             |
Index: Educational Technology
Faculty Service Needs Assessmentof Educational Technology in Higher Education Results of a Faculty Service Needs Assessment (June 1995) Joseph P. MartinezUniversity of Colorado at Denver Muriel Woods University of Colorado at Denver Page ContentsABSTRACT
|
| 1. Checking out media equipment
2. Analysis, design, and/or evaluation of instructional media 3. Design and development of computer-assisted instruction 4. Design and production of instructional materials (graphics, video, overhead transparencies, computer-based instruction) 5. Distance education consultation and production 6. Equipment consultation and systems design 7. Film and video checkout and/or rental 8. Installation of media/data presentation equipment in selected classrooms 9. Maintenance and repair of equipment 10. Making copies of existing media (audio or video cassettes) 11. Multimedia (CD-ROM) authoring and mastering 12. Recording off-air and satellite transmitted video programs 13. Sending and/or receiving interactive teleconferences 14. Video or fiber optic delivery systems |
To further explain the findings of the needs assessment, percentages are derived from the number of respondents that emerge in each cell of the five-point, Likert-scaled response items on the faculty questionnaire.
Below is a listing of the seven research questions addressed in the faculty questionnaire, along with a brief summation of results.
1. What are the gaps between faculty's perceived value (level of importance) and planned use of educational technology?
b) Another section of the questionnaire asked participants about their planned use of the same media center services. A lower percentage of respondents, an average of 10 percent—ranging from 8 to 65 percent—said they plan to use these services very often or almost always. On nine items, most participants indicated they plan to use the service seldom to almost never.
c) Comparison results from participants who selected (4) important to (5) very important on one section, and (4) very often to (5) almost always on another section, reveals that there was an overall 32 percent differential between high value and frequent planned use of identical media services.
2. How often do faculty use the media center?
3. How do faculty perceive the importance of educational technology services offered by the media center?
a) Many participants, an average of 42 percent perceived media center services as important to very important. An average of 84 percent perceived all fourteen services at least moderately important. No services were seen by a majority as unimportant or very unimportant, with combined percentages of these categories ranging from 2 to 35 percent.
4. How do faculty feel about the quality of media center products and services?
b) Ninety-one percent (91%) of participants said they agree to strongly agree that "services are of high quality."
5. How do faculty plan to use educational technology for everyday instruction?
a) A ranking of media center services listed revealed that participants plan to use technical and equipment services moreso than consultative or creative services.
b) Most than half of the participants said they expect to use newer technologies, such as distance education, instructional design, and multimedia authoring "seldom" to "almost never."
6. What are current and upcoming needs of faculty with regard to media equipment?
7. What are the other media-related things faculty may need?
Seven Functional Areas
Albright (1992) created the Integrated Instructional Technology Services (IITS) model to categorize the broad mission of educational technology centers in higher education. The model classifies many of the functions of educational technology that pertain to the media center in this study, but also to academic computing services. Some elements of Albright's model have been borrowed and adapted here to fit the functional areas of this assessment.
The functions of the media center are varied and specific services usually overlap among media center departments. For example, the production and technical services departments must work together to produce instructional television programs. Likewise, the departments of media equipment services and technical services need to work together to establish technical systems such as closed-circuit program delivery, and to maintain and repair equipment. Therefore, the functional areas described below are classified according to the basic structure of the IITS model, but more specifically reflect the functions of the media center targeted in this assessment.
The seven functional areas of the media center are: (1) delivery systems, (2) distance education, (3) equipment services, (4) instructional design, (5) instructional resources, (6) media production, and (7) technical systems support.
Parallel individual items from two sections of the Faculty Services Questionnaire were grouped together by functional area and listed for each relevant functional area. Some questionnaire items pertain to more than one functional area.
To identify the gaps that have emerged from within each functional area, the differential between how faculty value a given item is compared to faculty's planned use of that item. Following a brief assessment of each functional area are column graphs that summarize the findings.
Delivery Systems. Many media centers in higher education offer services which include installation and maintenance of delivery systems. Three corresponding items (8, 13, and 14) from sections A and C of the needs assessment questionnaire pertain to this functional area. For each item in this area, there is a observable gap between value and planned use (see Figure 1).
Distance Education. Many media centers across the country are finding their roles are expanding to meet a greater emphasis on distance education. Three corresponding items (5, 13, and 14) of the needs assessment questionnaire pertain to this functional area. Recall that many of these items will overlap with specific services in other functional areas. For each item pertaining to distance education, there is a observable gap between value and planned use (see Figure 2).
