Blocher, J. M., Clark, J., Menasco, J., & Willis, E. M. (2003).

Technology-infused professional development: A framework for

development and analysis. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 3(3). Available:

http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss3/general/article2.cfm

Goldfayl, D. (1995). Affective and cognitive domain learning with multimedia: Two

sides of the same coin. In J. M. Pearce, & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

(ASCILITE'95) Conference, (pp. 226-231). Brisbane.

Gooley, A., Towers, S., & Dekkers, J. (1994). Meeting training and educational needs

using CD-ROM. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd International

Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp. 164-168), Perth: Curtin University.

Goss, H. (2002). OLT Business Plan 2002. Queensland University of Technology.

Grandgenett, N., Ziebarth, R., Koneck, J., Farnham, M. L., McQuillan, J., & Larson, B.

(1992). An investigation of the anticipated use of multimedia by pre-service

teachers. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 91-101.

Groves, M., & Zemel, P. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher

education: An action research case study. International Journal of

Instructional Media, 27(1), 57-61.

Gusky, T. R. (1988) . Teacher efficacy, self-concept and attitudes towards

implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,4,

63-69.

Haile, P. J., & Payne, A. (1999). Building Faculty confidence in multimedia instruction.

Journal of Computing in teacher Education, 15(2), 19-23.

258

Handler, M. C. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions

and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers Educ., 20(2), 147-156.

Hasselbring, T. S., Smith, L., Glaser, C., Barron, L., Risko, V. J., Snyder, C.,

Rakestraw, J., & Campbell, M. (2000). Literature review: Technology to

support teacher development. Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.

Hattler, J. E. (1999). Technology for preservice teachers: “Driver education” for the

Information Superhighway. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,

7(4), 323-332.

Heron, L. (1996). Knowledge workers or threatened species? A commentary.

Australian Universities’ Review, 39(1), 26-28.

Hesketh, B, Gosper, M, Andrews, J & Sabaz, M (1996). Computer-mediated

communication in university teaching. EIP Program, Higher Education

Division. Canberra: Government Printer.

Hochman, A., Maurer, M., & Roebuck, D. (1993). Buttons and cards and fields, oh my.

Tech Trends, 38(2), 25-28.

Hsi, S., & Agogino, A. M. (1994). The impact and instructional benefit of using

multimedia case studies to teach engineering design. Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(3/4), 351-376.

Huang, S. L. (1994). Prospective teachers' use and perception of the value of

technology. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and Teacher

Education Annual 1994 (pp. 61-66), Charlottesville, VA: Association for the


Issing, L. J. (1996). From instructional technology to multimedia didactics. Educational

Media International, 31(3), 171-182.

Iynkaran, K., & Crilly, A. (1994). Development and implementation of interactive

multimedia in tertiary education. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd

International Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp. 204-208), Perth: Curtin

University.

259

James, P., Clark, I., Hillis, R., & Peterson, R. (1995). Evaluation of interactive

multimedia in tertiary geoscience. In J. M. Pearce & A. Ellis (Eds.).

Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary

Education (ASCILITE'95) Conference, (pp. 209-213). Brisbane.

Jerald, C.D., & Orlofsky, G.F. (1999). Raising the bar on school technology.

Education Week, 19(4), 58-63.

Johnson-Gentile, K., Lonberger, R., Parana, J., & West, A. (2000). Preparing preservice

teachers for the technological classroom: A school-college partnership. Journal

of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 97-109

Kemp, J. E., & McBeath, R. J. (1994). Higher education: The time for systemic and

systematic changes. Educational Technology, May-June, 14-19.

Kenny, R. F., Covert, J., Schilz, M. A., Vignola, M. J., & Andrews, B. W. (1995).

Interactive multimedia instruction to develop reflective decision-making among

preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 3(2/3), 169-

188.

Kennedy, D. M. (1995). Students' prior knowledge: Implications for instructional design

of interactive multimedia. In J. M. Pearce & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

(ASCILITE'95) Conference, (pp. 288-296). Brisbane.

Kinslow,J., Newcombe, E., & Goss, M. (2002). Forming a cadre of learners.

Effective educational technology integration in a teacher education program.

Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 81-86.

Kline, F. (1994). Multimedia in teacher education: Coping with the human element. In

J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and Teacher Education

Annual, 1994. (pp. 759-763). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the


260

Kortecamp, K., & Croninger, W. (1994). Enhancing the integration of technology in

preservice teacher education through building a technology classroom. In J.

Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and Teacher Education

Annual, 1994. (pp. 203-207). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the


Kortecamp, K., & Croninger, W. R. (1996). Addressing barriers to technology

diffusion. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5(1/2),

Laszlo, A., & Castro, K. (1995). Technology and values: Interactive learning

environments for future generations. Educational Technology, March-April, 7-

13.

Lewis, J. H., & Hosie, P. J. (1994). Interactive video and interactive multimedia in

higher education in Singapore: A case study. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson

(Eds.), 2nd International Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp. 284-289),

Perth: Curtin University.

Loss, R., Zadnik, M., & Treagust, D. (1994). Teaching and learning abstract physical

science concepts in a computer-based multimedia environment. In C. McBeath

& R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd International Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp.

311-316), Perth: Curtin University.

Love, P. K., & Gosper, M. V. (1995). Developing interactive course materials: Using

HTML to integrate conventional and internet resources. In J. M. Pearce & A.

Ellis (Eds.). Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in

Tertiary Education (ASCILITE'95) Conference, (pp. 359-367). Brisbane.

Lueddeke, G.R. (1999). Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and

innovation in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 235-

260.

Lyons, V. J., & Carlson, R. D. (1995). Technology in teacher education - Faculty attitude,

knowledge and use. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.), Technology and

Teacher Education Annual 1995. (pp. 753-757). Charlottesville, VA: Association


261

Mackie, B.G., & Corbly, J.E. (1995). Recursive templates in multimedia presentations.

In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education

Annual 1995. (pp. 564-566). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the


Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of

Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 23-35.

Marginson, S., & Ramsden, P. (2000). Introduction. Journal of Higher Education

Policy and Management, 22 (1), 5-7.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Massy, W. F., & Zemsky, R. (1995) Using information technology to Enhance

Academic Productivity. Washington: Educom.

Matthew, K., Callaway, R., Letendre, C., Kimbell-Lopez, K., & Stephens, E. (2002).

Adoption of Information Communication Technology by teacher educators:

one-on-one coaching. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher

Education, 11(1), 45-62.

Mazzarol, T., & Hosie, P. (1996). Exporting Australian higher education: future

strategies in a maturing market. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(1), 37-50.

McCannon, M., & Crews, T. B. (2000). Assessing the technology training needs of

elementary school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher education,

8(2), 111-121.

McDonald, G., & Crotty, C. (2000). The digital future. Australian PC World,

February.

McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1995). Who is in control? Defining interactive learning

environments. In J. M. Pearce & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian

Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE'95)

Conference, (pp. 395-403). Brisbane.

262

McNaught, C. (1995). Overcoming fear of the unknown! Staff development issues for

promoting the use of computers in learning in tertiary education. In J. M. Pearce

& A. Ellis (Eds.). Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers in

Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE'95) Conference, (pp. 410-416).

Brisbane.

McRobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’

thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of

Technology and Design Education, 10, 81-101.

Media and Information Service. (1993). Multimedia. The issues and their impact on

government. Brisbane: Administrative Services Department.

Menard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research. Newbury Park: Sage.

