Adopting Web 2 . 0 for Instruction : The Effects of Faculty Rank and Employment Status

Faculty resistance to technology adoption for instruction has been a persistent and pervasive issue in higher education. Many previous studies have examined psycho-social factors of the slow pace or absence of technology adoption for instruction. This research study aims to examine the impact of faculty status (employment rank and %FTE) on their interest in learning about Web 2.0 technologies (blogs and podcasts) for instruction. It was found that part-time and non-tenured instructors are more interested in consuming and producing Web 2.0 applications than their full-time and tenure counterparts. However, many institutions restrict training and professional development for their full-time faculty, partly due to tightening budgets. This study shows that part-time faculty are early adopters and their failure due to lack of support might have negative impacts on late adopters. Thus, institutions should rethink the existing strategy of guiding technology adoption. Technology adoption and employment status 3 Adopting Web 2.0 for Instruction: The Effects of Faculty Rank and Employment Status Faculty resistance to technology adoption for instruction has been a persistent and pervasive issue in higher education. Although approximately 80% of public 4-year colleges have installed and configured course management tools for their faculty members, a 2002 review showed that professors use these resources in only 20% of their courses (Lynch Altschuler & McClure, 2002). As a matter of fact, this phenomenon occurs not only in 4-year public colleges; rather, it is widespread across all US institutions (Moser, 2007). An instructional technologist expressed his frustration with the slow rate of adoption by saying, “The pace of academe is perhaps best measured by the 25 years it took to get the overhead projectors out of the blowing alley and into the classroom” (Gilbert & Green, 1997, p.3; cited in Beggs, 2000). This problem has been intensified with the advance of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is a trend in World Wide Web technology, a second generation of web-based communities and hosted services that aim to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing among users (i.e. blogs, wikis, podcasts, and social networking sites). To remediate the problem, institutions employing new educational technologies must make them accessible to encourage faculty adoption. New technologies take time to be introduced, taught, and implemented, and it is important that faculty members are comfortable with this process. Further, new technologies should not be implemented at a rate faster than faculty can effectively adopt them. By considering potential problems with technological innovation from the faculty member’s perspective, universities will be better able to employ new technologies while maintaining faculty interest. Without faculty support and interest in Technology adoption and employment status 4 using new technologies, investments in the new tools may not lead to anticipated teaching practices and learning outcomes Also, if faculty members do not embrace innovative instructional technologies, many students may report being less satisfied with their learning experiences. Prensky (2001) refers to tech-savvy students as “digital natives” who reside in the world of digital technology. Specifically, they participate in social networks, social bookmarking, blogging, and many other Web-based activities. A discrepancy between faculty and students use of Web 2.0 exists. Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) asserted that faculty perceived Web 2.0 as an undesired interruption of the existing process. On the other hand, students were more supportive to Web 2.0 technologies because their level of comfort with Web 2.0 was high. Slow adoption of Web 2.0 by faculty could eventually lead to loss of communication between faculty and students. It is expected that not all faculty will support the integration of Web 2.0 technologies similarly. Faculty on the tenure track, who work full-time, may have competing responsibilities. An innovation is more likely to be adopted when it is compatible with the job responsibility and value system of the potential adopter (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Traditionally, faculty advance their careers by publishing articles in peer-review journals, making presentations in scholarly conferences, and obtaining grants from funding agencies. Technology adoption for instruction, to most professors, is not a priority. One might argue that student evaluation plays a significant role in their promotion and thus teaching enhancement by technology should be highly relevant. However, as mentioned before, many faculty members might feel that use of Web 2.0 requires an undesired change in their current teaching processes and thus is detrimental to their teaching (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008). Not surprisingly, these faculty members may find it difficult to make time to learn new instructional technologies and Technology adoption and employment status 5 may focus their attention instead on research and service. In contrast, part-time, non-tenure track faculty members are hired to teach; therefore, they may be more eager to adopt new technologies aimed at engaging students. This research study aims to examine the impact of faculty status (employment rank and %FTE) on their interest in learning about Web 2.0 technologies (blogs and podcasts) for instruction. Theoretical framework According to Hall’s (1979) Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM), teachers play a crucial role in bringing technology into educational applications. However, unlike a top-down approach initiated by administrators, the adoption process is gradual and must concentrate on teachers' concerns. Specifically, the adoption process can be broken down into six stages, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. The model of stages of concern. Stage Name Description of Concerns 0 Awareness Teachers have little awareness of a particular innovation. 1 Informational Teachers have general or vague awareness of an innovation. Teachers may begin some information seeking to gain additional knowledge about the innovation. 2 Personal Teachers’ concerns are about the personal costs of implementing an innovation. 3 Management Teachers’ concerns will focus around how to integrate the logistics of a particular innovation into their daily job. 4 Consequence Teachers’ concerns are primarily on the impact of the innovation on their students. 5 Collaboration Teachers begin to have concerns about how they compare to their peers, and how they can work with their fellow teachers on an innovation. 6 Refocusing Teachers’ concerns are how to better implement an innovation. Hall's model stresses the important fact that faculty members cannot fully embrace a Technology adoption and employment status 6 new technology all at once. In a follow-up study, Hall and Hord (1987) suggested three to five year implementation times for innovation. Further, the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) project sponsored by Apple Computer Inc. developed a simpler model of technology implementation than Hall’s (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991). The ACOT model is comprised of only five stages, as shown in Table 2: Table 2. Apple Computer in the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow’s model. Stage Name Description 1 Entry Instructors struggle to cope with and establish order in the transformed classroom. 2 Adoption The beginning of adoption into the traditional classroom. 3 Adaptation While traditional teaching methods still predominate, but now supported with technology. 4 Appropriation With increasing confidence teachers become confident and pedagogically innovative. 5 Invention Creativity including active experimentation by teaches and students. In addition to Halls’ model and ACOT’s model, there are many other conceptual frameworks describing different stages of technology adoption in education. Farquhar and Surry (1994) asserted that these various models are useful because knowing the central issues affecting adoption can be helpful to increase the utilization of the innovation. Although, it is beyond the scope of this article to introduce all technology adoption models, interested readers are encouraged to consult Baltaci-Goktalay and Ocak (2006) and Sahin (2005) for more information. The purpose of illustrating the preceding 1979 model and 1991 model is to show that these once widely accepted models may be inadequate in dealing with today's technologies. The 2007 Horizon Report highlights the fact that Web 2.0 technologies that allow Web users to move from being passive recipients (consumers) to active creators (producers) are Technology adoption and employment status 7 becoming pervasive (New Media Consortium, 2007). Hence, it is no longer adequate to view the technology adoption process in a pure “consumer” perspective. Also, Web 2.0 technologies are not just “educational” technologies for use in the classroom; instead these technologies are ubiquitous, influencing many elements of one’s life. In other words. In the ACOT model, Stage 2 is the beginning of adoption into the classroom, but the model does not suggest a transition or overlapping between personal use and educational applications of technology. Today resistance to use technologies in personal life might also be associated with resistance to use technologies for instruction. Thus, our challenge as educational researchers is to determine how new technologies, such as Web 2.0, will impact teaching and learning. The focus of this study is faculty interest in using blogs and podcasts. The research team conceptualizes the gradual adoption process, as shown in Table 3: Table 3. Consumer-producer model. Stage Name Description 0 Awareness Instructors are aware of the availability of the new technologies. 1 informational Instructors gather information about the new technologies. 2 Consumption for personal use Instructors use the new technologies as consumers in their personal life (e.g. reading non-academic b