Abstract
Bridging the Digital Divide?
A National Survey of the Integration of Internet-based Technologies in
Undergraduate Journalism and Mass Communication Classes
As one of the first national studies surveying the technological landscape
of undergraduate classes in journalism and mass communication programs in
the 21st century, this research presents an encouraging picture of
professors' integration of Internet-based technologies into their
classrooms. In addition, this study examines the motivations behind
professors' rejection or adoption of such innovations. Based on several
statistically significant relationships, the authors propose an exploratory
model that predicts professors' integration of Internet-based technologies
into their classrooms.
Bridging the Digital Divide?
Bridging the Digital Divide?
A National Survey of the Integration of Internet-based Technologies in
Undergraduate Journalism and Mass Communication Classes
By
Cassandra Imfeld
Park Fellowship Doctoral Student
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
And
Koang-Hyub Kim
Doctoral Student
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
April 1, 2003
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Cassandra Imfeld
5303 Drew Hill Lane
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
(919) 59302667
[log in to unmask]
Submitted to the Communication Technology and Policy Division for the
National Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Convention,
Kansas City, MO., 2003
With more than 85% of college students using the Internet and nearly
three-fourths of college students agreeing that the Internet has had a
positive impact on their academic experience, the Information Superhighway
has become a ubiquitous part of college students' education.[1] However,
college professors' use and integration of the Internet into classrooms may
not match students' enthusiasm for this digital communication tool. In its
report, the "Internet Goes to College," the Pew Internet and American Life
Project expressed concerns that "colleges and universities might be
experiencing an Internet generation gap between professors and students in
terms of their Internet usage interests or abilities."[2]
Even though scholars have repeatedly touted the Internet and its related
technologies as "powerful teaching resources that provide instructors with
a limitless wealth of information and shared professional practices,"[3]
many questions still remain about the success of its integration into
college classrooms. And, with academicians' history of resisting
innovations,[4] the Pew report's concerns about a digital divide could be
an accurate depiction of the current situation in college classrooms.
Within journalism and mass communications, scholars Pat Curtin and
Elizabeth Witherspoon recognized that integrating new technologies into the
classroom not only presented opportunities but hurdles as well. [5]
Further, Carol Smith, Haeryon Kim, and James Bernstein noted educators'
resistance to innovations was a typical reaction since journalism and mass
communication educators were constantly being forced to squeeze in yet
another computer application into "an already tight curriculum."[6]
However, early on in the move to integrate the Internet into the classroom,
scholars Shelton Gunaratne and Byung Lee declared "journalism faculty
[need] to discard cyberphobia and embrace the Internet as a teaching tool."[7]
Research in mass communication and journalism on the adoption of
innovations has typically focused on the infusion of computers and specific
Internet-based applications, such as e-mail and the World Wide Web, into
classrooms.[8] Further, the most recent study of the integration of new
media tools in journalism and mass communication curricula was published
five years ago by scholar Daniel Panici. While Panici's study examined
motivations for professors' integration of technologies into the classroom,
his research focused on new media tools, such as computer simulations,
multimedia materials, CD-ROMs and not just Internet-based technologies.[9]
Missing from the literature is an up-to-date analysis of what
Internet-based technologies professors have integrated into skills and
non-skills based classes and the factors influencing professors teaching
undergraduate classes decisions in integrating innovations into the
classroom. This national study presents the findings from an online survey
about the integration of Internet-based technologies into undergraduate
classes and the motivations behind professors' integration or rejection of
these technologies.
A review of innovation integration in academia
Since the Internet's public introduction in the early 1990s, scholars have
researched and surveyed its impact on students, curricula and academe.[10]
Research across disciplines has advocated for academicians to embrace the
Internet as it presents "exciting interactive opportunities for
supplementing the traditional classroom experience."[11] However, even with
the promise of exciting opportunities, educators in general have not rushed
to adopt new technologies. In a study by Grady Armstrong on the integration
of multimedia tools (non-Internet based), he noted that the famous "build
it and they will come" mantra does not apply in classrooms. He asserted,
"Building 'smart' classrooms does not guarantee that they [faculty] will
'come' to use multimedia presentations."[12]
Armstrong's findings suggest that the integration of technologies into the
classroom is more involved than simply presenting professors with the
latest technological tools. He, as well as other scholars,[13] recognized
that other variables could affect the adoption process of innovations. From
the literature examining academicians' motivations for adopting or
rejecting innovations, such as the Internet, three concentrations emerged:
personal, pedagogical, and institutional support.
