Student Paper

Innovativeness and Perceptions of Faculty Innovation Champions on the
Diffusion of World Wide Web Course Features
















Presented to the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication
2001 Convention in Washington, D.C.

















By Patrick J. Sutherland, A.B.D.
Doctoral Candidate, Ohio University
And Associate Professor, Bethany College
101 Point Breeze Drive
Bethany, West Virginia  26032
Phone: 304 829-4860
E Mail: [log in to unmask]






Innovativeness and Perceptions of Faculty Innovation Champions on the
Diffusion of World Wide Web Course Features


        Some educators have declared that a paradigm shift of learning is underway
in higher education and that the shift is partially fueled by technological
innovations (Beller & Or, 1998). Betty Medsger, author of the 1995 Media
Studies Center study titled Winds of Change: Challenges Confronting
Journalism Education, has asked why journalism educators are not the
leading innovative thinkers concerning the issues and challenges of the
field (Sass, Maynard, Gutierrez, and Medsger, 1997). Among Medsger's
recommendations for journalism education programs, are educating students
to be cutting-edge journalists and teaching them to use and understand new
technologies while focusing on the main objective of finding and writing
stories.
        Modern institutions are no longer supported solely by their buildings and
furnishings, but also by computer software and telecommunication systems
such as
the Web (Mitchell, 1995). Most would agree that the computer is a tool by
which students can explore the world (Hunt, 1996). Liska & Grune (1995)
suggested that the Internet, and its fastest growing component the Web,
reflect changes in our society. Few things are held to be absolute. The
Internet exemplifies that.
        A current "crisis" in education centers around the ability of existing
educational approaches to deliver knowledge, values, and skills appropriate
to a rapidly changing world (Greening, 1998). Information technology (IT)
can help students to accept greater control and responsibility for their
own learning (Hunt, 1996). Sloan (1997) said that higher education needs to
embrace IT in order to help preserve the university. For example, computing
and communication technologies offer opportunities for engagement with
other people and are powerful tools in constructing remarkable artifacts
and experiences (Shneiderman, 1995).
        Zaltman et al. (1973) agree with Rogers (1995) and others that innovations
involve social change. Zaltman et al.'s definition of an innovation is "
any idea, practice, or
Innovativeness and Perceptions 2
material artifact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption" (p.
10). They stress that the adopting unit can vary, from an individual to a
firm, or another entity
such as a city or governmental body.
        This study examined perceptions of faculty and administrators involved in
courses with Web features at Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass
Communication (ASJMC) programs. This research considered the role of the
innovation champion as a change agent and what channels and formats of
communication that innovation champions found to be most effective in
explaining Web course features to others. The study also looked into
innovativeness characteristics of top administrators and faculty using the Web.
Background
        In his book City of Bits, Mitchell (1995) argued that citizens should care
about changes in the electronic information age because the Internet has a
fundamentally different structure than what we have been used to. For
example, physical addresses are not as important; an address on the
Internet is an access code. Places in cyberspace are software
constructions. Software creates virtual environments for interaction. These
network connections create new ways of sharing knowledge.
        The impact of technological innovations on education in general, and the
journalism and communication field in particular, is not a recent concern.
Miles (1964) stressed that we need to know why an innovation spreads slowly
or rapidly and what the causes of resistance to change are in educational
systems. Schramm (1977) wrote that almost all teaching involved multimedia
components. Green (1993) stated that computer-based technology could have
the same type of impact on curricula that the development of the printing
press had on higher education. For example, individuals owning computers,
modems, and having Web design skills, can publish their own newsletters,
newspapers, or magazines on-line reaching a worldwide audience.

Innovativeness and Perceptions 3
Information technology (IT), which includes multimedia education and the
Internet, is now versatile, powerful, and affordable enough that the new
configurations of technology can alter the structure of undergraduate
education in the U.S. (Pipes & Wilson, 1996). Past problems with the
diffusion of IT innovations included technologies being introduced in
isolation from each other, prohibitive costs, and the practice of IT
innovations being applied on top of existing educational models, instead of
fundamentally driving changes in the structure of the educational experience.
        Research over the past 70 years has not shown that the use of innovative
media in higher education results in increased learning for students (Clark
1994). Clark concluded that while indicators are that media do not
influence learning, course designers should and must choose the less
expensive and most cognitively efficient way to achieve a learning goal. He
noted that it is important for educators to utilize media capable of
delivering the appropriate instructional method in the speediest fashion
and at the lowest cost.
        Kozma (1994) wrote that Clark created an undesirable schism between media
and learning methods. Kozma contended that media could make significant
contributions in schools if their applications are designed into the
complex cultural and social environments of learning. He stated that
traditional models of instructional design have not addressed the complex
relationships between media and learning. Jonassen, Campbell, and Davidson
(1994) presented a third perspective concerning innovative media and
learning. They said that learning is situationally dependent and that while
media are not responsible for
learning, if educators consider the process of learning first, they may
later identify appropriate media which can facilitate it.
        Masters and Meier (1990) studied technological innovation and risk taking
in higher education. They studied examined campus wide adoption of a
management information system (MIS). They said that in the academic
environment adopting technology involves