Moran, L. (1995). National Policy Frameworks to Support the Integration of

Information Technologies into University Teaching/Learning. Report of a

Search Conference. Queensland: Department of Employment, Education and

Training.

Mueller, C.B., Jones, G., Ricks, D.A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Van Deusen, C.A.

(2001). Information and communication technology in the classroom: An

Empirical study with an international perspective. Journal of Teaching in

International Business, 12(3), 21-41.

Murphy, C. A. (1994). Five practical examples of software integration in university

level courses. In J. Willis, B. Robin and D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and

Teacher Education Annual, 1994. (pp. 138-140). Charlottesville, VA:


Nederhof, A.J. (1985). A comparison of European and North American response

patterns in mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 27, 55-63.

Newhouse, P. (1994). Opening the floodgates to computer saturation. In M. Ryan (Ed.),

Proceedings of Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education

Conference and Exhibition (APITITE'94), (pp. 329-335), Vol. 1, Brisbane.

263

Nielsen, J. (1995). Multimedia and Hypertext. The Internet and beyond. Boston: AP

Professional.

Nunan, T., George, R., & McCausland, H. (2000). Rethinking the ways in which

teaching and learning are supported: the Flexible Learning Centre at the

University of South Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and

Management, 22(1), 85-98.

Oliver, R. (2002). The role of ICT in higher education for the 21st century: ICT as a

change agent for education. Keynote address presented at International

Conference on Higher Education for the 21st Century, Miri, Sarawak.

Oliver, R. (2001). Assuring the quality of Online learning in Australian Higher

Education. In M. Wallace, A. Ellis & D. Newton (Eds). Proceedings of

Moving Online 11 Conference (pp. 222-231). Lismore, Southern Cross

University.

Oliver, R. (1994). Factors influencing beginning teachers’ uptake of computers. Journal

of Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 71-89.

Oliver, R. (1994a). Measuring learning outcomes using IMM systems. In C. McBeath &

R. Atkinson (Eds.), 2nd International Interactive Multimedia Symposium (pp.

377-382), Perth: Curtin University.

Olivier, T., & Buckley, J. (1994). Integrating theory and practice: Multimedia and

graduate teacher education. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.).

Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1994. (pp. 275-277).


Education.

Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of

interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development,

41(3), 63-85.

264

Pettenati, M. C., Giuli, D., & Abou Khaled, 0. (2001). Information technology and

staff development: issues and problems related to new skills and competence

acquisition. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 153-169.

Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: closing the gap

between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191-203.

Queensland University of Technology. (1995). Queensland University of Technology

Strategic Plan 1995 - 2000. Brisbane: QUT.

Queensland University of Technology. (1996) QUT Teaching and Learning

Development Grants 1992-1996. Division of Academic Affairs. Brisbane: QUT.

Queensland University of Technology. (1997). Queensland University of Technology

Strategic Plan 1997 - 2001. Available at

http://www.qut.edu.au/pubs/01gen/stratplan.html#anchor 2615

Queensland University of Technology Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Committee

(VCAC). (1998). QUT Policy on Flexible Delivery. Available at:

http://www.qut.edu.au/chan/odvc/797flxd.htm

Queensland University of Technology. (1998). QUT Policy on Flexible Delivery.

Available at http://www.qut.edu.au/chan/odvc/flexpol.htm

Queensland University of Technology. (1998). Faculty of Education 1998-2002

Strategic Plan. Available at

http://www.qut.edu.au/ltd/qut/chan/planbudg/facultie/edu/edustr98.htm

Queensland University of Technology. (2002). Faculty of Education – Information.

Available at http://education.qut.edu.au/faculty/about

Queensland University of Technology. (2002). Draft Teaching and Learning Plan

2003-2007. Context Statement. Brisbane: QUT

Ramsden, P., & Martin, E. (1996). Recognition of good teaching: Policies from an

Australian study. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 299-315.

265

Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E., & Clarke, S. (1995). Recognising and

Rewarding Good Teaching in Australian Higher Education. Committee for the

Advancement of University teaching.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and Conducting Survey Research. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rice, M. L., Wilson, E. K., & Bagley, W. (2001). Transforming learning with

technology: Lessons from the field. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 9(2), 211-230.

Ross, J.A., Hogaboam_Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers’

confidence in their ability to implement computer-based instruction. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 75-97.

Russell, G., Finger, G., & Russell, N. (2000). Information technology skills of

Australian teachers: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Information

Technology for Teacher Education, 9(2), 149-165.

Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff,C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with Technology:

Creating Student-Centred Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schrumm, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational

Technology, Research and Development, 47(4), 83-91.

Sikes, P. J. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In M. Fullan & A.

Hargreaves. Teacher Development and Educational Change. (pp. 36-55)

London: Falmer Press

Simpson, M. S. (1994). Neurophysiological considerations related to interactive

multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 75-81.

Sims, R., & Hedberg, J. (1995). Dimensions of learner control. A reappraisal for

interactive multimedia instruction. In J. M. Pearce & A. Ellis (Eds.),

Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary

Education (ASCILITE'95) Conference, (pp. 468-475). Brisbane.

266

Slaughter, B. C., & Knupp, B. E. (1995). Measuring preservice teacher's information

literacy skills. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and

Teacher Education Annual 1995. (pp. 294-296). Charlotteville, VA: Association


Smith, D. R. (1994). The implementation of technology in an elementary teacher

certification program. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and

Teacher Education Annual, 1994. (pp. 423-426). Charlottesville, VA:


Spender, D. (2002). What’s a good education? [on-line]. Available at

http://www.espc.com.au/dspender/pdf/goodEducation.pdf [Accessed October

2003)

Spotts, T.H. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology

in higher education. Educational Technology and Society, 2(4), 1-8.

Spotts, T. H., & Bowman, M. A. (1995). Faculty use of instructional technologies in

higher education. Educational Technology, March-April, 56-64.

Spotts, T. H., & Bowman, M. A. (1993). Increasing faculty use of instructional

technology: Barriers and incentives. EMI, 30(4), 199-204.

Stedman, L. (1995). Technology in teaching. Brisbane. Queensland University of

Technology.

Stein, M.K., & Wang, M.C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement:

The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.

Strudler, N. B., McKinney, M. O., Jones, W. P., & Quinn, L. F. (1999). First-year

teachers’ use of technology: Preparation, expectations and realities. Journal

of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 115-129.

Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education:

Factors affecting technology integration in preservice education programs.

Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 16-20.

267

Sullivan, G. (1995). Educational multimedia and Dewey's reconstruction of experience:

Practical considerations. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology

and Teacher Education Annual 1995. (pp. 526-530). Charlottesville, VA:


Surry, D.W. & Lend, S. M. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education

faculty to use technology. Innovations in Education and Training

International, 37(2), 145- 153.

Sweeters, W. (1994). Multimedia electronic tools for learning. Educational Technology,

May-June, 47-52.

Taylor, J.C. (2001). Fifth Generation Distance Education. Report no. 40.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs Higher Education

Series. Canberra.

Tinkler, D., Lepani, B., & Mitchell, J. (1996). Education and Technology Convergence.

Report No. 43. National Board of Employment, education and Training.

Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Thomas, J.A. & Cooper, S.B. (2000). Teaching technology: A new opportunity for

pioneers in teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,

17(1), 13-19.

Thompson, A., & Schmidt, D. (1994). A three-year plan to infuse technology

throughout a teacher education program: Year 3 update. In J. Willis, B. Robin &

D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1994. (pp. 358-

360). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in

Education.

Topp, N. W., Mortenson, R., & Grandgenett, N. (1995). Goal: Technology-using

teachers; Key: Technology-using education faculty. In J. Willis, B. Robin & D.