Personal. Recognizing the advantages and challenges integrating innovations
into the classroom presents, David Leonard stated, "Our future depends on
our willingness to change as technology changes. We now have the
opportunity to under undergo a . . . transformation, to redefine and
revitalize our role and mission as educators and as knowledge sharers and
disseminators through the use of communication technologies."[14] Jiang Lan
also asserted, "The success or failure of an innovation rests ultimately on
the people who implement it."[15] These scholars asserted that the success
of integrating innovations into the classroom is the responsibility of
individual professors.
Several scholars identified professors' attitudes and beliefs toward an
innovation as influencing their decisions on whether to integrate
innovations into their classrooms.[16] Within a broader context and beyond
the academic setting, Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory is
applicable. Rogers stated, "Innovations that are perceived by individuals
as having greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability,
observability, and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other
innovations."[17]
Other personal variables in the adoption of innovations identified within
the academic context included the number of years teaching, age, and
gender. A study by Nan Adams challenges current perceptions that less
experienced faculty are more likely to adopt the latest innovations than
their more tenured colleagues. Adams found that postsecondary teachers with
less than ten years of experience or those with twenty years or more of
teaching experience had a higher level of integrating technologies into
their teaching practices. Adams' study also found that women were more
likely to integrate new technologies into the classroom than men, and
professors between the ages of 18 to 34 were also more likely to integrate
innovations than their older colleagues.[18]
Pedagogy. Pedagogical concerns have also been identified as potential
hurdles in the integration of innovations into the classroom. A recurring
theme throughout the literature was scholars' concerns of academicians
blindly integrating technologies into the classroom without considering
their pedagogical implications.
Voicing the concern of many scholars, Susanmarie Harrington, Rebecca
Rickly, and Michael Day stated, "Technology such as the Internet should not
be used simply because it is there, but rather because it can further
existing educational goals . . . . In all cases, pedagogical goals should
determine whether and what technologies are used, not vice versa."[19]
Further, scholars asserted that academicians will only integrate
innovations they believe are effective pedagogical tools that advance
educational goals.[20] Pamela Mack and Gail Delicio declared, "There is no
one best way to use information technologies in the classroom. Different
technologies or none at all work best for different types of courses,
different teaching styles, and different students."[21]
A lack of proven benefits can result in professors' reluctance to integrate
innovations into their classrooms – especially when previous methods have
proven successful. For example, Lan noted that even though accessing and
using the Internet in the classroom may be easy, "learning to harness its
full potential is not so simple."[22] Other pedagogical factors that have
been identified as influencing the adoption of innovations included
professors' increased time in course preparation, decreased personal
contact with students, class size, and a fear that incorporation of certain
technologies would substitute the need for teachers.[23]
Institutional. One of the most cited studies in journalism and mass
communication on the motivations behind the integration of technologies
suggested that institutional support influenced professors' success of
adopting innovations into the classroom. Panici asked professors to rate
their institution's support by evaluating statements, such as whether the
institution offered useful on-campus workshops, seminars and demonstrations
of new technologies; adequate travel resources; support to attend
off-campus programs; sufficient funding for equipment, software, and
resource materials; as well as recognition and rewards for integrating the
new media into the classroom.[24]
Supporting Panici's study, Andrew Lumpe and Elisha Chambers found several
institutional factors influencing the adoption process of new technologies
into the classroom including: available resources, professional
development, Internet access, quality of software, classroom structures,
administrative support, teacher support, technical support, planning time,
time for students to use technology, mobile equipment, and proper
connections.[25] As noted by Leonard (2000), "Many faculty would be ready
to make the change to the digital learning world if they were provided with
the right tools, infrastructure, and rewards. Too often, however,
innovative and entrepreneurial faculty are given little support or
encouragement."[26]
In summary, motivations for adopting innovations within an academic context
can be categorized into three concentrations: personal, pedagogical, and
institutional support. However, overlap between these classifications
exists, and scholars continue to examine a wide range of variables
motivating professors to adopt or reject innovations.
Hypotheses
H1: Professors will integrate Internet-based technologies into their
classrooms if they perceive their undergraduate students have access to and
experience with the technologies.
H2: Professors teaching skills-based courses are more likely to integrate
Internet-based technologies into their undergraduate classes than
professors teaching non-skills based courses.
H3: Professors who receive institutional support are more likely to
integrate Internet-based technologies into their undergraduate courses than
professors who do not receive institutional support.
H4: Professors will integrate Internet-based technologies into their
courses if they perceive the technologies to be effective aids in
facilitating students' learning.
H5: Professors will integrate the Internet-based technologies into their
undergraduate classes that they have had experience with.
H6: Professors will integrate Internet-based technologies into their
undergraduate classes they are comfortable using into their classrooms.