Innovativeness and Perceptions 4
uncertainty and can be seen as a challenge or threat and as taking a risk.
They looked at
adopter characteristics such as age, gender, income, status and level of
education. Their findings were that faculty members displayed
characteristics similar to early adopters, they sought technical
information, had higher levels of education, and were willing to take
risks. They concluded that innovation and technological change needed to be
seen as an organizational commitment.
        With rapidly diffusing technological innovations, the question becomes how
to teach efficiently (Cuban, 1986). Alfred North Whitehead said "The best
education....is to be found in gaining the utmost information from the
simplest apparatus" (p. 3). Problem solving in a world characterized by
rapid change requires the thinker to integrate base knowledge and thinking
skills (Rubenstein & Firstenberg, 1987). Rubenstein and Firstenberg stress
that computers and other technology are to be used as tools to test our
ideas and to perform analysis, extrapolation, prediction, and verification.
They wrote that active processing and retrieval inside a context in which
the problem is framed is important. Not passive note taking. They caution,
however, that moving too quickly into a problem solving mode could be a
problem.
        Teachers using the Web in courses may fill the role of what Brookfield
(1987) calls facilitators or "helpers." He said teachers should adopt
diverse methods and resources. Risk taking is important and the facilitator
should not expect perfection. Shoemaker (1993)
wrote that a recommended instructional goal in a journalism and mass
communication class on critical thinking is to get students to examine
problems from multiple perspectives. For example, looking at a problem from
another person's viewpoint. Journalists should be trained to seek out many
sources and versions of information about reality. The use of the Web in
such a course should help to obtain a diversity of viewpoints and approaches.
        It is important to note that in most cases, the Web is used in support of
the traditional model of university instruction and therefore the potential
of the Web can be lost
Innovativeness and Perceptions 5
(Duchastel, 1997). He stated that a new model of instruction appropriate
for the Web is lacking at the present time. The university community is
struggling to understand the Web phenomenon. Academe has difficulty acting
in a timely manner compared to the business community which is thriving on
the Internet. Duchastel said that if the traditional paradigm of
professor-centered university instruction is not called into question, the
Web instruction will consist of little more than a photocopy machine-like
usage.
        The Web is a social restructuring force that can help learners break
outside of the confines of the traditional classroom (Duchastel, 1997). He
wrote that the use of the Web by teachers can lead to development of
creative new ways of teaching. Ryder and Wilson (1996) see the learning
process becoming distributed between the medium, the learner and the
context. They view the Internet not as a medium, but as an infrastructure
which offers multiple extensions for student learning such as research,
collaboration, self-expression, and reflection. They conclude that the
Internet overcomes many of the constraints that are imposed by traditional
educational infrastructures.
        Bostock (1998) questioned if computer based media will be able to bridge
the gap in higher education between the need for collaborative learning and
the constraints on
higher education. Flake (1996) wrote that while the Web is still in its
infancy, educators need to consider how we want this innovation to grow and
to become a major contributor
to the educational system. Flake stressed that students need to be engaged
in an open investigation of the process of learning, sense making, and
problem solving. She noted that through the Web, students have access to a
wide range of knowledge. Flake suggested that the Web can become a social
environment for learning, in other words, students can learn from other
students on the Web and they can gain understanding from looking a peer
reports, in the portfolio spirit, on the Web. This approach, in short,
means that students are no longer solely dependent upon a textbook or a
teacher for learning. Students, thus have an active, or interactive part in
constructing knowledge that is relevant to them.
        Innovativeness and Perceptions 6
Eisenberg and Ely (1993) wrote that educational networks can transform
common educational experiences into exciting worldwide interactive
projects. They stated that network resources such as the Web can help
educators gain more equitable access to expertise, information, and tools
in their fields.
        Scott (1995) found that under 10% of 250 journalism faculty surveyed
thought that journalism education was generally training students well in
new technologies such as the Internet. Respondents suggested several
possible solutions to the problem. The suggestions included more class time
devoted to the issues, more facilities and funding for new technology, more
research on the matter, more industry contact, better training of faculty
and more real-world training. Scott wrote that arguably it is a case now of
technology driving journalism instead of journalism driving technology.
Just keeping up with technological developments is a financial and
intellectual challenge. She concluded that
the message from respondents was clear, journalism education is lagging
behind in technology issues and needed to pick up the pace.
        A concern of educators is how to integrate new on-line material into
courses while at the same time retaining the core curriculum (Gunaratne &
Lee, 1996). Gunaratne and Lee stated that instructors need to guide
students through the glut of information available on the Internet. They
said it is a useful "real world" experience for students. They argued it is
the responsibility of faculty to discard "cyberphobia" and incorporate the
Internet and Web as learning tools. Panici (1998) surveyed instructors of
introductory mass communication courses and found agreement that the use of
new media (including the Internet and the Web) is a stimulant to classroom
discussion and encourages students to use such technology outside of the
classroom.
Theoretical Base
        A 1943 Ryan and Gross research project on hybrid seed corn diffusion among
Iowa farmers is a seminal work (Rogers, 1995). This study introduced the
classical
Innovativeness and Perceptions 7
diffusion paradigm that has guided many studies in various fields. This
paradigm, in summary form, includes the five characteristics of innovations
(relative advantage, compatability, complexity, trialability, and
observability), communication channels (mass media and interpersonal), the
innovation-decision process (knowledge, persuasion, decision,
implementation, confirmation), adopter categories (innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards), a social system
(including opinion leaders and change agents), types of
innovation-decisions (optional, collective, authority), and consequences of
innovations (desirable versus undesirable, direct versus indirect,
anticipated versus unanticipated).
        Coleman, Katz, and Menzel (1966) studied the diffusion and acceptance of a
new drug among physicians. The researchers in this landmark study found two
distinct patterns of diffusion. One resembled the contagion process
occurring in epidemics, in other words the extremely rapid and
unpredictable direction in the spreading of a disease or innovation.
The second was a more constant, or methodical adoption rate among doctors
who were not as well integrated into the medical community. This study was
notable for demonstrating diffusion as a social process and in its focus on
the role of opinion leaders in helping an innovation to achieve a critical
mass point (Rogers, 1995).
        Diffusion research does not center only on awareness and knowledge of an
innovation. It also examines attitude change, decision making, and
implementation of the innovation (Rogers & Singhal, 1996). While many of
the adoption processes and categories involved in the DOI among individuals
and diffusion involving organizations are different, there are also some
similarities in the two approaches.
         "Communication networks" is a key concept in the diffusion of innovations
paradigm (Rogers, 1995).  Rogers defined a communication network as
consisting of
  "interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned flows of
information" (p. 308). Interpersonal networks are an informal structure
which links a system's members.
Innovativeness and Perceptions 8
Individuals are influenced within a network by opinion leaders. Opinion
leaders are persons who influence others' views about innovations (Rogers,
1995). Opinion leaders may be employed by change agents who are individuals
who influence clients' innovation-decisions in a direction deemed desirable
by a change agency (Rogers). Change agents are usually heterophilous
towards individuals they are attempting to influence. Rogers and Kincaid
(1981) wrote that  heterophily is "the degree to which pairs of individuals
who interact are different in certain attributes" (p. 347). Communication
networks and the actors utilizing them are a part of a social system.
Rogers (1995) defined a social system as " a set of interrelated units that
are engaged in joint problem-solving to
accomplish a common goal " (p. 23). Members of a social system are not only
individuals, the units might also be informal groups, organizations, or
subsystems (Rogers).
        Zaltman et al. (1973) wrote that resistance should be expected in
organizations during the implementation stage of the diffusion of an
innovation. This could take the form of a failure to cooperate by key
employees, distrust of top administrators, and conflict if new jobs are
involved. Subordinates may feel unable to express questions and fears
before being forced to adopt.
        Individual resistance factors include the factor of perception. In other
words, both the innovation and the need must be perceived by the individual
for adoption to occur (Zaltman et al., 1973). Individuals also develop
comfortable habits and thus lack of motivation to adopt may be a
resistance. Attitudes of individuals can be a resistance as can the
illusion of an individual's sense of importance. Individuals who lack
extensive interaction with others in the organization can be a resistance
factor. Zaltman et al. conclude that in some instances resistance may be
desirable because not all change is healthy.
        Traditional theories of organization indicated that there should be high
impersonality in relations between organizational participants (Zaltman et
al., 1973). Interpersonal issues, however, are important in the innovation
process in matters such as dealing with
Innovativeness and Perceptions 9
uncertainty. Informal groups provide important sources of information to
the formal hierarchy. They also note that the innovation process can
produce stress and anxiety among individuals that can destroy communication
linkages if not dealt with. Interpersonal skills also have important
effects on risk taking and trust. Conflict occurs throughout the innovation
process and effective leaders in the organization can integrate with
diverse groups (Zaltman et al.).
        Albrecht and Ropp (1984) stated that innovation flourishes in
organizations when information is widespread and feedback is rapid. They
studied who talks about innovations with whom within organizations. They
wrote that organizations that encouraged
collaboration, allowed different kinds of information to flow freely, and
featured coalitions, tended to have higher rates of innovation. Albrecht
and Ropp noted that the research does not explain why. They concluded that
people in an organization who are linked in multiple ways are less
uncertain as to how others will behave. Reducing uncertainty helps
facilitate discussions about new ideas.
        Innovative ideas are usually not discussed among people with weak ties in
an organization. Respondents in Albrecht and Ropp's (1984) study found that
innovative communication ties overlapped with work and social ties.
        Communication at these three levels was described as consisting of
"multiplex links" (Albrecht & Ropp, 1984). Their findings suggest that
discussion of innovations in organizations is facilitated by other types of
personal communication. They also suggested that weak ties of organization
members to those outside the organization helped to keep the system current
by providing new perspectives and information. Perhaps surprisingly,
overall, Albrecht and Ropp  (1984) found communications about innovations
to be relatively scarce even among organizations concerned about staying on
the cutting edge.
        Albrecht and Hall (1991) found that individuals they termed "elites"
played a central role in innovation and change in organizations. They
defined the "formal elite" as those in
Innovativeness and Perceptions 10
positions of formal status. They defined the "behavioral elite" as
"....those who reported participating in the strategic decision-making
processes either most or all of the time" (p. 536). Behavioral elite who
wield power and influence often have informal status. By nature of their
associational patterns, elites were found to influence the innovation
process. Elites build careful relationships and that is the basis for their
influence (Albrecht & Hall).
        Elites are consistently more communication minded (Albrecht & Hall, 1991).
They reported larger numbers of interactions across a variety of topics
with other elites and outsiders. The elites' social circle is held together
by both work and social contacts.
        Conceptually related to elites, are the change agent and opinion leader.
Rogers (1995) defined a change agent as " an individual who influences
clients' innovation-decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change
agency" (p. 27). He defined opinion leaders as persons who influence
others' views about innovations. Among the ways of measuring opinion
leadership are the sociometric technique and the self-designating
technique. The sociometric technique involves asking respondents who they
sought (or hypothetically might seek) for advice or information about a
topic (Rogers). The self-designating technique asks respondents to
acknowledge if there is a tendency for individuals to regard them as
influential.
        Rogers (1995) listed several characteristics of opinion leaders. They have
greater exposure to mass media than their followers. They are more
cosmopolite than their followers and they have greater change agent contact
than their followers. They have greater social participation and on
average, the opinion leader is of higher socio-economic status than his/her
followers. Rogers wrote that opinion leaders are more innovative than their
followers. "When a social system's norms favor change, opinion leaders are
more innovative, but when the norms do not favor change, opinion leaders
are not especially innovative" (p. 295). The presence of opinion leaders
implies that there are followers. In this study, the emphasis is on the
change agent titled the "innovation champion," whose
Innovativeness and Perceptions 11
role as a catalyst and advocate in an organization was mentioned earlier.
Adams (1997) studied DOI theory and the enrichment of what he called
"virtual organizations" in cyberspace. He noted that Leonard-Barton (1988)
stressed the importance of the innovation champion as the "implementer" in
the initial stages of diffusion. Adams wrote that Rogers (1995) left the
definition of "change agent" open to context, because in different
organizations the person favoring new paradigms will assume different
roles. Change agents develop a need for change, establish an
information-exchange relationship, diagnose problems, create an intent in
the client to change, translate an intent to action, stabilize and prevent
discontinuance, and achieve a terminal relationship, or in other words,
help the client to achieve self-reliance (Adams). Adams identified
webmasters, and early adopters, as important change agents.
        Among the conclusions of Zaltman et al. (1973) are that organization
managers in a given situation, should consider how structural
characteristics and resistance forces interact. They stated that high
complexity can make implementation of an innovation difficult. They found
that interpersonal relations are an important mediating variable in
organizational DOI.
Research Questions:
        Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) said that innovativeness is the degree to
which a person adopts innovations earlier than others in a social system.
Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1977) developed a self-report technique that allows
innovativeness to be measured
systematically. Rogers (1995) stated that change agents help to convert an
intent to change into actual action. This led to a research question.

