Leading Head: EXPERIENCE OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR PROFESSORS 1 Research Proposal The Experience of Technology Integration for College Professors Respectfully Submitted By Krista M. Hess East Stroudsburg University email@example.com 610-360-2377
EXPERIENCE OF INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY FOR PROFESSORS 2 Needs Statement College Professors integrate technology in their classrooms every day. It may just be a simple PowerPoint presentation or it could be an intensive Web Quest. However, this group of people seems to never be looked at for this particular topic. At this point, technology integration in the classroom is nothing new, but a lot of research seems to focus on the same old things. These things are usually K-‐12 teachers, their students, college students, or pre-‐service education majors. Past research also uses mostly the same methods like survey, pre-‐post testing, and other perception-‐based methods. It seems a new focus needs to be put on a forgotten group of integrators and an observation of their actual adoption of technology. If professors are participants in a study, they have usually volunteered and are part of a project study. In Breda, Clement, and Waeytens’ study they do use faculty members at a University. However, they use seminars and pre-‐post tests as their arena to study them. They also are trying to discover a relationship between the teachers’ instructional beliefs and teaching approach (Breda, Clement, and Waeytens, 2003). There is a need to understand the experience itself of integrating technology for college professors. In this study, the focus will be on two college professors who integrate technology in to their lessons every day. Discovering what the actual process is like and discussing the positives and negatives will hopefully shed new light on the field. Beneath a teacher’s use of technology, is usually an administrative pressure or need to do so.Through this study, discovering the policies and regulations for using technology in theclassroom, if there are any, will be important. If there are regulations, this could affect theprofessors’ use of technology. Also, with East Stroudsburg University’s (ESU) recent change tolarger General Education classes (upwards of 200 students) a concern, as in other studies, isbeing confronted with issues of large class teaching (Hannon, Bretag, 2010).The purpose of this study is to take this new situation in to account. Both professors who will beinterviewed and observed teach general education communication studies courses with this newnumber of students, along with major-related courses. Their previous technology integration inthe class will be questioned, and their new modifications will be observed.Barriers in the classroom are also a topic of concern when integrating technology. ESU is anolder University, originating in 1893. A lot of the school’s buildings are old and technologicallybehind. According to ESU’s website, the newest building was erected between 2006 and 2008and before that the newest building was erected in 1979. Therefore, few classrooms havecomputers, let alone Smart Boards. The ease with which the professors can integrate in thisenvironment will be taken in to account as a large part of their experience. In a study by Goktas,Yildirim, and Yildirim (2009), crowded classrooms, lack of computers & other presentationequipment in classrooms, and lack of computer laboratories for use in free time were found asmain barriers to integrating information and communication technologies. This can be related toESU’s current situation in integrating technology overall. Finding out the main barriers theseparticular professors come face to face with will affect their experience.
EXPERIENCE OF INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY FOR PROFESSORS 3 The actual technology used in the classroom of these professors will also be a major part of thisstudy. In a study done in Pakistan it was found that most of the teachers used technology tomostly create question papers. They did not use it for classroom facilitation. These teachersenjoyed the re-usability of all their materials (JAMIL). Do the professors being studied in thisparticular research use technology for only their use or do they use it to facilitate in theclassroom? If their use of technology is on the lesser side, why is that? One professor is ayounger female professor and the other is an older male. Will this make a difference in how theyintegrate? Gender and age have been studied before, in relation to anxiety and its affect oninnovativeness, and it was found that a difference in gender related responses were notsignificant indicating a fairy homogenous effect regarding impact (Rogers). It has been found,however, that there is a significant relationship between technology integration and computeranxiety and innovativeness (Rogers, 2010).A teacher’s innovativeness has also been written about extensively by Everett Rogers (1995). Inhis book, Diffusion of Innovations, he discusses the S-curve, which correlates to all the concernsdiscussed so far in this paper. He explains the different types of innovators, which are: theinnovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. He also explains theInnovation-decision process and the relation between the two. Because of the difference in agebetween the two professors in this study, their pre-service education technology experience morethan likely differs and will affect their innovativeness. One professor received his Doctorate in1990; the other received hers in 2003. The more than 10-year gap between these will be aninteresting difference to see the results from. They also both use different types of technology inthe classroom, and one refuses to use one that the other swears by. Discovering why that is,where they are on the s-curve, and possibly in a decision process about another technology, willbe interesting to ascertain.In the end, the overall purpose of this study will be to discover the actual experience of a collegeprofessor in the 21st century classroom. Their classroom beliefs, theories, and studentrelationships will all be taken in to consideration and put up against all the other topics andconcerns discussed in this proposal. This will culminate in the majority of, if not their entire,experience. The main focus will be on whether the experience is a positive one or not and theirperceptions will be studied, but the genuine experience will be the most vital ingredient. MethodologyThis will be a Phenomenological study will find out what the experience of integratingtechnology for a college professor is like to help better understand this focus from another pointof view.QuestionsPrimary Question: What is the experience of integrating technology for the college professor?Secondary Questions:Is the experience overall more positive or negative for the professor?Does the professors’ teaching theory/ies affect their integration?Do the professors show an understanding of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge inthe classroom?
EXPERIENCE OF INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY FOR PROFESSORS 4 Where on the S-Curve do the professors lie?Research DesignInterviews and classroom observation are the primary data collection tools so that bothperception and actual experience are taken in to account. No other methods will be used.First, the professors will be given a semi-structured interview on their technology use in theclassroom (Shulz). This interview will also cover the professors’ education history, technologyuse history, and their future ideas of using technology. After these interviews the researcher willobserve the professors’ classrooms. Each professor teaches more than one subject to a couple ofsections of students. Therefore, the researcher will strive to observe at least one section of eachsubject and more, if possible. Through out the process of observing, the researcher will interviewthe professors according to what happens in the class that day. These questions will not be pre-planned. After several observations have been concluded, the researcher will again perform asemi-structured interview based on findings through the transcribing process. The professors willbe able to ask their own questions as well. This will conclude the research. All observations andinterviews will be voice-recorded by the researcher and then transcribed to find similar anddiffering views between the professors along with what their experiences are mostly made up of.To better this phenomenological study, Van Manen’s work will be read before the beginning ofresearch.
EXPERIENCE OF INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY FOR PROFESSORS 5 ReferencesBreda, J., Clement, M., & Waeytens, K. (2003). An interactive training programme for beginning faculty: issues of implementation. International Journal of Academic Development, 8(1/2), 91-104. doi: 10.1080/1360144042000277964Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible neablers of icts integration into pre-‐service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193-‐204. Hannon, J., & Bretag, T. (2010). Negotiating contested discourses of learning technologies in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 106-120.JAMIL, M., & SHAH, J.H. (2011). Technology: its potential effects on teaching in higher education. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 38-51Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusions of innovations. (4th ed., pp. 161-203). New York: Free Press.Rogers, R.K., & Wallace, J.D. (2011). Predictors of technology integration in education: a study of anxiety and innovativeness in teacher preparation. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 12(2), 28-61.Schulz, L.L., & Rubel, D. (2011). Phenomenology of alienation in high school: the experiences of five male non-completers. Professional School Counseling, 14(5), 286-298.Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2 ed.). London: Althouse Press. http://www4.esu.edu/aboutesu/