Method
Survey instrument. Based on an extensive review of the literature and
previous surveys on the integration of innovations into classrooms, a
40-question survey was designed to provide insight into which
Internet-based technologies professors have integrated into their
undergraduate classes and the reasons why particular Internet-based
technologies have been adopted or rejected. The Internet-based technologies
tested in this survey — discussion boards, e-mail, course Web site (can
include commercial programs such as WebCT or Blackboard), instant
messaging/chat rooms, blogs, listserv, sites on the World Wide Web,
Internet news groups, streaming or downloadable audio or video, search
engines, and other — were selected as the result of their discussion in
scholarly research about their adoption into classrooms or trade
literature's advocacy of integrating these Internet-based technologies into
the curriculum.[27] Survey questions relating to institutional support and
pedagogical concerns were largely based on a Panici's 1998 study.[28]
Professors selected for the survey were invited by e-mail to participate in
the research in mid-February 2003. An e-mail outlining the purpose of the
study included a link directing users to a survey on the Internet. Since
the authors did not collect any identifying information, professors were
notified in the e-mails and upon completion of the Web survey that they
could send an e-mail to the authors asking that their names be removed from
the mailing list. Professors, who did not ask for their names to be removed
from the list, received follow-up e-mails (a total of two follow-up
e-mails were sent) encouraging their participation in the research.
Universe. All professors listed in the 2001-2002 Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication Directory who included e-mail
addresses were selected for the study. A total of 1365 professors were
included in this study. Professors with designations of adjunct,
instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, or
professor in their bios were included in the universe.
Statistical analysis. For statistical convenience, the one to seven rating
scale for questions that asked respondents to agree or disagree with
specific statements was recoded with values ranging from zero to six. In
addition, questions that asked respondents to evaluate or select specific
Internet-based technologies were translated into a scale of zero to eleven
with a higher number of technologies selected resulting in higher scores.
Thus, respondents who integrated a higher number of technologies into their
classrooms or had more experience with multiple Internet-based technologies
would receive a higher score than those who did not. Survey questions about
university support, perceptions of students' tech savvy, and the perceived
effectiveness of Internet-based technologies as learning tools were
respectively collapsed to create composite variables. The composite
variable for university support included questions about the university
providing tech support; adequate travel resources, workshops, funding; and
reward and recognition programs. The composite variable about students'
tech savvy included questions about their access and use of the Internet as
well as their level of comfort of using this technology. The variables
collapsed to create a composite variable for professors' perceived
effectiveness of the Internet-based technologies included questions about
innovations increasing students' learning, accommodating different learning
styles, and empowering students.
Limitations. Perhaps the most significant limitation of the study is that
respondents may be self-selecting since the mean of communication was
e-mail – a technology tested for in the survey. In addition, only
professors who included e-mail addresses in the AJEMC Directory were
targeted in this survey. Thus, professors comfortable using e-mail or the
World Wide Web may have been more inclined to answer the survey. However,
since almost all of the professors in the AEJMC Directory listed e-mail
addresses, the authors deemed this medium to be an appropriate mean of
communication.
A second possible limitation to this study was the universe of e-mail
addresses of professors. The universe only included professors listed in
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
2001-2002 Directory. In order to be a member of AEJMC, and subsequently
listed in the Directory, professors must pay annual dues. Thus, professors
unable to pay the membership fee are excluded from the AEJMC Directory. In
addition, the Directory may have accidentally failed to list paying members
or included incorrect or outdated contact information. [29]
Results
From the universe of 1365 sent e-mails, 58 e-mails were undeliverable and
an additional 32 respondents replied stating they were no longer teaching
or only taught graduate students. Of the remaining 1275 e-mails, 526
professors took the Web survey. However, 53 survey responses were
incomplete. These surveys were not included in the results. Thus, the
response rate for this survey was 39%. Respondents were predominately male
(61%) and most professors taught public relations courses (30%) followed by
journalism (14%), ethics (10%), advertising (9%) and other (37%).[30] The
average age of professors was 49, and the average number of years
professors have been teaching was 15. Seventy percent of the respondents
taught skills-based courses and a majority of professors (85%) did not have
a teaching or research assistant.
On average, respondents integrated four Internet-based technologies into
their classrooms (4.17 mean).
Table 1.