Willis. (Eds.). Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1995, (pp. 840-843).


Education.

268

Trevitt, C. (1994). Computer facilitated learning in forest fire management. In M. Ryan

(Ed.), Proceedings of APITITE'94 Asia Pacific Information Technology in

Training and Education Conference and Exhibition, (pp. 723-728). Vol. 2,

Brisbane. Australia.

Valmont, W. J., & Blanco, C. A. (1995). Technology activities: New ideas for teaching.

In J. Willis, B. Robin & D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and Teacher Education

Annual 1995. (pp. 571-574). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the


Vannatta, R. (2000). Evaluation to planning: Technology integration in a school of

Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 231-246.

Vannatta, R. (2000a). Integrating, infusing, modeling: Preparing technology-using

educators. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 16(2), 6-14.

Vannatta, R.A., & O’Bannon, B. (2002). Beginning to put the pieces together: A

technology infusion model for teacher education. Journal of Computing and


Waddick, J. (1995). Computers replacing lecturers: A case study in multimedia. In J. M.

Pearce and A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers

in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE'95) Conference, (pp. 523-528).

Brisbane.

Walker, T., & White, C. (2002). Technorealism: The rhetoric and reality of

technology in teacher Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 10(1), 63-74.

Weeks, P. (2000). Benchmarking in higher education: An Australian Case Study.

Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 59-68.

Wetzel, K. (1993). Teacher educators' uses of computers in teaching. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 1(4), 335-352.

Whetstone, L., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2001). Preparing preservice teachers to use

technology: survey results. TechTrends, 45(4), 11-19.

269

White, C. (1995). The place for technology in a constructivist teacher education

program. Technology and Teacher Education Annual. 290-292.

Wiersma, W. (1991). Research methods in education. (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Wild, M (1994). How to make it work: A study into the effectiveness of courses in

information technology for preservice education students. In M Ryan (ed.),

Proceedings of APITITE’94 Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training

and Education Conference and Exhibition, (pp.687-694), Vol. 1, Brisbane,

Australia.

Williams, C. (2002). Learning online: a review of recent literature in a rapidly

expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3), 263-272.

Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers

and ICT: current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 31(4), 306-320.

Willis, E.M., & Sujo de Montes, L. (2002). Does requiring a technology course in

preservice teacher education affect student teacher’s technology use in the

classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 76-80.

Willis, J., Willis, D. A., Austin, L., & Colon, B. (1995). Faculty perspectives on

instructional technology: A national survey. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D.

Willis. (Eds.). Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1995, (pp. 795-

800). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in

Education.

Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher

education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 47(4), 29-45. (CITED IN Brush et al - GET COPY)

Willis, E. M., & Tucker, G. R. (2001). Using Constructivism to teach Constructivism:

modeling hands-on technology integration in a preservice teacher technology

course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(2), 4-7.

270

Wong, R.E., & Smith, M.R. (1995). AV to Internet: Integration of technology in

education. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis. (Eds.). Technology and

Teacher Education Annual 1995, (pp. 398-400). Charlottesville, VA:


Wright, C. (2001). Children and technology: Issues, challenges and opportunities.

Childhood Education, 78(1), 37-41.

Yelland, N., Grieshaber, S., & Stokes, J. (2000). Technology in teacher education:

examples of integration and implementation in early childhood courses. Journal

of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(1), 95-108.

Zhao, Y., Byers, J., Mishra, P., Topper, A., Chen, H., Enfield, M., Ferdig, R., Frank, K.,

Pugh, K., & Tan, S. (2001). What do they know? A comprehensive portrait of

exemplary technology-using teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher

Education, 17(2), 24-36.

271

APPENDIX A

PHASE 1 (1997) ACADEMIC STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE

272

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE INFORMATION AGE SECTION A: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS BACKGROUND INFORMATION. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION BY PLACING A TICK IN THE CORRECT RESPONSE BOX. A1. What is your gender? Female [ ] Male [ ] A2. What is your main teaching area? Early Childhood [ ] Primary [ ] A3. How many years have you been teaching in higher education? 0-2 years [ ] 5-10 years [ ] 2-5 years [ ] 10+ years [ ] A4. Do you own a computer? Yes [ ] No[ ] A5. If you own a computer, does it have a CD-ROM drive? Yes[ ] No [ ] A6. If you own a computer, do you have a modem? Yes [ ] No [ ] SECTION B: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS INFORMATION ON A RANGE OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES DESCRIBED BELOW. PLEASE READ THESE DESCRIPTIONS AND THEN ANSWER EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. Computer-Assisted instruction (CAI) refers to basic, independent and self-paced computer-aided learning programs which are generally linear in format and do not feature sound or video. CAI is often used for exams and drill and practice exercises. Multimedia (as exemplified by CD-ROMS) is a relatively new computer-based technology. Multimedia programs which can be highly interactive in nature and feature combinations of text, sound, animation, video, and graphics. Multimedia/ CD-ROM computers do not necessarily have Internet access. Audiographics refers to the simultaneous use of telephones and computers to link people (for example, groups of students and teachers) at a distance. The Internet is an information source best known for the World-Wide-Web. You do not need a Multimedia/ CD-ROM computer to access the Internet but you do need to be 'on-line' or networked to a site. Electronic Mail or E-mail refers to the computerised communication system which enables people to receive and send messages via their computers.

273

B1. How would you rate your level of knowledge for each of the following computer-based technologies? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Not literate

Novice

Intermediate

Advanced

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B2. If you have any knowledge of these technologies, how was this knowledge developed? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column).

Technology

Self-taught

Help from Colleagues

Work-based training

Professional Training

other-please describe

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B3. How confident are you about using the following computer-based technologies in your teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Not at all Confident

Not Confident

Confident

Very Confident

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

274

B4. How difficult do you think the following computer-based technologies are to use? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Not at all Difficult

Not Difficult

Difficult

Very Difficult

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B5. How frequently do you use each of the following computer-based technologies in your teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology never

once a semester

monthly

Fort- nightly

weekly

daily

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B6. How frequently do you use each of the following computer-based technologies for academic activities other than teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology never

once a semester

monthly

Fort- nightly

weekly

daily

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B7. If you do make use of these computer-based technologies for teaching and non-teaching activities, please provide some examples of how they are used. Teaching:___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

275

Non-Teaching:______________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ B8. Do you anticipate any changes in how often you will use the following computer-based technologies for teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Decrease No Change Increase

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B9. Would you like to see any change in how often you use these computer-based technologies in your teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Less Use

No Change

More Use

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B10. Rank order the following five technologies according to how useful they are to your teaching. (Place a 1 beside the technology that you feel is the most useful to your teaching, 2 beside 2nd most useful technology and so on) RANK CAI [ ] Multimedia [ ] Audiographics [ ] Internet [ ] Electronic mail [ ] B11. How important do you think the following computer-based technologies are to the

276

delivery of university education? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Computer-based Technology

Not Important

Reasonably Important

Very Important

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

SECTION C: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNS THE USE OF COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES IN PRESERVICE EDUCATION. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS AS INDICATED. C1. How important do you feel it is for preservice teachers to be prepared in the use of a range of computer-based technologies? (CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel) Not Not Very Very Extremely Important Important Important Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 Why?______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ C2. Rank-order the following technologies according to how important you think they are to early childhood and primary teacher preparation. (Place 1 beside the technology that you feel is most important; 2 beside the technology that is second in importance, and so on) RANK CAI [ ] Multimedia [ ] Audiographics [ ] Internet [ ] Electronic mail [ ] C3. How well do you feel Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary Teaching) students at your university are prepared for using computer-based technologies in their

277

teaching? (CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel) Not Not very well Adequately Well Very well prepared prepared prepared prepared prepared 1 2 3 4 5 C4. Which do you think should be responsible for preparing preservice teachers to use computer-based technologies? (TICK the most appropriate response) 1. Schools [ ] 2. Universities [ ] 3. Both schools and universities [ ] SECTION D: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS INFORMATION ON A RANGE OF ISSUES RELATED TO COMPUTER-BASED MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS INDICATED. D1. Some claim that different forms of instruction offer certain advantages to students. Read the following statements (below left) about some of these advantages and TICK the option that you feel best matches each statement. For example, if you feel that lectures are more motivating than multimedia-delivered instruction, TICK in the column below 'Lecture'. If you feel they are similarly motivating, tick in the column below to 'Same'.