Research Question 1:
        Will ASJMC journalism and mass communication schools perceiving themselves
as being leaders in Web course teaching readily identify a faculty member
in their program as
Innovativeness and Perceptions 12
being an innovation champion? If so,will that faculty person score higher
on innovativeness than the program's top administrator?

        Individuals' involvement with an innovation, such as courses with Web
features, is a critical factor in the receptivity of organization members
to innovations (Johnson, Donohue, Atkin, & Johnson, 1995). Persuasion
through informal channels is another key.
Johnson et al. stressed that interpersonal communication channels have been
found to be more useful in transmitting subject matter information that is
highly complex. This led to the second research question.

Research Question 2:
        Will innovation champions find that informal interpersonal
communication channels rather than formal communication channels are more
effective in explaining Web course features? If so, what specific
interpersonal formats are most effective?
Method
        This study utilized a cross-sectional survey design to assess the
perceptions of college and university faculty members identified by top
administrators as being innovation champions concerning the use of the Web
in teaching, at 189 schools affiliated with the Association of Schools of
Journalism and Mass Communication (ASJMC). Before explaining the survey
process and the statistic tests used in this study, a few operational
definitions are found below.
        Khan (1997) wrote that "Web-based instruction (WBI) is a hypermedia-based
instructional program which utilizes the attributes and resources of the
World Wide Web to create a meaningful learning environment where learning
is fostered and supported" (p. 6). Khan listed key WBI features as
including, among others, interactivity, multimedia elements, global access,
an electronic publishing component, world-wide on-line
Innovativeness and Perceptions 13
resources, cross-cultural interaction, multiple expertise, industry
support, and learner-control. Khan noted that additional features depended
upon the quality and sophistication of the Web course designer and could
include such elements as, convenience, cost-effectiveness, ease of
coursework development and maintenance, formal and informal environments,
and on-line evaluation.
        Sutherland and Stewart (1999) stated that substantive, or formal, Web
course information consists of on-line course syllabi, course readings and
assignments,
faculty/student discussion groups, and student course products posted-on
line, or some sort of combination of the previous four items. For this
research project, a course that meets in a traditional classroom but which
also incorporates Web related features as instructional elements qualified
as a Web course, as did courses taught entirely on-line.
        Baldridge and Deal (1983) concluded that nonformal types of power and
influence are important in universities. As noted earlier, change agents
assist opinion leaders in the implementation of an innovation. In this
study, the change agent is titled an "innovation champion" within an
organization's journalism or mass communication program, and constitutes a
predictor variable (Sproull, 1995). Rogers (1995) defined an innovation
champion: "The champion is a charismatic individual who throws his/her
weight behind the innovation, thus overcoming the indifference or
resistance that a new idea often provokes in an organization" (p. 398). The
existence of an innovation champion within an organization subunit such as
a journalism school speaks to what Rogers (1995) and other diffusion
theorists stress is the importance of interpersonal communication in the
DOI process. Following guidelines established in previous DOI research on
change agents (Adams, 1997, Leonard-Barton, 1988), the general traits and
roles of the innovation champion were described earlier. For example,
innovation champions are often perceived as implementers during initial
phases of diffusion (Rogers, 1995). They are often early

Innovativeness and Perceptions 14
adopters and help the client to achieve self-reliance. He noted that the
definition of a change agent should be left open to varying contexts.
        For purposes of this study formal or routinized channels of communication
are defined as being hierarchical and highly structured such as faculty
meetings, workshops, and journal articles. Informal interpersonal channels
are defined as more collegial and unstructured, such as one-on-one
meetings, lounge talks.
The defining qualities of leading or "cutting edge" communication on the
Internet/Web include use of multimedia, hypertextuality, packet switching,
synchronicity, and interactivity (Newhagen & Rafaeli ,1996). Khan (1997)
wrote that key multimedia components of Web-based instruction include text
and graphics, audio streaming (such as Real Audio) and video streaming
(such as Quicktime), and a graphical user interface (GUI) which uses icons,
windows, graphics, and a pointing device.
        Sutherland and Stewart (1999) wrote that usage of hardware and software
elements such as Shockwave Flash, Perc, and/or Quicktime VR software, video
conferencing, and use of a Webcam are indicative of being on the "cutting
edge" in terms of educational uses of the Web. Programs did not have to use
all the above elements to be included in the cutting edge category of Web
usage.
        Innovativeness is the degree to which a person adopts innovations earlier
than others in a social system. Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1977) wrote that
self-report techniques
allow innovativeness to be measured systematically. They developed an
innovativeness scale which is discussed later in this chapter. As noted
earlier in this paper, change agents help convert an intent to change into
actual action. Adams (1997) identified webmasters as change agents.
Survey Development and Procedures
        Two surveys were utilized to gather information. One survey targeted

Innovativeness and Perceptions 15
administrators and another was sent to faculty members. The population for
the first survey
questionnaire consisted of 189 administrators of the Association of Schools
of Journalism and Mass Communication (ASJMC). For the second survey
questionnaire, targeting
faculty change agents (innovation champions), the sample consisted of 100
faculty utilizing Web features in courses at ASJMC schools. See Appendix A
for the survey instruments.
        ASJMC is an association which was a co-founding affiliate of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC).
ASJMC members work at both accredited and nonaccredited programs. One of
the main goals of ASJMC is to promote leadership and excellence and to
"....promote inquiry into the changing nature of higher education curricula
and the proper role therein of journalism and mass communication...."
(ASJMC Mission and Goals, 1991, p. 3).
        This study's focus was on various perceptions by faculty members and
administrators at ASJMC schools using the Web in teaching. Perceived
innovativeness was examined at the individual level (Hurt, Joseph, & Cook,
1977). The primary unit of analysis in this study was at the individual
level. Due to the relatively small number of ASJMC member programs, it was
feasible to contact all of the 189 active ASJMC Administrators. A 1999-2000
ASJMC membership mailing list of 201 members was obtained from the ASJMC
Headquarters. It was determined that six members on the mailing list were
no longer active in academia and they were not surveyed. Six others on the
ASJMC mailing list held administrative positions lower in the
administrative hierarchy at the ASJMC programs. They were not surveyed in
order to avoid programs from replying more than once. This population was
selected on the basis of the membership's mission and goals of excellent
performance and programs beyond the minimal. ASJMC schools are committed to
maintaining high standards in journalism and mass communication education.
Participant schools were categorized using the 1994 Carnegie Foundation for
Teaching classification system for national universities and selective
liberal arts colleges as
Innovativeness and Perceptions 16
a guide (ASJMC schools that are categorized as regional programs under the
1994 Carnegie system are not classified in the national Carnegie system,
therefore, the regional ASJMC programs were included with non-Carnegie
category schools). At about three-quarters of the way through the survey,
the Carnegie Foundation introduced their year 2000 higher education
classification system.
Instrumentation
        Rogers (1995) wrote that surveys are the primary research method in DOI
studies. Three instruments were used in this study to collect data
necessary to address the research questions : indices and a numerical
rating scale (Guilford 1954, Miller 1977, Stamm 1989, Sproull 1995, Watt
and van den Berg (1995), Hurt, Joseph, and Cook's (1977) scale on the
measurement of innovativeness, and a demographic survey. The survey was
constructed utilizing multiple measures and with a few open ended items
(Babbie, 1986 and Williams, 1992). Survey instructions specified that
respondents could provide additional information, if they chose, to any
question on the survey. A review of the literature, on perceptions of the
Web by administrators and college teachers, did not identify use of a
widely accepted scale for measurement of the sophistication of Web course
features as an innovation. Therefore, a series of simple indices and
composite indexes were developed to measure variables such as perceived
needs, imperatives, resistances and pressures to implementation of Web
courses. Response choices along a continuum of strongly disagree, disagree,
neutral, agree, and strongly agree with numerical weights of 1 through 5
were used. Watt and ven den Berg (1995) stated that such semantic
differential scales (Likert type) are sufficient to meet measurement
demands for a majority of communication studies.
Sproull (1995) stated that numerical rating scales are used often in
research to measure factors such as perceptions and/or performance of
people or products.