Internet-based Technology
Integration into Classroom
Discussion Boards
23%
E-mail
92%
Course Web site
62%
Instant Messaging/Chat Rooms
7%
Blogs
3%
Listserv
30%
Sites on the WWW
87%
Internet News Groups
13%
Streaming/downloadable Audio or Video
29%
Search Engines
68%
Other
3%
The top four Internet-based technologies integrated into undergraduate
skills and non-skills based classes were e-mail (92%), sites on the World
Wide Web (87%), search engines (68%), and course Web sites (62%) (including
commercial products such as WebCT or Blackboard). The remaining
Internet-based technologies, such as discussion boards, instant
messaging/chat rooms, listservs, Internet news groups, blogs, and streaming
or downloadable audio or video were not as widely used as 30% or less of
professors integrated them into their classrooms.
This finding supports earlier research by Panici. Among the Internet-based
technologies Panici tested, the top four were sites on the World Wide Web
(48%), e-mail (46%), search engines (37%), and course Web sites (28%). It
is interesting to note that in Panici's study, none of the professors used
listservs created for their courses, while 30% of professors in this study
used some type of listerv. In addition, this finding is supported by
previous research conducted by the authors examining the integration of
Internet-based technologies in graduate media law classes. In a previous
national pilot study, the authors found 100% of graduate media law
professors used e-mail, 84% used sites on the World Wide Web and 58% used
course Web sites.[31] Further, this finding is supported by research
conducted by Curtin and Witherspoon who found that 86% of professors
required some level of e-mail use in their graduate public relations
curriculum.[32]
Reasons for adoption: After identifying which Internet-based technologies
professors have integrated into their undergraduate classes, the second
part of this study set out to determine why professors either adopted or
rejected certain Internet innovations. Questions asked professors to rate
eleven Internet-based innovations based on their perceptions of their
effectiveness in helping students learn; their perceptions of students'
use, access, and comfort with Internet-based technologies; their
perceptions of institutional support; professors' experience and comfort
with the Internet-based technologies; negative factors; as well as
demographic variables such as average class size, number of years of
teaching, gender, and age.
Perception of students. In general, respondents perceived Internet-based
technologies to have positive effects on students' learning, including
increasing students' learning, accommodating different learning styles, and
giving students greater control over their learning process (4.30 mean on a
scale of 0 to 6 with 6 = strongly agree). Respondents also highly perceived
students as being technologically literate and having a high level of
access to, use and comfort with Internet-based technologies (4.77 mean on a
scale of 0 to 6 with 6 = strongly agree). (The three questions about
students' access to, use, and comfort with the Internet were collapsed to
create a composite variable and was tested for reliability using Cronbach's
alpha = .66.) A statistically significant relationship between professors'
perceptions of students' access, use, and comfort with the Internet and
their integration of Internet-based technologies into the classroom was not
found in this study. This finding supports the authors' previous research
on the integration of Internet-based technologies in graduate level media
law classes, which also did not find a statistically significant
relationship between these two variables.[33] Since almost all of the
professors highly evaluated students having access to, using and being
comfortable with the Internet, this lack of variance in the independent
variable makes it difficult to find a statistically significant
relationship between the evaluation of students being technologically savvy
and the technology integration. As a result, the authors' first hypothesis
that professors will integrate Internet-based technologies into their
classrooms if they perceive their undergraduate students as having access
to and experience with the technologies was not supported.
Skills-based v. non-skills based classes. The authors' second hypothesis
that skills-based professors were more likely to integrate Internet-based
technologies into their classrooms than professors teaching non-skills
based classes was supported. By using the independent t-test, skills-based
and non-skills-based professors' integration of Internet-based technologies
were compared. A statistically significant difference between professors'
teaching skill-based classes and their integration of Internet-based
technologies into the classroom was observed (p<. 01). Out of the eleven
technologies, only three statistically significant relationships between
skills-based and non-skills-based professors were determined. Skills-based
professors were more likely to integrate sites on the World Wide Web (p<.
001), streaming/downloadable audio or video (p<. 05), and search engines
(p<. 001) into their classrooms than non-skills-based professors. From
these results, the authors concluded that these three Internet-based
technologies are used more in skills-based courses and the remaining
technologies are equally popular in skills and non-skills based courses.
Institutional support. The authors' third hypothesis relating to
institutional support was supported. Professors' overall positive
perceptions of institutional support (3.40 mean) strongly correlated with
their integration of Internet-based technologies into their classrooms (p<.
001). (The five questions relating to university support were collapsed to
create composite variable, which was tested for reliability using
Cronbach's alpha = .70.) Thus, professors who positively perceive their
institutions as offering support in terms of technical support; funding for
travel and training; rewards and recognition programs were more likely to
integrate Internet-based innovations into the classroom than those
professors who did not perceive their institutions as offering support.