Traditional Lecture

Multimedia-delivered instruction

Same

Undecided

Offers flexible study options Offers more control

Is more interactive

Is more motivating

Is more interesting

Is more effective

Accommodates varied learning styles

Provides more feedback.

D2. What do you feel are the advantages of using computer-based multimedia technology in the delivery of higher education?

278

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ D3. What do you feel are the disadvantages of using computer-based multimedia technology in the delivery of higher education? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about the use of computer-based multimedia technology. CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel. D4. Equipment for using multimedia technology is readily available in my department. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D5. The use of multimedia in teaching can improve student learning. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D6. The use of multimedia in teaching can improve student interest. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D7. Multimedia technology would be easy to integrate into my subject. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D8. Examples of quality multimedia programs are readily available. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D9. Training in the use of multimedia technology is readily available where I work. Strongly Strongly

279

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D10. I have enough time to learn about using multimedia technology. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D11. Where I work technical advice and support is available for using multimedia technology. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D12. The use of multimedia technology in teaching is supported by my faculty. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D13. I feel comfortable about using multimedia technology in my teaching. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D14. The use of multimedia technology in teaching would contribute to my chances of promotion or tenure. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D15. Multimedia technology integration is necessary for universities to remain competitive. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D16. Multimedia technology should play a growing role in the delivery of university education. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D17. I feel pressured to use multimedia technology in my teaching. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D18. I feel that pressure to use multimedia technology would undermine my abilities as a teacher.

280

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D19. I am consulted about whether or not I want to use multimedia technology in my teaching. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 D20. To what extent would the following factors be incentives for using computer-based multimedia technology in teaching? (For each statement, place a TICK in the appropriate column)

FACTOR

No incentive

Moderate incentive

Significant incentive

Available equipment/resources

Evidence of improved learning

Evidence improved student interest

Easy to integrate into subject

Available quality materials

Availability of training

Time out to learn technology

Available technical advice/support

Support from faculty

Comfort with technology

Contribution to promotion/tenure

D21. Can you think of any other incentives to your use of computer-based multimedia technology in teaching? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

281

D22. To what extent are the following factors barriers to your use of computer-based multimedia technology? (For each statement, place a TICK in the appropriate column)

FACTOR

Not a barrier

Moderate barrier

Significant barrier

Lack of equipment/resources

No evidence of improved learning

No evidence improved student interest

Difficult to integrate into subject

Lack of quality materials

Lack of training options

No time to learn to use technology

Lack of technical advice/support

Lack of faculty support

Discomfort using technology

Doesn't contribute to promotion/tenure

D23. Can you think of any other barriers to your use of computer-based multimedia technology in teaching? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ SECTION E: THIS FINAL SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS CONCERNED WITH YOUR PERCEPTIONS OF SOME OF THE ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN IN YOUR WORKPLACE. PLEASE ANSWER EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. E1. Rank the following activities according to how you feel they are valued in your workplace. (Place 1 beside the activity that you feel is valued most. Place 2 beside the activity that is second in value, and 3 beside the activity that you feel is valued least) RANK Teaching [ ] Research [ ] Publishing [ ]

282

E2. Rank the following activities according to how you feel they should be valued in your workplace. (Place 1 beside the activity that you feel should be valued valued most. Place 2 beside the activity that should be second in value, and 3 beside the activity that you feel should be valued least) RANK Teaching [ ] Research [ ] Publishing [ ] Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. (For each statement, CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel) E3. Innovation in teaching deserves greater recognition. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 E4. Greater recognition for teaching would encourage me to use technology in teaching. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5

Thankyou for completing the questionnaire. Your time and effort is very much appreciated.

283

APPENDIX B

PHASE 1 (1997) GRADUATE TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

284

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE INFORMATION AGE SECTION A: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS BACKGROUND INFORMATION. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION BY PLACING A TICK IN THE CORRECT RESPONSE BOX WHERE APPROPRIATE, OR BY PROVIDING THE ANSWER. A1. What is your gender? Female [ ] Male [ ] A2. What was your age on your last birthday?______________________ A3. Please indicate your preservice training specialisation. Early Childhood [ ] Primary [ ] A4. How many months / years have you been teaching?________________________ A5. Do you own a computer? Yes[ ] No[ ] A6. If you own a computer, does it have a CD-ROM drive? Yes[ ] No[ ] A7. If you own a computer, do you also have a modem? Yes[ ] No[ ] SECTION B: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS INFORMATION ON A RANGE OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES IN YOUR WORK. DESCRIPTIONS OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE PROVIDED BELOW. PLEASE READ THE DESCRIPTIONS THEN RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. Computer-Assisted Instruction or CAI refers to basic, independent and self-paced computer-aided learning programs which are generally linear in format and do not feature sound or video. CAI is often used for exams and drill and practice exercises. Multimedia (as exemplified by CD-ROMS) is a relatively new computer-based technology. Multimedia programs which can be highly interactive and feature combinations of sound, animation, video, graphics and text. Multimedia/ CD-ROM computers do not necessarily have Internet access. Audiographics refers to the simultaneous use of telephones and computers to link people (for example, groups of students and teachers) at a distance. The Internet is an information source best known for the World-Wide-Web. You do not need a Multimedia/ CD-ROM computer to be able to access the Internet but you do need to be 'on-line' or networked to a site. Electronic Mail or E-mail refers to the computerised communication system which enables people to receive and send messages via their computers.

285

B1. How would you rate your knowledge of the following computer-based technologies? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology

Not Literate

Novice

Intermediate

Advanced

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B2. If you have any knowledge of these technologies, how was this knowledge developed? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology

Self-taught

Help from colleagues

Work-based training

Preservice Teacher Education

Other (please describe)

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B3. How confident are you about using the following computer-based technologies in your work? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Computer-based Technology

Not at all onfident

Not Confident

Confident Very Confident

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B4. How often do you use the following computer-based technologies in your

286

classroom teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology never once a semester monthly

fort-nightly weekly daily

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B5. How often do you use the following computer-based technologies in your work (not including classroom teaching)? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)



CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B6. If you use any of these computer-based technologies in your teaching and non-teaching activities, please provide some examples of how they are used. Teaching:___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Non-teaching: ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ B7. Do you anticipate any changes in how often you will use the following computer-based technologies for work? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

287

Technology Decrease

No change

Increase

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B8. Would you like to see any change in how often you use these computer-based technologies in your work? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Less use

No change

More use

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

B9. Rank-order the following computer-based technologies according to how useful you feel they are to your work. (Place 1 beside the technology that you feel is the most useful; 2 beside the second most useful technology and so on) RANK CAI [ ] Multimedia [ ] Audiographics [ ] Internet [ ] Electronic mail [ ] B10. In relation to multimedia technology, what do you feel are the advantages and disadvantages of using this technology in your work? Advantages: ________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Disadvantages: _____________________________________________________________

288

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ B11. Can you identify any existing or potential barriers to your use of multimedia technology for work? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ SECTION C: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RELATES TO YOUR RECENT EXPERIENCES WITH COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES AT UNIVERSITY. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. C1. How often did you encounter teaching staff using the following computer-based technologies in teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)



CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

C2. How often did you use the following computer-based technologies at university? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)



CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

C3. If you or teaching staff used these computer-based technologies, please provide some examples of how they were used.