Innovativeness and Perceptions 17
Measurement of Innovativeness Scale
        An existing true scale for measurement of innovativeness (Hurt, Joseph, &
Cook, 1977) was utilized to measure the role of an "innovation champion" in
the DOI process of Web courses in journalism and mass communication. The
20-item survey instrument used a five point scale ranging from 1-5,
strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. Hurt,
Joseph, and Cook also developed a 10-item short scale to measure
innovativeness at the individual level.
Demographic Survey and Open Ended Questions
        Data were collected from ASJMC program top administrators and from faculty
members using Web features in courses. The innovativeness scales were
included in the surveys of both administrators and of faculty. Forced
choice items were presented in areas
such as; gender, age, educational level, number of years as administrator
or faculty member, and the estimated year that the ASJMC program started
using Web course features. Also, respondents were asked to complete an open
ended question on the survey.
The first e mail survey, targeting ASJMC Administrators, was preceded by an
introductory letter explaining the research project and providing a few key
operational definitions. It was sent directly to the administrators early
in summer of 2000. Upon receiving the responses from that self-administered
survey, a second questionnaire, targeting faculty was e mailed in mid-to
late summer of 2000, to the designated "innovation champions" at the
respective ASJMC institution. This survey was also self-administered. Not
all data gathered in this survey directly related to the two research
questions, however, the additional data did provide an overall view as to
how faculty innovation champions viewed the implementation progress of the
innovation of Web course features. For example, innovation champions were
asked for their perceptions as to whether their programs, and also the
field in general, are doing a good job teaching students concerning the use
of Web course features.

Innovativeness and Perceptions 18
Data Analysis Overview
        Descriptive statistics were used in this study since the researcher is
concerned with the overall characteristics of the ASJMC data (Williams,
1992). This included measures of central tendency such as means, modes, and
medians  and measures of dispersion or variability, such as range, variance
and standard deviation (Watt & van den Berg, 1995).
Results were presented in terms of percentages and averages. Types of
statistical tests that were utilized included chi-square, analysis of
variance, and t tests.
Results
        The first survey questionnaire was sent to top administrators at 189 ASJMC
programs. Responses were obtained from 137 administrators (72%). Table B1
in Appendix B provides comparisons of sample and population percentages for
the seven Carnegie-based categories of institutions included in this study.
To determine if the obtained sample differed from the population, a
chi-square test for independence was used.
The seven institution categories, adopted from the 1994 Carnegie Foundation
for Teaching scheme for national universities and selective liberal arts
colleges, were collapsed into three categories because of small cells.
"Research II" was combined with "Research I" for the first category.
"Doctoral II" was combined with "Doctoral I" for the second. And "Liberal
Arts" and "Outside the U.S." were combined with the "Non-Carnegie"
category. The computed value of chi-square (3.36) showed that the sample
did not differ markedly from the population [ X2  (2, N = 189 ) =
3.36,  p >.186 ].
        Top administrators at ASJMC schools who responded were predominantly male:
100 (73%) of the 137 respondents were men. The average age of the
administrators was 53 years old. The youngest administrator was 31 years
old and the oldest was 67 years old. ASJMC top administrators who responded
averaged 9.2 years in their position. But roughly a fourth (28%) averaged 3
years or less and 43% were in their position 5 years or less. Only 36% had
more than 10 years of experience in their position.
Innovativeness and Perceptions 19
Summaries of Perceived Web Leadership and Presence of Innovation Champion
        As a prelude to answering Research Question 1 about whether schools
perceiving themselves as leaders in Web course teaching could identify an
innovation champion on their faculty, it was necessary to ascertain which
program administrators do see their programs as leaders. Asked whether they
considered their program to be a leader in Web
instruction, a total of 32 administrators (24%) answered "yes." A total of
101 administrators (76%), answered "no," they did not see their programs as
leaders. Asked if they could identify an innovation champion on their
faculty, 109 (81%) of the 135 respondents answered yes. Therefore, the
answer to Research Question 1 is affirmative, administrators readily
identified innovation champions. There were 26 administrators who could not
identify an innovation champion.
Administrator Survey Innovativeness Traits Scale Summary
The questionnaire contained a block of statements making up the short
version (10 questions) of the innovativeness traits scale (Hurt, Joseph and
Cook, 1977). In order to
build the foundation for answering Research Question 1 about
administrators' innovativeness compared to faculty innovation champions,
responses are reported in Table B2 in Appendix B.
        The responses to the block of innovativeness items paint ASJMC
administrators as being open to and challenged by intellectual ferment. As
a group, they seem receptive to implementing new ways of doing things. The
item generating the most agreement (89%) from administrators concerned
being stimulated by original thinking. Nearly eight out of 10
administrators also agreed that they are challenged by unanswered questions
(81%) and by ambiguities (77%). The administrators showed strong
disagreement (92%) with the statement about rarely trusting new ideas until
most others accept them. They do not perceive themselves as being overly
cautious about accepting new ideas (70% disagreed). And 62% disagreed that
they are skeptical of new ideas.
Innovativeness and Perceptions 20
Innovation Champion Survey Demographic Item Summaries
        The second national survey targeted innovation champions on the faculty at
ASJMC programs identified by administrators in the first survey. The sample
size was 100, and 74 faculty returned questionnaires for a response rate of
74%. As with the administrator survey results, the respondents were mostly
men. Over two-thirds (71%) of the
respondents to the innovation champion questionnaire were male. The average
age of the innovation champions was 46.7 years old, seven years younger
than the average administrator age (53 years). The youngest faculty member
was 27 years old and the oldest was 68 years old. Innovation champions
averaged 9.8 years in their present teaching position, which closely
resembled administrators' average time at their position
( 9.2 years). Three quarters (75%) of the innovation champions had been at
their present position for at least four years or more. Just under 10% had
the least amount of experience recordable, one year at their position. Some
11% of the innovation champions had been in their position for over 20
years, with the longest time in the position being 33 years.
        Faculty identified as innovation champions generally had substantial
professional experience, with an average of 14.2 years in the journalism
and mass communication field. Nine out of 10 innovation champions had at
least five years of professional experience, and close to a third of the
innovation champions (30%) had between 20 and 37 years of professional
experience. Nearly 7 out of 10 (68%) of the faculty innovation champions
held a doctorate degree. This is lower than the rate of 83% of
administrators holding a doctorate. Some 90% of those innovation champions
held the Ph.D., while 6% held the juris doctorate, and the remainder held
the doctorate in education. A quarter of the innovation champions (25%)
held a master's degree, and the remaining 7% had earned a bachelor's
degree. Over one-third (37%) of the faculty innovation champions held the
academic rank of associate professor. The next most common rank was full
professor at