This finding partially contradicts Panici's 1998 study, which found that
professors perceived their institutions as offering support in terms of
on-campus workshops, seminars and demonstrations of new technologies, but
not recognition and rewards, adequate travel resources and support to
attend off-campus programs for new technologies or sufficient funding for
equipment, software, and resource materials to integrate the innovations
into classrooms.[34]
Perceived effectiveness. There were two evaluations regarding the
effectiveness of the technology integration. One examined the general
evaluation of professors' perceptions that technology integration would
facilitate students' learning. (The three questions about the use of
Internet-based technologies as effective learning tools were collapsed and
tested for reliability using Cronbach's alpha =. 77.) A statistically
significant correlation was observed between professors' perceptions of
Internet-based technologies as being effective pedagogical tools and their
use of Internet-based technologies in their courses (p<.001). Professors
who believed that technology would help students' learning used more
technologies in their courses. The other questions evaluated the
effectiveness of each technology. Of the eleven Internet-based technologies
tested for in this study, professors perceived search engines (4.73 mean),
sites on the World Wide Web (4.66 mean), course Web sites (4.46 mean) and
e-mail (4.31) as the most effective tools in helping undergraduate students
learn.
STD
Table 2
Perceptions of effectiveness
Internet-based Technologies
Mean
Effectiveness of discussion boards
3.08
1.68
Effectiveness of e-mail
4.31
1.61
Effectiveness of course Web sites
4.46
1.60
Effectiveness of instant messaging/chat
2.42
1.60
Effectiveness of blogs
2.56
1.63
Effectiveness of listserv
3.65
1.62
Effectiveness of sites on the WWW
4.66
1.39
Effectiveness of news groups
3.24
1.58
Streaming/downloadable audio/video
3.63
1.61
Search Engines
4.73
1.54
Effectiveness of other
4.23
1.63
*Note: Scale is 0 to 6 with 6 = most effective (converted from 7 to 1 scale)
Through independent sample t-tests between professors who use and don't use
each technology, the authors discovered that professors who integrated the
Internet-based technologies into their classrooms perceived the
technologies as being more effective than professors who did not integrate
the technologies into their classrooms. Statistically significant
differences between professors' perceived effectiveness of the
Internet-based technologies and their integration into the classroom were
found for all of the technologies except sites on the World Wide Web and
"other." From these t-tests, statistically significant differences between
professor groups on discussion boards (p<. 001), e-mail (p<. 01, unequal
variance), course Web sites (p<. 001), instant messaging (p<. 001), blogs
(p<. 001, unequal variance), listserv (p<. 001), news groups (p<. 001),
streaming or downloadable audio or video (p<. 001), search engines (p<. 01)
were discovered. (For unequal variance groups, the authors used the
adjusted df in t-tests.) In addition, since all professors who integrated
sites on the World Wide Web into their classes positively evaluated this
technology as an effective tool, there was a lack of variance for clear
statistical results. Overall these findings support the authors' fourth
hypothesis that professors will integrate Internet-based technologies into
their undergraduate classes if they perceive the technologies as effective
aids in facilitating students' learning.
Experience, comfort, and usage. In evaluating the relationships between
professors' experience, comfort level, and usage, simple regressions were
executed with usage as the dependent variable. Highly correlated
relationships were determined between 1) experience and usage and 2)
comfort and usage. Professors who have experience with an Internet-based
technology are more likely to integrate that technology into their
classroom than professors who do not (p<.001). In addition, professors who
are comfortable with an Internet-based technology are more likely to
integrate that technology into their classroom than professors who do not
(p<.001). These findings supported the authors' fifth and sixth hypotheses.
Supporting the authors' fifth hypothesis was the statistically significant
relationship between professors who have taken a class with respect to an
Internet-based technology and their integration of Internet-based
technologies into the classroom (p<. 001). Professors who have taken a
class regarding an Internet-based technology integrated more technologies
into their classrooms (4.4 mean) than professors who had not taken a class
(3.4 mean). Further, a positive relationship was found between professors
who had recently taken classes and their integration of Internet-based
technologies into their classrooms (p<. 01). A direct relationship between
which technologies have been integrated into the classroom after taking a
class cannot be made, as this survey did not attempt to establish such
relationships. However, the statistically significant relationships
between taking a class and integration support the finding that professors
who have experience with an Internet-based technology are more likely to
integrate that technology into their class than professors who do not have
experience with the technologies.
