Leading	  Head:	  EXPERIENCE	  OF	  TECHNOLOGY	  INTEGRATION	  FOR	  PROFESSORS	  	  	  	  	  1	                          ...
EXPERIENCE	  OF	  INTEGRATING	  TECHNOLOGY	  FOR	  PROFESSORS	                                                          2	...
EXPERIENCE	  OF	  INTEGRATING	  TECHNOLOGY	  FOR	  PROFESSORS	                       3	  The actual technology used in the...
EXPERIENCE	  OF	  INTEGRATING	  TECHNOLOGY	  FOR	  PROFESSORS	                       4	  Where on the S-Curve do the profe...
EXPERIENCE	  OF	  INTEGRATING	  TECHNOLOGY	  FOR	  PROFESSORS	                                                          5	...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Research Proposal


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Research Proposal

  1. 1. 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 kristamhess@gmail.com 610-360-2377
  2. 2. 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.
  3. 3. 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?
  4. 4. 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.
  5. 5. 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/