Equipment Services. Perhaps the mainstay of media centers involves the distribution, systems design, and maintenance of media equipment for use by faculty in the classroom. Three corresponding items (1, 6, and 9) pertain to this functional area. For each item in this area, there is a observable gap between value and planned use (see Figure 3).
Instructional Design. Many media centers, or instructional development centers as some prefer to be called, are giving increased attention to the process of instructional design. New developments in instructional technology, such as computer-based instruction (CBI), multimedia authoring, and especially a stronger commitment by media centers to academic learning have made this functional area increasingly important. Three corresponding items (2, 3, and 4) pertain to instructional design. For each item in this area, there is a observable gap between value and planned use (see Figure 4).
Instructional Resources. Media centers in higher education often share the responsibility for film/video checkout, audio/video duplication services, and off-air/satellite recording services with the campus library. In some cases, this is the solely within the domain of the media center. Three corresponding items (7, 10, and 12) from sections A and C of the needs assessment questionnaire pertain to this functional area. For each item in this area, there is a observable gap between value and planned use (see Figure 5).
Media Production. Advancements in technology have enabled media centers to increase the amount and quality of educational materials produced in-house. For example, before the wholesale move to video, media centers had to rely on costly film production for educational television. Also, with new authoring systems for computer-based instruction, there is no longer a need to expend valuable resources on computer programmers for developing some basic CBI. Three corresponding items (4, 5 and 11) pertain to media production. For each item in this area, there is a observable gap between value and planned use (see Figure 6).
Technical Systems. There is considerable overlap between this functional area and the others, as many of the other roles of the media center depend on technical services to keep operations going. The three corresponding questionnaire items (6, 8, and 9) for this functional area also reveal a observable gap between value and planned use (see Figure 7).FIGURE 1.
Figure 1. Columns depict a percentile differential between value (4-important to 5-very important) and planned use (4-very often to 5-almost always) on each of the three service items included in the Delivery Systems functional area. For example, 41 percent of faculty place a high value on interactive teleconferences, but only 10 percent of faculty plan to use this service very often.
FIGURE 2.
Figure 2. Columns depict a percentile differential between value (4-important to 5-very important) and planned use (4-very often to 5-almost always) on each of the three service items included in the Distance Education functional area.
FIGURE 3.
Figure 3. Columns depict a percentile differential between value (4-important to 5-very important) and planned use (4-very often to 5-almost always) on each of the three service items included in the Equipment Services functional area.
FIGURE 4.
Figure 4. Columns depict a percentile differential between value (4-important to 5-very important) and planned use (4-very often to 5-almost always) on each of the three service items included in the Instructional Design functional area.
FIGURE 5.
Figure 5. Columns depict a percentile differential between value (4-important to 5-very important) and planned use (4-very often to 5-almost always) on each of the three service items included in the Instructional Resources functional area.
FIGURE 6.
Figure 6. Columns depict a percentile differential between value (4-important to 5-very important) and planned use (4-very often to 5-almost always) on each of the three service items included in the Media Production functional area.
FIGURE 7.
Figure 7. Columns depict a percentile differential between value (4-important to 5-very important) and planned use (4-very often to 5-almost always) on each of the three service items included in the Technical Systems Support functional area.The needs assessment reveals that most campus faculty place a high value on educational technology, yet many are hesitant about frequently integrating technology in the classroom. This gap between value and planned use is clearly identified in all seven of the media centerÕs major functional areas. The next phase in the media centerÕs effort to keep pace with the educational technology needs of faculty is to begin defining solutions that will reduce those gaps.
Hammond, Gardner, Heath, Kibby, Mayes, McAleese, Mullings, and Trapp, A. (1992) attempted to identify factors that serve as "blocks to the effective use of information technology in higher education." A seminar in the United Kingdom brought together several experts with experience in educational technology and organizational issues in higher education. The experts reviewed three surveys on facultyÕs views on the use of computers in teaching. Many of the key factors identified, however, apply to more than just computers. For example, lack of time and financial constraints are major factors which influence or cause a faculty member to avoid using any of a number of educational technology functions. Other blocks may include lack of training, lack of support staff, lack of information on existing educational materials, inadequate product quality, and lack of information about the potential and benefits of a given technology. The primary finding from surveys analyzed in the Hammond study is that many of these barriers are compatible with "a general lack of institutional concern."