289

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ C4. How important do you think the following computer-based technologies are to the delivery of university education in general? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Not important

Reasonably important

Very important

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

C5. Do you think there should be any change in how often the following computer-based technologies are used in university teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Less use

More use

No change

Undecided

CAI

Multimedia

Audiographics

Internet

Electronic Mail

C6. How important is it for preservice teachers to be prepared in the use of a range of computer-based technologies? (CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel) Not Not very Very Extremely Important Important Important Important Important 1 2 3 4 5 Why?______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ C7. Throughout your preservice education, what subjects did you study that focused on

290

the use of computer-based technologies in school teaching? (Please indicate whether these were core subjects or electives) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ C8. RANK-ORDER the following technologies according to how important you think they are to early childhood and primary teacher preparation. (Place 1 beside the technology that you feel is most important; 2 beside the technology that is second in importance, and so on) RANK CAI [ ] Multimedia [ ] Audiographics [ ] Internet [ ] Electronic mail [ ] C9. How well do you feel Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary teaching) students at QUT are prepared for using computer-based technologies in their teaching? (CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel) Not Not very well Adequately Well Very well prepared prepared prepared prepared prepared 1 2 3 4 5 C10. Which do you think should be responsible for preparing preservice teachers to use computer-based technologies? (TICK the most appropriate response) 1. Schools [ ] 2. Universities [ ] 3. Both schools and universities [ ] C11. Some claim that different forms of instruction offer certain advantages to students. Read the following statements (below left) about some of these advantages and TICK

291

the option that you feel best matches each statement. For example, if you feel that lectures are more motivating than multimedia-delivered instruction, TICK in the column below 'Lecture'. If you feel they are similarly motivating, tick in the column below to 'Same'.

Traditional Lecture

Multimedia-delivered instruction

Same

Undecided

Offers flexible study options Offers more control

Is more interactive

Is more motivating

Is more interesting

Is more effective

Accommodates varied learning styles

Provides more feedback.

C12. From a student perspective, what do you feel are the advantages (if any) of using multimedia technology in the delivery of university education? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ C13. From a student perspective, what do you feel are the disadvantages (if any) of using multimedia technology in the delivery of university education? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Your time and effort is very much appreciated.

292

APPENDIX C

PHASE 2 (2002) ACADEMIC STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE

293

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE INFORMATION AGE

SECTION A: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS BACKGROUND INFORMATION. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION BY PLACING A TICK IN THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE BOX. A1. What is your gender? Female [ ] Male [ ] A2. What is your main teaching area? Early Childhood [ ] Primary [ ] A3. How many years have you been teaching in higher education? 0-2 years [ ] 2-5 years [ ] 5-10 years [ ] 10+ years [ ] A4. Do you own a computer at home? Yes [ ] No [ ] A5. If you own a computer, does it have: a CD-ROM drive? Yes [ ] No [ ] a modem? Yes [ ] No [ ] SECTION B: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS INFORMATION ON A RANGE OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES DESCRIBED BELOW. PLEASE READ THESE DESCRIPTIONS AND THEN ANSWER EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. Multimedia (as exemplified by CD-ROMS) refers to programs that can be highly interactive in nature and feature combinations of text, sound, animation, video, and graphics. Multimedia/CD-ROM computers do not necessarily have Internet access. Audio or Videoconferencing refers to the simultaneous use of telephones, videos and computers to link people (for example, groups of students and teachers) at a distance. The Internet is an information source best known for the World-Wide-Web. You do not need a Multimedia/ CD-ROM computer to access the Internet but you do need to be 'on-line' or networked to a site. E-mail refers to the computerised communication system that enables people to receive and send messages via their computers. OLT refers to unit specific lecture notes and resources available through QUT’s online system. B1. How would you rate your level of knowledge for each of the following technologies? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Not literate

Novice

Intermediate

Advanced

Multimedia Audio/ videoconferencing

Internet

Email

OLT

294


Technology

Self-taught


Work-based training

Professional training

other-please comment


Internet

Email

OLT B3. In relation to work-based training, how would you prefer to learn about incorporating technologies in your teaching? (Please RANK-ORDER the following options by placing a 1 beside the most desirable option, 2 beside the 2nd most desirable option and so on) Group workshops [ ] On-line tutorials [ ] Faculty colleague mentor program [ ] Faculty technology coordinator [ ] B4. How confident are you about using the following technologies in your teaching activities? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology

Not at all confident

Not confident

Confident

Very confident


Internet

Email

OLT B5. How frequently do you use each of the following technologies in your teaching?

Technology never

once a semester monthly



Internet

Email

OLT

295

B6. How frequently do you use each of the following technologies in your other academic activities? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology

never

once a semester monthly

fort-nightly

weekly

daily


Internet

Email

OLT

B7. Please provide some examples of how you make use of these technologies for teaching and other academic activities. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ B8. Would you like to make more use, less use or see any change in how often you use these technologies in your teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Less use

No change

More use

Multimedia

Audio/videoconferencing

Internet

Email

OLT

B9. In the last 3 years, what impact have computer-based technologies had on your work? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

296

SECTION C: THIS SECTION CONCERNS THE USE OF COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES IN PRESERVICE EDUCATION. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS AS INDICATED. C1. Rank-order the following technologies according to how important you think they are to early childhood and primary teacher preparation. (Place 1 beside the technology that you feel is most important; 2 beside the technology that is second in importance, and so on) Multimedia [ ] Audio/videoconferencing [ ] Internet [ ] Email [ ] C2. How well do you feel Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary Teaching) students at your university are prepared for using computer-based technologies in their teaching? (CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel) Not Not very well Adequately Well Very well prepared prepared prepared prepared prepared 1 2 3 4 5 C3. How do you think this preparation could be improved? Please comment. ____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ SECTION D: WITH REGARD TO COMPUTER-BASED MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS INDICATED. D1. If you wanted to use computer-based multimedia in your teaching, to what extent would the following factors be incentives? (For each statement, place a TICK in the appropriate column)

FACTOR

No incentive

Moderate incentive

Significant incentive

Available equipment/resources

Evidence of improved learning

Evidence improved student interest

Easy to integrate into subject

Available quality materials

Availability of training

Time out to learn technology

Available technical advice/support

Support from faculty

Comfort with technology

Contribution to promotion/tenure

297

D2. If you wanted to use computer-based multimedia in your teaching, to what extent would the following factors be barriers? (For each statement, place a TICK in the appropriate column)

FACTOR

Not a barrier

Moderate barrier

Significant barrier

Lack of equipment/resources

No evidence of improved learning

No evidence improved student interest

Difficult to integrate into subject

Lack of quality materials

Lack of training options

No time to learn to use technology

Lack of technical advice/support

Lack of faculty support

Discomfort using technology

Doesn't contribute to promotion/tenure

D3. Can you think of any other incentives or barriers to your use of computer-based multimedia technology in teaching? Incentives: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Barriers ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

298

SECTION E: THIS FINAL SECTION IS ABOUT YOUR PERCEPTIONS OF SOME OF THE ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN IN YOUR WORKPLACE. PLEASE ANSWER EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. E1. Rank the following activities according to how you feel they are valued in your workplace. (Place 1 beside the activity that you feel is valued most, 2 beside the activity that is second in value and 3 beside the activity that you feel is valued least) Teaching [ ] Research [ ] Publishing [ ] E2. Rank the following activities according to how you feel they should be valued in your workplace. (Place 1 beside the activity that you feel should be valued most, 2 beside the activity that should be second in value and 3 beside the activity that you feel should be valued least) Teaching [ ] Research [ ] Publishing [ ] Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statement. (CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel) E3. Greater recognition for teaching would encourage me to use technology in teaching. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5

______________________________________________

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Your time and effort is much appreciated.