Innovativeness and Perceptions 21
29%. About a quarter of the innovation champions (24%) were assistant
professors. The remainder consisted of instructors (7%) and lecturers (3%).
Innovation Champion Survey Innovativeness Traits Statements Summary
        Table B3 summarizes the results of innovation champions' innovativeness
traits and helps to answer Research Question 1 in that faculty innovation
champions are more innovative than administrators. Innovation champions
believe they adopt innovations earlier. They see original thinking and
behavior as stimulating (91%) and 94% of the innovation champions do not
wait for the majority of others to trust new ideas before they accept them.
See Table B4 for a comparison of administrator and innovation champion
scores on innovativeness.
Types of Communication Channels Used to Explain Web Course Features
Recall that these innovation champions were identified by their program
administrators. If indeed these innovation champions are leaders, there
arises the question
of how they facilitate change among others. Eight of 10 survey respondents
(81%) viewed informal channels of communication such as one-on-one meetings
and lounge talks as useful and effective in explaining complex Web course
features. Fewer than five of 10 innovation champions viewed formal channels
of communication, such as faculty meetings and workshops, as useful and
effective in explaining Web features. See Appendix C Table C1 for a
summary. Thus, the answer to Research Question 2 is yes, faculty innovation
champions do see informal channels of communication as more effective in
explaining Web course features to others.
        The questionnaire inquired about specific interpersonal formats that
innovation champions found effective for discussing Web innovations. The
one-on-one meeting (90%) was considered the most effective communication
format. Innovation champions also cited small group discussions (77%) as
effective, and 70% cited the formal channel format of teaching and research
conferences/workshops as effective ways to exchange Web
Innovativeness and Perceptions 22
course information. E- mail correspondence was cited as effective by about
half of the respondents (53%).
        Innovation champions identified some communication channels as being
ineffective. Regular mail was seen as being ineffective by 47% of the
respondents, with faculty and committee meetings viewed as ineffective by
43% and 37% of the innovation champions respectively. See C2 in Appendix C.
Overall Perceptions of How Well the Field and Particular ASJMC Programs Are
Doing Teaching Students With Courses Using Web Features
        Using a five-point answer (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree,
and strongly agree), the innovation champion survey questionnaire items
measured  perceptions of individual program performance and the performance
of the journalism and mass communication field in general, in terms of
teaching students using Web features. Responses were collapsed into three
options: disagree, neutral, and agree. Half of the innovation champions
(50%) agree that their program is doing a good job teaching students by
using Web course features (See Table C3). About one-third (37%) disagree.
For the field overall, however, the views of the innovation champions are
quite different compared to perceptions of their own programs. Close to
half of the innovation champions (47%) were neutral on whether the field of
journalism and mass communication is doing a good job of teaching students
using Web course features. Four out of 10 disagree and only 12% agree that
the field is doing a good job.
Discussion
Concerning Research Question 1, it was determined that ASJMC administrators
readily identified innovation champions on their faculty and that
innovation champions, on the whole, are more innovative than top
administrators. The findings comparing administrators and innovation
champions on innovativeness traits resulted in differences on two items.
Innovation champions were less reluctant than administrators to adopt new
Innovativeness and Perceptions 23
things until they see them working for others. And innovation champions
perceived themselves as less likely, when compared with administrators'
views, to be one of the last people in their group to accept something new.
Overall, however, administrator and innovation champion scores on the
remaining measures appeared to be fairly close.
        Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1977) stated that the innovativeness scale was
designed to measure individuals' willingness to change. For this study on
Web course features implementation, innovation champions were found to be
more innovative. This supported Rogers' (1995) view on innovativeness
personality trait generalizations. Rogers wrote that difficulties in
measuring personality dimensions have resulted in personality variables
associated with innovativeness needing more research attention. The results
from this study may make a small contribution to DOI theory pertaining to
innovativeness traits.
Innovation champions see themselves as earlier adopters and according to
Rogers (1995), this indicates that they tend to think imaginatively and
have the ability to take on the roles of heterophilious others so that they
can be effective in exchanging information with them. Innovation champions
working with Web course features may be less dogmatic than other adopters.
In other words, these faculty tend to welcome new ideas. Innovation
champions, as early adopters, are respected by their peers and embody the
successful use of new ideas. These faculty have a more favorable attitude
toward change and are able to
deal with risk and uncertainty better than later adopters. In terms of
communication behavior, Rogers (1995) wrote that earlier adopters tend to
be more highly connected in
interpersonal networks than later adopters. They tend to have more
knowledge about innovations than do others and they seek out information
more actively. What this means for administrators who are uncertain of who
might be an innovation champion on their faculty is that the implementation
of Web course features at their program may be proceeding slowly because
change agents (innovation champions) working for administrators, probably
are not being fully utilized. Before implementing an innovation,
Innovativeness and Perceptions 24
the top decision makers should seek and evaluate feedback frequently
(Zaltman et al., 1973).
Research Question 2 read "Will innovation champions find that informal
interpersonal communication channels rather than formal communication
channels, are more effective in explaining Web course features? If so, what
specific interpersonal formats are most effective?" Innovation champion
survey results showed that interpersonal communication is viewed as more
useful and effective (8 of 10 agree) than formal (routinized) communication
(less than 5 in 10 agree) in explaining complex Web course features. Nine
out of 10 of the innovation champions agreed that one-on-one meetings were
the most effective format, followed by 8 of 10 of the innovation champions
viewing casual small group meetings as effective.
        The innovation champion survey addressed the theoretical component of
communicability. In other words, Leonard-Barton (1988) wrote, it is
important for the technology's operating principles to be successfully
communicated to individuals other than its developers. While the focus of
this research project was not on the interpersonal aspects of DOI, per se,
DOI theory stresses the importance that change agent contact and
communication play in diffusion. Innovation champions found informal
interpersonal
communication, such as one-on-one meetings and small group discussions, to
be the most effective ways to explain Web course features to colleagues.
This finding is theoretically significant because Rogers (1995) and other
DOI theorists such as Zaltman et al. (1973) stress the importance of
interpersonal communication in the diffusion process. Rogers wrote that
communication network analysis is a complex and under-studied area of DOI
research. This aspect of DOI
helps to illustrate communication structure which Rogers noted was
"invisible." Rogers noted that for change agents such as innovation
champions in this study, the type of

Innovativeness and Perceptions 25
personal communication networks that they operate within are important
elements in achieving change. In a small way, this study may add useful
information to the existing literature supporting the importance of
interpersonal communication in DOI. The findings on specific communication
formats seen as effective in conveying information on Web course features,
should be useful to both administrators and to innovation champions, in
terms of both confirming formats already seen as effective and through
identification of the most effective communication vehicles. Rogers (2000)
stated that DOI scholars should be investigating the human interactions
with new media technologies and the social consequences of interactive
technologies.
Limitations of the Study
While most innovation studies do use the survey as the primary method for
gathering data, observing change in the innovation over a period of time
would be more systematic (Van de Ven and Rogers, 1988). Relying on
administrators' recollections of dates that their programs began
implementing Web course features is limiting. It is limiting because no
other collaborating records are presented, such as college catalog listings
of such courses. The sample sizes, especially of the innovation champions,
were relatively small in this study. The samples were not randomly
selected. Because there are differences in individual DOI theory and
organizational DOI theory, using individuals' perceptions as the unit of
analysis, without also using organizational records or personal
observations and/or in-depth interviews, can be seen as a limitation of the
methodology.
Implications for Future Research
Future research in this area might broaden the population of schools
surveyed to include for example, community colleges, a broader
representation of institutions represented in the new Carnegie 2000
classification scheme, and more overseas programs that offer journalism and
mass communication.
References
        Adams, T. L.  (1997). Follow the yellow brick road: using diffusion of
innovations theory to enrich virtual organizations in cyberspace. Southern
Communication Journal 62, no. 2, 133-148.
        Albrecht, T. L., and Hall, B.  (1991). Relational and content differences
between elites and outsiders in innovation networks. Human Communication
Research 17, no. 4, 535-561.
Albrecht, T. L., and Ropp, V. A.  (1984).  Communicating about innovation
in networks of three u.s. organizations. Journal of Communication 34, no.
3, 78-91.
Anonymous.  (1991). Mission and goals statement. Association of Schools of
Journalism and Mass Communication. Columbia, South Carolina: ASJMC.
Anonymous.  (1996). Searching for direction in journalism education.
New York, New York: Media Studies Center.
Babbie, E.  (1986). The Practice of Social Research, Fourth Edition.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Baldridge, V., and Deal, T.  (1983).  The basics of change in educational
organizations. In Baldridge, V. and Deal, T. (eds.).  The Dynamics of
Organizational Change in Education, 1-12. Berkeley, California: McCutchan
Publishing.
Beller, M., & Or, E.  (1998). The crossroads between lifelong learning and
information technology: a challenge facing leading universities. Journal of
Computer-Mediated-Communication 4, no. 2.
Bostock, S. J.  (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: a case
study. British Journal of Educational Technology 29, no. 3, 225-240.
Brookfield, S. D.  (1987). Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults
to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Clark, R. E.  (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational
Technology Research and Development 42, no. 2, 21-29.
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., and Menzel, H.  (1966). Medical Innovation: A
Diffusion Study. Indianapolis, Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Cuban, L.  (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology
Since 1920. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L.  (1993). Computers meet classroom: classroom wins. Teachers
College Record 95, no. 2, 185-210.
Duchastel, P.  (1997). A web-based model for university instruction.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems 25 no 3, 221-228.
Eisenberg, M. B., and Ely, D. P.  (1993). Plugging into the net. The ERIC
Review 2, no. 3, 2-10.
Flake, J. L.  (1996). The world wide web and education. Computers in the
Schools 12, no. 1-2, 89-100.
Green, B. (ed.)  (1993). Curriculum Technology and Textual Practice.
Deakin University.
Greening, T.  (1998). Building the constructivist toolbox: an exploration
of cognitive technologies. Educational Technology 38, no. 2, 23-35.
Guilford, J. P.  (1954). Psychometric Methods. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gunaratne, S. A., and Lee, B. S.  (1996). Integration of internet resources
into curriculum and instruction. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator
51 no. 2, 25-35.
Hunt, A. N.  (1996). IT and the curriculum. The Media and Communication
Studies Site. Available online at: http://ccserver02.ace.ac.nz/info/IT_Curr.htm

Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., Cook, C. D.  (1977). Scales for the measurement of
innovativeness. Human Communication Research 4, no. 1, 58-65.
Johnson, J. D., Donohue, W. A., Atkin, C. K., and Johnson, S.  (1995).
Differences between organizational and communication factors related to
contrasting innovations. The Journal of Business Communication 32, no. 1,
65-80.
Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., and Davidson, M. E.  (1994). Learning
with media: restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and
Development 42, no. 2, 31-39.
Kaye, B. K, and Medoff N. J.  (1999). The World Wide Web: A Mass
Communication Perspective. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing
Company.
Khan, B. H.  (1997). Web-based instruction (wbi): what is it and why is
it?  In B.H. Khan (ed.) Web-Based Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Kozma, R. B.  (1994). Will media influence learning? reframing the debate.
Educational Technology Research and Development 42, no. 2, 7-19.
Leonard-Barton, D.  (1988). Implementation characteristics of
organizational innovations: limits and opportunities for management
strategies. Communication Research 15, no. 5, 603-631.
Liska, A., and Grune, I.  (1995). The internet as a post-modern culture
version 2.6. Paper presented at the 1995 American Sociological Association
Meetings.
Masters, R., and Meier, R.  (1990). Technological innovation and
risk-taking in higher education. CUPA Journal 41, no. 1, 11-17.
Miller, D. C.  (1977). Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement,
3rd Edition, New York, New York: David McKay Co.
Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement,
3rd Edition. Newbury Park,, California: Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B.  (1964). In M. B. Miles (ed.) Innovation in Education. New
York, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
        Mitchell, W, J.  (1995). City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
        Newhagen, J. E., and Rafaeli, S.  (1996). Why communication researchers
should study the internet: a dialogue. Journal of Communication 46 no. 1, 4-13.
Panici, D. A.  (1998). New media and the introductory mass communication
course. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 53, no. 1, 52-63.
Pipes, B.R., and Wilson, J. M.,  (1996). A multimedia model for
undergraduate education. Technology in Society 18, no. 3, 387-401.
Rogers, E. M.  (1995).  Diffusion of Innovations, (4th ed.). New York, New
York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., and Kincaid D. L.  (1981). Communication Networks: Toward a
New Paradigm for Research. New York, New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker F. F.  (1971). Communication of Innovations.
New York, New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., and Singhal, A.  (1996). Diffusion of innovations. M. B.
Salwen and D. Stacks (eds.) An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory
and Research. Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rubenstein, M. F., and Firstenberg, I. R.  (1987). Tools for thinking. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 30, 23-35.
Ryder, M., & Wilson, B.  (1996). Affordances and constraints of the
internet for learning and instruction. Paper presented in Indianapolis at
the Association for Educational Communications Technology, Feb. 14-18.
Sass, G. M., Maynard, N., Gutierrez, F., Medsger, B.  (1997, March).
Searching for direction in journalism education. Discussion conducted at
the Media Studies Center in New York City.
Schramm, W.  (1977). Big Media Little Media: Tools and Technologies for
Instruction. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
Scott, S. D.  (1995). The technological challenge for curriculum and
instruction. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 50, no. 2, 30-40.
Shoemaker, P.  (1993). Critical thinking for mass communications students.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 10 no. 1, 98-111.
Shneiderman, B.  (1995). In B. Shneiderman (ed.) Sparks of Innovation in
Human-Computer Interaction. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Sloan, B.  (1997). Cyberhope, or cyberhype? cmc and the future of higher
education. Media & Communications World Wide Web Site. Available at:
http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~haythorn/cmc_bs.htm
Sproull, N. L.  (1995). Handbook of Research Methods: A Guide for
Practitioners and Students in the Social Sciences, 2nd Edition. Metuchen,
New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Stamm, K. R.  (1989). Measurement decisions. In G.H. Stempel and B.H.
Westley (eds.) Research Methods in Mass Communication. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Sutherland, P. J., and Stewart R. K.  (1999). How accredited programs use
the world wide web. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 53, no. 6,
16-22.
Watt, J. A., and van den Berg, S. A.  (1995). Research Methods for
Communication Science. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Williams, F.  (1992). Reasoning with Statistics: How to Read Quantitative
Research, Fourth Edition. Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., and Holbek, J.  (1973). Innovations and
Organizations. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Appendix A

Administrator Survey

INSTRUCTIONS-

Please complete the demographic information and then the nine item
questionnaire below. Information about you and your specific program will
be kept confidential.

__ Check here if you would like to be sent the results of this survey.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-(Mark with an "X" in appropriate space).

(01)-Region of the U.S. that your school is located:

__ New England  __ Mid-Atlantic __ Midwest              __ West
__ South                __ Hawaii               __ Alaska               __ Other: (Specify):

(02)-Type of Institution:

___Research I   ___Research II  ___Doctoral I           ___Doctoral II
___Liberal Arts

(03)-Gender:

___ Male        ___ Female

(04)-Age:

___ Years

(05)-Time at present position:

___ Year(s)

(06)-Highest degree obtained:

___ Ph.D.       ___ Ed.D.       ___ Masters     ___ Other-Please specify:__________

QUESTIONS:

(07)-Year your program started offering courses with any Web features?

_____ Specify the year please
_____ No courses with any Web features are offered

INSTRUCTIONS FOR REMAINING QUESTIONS-

Place the appropriate numeral from the key in the space provided before
each item under the questions below. You may provide additional information
by writing under "Comments."




ASJMC Web Use Survey-Page Two

KEY FOR ITEM #08 BELOW:

1= Strongly disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neutral
4= Agree
5= Strongly agree

(08)-From the list of organizational culture characteristics below, to what
extent does the item describe your program's culture?

__ The program is always changing, shifting, transforming.
__ The program is vulnerable to outside pressures.
__ The goals of the program often seem ambiguous.
__ Students exert considerable influence in program decision making.
__ Program strategies and policies concerning use of the Web are clear.
__ Faculty that I see as experts in Web course teaching demand autonomy.
__ With faculty using the Web in courses, a tension exists between
        professional values and administrative expectations.
__ Faculty using the Web in their courses expect peer evaluation of their
        Web course work.
__ Other(s): Please specify.

KEY FOR ITEM # 09 BELOW:

1= Strongly disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neutral
4= Agree
5= Strongly agree

(09)-To what extent does each item below describe the implementation
process in your program regarding courses with Web features?

__ There has been dissatisfaction with the Web course status quo.
__ The program's faculty/staff have the required knowledge and skills
        related to Web course development.
__ Adequate resources are available for Web course development.
__ There is adequate time to implement Web courses.
__ Rewards and/or incentives are in place for Web course faculty participants.
__ The program expects active participation in the adoption of Web courses.
__ There is a commitment by faculty involved in Web courses.
__ Leadership in Web course development is shown by the top administrator
        and by the Web project leader on a daily basis.

Comment(s):

CONFIDENTIALITY REMINDER: Names of individuals and institutions will be
kept confidential by the researcher.



ASJMC Web Use Survey-Page Three

(10)-Do you see your program as a leader in Web course offerings?

__ Yes
__ No

(11)-Can you identify a faculty member in your program as being a change
agent, also called an innovation champion (advocate/catalyst), for Web courses?

__ Yes
__ No

If you answered yes, please provide the person's name and e
mail  address:____________________________________

KEY FOR ITEM # 12 ON PAGE FOUR:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

(12)-Indicate to what extent you agree with each of the statements below
(Hurt, Joseph, & Cook 1977).

__ 1.   I am generally cautious about accepting new ideas.
__ 2.   I rarely trust new ideas until I can see whether the vast majority of
                people around me accept them.
__ 3.   I am aware that I am usually one of the last people in my group to
                accept something new.
__ 4.   I am reluctant about adopting new ways of doing things until I see
                them working for people around me.
__ 5.   I find it stimulating to be original in my thinking and behavior.
__ 6.   I tend to find the old way of living and doing things is the best way.
__ 7.   I am challenged by ambiguities and unsolved problems.
__ 8.   I must see other people using new innovations before I'll consider them.
__ 9.   I am challenged by unanswered questions.
__10.   I often find myself skeptical of new ideas.














ASJMC Web Use Survey-Page Four

KEY FOR ITEM # 13 BELOW:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

(13)-From the items listed below, to what extent do you think that the item
is a constraint/resistance in your program towards implementing the Web in
courses?