Rossett (1987, 1991) defines four types of causes for gaps that can be identified in a needs assessment. They include (1) absence of skills & knowledge, (2) absence of incentive or improper incentive, (3) absence of environmental support, and (4) absence of motivation. Each gap or deficiency is caused by the absence of something. In order to determine a solution to the gaps between actuals (the way things are) and optimals (the way things ought to be) one must first attempt to identify the cause.
Absence of Skills and Knowledge
Cause. If faculty are resistant to integrate educational technologies into their curriculum, one of the reasons may be the absence of skills and knowledge. Many faculty are simply uninformed of the ways in which new technologies may support their curricula and teaching strategies. Among those who are aware of new uses of technology , many are inhibited by their self-perceived lack of skill with the technology. Others are simply technologically illiterate.
Solution. The solution to this sort of deficiency is orientation and training. Faculty must be made aware of how new technologies may enhance the learning experience for their students, and they must also be trained in using the accompanying equipment.
Absence of Incentive or Improper Incentive
Cause. The absence of incentive, or improper incentive, are both causes for gaps between actuals and optimals. Like all employees, faculty need to feel that the consequences of their time and energy matters. Based upon the fact that most faculty place a high value on educational technology, the question shifts to why donÕt they use it more. One reason for some is the lack of incentive. Another reason is that the incentives they do receive are undesirable.
Solution. Faculty will no doubt need to see first-hand the successes of integrating educational technology into their curriculum; thatÕs incentive. Another incentive is feedback and appraisals on their use of educational technology. Perhaps faculty should be given release time to develop course materials in conjunction with the media center, or be told that creative instructional methods, like integrating technology, will be positive consideration for tenure. The problem with some incentives is that they work against the user. For example, if a faculty member is successful at producing instructional materials, does s/he then become the designated materials producer for the department? This kind of incentive can work against progress. An incentive-based solution sometimes requires a policy change.
Absence of Environmental Support
Cause. Demands for facultyÕs time and energy leave little extra, if any, for pursuing more creative endeavors, such as learning how to integrate new technologies into their curricula. Other environmental blocks include the absence of proper procedures, facilities, and equipment. A less-often considered block is the psychological climate of the institution.
Solution. To promote environmental support for educational technology on campus, the media center must reevaluate its procedures to reduce bureaucracy as much as possible and to make faculty feel like the experience is not burdensome. The facilities and equipment maintained by the media center must be user oriented and accessible. And, the various administrators in each usersÕ department must be supportive of facultyÕs changes in instructional methods.
Absence of Motivation
Cause. Another reason faculty may avoid integrating new technology into their curricula is the lack of motivation. Many faculty have done well over the years teaching without technology, and this is ample reason to question why they should change their current practice. One does not have do be a technophobe to have little use for technology, especially if it appears that achievement of current objectives occurs without a hitch. But a problem may arise if suddenly, students have needs for a different kind of learning.
Solution. Two factors may account for lack of motivation: low value and low confidence. First, faculty need to perceive a value for increasing their use of educational technology. The needs assessment reports that this is now occurring. Faculty must also be confident in the use of technology. The needs assessment reveals that faculty are both resistant to increase their planned use of technology and are resistant to start using new media. One possible explanation is that faculty do not feel confident in using the valued technology. Raising their expectancy of success is one solution to raising confidence, hence motivation.
Interpretation Summary
Faculty who responded to the questionnaire are resistant to engage their students in increased levels of educational technology use due to several factors, some of which are identified above. Albright and Graf (1992, p. 7) sum it up this way: "Why has technology not had a greater impact on college teaching? The reasons have been variously identified as conservative institutional structures which inhibit change, faculty commitment to traditional teaching methods, a reward system that does not recognize efforts to improve teaching, and overt fear of technology (McNeil, 1988); the lack of recognition of technology by administrators and faculty as an integral part of the curriculum and undergraduate experience (Green, 1991); insufficient financial resources that enable colleges and universities to invest in technology; the rapid pace of technological change, the complexity of some technology-based instructional systems, disproportionate access to technology from one academic unit to another, the shortage of high-quality software, the time required for faculty to learn to use technology and develop needed materials, the lack of training for faculty, and the absence of adequate campus support services (Lewis and Wall, 1988).