299

APPENDIX D

PHASE 2 (2002) GRADUATE TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

300

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE INFORMATION AGE

SECTION A: THIS SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKS BACKGROUND INFORMATION. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION BY PLACING A TICK IN THE CORRECT RESPONSE BOX WHERE APPROPRIATE, OR BY PROVIDING THE ANSWER. A1. What is your gender? Female [ ] Male [ ] A2. What was your age on your last birthday? ______________________ A3. What is your preservice training specialisation? Early Childhood [ ] Primary [ ]

A4. What age group of children are you currently teaching? ______________________ A5. How many months / years have you been teaching? _______________________ A6. Do you own a computer? Yes [ ] No [ ] A7. If you own a computer, does it have: a) CD-ROM drive? Yes [ ] No [ ] b) a modem? Yes [ ] No [ ] SECTION B: THIS SECTION SEEKS INFORMATION ON A RANGE OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE USE OF COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES IN YOUR WORK. DESCRIPTIONS OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE PROVIDED BELOW. PLEASE READ THE DESCRIPTIONS THEN RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. Multimedia (as exemplified by CD-ROMS). Multimedia programs can be highly interactive and feature combinations of sound, animation, video, graphics and text. Multimedia/ CD-ROM/DVD computers do not necessarily have Internet access. Audio or Videoconferencing refers to the simultaneous use of telephones, computers and/or video to link people (for example, groups of students and teachers) at a distance. The Internet is an information source best known for the World-Wide-Web. You do not need a Multimedia/ CD-ROM computer to be able to access the Internet but you do need to be 'on-line' or networked to a site. E-mail refers to the computerised communication system that enables people to receive and send messages via a computer. OLT Units: These are unit-specific lecture notes and resources available through QUT’s online teaching and learning system.

301

B1. How would you rate your knowledge of the following technologies? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology

Not Literate

Novice

Intermediate

Advanced

Multimedia Audio/ Videoconferencing

Internet

Email


Technology

Self-taught


Work-based training

Preservice Teacher Education

Other (please describe)

Multimedia Audio/ Videoconferencing

Internet

Email

B3. How confident are you about using the following technologies in your classroom teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology

Not at all confident

Not confident Confident Very confident


Internet

Email

B4. How often do you use the following technologies in your classroom teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)




Internet

Email

302

B5. Do you anticipate any changes in how often you will use the following technologies in your teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)

Technology Less use

No change

More use

Multimedia

Audio/Videoconferencing

Internet

Email

B6. Please indicate (by ticking the appropriate boxes) the computer activities that you and the children in your class/group engage in: Get information from a CD-ROM [ ] Get information from Internet/web [ ] Use computerised library catalogue [ ] Create graphs or diagrams [ ] Use spreadsheets & databases [ ] Creative writing [ ] Create pictures [ ] Make music or sound [ ] Send and receive email [ ] Communicate with other schools [ ] Take part in an online chat group [ ] Take part in a video conference [ ] Use an educational program or game to help children learn [ ] B7. At your centre/school are opportunities for training in the use of technologies available? Yes [ ] No [ ] Please describe any types of training made available: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ B8. If you have participated in any such training were you satisfied with it? Yes [ ] No [ ] Please comment: ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

303

B9. In what area/s would you most like to be trained in? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ B10. Which of the following factors, if any, are barriers to your use of computer-based technologies in your teaching? (Please tick those which represent barriers) Lack of equipment/resources [ ] Difficult to integrate into curriculum [ ] No evidence of improved child learning [ ] No evidence of improved child interest [ ] Lack of quality teaching materials [ ] Lack of training options [ ] No time to learn to use technology [ ] Lack technical advice/support [ ] Lack of school/centre support [ ] Discomfort using technology [ ] Can you think of any other barriers? (Please comment) ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ SECTION C: THIS SECTION RELATES TO YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES WHEN YOU ATTENDED UNIVERSITY. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION AS INDICATED. C1. How often did teaching staff use the following technologies in teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)



Multimedia

Audio/ videoconferencing

Internet

Email

304

C2. How often did you use the following technologies at university? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column)



Multimedia

Audio/ videoconferencing

Internet

Email

C3. When you were at university, how did you or teaching staff use these technologies? (please provide some examples of how they were used) __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ C4. Do you think there should be any change in how often the following technologies are used in university teaching? (Place a TICK in the appropriate column).

Technology

Less use No change

More use

Multimedia

Audio/videoconferencing

Internet

Email

C4. RANK-order the following technologies according to how important you think they are to early childhood and primary teacher preparation (Place 1 beside the technology that you feel is most important; 2 beside the technology that is second in importance, and so on) Multimedia [ ] Teleconferencing [ ] Internet [ ] Email [ ]

305

C5. How well do you feel Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary teaching) students at QUT are prepared for using computer-based technologies in their teaching? (CIRCLE the number that best represents how you feel). Not Not very well Adequately Well Very well prepared prepared prepared prepared prepared 1 2 3 4 5 C6. How do you think this preparation could be improved? (Please comment) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Your time and effort is much appreciated.

306

APPENDIX E

TABLES OF ACADEMIC STAFF FINDINGS

E.1 Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002

E.2 Source of Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002

E.3 Difficulty Using Technologies in Teaching: 1997

E.4 Confidence Using Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

E.5 Frequency of Technology Use in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

E.6 Frequency of Technology Use in Non-Teaching: 1997 and 2002

E.7 Importance of Technologies to Higher Education: 1997

E.8 Rankings for Usefulness of Technologies to Teaching: 1997

E.9 Anticipated Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1997

E.10 Preferred Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

E.11 Importance of Technologies to Teacher Preparation (rankings of 1): 1997 and

2002

307

Table E.1 Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Not literate Novice Intermediate Advanced __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 30% (13) - - 28% (12) - - 23% (10) - - 14% (6) - Multimedia 28% (12) 10% (4) 30% (13) 33% (13) 30% (13) 45% (18) 12% (5) 13% (5) Conferencing technologies 51% (22) 20% (8) 26% (11) 30% (12) 21% (9) 43% (17) 2% (1) 8% (3) Internet 2% (1) 0% (0) 26% (11) 8% (3) 44% (19) 45% (18) 28% (12) 48% (19) Email 0% (0) 0% (0) 9% (4) 3% (1) 49% (21) 35% (14) 42% (18) 63% (15) OLT - - 8% (3) - - 18% (7) - - 45% (18) - - 30% (12) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 43, 2002 n = 40 Table E.2 Source of Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Self-taught Help from colleagues Work-based training Professional training Other ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 42% (18) - - 19% (8) - - 2% (1) - - 7% (3) - 7% (3) - Multimedia 49% (21) 58% (23) 26% (11) 38% (15) 5% (2) 10% (4) 5% (2) 5% (2) 9% (4) 0% (0) Conferencing technologies 26% (11) 25% (10) 26% (11) 43% (17) 9% (4) 20% (8) 5% (2) 0% (0) 2% (1) 0% (0) Internet 44% (19) 80% (32) 44% (19) 38% (15) 30% (13) 13% (5) 7% (3) 0% (0) 5% (2) 5% (2) Email 51% (22) 78% (31) 51% (22) 38% (15) 33% (14) 10% (4) 7% (3) 0% (0) 2% (1) 3% (1) OLT - - 38% (15) - - 55% (22) - - 50% (20) - - 3% (1) - - 3% (1) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 42-43, 2002 n = 40