Negative factors. Respondents varied in their responses about negative
factors, such as the process of integrating Internet-based technologies as
being too time-consuming or too difficult to use in the classroom. The mean
for professors' perceptions of integrating Internet-based technologies into
the classroom as too time-consuming was 3.00 (SD=1.6), and their
perceptions as integration being too difficult was 2.11 (SD=1.5, on a scale
of zero to six with six = strongly agree). This finding supported an early
study by the authors on the integration of Internet-based technologies on
graduate media law classes (too time consuming = 3.16 mean, too difficult =
2.13 mean, using the same scale).[35] Using simple correlations,
preliminary analysis of these two variables found statistically significant
relationships between both variables and usage respectively (p<.
001). Thus, professors who perceived integrating Internet-based
technologies as too time consuming or too difficult were less likely to use
these technologies in their undergraduate classrooms than professors who
did not. Between these two negative factors, the perception of difficulty
showed a stronger relationship with technology use (r=.3) than professors'
perceptions of integration being too time consuming.
Other findings. Other variables such as class size, number of years
teaching, whether or not a professor had a teaching or research assistant,
number of courses teaching, gender, and age did not result in any
statistically significant relationships with the integration of
Internet-based technologies in our analysis.
Exploratory models
Based on the findings and hypotheses of this research, the authors
proposed an exploratory model regarding factors influencing professors'
integration of Internet-based technologies into classrooms and tested it by
using hierarchal regression analysis. The dependent variable in the
hierarchical regression was professors' use of Internet-based technologies
in the classroom. The technology variable scale of 0 to 11 (number of
Internet-based technologies professors integrated into their classrooms)
was converted to a 0 to 100 scale. The authors hypothesized seven key
independent variables as predictors of professors' integration of
Internet-based technologies into their classrooms: professors' tech savvy;
professors' perceptions that the Internet-based technology will facilitate
students' learning; students' tech savvy; university support; integration
is too difficult; integration is too time consuming; and professors'
teaching experience. Professors' tech savvy is a composite variable of
professors' experience and comfort with Internet-based technologies. The
reliability of this collapsed variable was tested using Cronbach's alpha =.
80. With "professors' tech savvy" as the base independent variable, each
subsequent variable was added and the R square change and individual
significance was examined.
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
R Square
R Square Change
P
Professors' tech savvy
0.32
0.32
0.00
Facilitate learning
0.35
0.03
0.00
Students' tech savvy
0.35
0.00
0.11
University support
0.35
0.01
0.16
Too difficult
0.36
0.01
0.06
Too time consuming
0.36
0.00
0.72
Teaching experience
0.36
0.00
0.35
Before hypothesizing a final model, the authors carefully and thoroughly
analyzed each of the seven variables and their predictive power of
professors' integration of Internet-based technologies into the classroom.
Resulting from this analysis, "teaching experience" was removed from the
model because many of the technologies tested for in this research were
recently developed and thus, the number of years a professor has been
teaching is unlikely to influence their integration of Internet-based
innovations into the classroom. "Students' tech savvy" also was removed
from the initial model since most professors perceived their students to be
extremely technologically savvy. The variables of "too difficult" and "too
time-consuming" warned of a possible multicollinearity problem; tolerance
was around 0.5. Since the "too time-consuming" variable was not significant
(p > .10), the authors decided to remove this variable. Finally, the
authors discovered an unexpected result with respect to the variable of
"university support." After further investigation, the original composite
variable of "university support" was parsed out. From the five questions
relating to university support, the authors decided to include "university
tech support" in their final model since this variable demonstrated a
significant effect on professors' integration of Internet-based
technologies in this research. The resulting final model includes four
variables.
Table 4
Exploratory Model of Internet-based Technology Integration
B
STD
Beta
P
(Constant)
0.88
3.98
0.82
Tech savvy
0.44
0.03
0.51
0.00***
Learning
2.38
0.63
0.15
0.00***
Too difficult
- 0.7
0.45
- 0.07
0.09+
Tech support
0.76
0.36
0.08
0.03*
Note: Dependent variable: Use (0 to 100 scale) * p<. 05, ** p<. 01, ***
p<. 001, + p<. 10
The final exploratory model explains 36% of variance in professors'
technology use (R Square=. 361). By looking at the standardized beta
coefficient, one can conclude that professors' technology savvy will be the
most influential factor of their integration of Internet-based technologies
into the classroom (p<. 001). Professors' perceptions that Internet-based
technologies facilitate students' learning is the second highest predictive
variable. This model also indicates that professors' perceptions that
integrating the Internet-based technology as being too difficult has
negative effects (p<. 10). Although the "too difficult" variable is not
significant using the .05 conventional significance level, it is an
important variable in the model both conceptually and statistically. By
including the "too difficult" variable, it increases R square and the
coefficient is significant with another .10 conventional significance
level. Finally, this model demonstrates that the "university tech support"
variable also influences professors' integration of Internet-based
technologies into the classroom.