__ Assessment difficulties with Web course education
__ Complexities of system wide adjustment to Web courses
__ Decreased teacher immediacy of Web courses
__ Funding concerns for Web course hardware or software
__ Lack of published research on Web course effectiveness
__ Lack of promotion/tenure for teachers already using the Web
__ Lack of strategic planning for Web course learning
__ Lack of knowledge on alternative teaching such as on Web
__ Perceived need to hire more personnel to service courses
__ Plagiarism concerns
__ Staff resistance to Web technology
__ Teacher resistance to Web technology
__ Time drain on faculty using Web courses in terms of
designing/maintaining the Web           course
__ Other(s): Please specify

Comment(s):
























ASJMC Web Use Survey-Page Five

KEY FOR ITEM # 14 BELOW:

1= Very unimportant
2= Unimportant
3= Neutral
4= Important
5= Very important

(14)-From the list of items below, to what extent do you think that the
item constitutes a need to implement the Web into your courses?

__ Accreditation agency expectations
__ Active learning component of Web courses
__ Adaptive aspects of the Web for future innovations
__ Adult learner demands for Web courses as lifetime learning
__ Combat professional isolationism with Web colleagues
__ Competitive forces that offer extensive Web courses
__ Convenience of access on-line
__ Cost effectiveness of Web courses
__ Empowerment of students for directing own learning
__ Employers' demands for graduates to have Web experience
__ Global scope of the Web broadens outlooks and resources
__ Increased class participation through Web activities
__ Increased learner satisfaction
__ Interactive materials available on the Web
__ Interdisciplinary approach to knowledge via the Web
__ Perception of the Web as an essential program
__ Prestige that Web courses can bring programs
__ Profit pressures on universities to use the Web for $ gain
__ Recruitment of students outside geographical area on the Web
__ Research and development opportunities over the Web
__ Self-paced learning options for students using the Web
__ Other(s): Please specify

Comment(s):

(15)-From my past and present experiences in adopting and implementing Web
courses, I'd like to share this comment(s) about the Web innovation with
administrators and/or faculty.

Comment(s):







Return this survey by using the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Thank you again for participating in this survey concerning Web courses at
ASJMC Programs.


Appendix A con't

Innovation Champion Survey

QUESTIONS:

(01)-Approximately how many courses with Web features does your
journalism/communication program offer per year?

___ 0
___ 1-4
___ 5-8
___ 9-12
___ 13+

Comment(s):

(02)-In the course(s) with Web features that are offered in your program,
please indicate with an "X," whether your course(s) offer the following:

___ Animated GIFs
___ Audio streaming
___ Compression technology
___ Conferencing tools
___ Entire course is offered on-line: Please specify course name(s):_________
___ Internet navigation tools (access to databases) such as Gopher, Lynx
___ Links to multimedia content relevant to the course topic
___ Reading assignments on-line
___ Remote access tools such as Telnet, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), etc.
___ Student produced course products on-line
___ Syllabus on-line
___ Testing on-line
___ Video streaming
___ Other: (Specify):_______

Comment(s):

KEY FOR ITEM #03 BELOW:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

(03)-

___ My program is doing a good job of teaching students in terms
of the program using Web course features related to the
field.
Comment(s):



KEY FOR ITEM #04 BELOW:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

(04)-

___ The journalism and mass communication field is doing a good job
of teaching students in terms of programs using Web course features.

Comment(s):

KEY FOR ITEM #05 BELOW:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

(05)-To what extent does each item below describe the implementation
process in your program regarding courses with Web features?

___ There has been dissatisfaction with the Web course status quo.
___ The program's faculty/staff have the required knowledge and skills
related to Web course development.
___ Adequate resources are available for Web course development.
___ There is adequate time to implement Web courses.
___ Rewards and/or incentives are in place for Web course faculty participants.
___ The program expects active participation in the adoption of Web courses.
___ There is a commitment by faculty involved in Web courses.
___ Leadership in Web course development is shown by the top administrator
and by the Web project leader on a daily basis.

Comment(s):

KEY FOR ITEM #06 BELOW:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree








(06)-Indicate the extent of your agreement with each of the statements
below (Hurt, Joseph, & Cook 1977).

___ I am generally cautious about accepting new ideas.
___ I rarely trust new ideas until I can see whether the vast majority of
people around me accept them.
___ I am aware that I am usually one of the last people in my group to
accept something new.
___ I am reluctant about adopting new ways of doing things until I see
them working for people around me.
___ I find it stimulating to be original in my thinking and behavior.
___ I tend to find the old way of living and doing things is the best way.
___ I am challenged by ambiguities and unsolved problems.
___ I must see other people using new innovations before I will
consider them.
___ I am challenged by unanswered questions.
___ I often find myself skeptical of new ideas.

Comment(s):

KEY FOR ITEM #07 BELOW:

1 = Very ineffective
2 = Ineffective
3 = Neutral
4 = Effective
5 = Very effective

(07)-Rate the overall usefulness of the communication channel types below,
in terms of your experience(s), as to their effectiveness in helping you to
explain complex Web course features to others:

___ Formal routinized channels (e.g., faculty meetings, workshops, articles)
___ Informal interpersonal channels (e.g., one-on-one meetings, lounge talks)
___ Other(s): Specify:

Comment(s):

KEY FOR ITEM #08 BELOW:

1 = Very ineffective
2 = Ineffective
3 = Neutral
4 = Effective
5 = Very effective









(08)-Rate each communication format below in terms of what you
perceive as being, in your experience, their effectiveness in helping you to
explain to colleagues how and why to use Web course features (such as
those specified in (02) above):

___ Academic articles
___ Casual small group discussions
___ Committee meetings
___ Electronic mail correspondence
___ Faculty meetings
___ Listserve postings
___ Mass media presentations on Web features
___ One-on-one personal meetings
___ Regular mail correspondence
___ Teaching/research conferences/workshops
___ Telephone conversations
___ Trade magazines
___ Other(s): Specify:

Comment(s):

(09)-From your past and present experiences in adopting and implementing
courses with Web features, please share your thoughts about what has
contributed to either problems, or to successes, in your teaching.

Comment(s):



DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-

(10)-Gender:

___ Male
___ Female

(11)-Age:

___ Years

(12)-Time at present teaching position:

___ Year(s)

(13)-Years of professional experience:

___ Year(s)








(14)-Highest degree obtained:

___ Ph.D.
___ Ed.D.
___ Masters
___ Bachelors
___ Other-Please specify:__________

(15)-Academic rank:

___ Professor
___ Associate Professor
___ Assistant Professor
___ Instructor
___ Lecturer
___ Other: Please specify:__________

Thank you again for participating in this survey concerning Web course
features at ASJMC Programs. Your confidentiality will be maintained.

My e mail addresses are [log in to unmask],  or [log in to unmask],
or [log in to unmask]   I can be reached by telephone at
304-829-4860.
My mailing address is P.O. Box 536 Bethany, WV 26032.



















Appendix B
Table B1

        Institution Type in Numbers and Percentages


        Institution Type        N and P in ASJMC                n and Total
P                                               Population                      of Sample


        Research I              40      (21.2)                  30      (21.9)

        Research II             22      (11.6)                  18      (13.1)

        Doctoral I              15      (  7.9)                 12      (  8.8)

        Doctoral II             12      (  6.3)                 10      (  7.3)

        Liberal Arts              4     (  2.1)                   4     (  2.9)

        Non-national            89      (47.1)                  60      (43.8)
        Carnegie

        Outside U.S.              7     (  3.7)                    3    (  2.2)
        Non-national
        Carnegie

        Totals                    189       100.0                          137     (100.0)














Table B2
Administrator Survey Innovativeness Traits Percentages, Means and Standard
Deviations

Statement                                                       P

                                        SD      D       N       A       SA      M
                                        (1)     (2)     (3)     (4)     (5)     (SD)

   1.  I am generally cautious about
        accepting new ideas.            24.6    45.5    14.9    13.4    1.5     2.22
                                                                                (1.01)
   2.  I rarely trust new ideas until I
        can see whether the vast
        majority of people around
        me accept them.         39.6    52.2      5.2     2.2      .7   1.73
                                                                                (.73)
   3.  I am aware that I am usually one
        of the last people in my
        group to accept
        something new.          55.2    35.8      3.7     2.2     3.0   1.62
                                                                                (.90)



table continues


Table B2 con't
Administrator Survey Innovativeness Traits Percentages, Means and Standard
Deviations

Statement                                                       P

                                        SD      D       N       A       SA      M
                                        (1)     (2)     (3)     (4)     (5)     (SD)