308

Table E.3 Difficulty Using Technologies in Teaching: 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Not at all Difficult Not Difficult Difficult Very Difficult ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 16% (7) 49% (21) 21% (9) 7% (3) Multimedia 14% (6) 54% (23) 19% (8) 7% (3) Audiographics 5% (2) 47% (20) 33% (14) 7% (3) Internet 16% (7) 65% (28) 12% (5) 2% (1) Email 21% (9) 70% (30) 5% (2) 2% (1) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 39-42 Table E.4 Confidence Using Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Not at all confident Not confident Confident Very confident __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 30% (13) - 28% (12) - 16% (7) - 21% (9) - Multimedia 23% (10) 13% (5) 28% (12) 20% (8) 30% (13) 43% (17) 19% (8) 23% (9) Conferencing technologies 33% (14) 15% (6) 40% (17) 33% (13) 19% (8) 38% (15) 5% (2) 8% (3) Internet 14% (10) 3% (1) 35% (15) 3% (1) 26% (11) 55% (22) 26% (11) 38% (15) Email 5% (6) 3% (1) 21% (9) 0% (0) 33% (14) 38% (15) 42% (18) 58% (23) OLT - - 5% (2) - - 8% (3) - - 45% (18) - - 40% (16) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 41-43, 2002 n = 37-39

309

Table E.5 Frequency of Technology Use in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Daily-weekly Fortnightly-monthly Once per semester Never __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 5% (2) - - 5% (2) - 16% (7) - 72% (31) - Multimedia 21% (9) 25% (10) 12% (5) 15% (6) 9% (4) 30% (12) 56% (24) 25% (10) Conferencing technologies 2% (1) 3% (1) 9% (4) 13% (5) 9% (4) 33% (13) 77% (33) 48% (19) Internet 28% (12) 55% (22) 9% (4) 20% (8) 7% (3) 15% (6) 56% (24) 5% (2) Email 40% (17) 83% (33) 9% (4) 10% (4) 5% (2) 0% (0) 44% (19) 5% (2) OLT - - 60% (24) - - 15% (6) - - 13% (5) 0% (0) 5% (2) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 42-43, 2002 n = 37-39 Table E.6 Frequency of Technology Use in Non-Teaching: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Daily-weekly Fortnightly-monthly Once per semester Never __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 6% (3) - - 2% (1) - 9% (4) - - 79% (34) - Multimedia 21% (9) 28% (11) 5% (2) 23% (9) 21% (9) 20% (8) 53% (23) 25% (10) Conferencing technologies 5% (2) 3% (1) 0% (0) 13% (5) 14% (6) 30% (12) 77% (33) 50% (20) Internet 79% (34) 90% (36) 14% (6) 5% (2) 2% (1) 0% (0) 5% (2) 5% (2) Email 91% (39) 98% (39) 7% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (1) 3% (1) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 42-43, 2002 n = 37-39

310

Table E.7 Importance of Technologies to Higher Education: 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Level of Importance __________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Not important Reasonably important Very important ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 23% (10) 54% (23) 19% (8) Multimedia 5% (2) 58% (25) 35% (15) Audiographics 7% (3) 56% (24) 33% (14) Internet 2% (1) 33% (14) 65% (28) Email 5% (2) 28% (12) 67% (29) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n = 41-43 Table E.8 Rankings for Usefulness of Technologies to Teaching: 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ranking

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 5% (2) 7% (2) 9% (4) 19% (8) 44% (19) Multimedia 26% (11) 7% (2) 37% (16) 19% (8) 0% (0) Audiographics 7% (3) 19% (8) 14% (6) 23% (10) 23% (10) Internet 28% (12) 30% (23) 16% (7) 14% (6) 2% (1) Email 30% (13) 26% (11) 12% (5) 9% (4) 12% (5) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n = 35-39

311

Table E.9 Anticipated Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Technology Less use No change More use ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 5% (2) 63% (27) 30% (13) Multimedia 0% (0) 47% (20) 49% (21) Audiographics 2% (1) 58% (25) 37% (16) Internet 0% (0) 37% (16) 63% (27) Email 0% (0) 42% (18) 56% (24) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n = 41-43 Table E.10 Preferred Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Technology Less Use No Change More Use __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 5% (2) - 51% (22) - 44% (19) - Multimedia 0% (0) 0% (0) 26% (11) 43% (17) 74% (32) 55% (22) Conferencing technologies 0% (0) 5% (2) 42% (18) 45% (18) 58% (24) 45% (18) Internet 0% (0) 3% (1) 23% (10) 60% (24) 70% (30) 35% (14) Email 5% (2) 10% (4) 26% (11) 73% (29) 63% (27) 15% (6) OLT - - 0% (0) - - 45% (18) - - 53% (21) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 40-43, 2002 n = 38-39

312

Table E.11 Importance of Technologies to Teacher Preparation (rankings of 1): 1997 and 2002 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Technology 1997 2002

_____________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 0% (0) - Multimedia 28% (12) 23% (9) Conferencing technologies 2% (1) 5% (2) Internet 44% (19) 53% (21) Email 16% (7) 28% (11) _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 38-39, 2002 n = 39-40

313

APPENDIX F

TABLES OF GRADUATE TEACHER FINDINGS

F.1 Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002

F.1 Source of Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002

F.3 Confidence Using Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

F.4 Frequency of Technology Use in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

F.5 Frequency of Technology Use in Other Work: 1997

F.6 Ranking of Technologies According to Usefulness to Work: 1997 and 2002

F.7 Anticipated Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

F.8 Preferred Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002

F.9 Frequency of Technology Use by Academic Staff: 1997 and 2002

F.10 Frequency of Technology Use by Self at University: 1997 and 2002

F.11 Importance of Technologies to Higher Education: 1997 and 2002

F.12 Preferred Change in use of Technologies in Higher Education: 1997 and 2002

F.12 Importance of Technologies to Teacher Preparation (rankings of 1): 1997 and

2002

thompsdc

This page intentionally left blank.