Discussion
As one of the first studies surveying the technological landscape of
undergraduate classes in journalism and mass communication programs in the
21st century, this research provides an encouraging picture of professors'
integration of Internet-based technologies into their classrooms. Even
though most professors have only integrated an average of four
Internet-based technologies into their classrooms, this finding should ease
concerns about a wide digital divide between professors and their students.
This research suggests Internet-based technologies, such as e-mail, sites
on the World Wide Web, search engines and course Web sites have become
integral pedagogical tools. However, this finding is not surprising.
E-mail, sites on the World Wide Web, search engines, and course Web sites
have been fundamental elements of the Internet since its public debut more
than ten years ago. Thus, professors were more likely to have experience
and be more comfortable with these technologies versus some of the newer
Internet-based technologies such as blogs – personal journals on the Web
that are frequently updated and intended for public viewing.
Despite professors' infusion of some Internet-based technologies, this
research also suggests that there are still many opportunities for
professors to integrate Internet-based technologies into their classrooms,
such as instant messaging – a technology quickly becoming a ubiquitous part
of college students' lives.[36] However, pedagogical goals should always
prevail when professors consider integrating the latest Internet-based
technologies into their undergraduate classes. Professors control
technology – not vice versa.
Based on the exploratory model, universities can help their faculty keep up
with their tech savvy students by providing them not only with tech
support, but more importantly, exposure to and experience with the
Internet-based technologies. The most predictive variable of professors'
integration of Internet-based technologies into their classrooms was their
experience and comfort with a technology ("professors' tech savvy").
Universities offering resources and training will give professors the
opportunity to learn about, use, and become comfortable with the
technologies that are infused into their students' lives. In addition,
educating professors about how to use Internet-based technologies may ease
perceptions that Internet-based technologies are too difficult to integrate
them into the classroom – a factor found to be a significant obstacle in
this study.
While journalism and mass communication professors have integrated some
Internet-based technologies into their classroom, the integration process
cannot stop now. As college students continue to infuse Internet-based
technologies into their lives, professors need to seek opportunities to
learn about those Internet-based technologies and evaluate their potential
as effective pedagogical tools. Failure to keep up with students' use of
Internet-based technologies could eventually actualize the Pew report's
concerns of an academic digital divide.
[1] Pew Internet & American Life Project, The Internet Goes to College,
2002, <http://www.pewinternet.org> (4 February 2003).
[2] Pew Internet & American Life Project.
[3] Jacqueline Keane, "Teacher vs. Computer. Where Educators Stand in the
Technology Revolution," The Online Journal 2002
<http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=4115>
(4 February 2003).
[4] Grady Armstrong, "One Approach to Motivating Faculty to Use
Multimedia," Technology Horizons In Education 23 (1996): 69-72, See also
Mary B. Shoffner, Marshall Jones, and Stephen W. Harmon, "Implications of
New and Emerging Technologies for Learning and Cognition," The Journal of
Electronic Publishing
2000 <http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-01/shoffner.html> (4 February
2003); Patrick J. Sutherland and Robert K. Stewart "How Accredited Programs
Use the World Wide Web," Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 54
(1999): 16-22.
[5] Pat A. Curtin and Elizabeth M. Witherspoon, "Computer Skills
Integration in Public Relations Curricula," Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator 54 (1999): 23-34.
[6] Carol Smith, Haeryon Kim, and James Bernstein, "Computer-Mediated
Communication and Strategies for Teaching" Journalism Educator 48 (1993):
80-83, P. 80.
[7] Shelton A. Gunaratne and Byung S. Lee, Integration of Internet
Resources into Curriculum and Instruction," Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator 51 (1996): 25-37, P. 34.
[8] For example Curtin and Witherspoon, 23-34; Joe Bob Hester, "Using a
Web-based interactive test as a learning tool," Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator 54 (1999): 35-41; Robert Huesca, "Reinventing
journalism curricula for the electronic environment," Journalism and Mass
Communication Educator 55 (2000): 4-15.
[9] Daniel A. Panici, "New Media and the Introductory Mass Communication
Course," Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 53 (1998): 52-63.