  4.  I am reluctant about adopting
        new ways of doing things
        until I see them working for
        people around me.               32.8    51.5      8.2     6.7       .7  1.91
                                                                                (.86)
  5.  I find it stimulating to be
        original in my thinking and
        behavior.                         2.2       .7    8.1   49.6    39.3    4.23
                                                                                (.81)
  6.  I tend to find the old way of
         living and doing things is the
         best way.                      29.1    34.3    26.1      8.2     2.2   2.20
                                                                                (1.02)
  7.  I am challenged by ambiguities
        and unsolved problems.    3.7     3.7   14.8    51.9    25.9    3.93
                                                                                (.94)
table continues


Table B2 con't
Administrator Survey Innovativeness Traits Percentages, Means and Standard
Deviations

Statement                                                       P

                                        SD      D       N       A       SA      M
                                        (1)     (2)     (3)     (4)     (5)     (SD)

   8.  I must see other people using
        new innovations before I'll
        consider them.                  33.1    50.4    12.0      3.8       .8  1.89
                                                                                (.81)
   9.  I am challenged by
        unanswered questions.     2.2     4.4   11.9    50.4    31.1    4.04
                                                                                (.90)
10. I often find myself skeptical of
         new ideas.                     20.1    41.8    20.1    12.7      5.2   2.41
                                                                                (1.11)

Note. n = 133-135. SD = Strongly disagree (1), D = Disagree (2), N =
Neutral (3),  A = Agree (4), SA = Strongly agree (5).





Table B3
Innovation Champion Innovativeness Traits Scale Percentages of Agreement
and Disagreement

Statement                                                       P

                                                SD      D       N       A       SA

   1.  I am generally cautious about accepting
        new ideas.                              39.4    36.6      7.0   9.9     7.0
   2.  I rarely trust new ideas until I can see
        whether the vast majority of people
        around me accept them.          49.3    45.1      4.2   - -     1.4
   3.  I am aware that I am usually one of the
        last people in my group to accept
        something new.                  76.1    18.3      4.2   - -     1.4
   4.  I am reluctant about adopting new ways
        of doing things until I see them
        working for people around me.   60.6    31.0      7.0   1.4     - -
   5.  I find it stimulating to be original in my
        thinking and behavior.                    1.4     2.9     4.3   31.4    60.0
   6.  I tend to find the old way of living and
        doing things is the best way.           31.0    40.8    22.5      4.2     1.4
   7.  I am challenged by ambiguities and
        unsolved problems.                        2.8     2.8   14.1    40.8    39.4
table continues

Table B3 con't
Innovation Champion Innovativeness Traits Scale Percentages of Agreement
and Disagreement

Statement                                                       P

                                                SD      D       N       A       SA

   8.  I must see other people using new
        innovations before I'll consider
        them.                                   49.3    38.0      5.6     4.2     2.8
   9.  I am challenged by unanswered
        questions.                                5.6     2.8     8.5   40.8    42.3
10. I often find myself skeptical of new
        ideas.                                  28.6    47.1    11.4      8.6     4.3
Note. n = 70-71. SD = Strongly disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral,  A =
Agree, SA = Strongly agree.









Table B4
Comparison of Administrator and Innovation Champion Innovativeness Traits
Means and Standard Deviations

Statement
                                Administrators           Innovation Champions   t
                                        M       SD      M       SD              Critical
                                                                                Value
                                                                                (p)


I am generally cautious about
        accepting new ideas.            2.22    1.01    2.08    1.23            --
                                                                                --
I rarely trust new ideas until I can
        see whether the vast
        majority of people around
        me accept them.         1.73      .73   1.59      .71           --
                                                                                --
I am aware that I am usually one of
        the last people in my group
        to accept something new.        1.62      .90   1.32      .69           2.66
                                                                                2.57
                                                                                 (p = .01)

table continues

Table B4 con't
Comparison of Administrator and Innovation Champion Innovativeness Traits
Means and Standard Deviations

Statement
                                Administrators           Innovation Champions   t
                                        M       SD      M       SD              Critical
                                                                                Value
                                                                                (p)

I am reluctant about adopting new
        ways of doing things until
        I see them working for
        people around me.               1.91      .86   1.49      .69           3.79
                                                                                3.29
                                                                               (p = .001)
I find it stimulating to be original in
        my thinking and behavior.       4.23      .81   4.46      .83           --
                                                                                --
I tend to find the old way of  living
        and doing things is the best
        way.                            2.20    1.02    2.04      .92           --
                                                                                --


table continues

Table B4 con't
Comparison of Administrator and Innovation Champion Innovativeness Traits
Means and Standard Deviations

Statement
                                Administrators           Innovation Champions   t
                                        M       SD      M       SD              Critical                                                                                Value
                                                                                (p)

I am challenged by ambiguities and
        unsolved problems.              3.93      .94   4.11    1.06            --
                                                                                --
I must see other people using new
        innovations before I will
        consider them.                  1.89      .81   1.73      .95           --
                                                                                --
I am challenged by unanswered
        questions.                      4.04      .90   4.11    1.06            --
                                                                                --
I often find myself skeptical of
        new ideas                       2.41    1.11    2.13    1.06            --
                                                                                --

Note.  n for Administrators = 33 to 135, n for Innovation Champions = 70 to 71.
1 = Strongly  disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly
Agree.

Appendix C
Table C1
Useful/Effective Communication Channels in Explaining Web Course Features

Communication Channel Type                              P

                                                SD      D       N       A       SA

Formal routinized channels (a).           5.5   26.0    23.3    39.7      5.5
Informal interpersonal channels (b).              2.7     2.7   13.7    46.6    34.2
Other:(c).

Note. n = 73. (a). Formal channels were defined as routinized communication
such as faculty meetings, workshops, and articles. (b). Informal channels were
defined as interpersonal such as one-on-one meetings, and lounge talks. (c).
Eight respondents checked the "Other" option and the specific type of
communication channels they mentioned follow. One respondent mentioned seeing
results on-line and hearing about them from students. Another listed
samples on the
Web and another respondent cited viewing others' Web pages. One respondent
listed e mail, class listserves and chat groups as communication channels.
Another
listed ZDTV and related technical publications both on-line and in print as
communication channels. One respondent wrote in campus wide seminars as a
channel. Another stated that hands on training is the best. Finally, one
respondent
said he/she used calls on the phone and e mail as communication channels.



Table C2
Communication Formats' Effectiveness in Explaining Web Course Features

Communication Format
                                        n                       P

                                                VI      I       N       E       VE

Academic articles                       71      16.9    22.5    35.2    19.7      5.6
Casual small group discussions  71        - -     2.8   19.4    58.3    19.4
Committee meetings                      71      15.5    21.1    26.8    31.0      5.6
Electronic mail correspondence  71        5.6   15.5    25.4    46.5      7.0
Faculty meetings                        72      18.1    25.0    26.4    27.8      2.8
Listserve postings                      71      11.3    14.1    42.3    26.8      5.6
Mass media presentations on Web
        features                        71        8.5   21.1    35.2    29.6      5.6
One-on-one personal meetings    72        1.4     1.4     6.9   34.7    55.6
Regular mail correspondence             70      25.7    21.4    38.6    11.4      2.9
Teaching/research conferences/
        workshops                       71        1.4     7.0   21.1    54.9    15.5
Telephone conversations         71      12.7      8.5   42.3    31.0      5.6
Trade magazines                 70      10.0    12.9    44.3    27.1      5.7

Note. VI = Very ineffective, I = Ineffective, N = Neutral, E = Effective, VE =
Very effective.


Table C3
        Summary of How Innovation Champions View Their Program, and

        the Field Overall, As Doing Using Web Course Features in Teaching



        Statements                                              P


                                                Disagree        Neutral         Agree


        My program is doing a good
        job of teaching students in
        terms of the program using
        Web course features related
        to the field.                           37.1            12.9            50.0

        The journalism and mass
        communication field is doing
        a good job of teaching
        students in terms of
        programs using Web course
        features.                               40.9            47.0            12.1

        Note. n = 69, and 65 respectively.






Abstract
Innovativeness and Perceptions of Faculty Innovation Champions on the
Diffusion of World Wide Web Course Features


By Patrick J. Sutherland, A.B.D.
Doctoral Candidate, Ohio University
And Associate Professor, Bethany College


This study examined perceptions of faculty and administrators involved in
courses with Web features diffusing at journalism and mass communication
programs. This research considered the role of the innovation champion and
whether they found interpersonal communication to be most effective in
explaining features to others. Innovativeness characteristics of
administrators and faculty were measured. Two national surveys were
conducted. Innovation champions scored higher on innovativeness and
interpersonal communication was most effective in explaining Web course
features.