315

Table F. 1 Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Not literate Novice Intermediate Advanced __________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 15% (11) - 29% (21) - 43% (31) - 12% (9) - Multimedia 15% (11) 4% (5) 18% (13) 29% (36) 53% (38) 43% (53) 14% (10) 19% (23) Conferencing technologies 60% (43) 40% (49) 25% (18) 39% (48) 14% (10) 14% (17) 1% (1) 2% (3) The Internet 26% (19) 0% (0) 38% (27) 7% (8) 29% (21) 51% (63) 7% (5) 37% (46) Email 29% (21) 0% (0) 29% (21) 4% (5) 39% (28) 51% (63) 3% (2) 40% (49) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 72, 2002 n = 117 Table F.2 Source of Knowledge of Technologies: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Self-taught Help from colleagues Inservice course Preservice Education __________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 51% (37) - 19% (14) - 6% (4) - 10% (7) - Multimedia 51% (37) 53% (65) 24% (17) 22% (27) 14% (10) 14% (17) 4% (3) 29% (36) Conferencing technologies 19% (14) 21% (26) 18% (13) 23% (28) 6% (4) 7% (9) 8% (6) 17% (21) Internet 38% (27) 63% (77) 28% (20) 27% (33) 13% (9) 8% (10) 3% (2) 34% (42) Email 35% (25) 63% (77) 25% (18) 27% (33) 4% (5) 7% (9) 18% (13) 33% (40) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 67-71, 2002 n = 114-117

316

Table F.3 Confidence Using Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Not at all Confident Not Confident Confident Very Confident

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 10% (7) - 24% (17) - 50% (36) - 17% (12) - Multimedia 11% (8) 4% (5) 19% (14) 17% (21) 54% (39) 42% (52) 15% (11) 31% (38) Conferencing technologies 39% (28) 34% (42) 35% (25) 38% (47) 24% (17) 18% (22) 1% (1) 4% (5) Internet 19% (14) 1% (1) 31% (22) 6% (7) 40% (29) 41% (50) 8% (6) 46% (57) Email 24% (17) 1% (1) 33% (24) 4% (5) 35% (25) 41% (50) 7% (5) 48% (59) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 71-72, 2002 n = 114-116 Table F.4 Frequency of Technology Use in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Daily-Weekly Fortnightly-Monthly Once per Semester Never __________________________________________________________________________________________

1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 36% (25) - 15% (11) - 15% (11) - 31% (22) - Multimedia 49% (35) 50% (62) 17% (12) 18% (22) 7% (5) 9% (11) 28% (20) 15% (18) Conferencing technologies 3% (3) 6% (7) 7% (5) 4% (5) 4% (3) 9% (11) 83% (60) 73% (90) Internet 18% (13) 36% (34) 14% (10) 16% (20) 10% (7) 17% (21) 57% (41) 22% (27) Email 10% (7) 36% (32) 6% (4) 15% (19) 7% (5) 18% (23) 76% (55) 32% (39) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 71-72, 2002 n = 112-113

317

Table F. 5 Frequency of Technology Use in Other Work: 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Technology Daily-Weekly Fortnightly-Monthly Once per Semester Never ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 28% (20) 18% (13) 13% (9) 40% (29) Multimedia 30% (22) 23% (16) 7% (5) 40% (29) Conferencing technologies 8% (6) 4% (3) 8% (6) 78% (56) Internet 22% (16) 18% (13) 7% (5) 52% (37) Email 21% (14) 12% (8) 7% (5) 60% (43) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n = 71-72 Table F. 6 Rankings of Technologies According to Usefulness to Work: 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rank ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

__________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 17% (12) 15% (11) 22% (16) 15% (11) 25% (18) Multimedia 53% (38) 33% (24) 7% (5) 3% (2) 0% (0) Audiographics 1% (1) 6% (4) 19% (14) 33% (24) 35% (25) Internet 25% (18) 39% (28) 21% (15) 11% (8) 1% (1) Email 6% (4) 7% (5) 25% (18) 29% (21) 28% (20) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n = 68-70

318

Table F.7 Anticipated Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Less use No Change More use

1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 7% (5) - 49% (35) - 43% (31) - Multimedia 0% (0) 1% (1) 27% (20) 44% (54) 71% (51) 47% (58) Conferencing technologies 0% (0) 2% (2) 56% (40) 59% (73) 43% (31) 30% (37) Internet 0% (0) 2% (2) 29% (21) 33% (40) 69% (50) 59% (72) Email 0% (0) 2% (2) 39% (28) 34% (42) 58% (42) 57% (70) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 70-71, 2002 n = 112-114 Table F. 8 Preferred Future Use of Technologies in Teaching: 1977 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Less use No Change More use ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 4% (3) 38% (27) 58% (42) Multimedia 1% (1) 8% (6) 90% (65) Audiographics 1% (1) 32% (23) 67% (48) Internet 1% (1) 10% (7) 89% (64) Email 1% (1) 24% (17) 75% (54) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n = 72

319

Table F. 9 Frequency of Technology Use by Academic Staff: 1997 and 2002 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Daily-Weekly Fortnightly-Monthly Once per Semester Never __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 15% (11) - 14% (10) - 17% (12) - 53% (38) - Multimedia 17% (12) 56% (69) 10% (7) 23% (28) 24% (17) 15% (18) 50% (36) 6% (7) Conferencing technologies 8% (6) 17% (21) 1% (1) 11% (13) 17% (12) 25% (31) 74% (53) 46% (57) Internet 7% (5) 47% (58) 10% (7) 26% (32) 19% (14) 15% (18) 64% (46) 11% (14) Email 17% (12) 53% (65) 13% (9) 16% (20) 22% (16) 15% (18) 47% (34) 15% (18) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 71-72, 2002 n = 122-123 Table F. 10 Frequency of Technology Use by Self at University: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Daily-Weekly Fortnightly-Monthly Once per Semester Never __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 15% (11) - 15% (11) - 19% (14) - 49% (35) - Multimedia 8% (6) 30% (37) 13% (9) 29% (36) 28% (20) 24% (29) 50% (36) 16% (20) Conferencing technologies 4% (3) 7% (9) 0% (0) 3% (4) 15% (11) 13% (16) 79% (57) 76% (93) Internet 7% (5) 81% (100) 17% (12) 15% (18) 18% (13) 4% (5) 57% (41) 0% (0) Email 13% (9) 82% (101) 13% (9) 12% (15) 22% (22) 3% (4) 51% (37) 2% (3) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 71, 2002 n = 122-123

320

Table F. 11 Importance of Technologies to Higher Education: 1997 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Not Important Reasonably Important Very Important ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 21% (15) 35% (25) 44% (32) Multimedia 6% (4) 32% (23) 63% (45) Audiographics 15% (11) 44% (32) 38% (27) Internet 4% (3) 26% (19) 68% (49) Email 13% (9) 31% (22) 56% (40) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n = 70-72 Table F. 12 Preferred Change in Use of Technologies in Higher Education: 1997 and 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Technology Less use No Change More use Undecided __________________________________________________________________________________________

1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 2002 1997 - 2002 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 3% (2) - 25% (18) - 63% (45) - 8% (6) - Multimedia 0% (0) 0% (0) 4% (3) 36% (44) 92% (66) 64% (79) 4% (3) - Conferencing technologies 1% (1) 2% (2) 13% (9) 22% (27) 72% (52) 76% (93) 11% (8) - Internet 1% (1) 1% (1) 4% (3) 56% (69) 90% (65) 43% (53) 3% (2) - Email 3% (2) 0% (0) 10% (7) 56% (69) 82% (59) 44% (54) 4% (3) - ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 72, 2002 n = 122-123

321

Table F. 13 Importance of Technologies to Teacher Preparation (rankings of 1): 1997 and 2002 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Technology 1997 n = 71 2002 n = 123 ___________________________________________________________________________________ CAI 18% (13) - - Multimedia 50% (36) 54% (66) Conferencing technologies 1% (1) 0% (0) Internet 28% (20) 37% (45) Email 3% (2) 9% (11) ___________________________________________________________________________________ 1997 n = 72, 2002 n = 122

Multimedia: Perceptions and Use in Preservice Teacher...

Documents

Transcript of Multimedia: Perceptions and Use in Preservice Teacher...