[10] See Nan B. Adams, "Educational Computing Concerns for Postsecondary
Faculty" Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34 (2002): 285-304;
Kenneth R. Blake, "Using the World Wide Web to Teach News Writing Online,"
Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 55 (2000): 4-13; Curtin and
Witherspoon, 23-34; Karla K. Gower and Jung-Yul Cho, "Use of the Internet
in the Public Relations Curriculum," Journalism and Mass Communication
Educator 56 (2001): 81-92; Gunaratne and Lee, 25-37; Joe Bob Hester, 35-41;
Huesca, 4-15; Jiang Lan, "Web-Based Instruction for Education Faculty: A
Needs Assessment," Journal of Research on Technology in Education 33
(2001): 385-400; Andrew T. Lumpe and Elisha Chambers, "Assessing Teachers'
Context Beliefs about Technology Use," Journal of Research on Technology in
Education 34 (2001): 93-108; Panici, 52-63; Melissa E. Pierson,
"Technology, Integration Practices as a Function of Pedagogical Expertise,"
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 33 (2001): 413-440; Sandra
Davidson Scott, "The Technological Challenge for Curriculum and
Instruction," Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 50 (1995): 30-40;
Jane B. Singer, et al., "Attitudes of Professors and Students about New
Media Technology," Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 51 (1996): 36-45.
[11] William R. Slomanson, "Electronic Lawyering and the Academy," Journal
of Legal Education 48 (1998) 216-241, P. 228. See also Lan, 385-400.
[12] Armstrong, 69.
[13] Adams, 285-304; Lan, 385-400; Pamela E. Mack and Gail Delicio, "The
Authority of Experience: Assessing the Use of Information Technology in the
Classroom," The Journal of Electronic Publishing 2000,
<http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-01/mack.html> (4 February 2003).
[14] David C. Leonard, "The Web, the Millennium, and the Digital Evolution
of Distance Education," in Issues in Web-Based Pedagogy: A Critical Primer,
ed. Robert Cole, (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000), 23-34, P. 33.
[15] Lan, 385.
[16] Lumpe and Chambers, 93-108; Lan, 385-400; Robert Muffoletto and Nancy
Nelson Knupfer, Computers in Education: Social, Political, and Historical
Perspectives (Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 1993).
[17] Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. (New York: The
Free Press, 1995), 16.
[18] Adams, 285-304. See also Muffoletto and Knupfer.
[19] The Online Writing Classroom, eds. Susanmarie Harrington, Rebecca
Rickly, and Michael Day (Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 2000), 5.
[20] S. Douglas Beets and Patricia G. Lobingier, "Pedagogical Techniques:
Student Performance and Preferences," Journal of Education for Business 76
(2001): 231-235.
[21] Mack and Delicio, <http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-01/mack.html>.
[22] Lan, 385-400.
[23] Adams, 285-304; Beets and Lobingier, 231-235; Celina Byers,
"Interactive Assessment: An Approach to Enhance Teaching and Learning,"
Journal of Interactive Learning Research 12 (2001): 359-374.
[24] Panici, 52-63.
[25] Lumpe and Chambers, 93.
[26] Anne B. Keating and Joseph Hargitai, The Wired Professor (New York:
New York University Press, 1999), 25.
[27] Susanmarie Harrington, Rebecca Rickly, and Michael Day, eds., The
online writing classroom. (Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 2000); Pew
Internet & American Life Project, The Internet Goes to College, 2002,
<http://www.pewinternet.org> (4 February 2003).
[28] Panici, 52-63.
[29] Both authors are members of AEJMC. However, one of the authors who
turned in biographical information to be included in the directory prior to
its deadline was not listed.
[30] Authors included several categories in which respondents were asked
to identify their primary teaching responsibility. These categories
included advertising, broadcast, ethics, history, international
communication, journalism, law, media management, new media, photography,
public relations, research/methods, speech, theory, visual communication,
and other. These categories were based on categorizations provided by
AEJMC. All of these categories except for public relations, journalism,
ethics, and advertising were collapsed into "other" for the 37% finding,
since none of the remaining categories listed above received more than a 9%
response rate.
[31] The authors did not include search engines in their pilot study but
added it to this research.
[32] Therefore, comparisons between graduate media law professors and
undergraduate professors' use of search engines cannot be made. Cassandra
Imfeld and Koang-Hyub Kim, "Cyberphobia or Cyberinfusion? A Survey of
Professors' Integration of Internet-based Technologies in Graduate Level
Communication Law Classes" (paper presented at the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Mid-Winter Conference,
Boulder, Colo., February 2003), 5-6.
Curtin and Witherspoon, 23-34.
[33] Imfeld and Kim, 6-7.
[34] Panici, 58.
[35] Imfeld and Kim, 7.
[36] According to the Pew Report, "College Internet users are heavier
users of instant messaging and online chat than those in the overall online
population. While about half of all Internet users have sent instant
messages, nearly three quarters of college Internet users have done so, and
college Internet users are twice as likely to use instant messaging on any
given day compared to the average Internet user."
|