Some broadly defined solutions to this problem are a) faculty orientation and training (in the use of new technologies), b) policy changes in facultyÕs own departments to promote increased use, c) environmental support for easier and more efficient use, and d) collaborative endeavors with media center personnel to increase faculty's expectancy for success in using instructional technology. Of course, funding levels determine the extent to which the media center can broaden its networking strategy with campus academic departments and offer additional support services for helping faculty to integrate technologies into their curricula. For example, to promote increased use of multimedia at this time may result in a shortage of CD-Rom players and available software. Likewise, it makes little sense to promote a greater use of distance education if the media center could not handle the increase workload of teleconferences and teleclasses. An important responsibility of the media center is to monitor planned use of educational technology on campus. Judging from the gap between planned use and the high value that faculty place on educational technologies, we can expect future use patterns to rise accordingly.Faculty do not need educational technology in order to teach, and many will refuse to integrate new technologies in the classroom up to the very end. Some excellent "chalk and talk" teachers will manage fine in this mindset. There are good reasons to approach technological adoption and implementation with some skepticism; however, there are also good reasons to keep pace with advancements in the field.
Gentry & Csete (1991) make several predictions about the changing and expanding needs for educational technology in education in the 1990s. Some of those predictions are paraphrased below: a) A growing diversity of the student population will include more older, disabled, part-time, minority, and commuter students. This will increase need for distance education and specialized technologies for accommodating individual differences.
b) Pressure from business, industry and government to better prepare technology-literate graduates for information service type positions will increase.
c) Supplemental technology-based instruction and training will be needed by former graduates to overcome job obsolescence in the workplace.
d) More useful and sophisticated, yet more user friendly, man-machine interfaces will cause more educators to become adopters of educational technology.
e) A more technology-literate student body, along with their increased need for independent learning skills, will cause students to pressure faculty to adopt technological approaches.
The role of media centers in keeping up with these demands will also change. For example, Albright (1992) predicts several trends that will change the roles of media centers in the 1990s. These include consultative services (about technology integration), greater use of technology by faculty, multimedia classrooms, increased responsibility for the classroom physical environment, multimedia consultation and production services, greater distance education support, more instructional development services, and so forth.
We are currently in an information explosion, and each day brings new and exciting developments in every field of endeavor. Access to great amounts of information on a timely basis requires that we use technology in order to deal effectively with current issues and discoveries. And while some fields of study may be more exciting than others, new presentation software and equipment can deliver increasingly effective ways of dealing with any subject matter. Imagine discussing an historical figure in class, when instantaneously the professor decides to alter the course of instruction to play a video clip of Martin Luther KingÕs "I had a dream" speech, or to hear a Mozart sonata, or to project a musical score onto a large screen at front of the room, or even access a CD-Rom database with maps and geographic data for every country in the world. Those are hard technologies that can virtually transform the classroom cubicle into a room with a view of the world. But educational technology is more than just hardware; it is the systems, media, processes, and services that support instruction and learning. Consider too the soft technologies. Educational technology subsumes the field of instructional technology, which is the analysis, design and development, and evaluation of instruction and learning in any form. Sometimes a simple re-working of teaching, learning, or assessment strategies are whatÕs needed to reinvigorate a learning environment, whether or not it even includes any products, equipment, or facilities.
Current research shows that there will be a demand from society—students, parents, legislatures, governing boards, potential employers, and the general public—that educational institutions produce graduates who can function in a highly technical information-based economy (Albright & Graf, 1992, Gentry & Csete, 1991; Ely, 1991). This line of research also shows that an increased quality gap will develop in favor of institutions or departments who adopt educational technology compared to those who allow obstacles (or excuses) to prevail. The role of the media center on campus is to support those faculty and administrators who adopt technology.
Twenty years ago, the term educational technology was closely associated with audio-visual equipment and materials packets. These were the tools to supplement teaching. Today, the term is widely becoming more accepted for itÕs functional uses, rather than itÕs inventory. Educational technology today is functional support to supplement learning.AECT Task Force (1977). Educational technology: Definition and glossary of terms. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Albright, M. J. (1989). It's Time to rethink instructional technology services in higher education, Tech Trends, 34,5, 40-45.
Albright, M. J. (1992). The future of campus media centers. In M. J. Albright, New directions for teaching and learning, No. 51 (Teaching in the information age: The role of educational technology), Jossey-Bass: San Francisco (pp. 91-100)
Albright, M. J., & Graf, D. L. (1992). Instructional technology and the faculty member. In M. J. Albright, New directions for teaching and learning, No. 51 (Teaching in the information age: The role of educational technology), Jossey-Bass: San Francisco (pp. 7-15)
Ely, D. P. (1991). Trends and issues in educational technology, 1989. In G. J. Anglin (ed), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. (pp. 34-58)
Green, K. C. (1991). A technology agenda for the 1990s. Change, 23 ,1, 6-7.
Gentry, C. G. & Csete, J. (1991). Educational technology in the 1990s. In G. J. Anglin (ed), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. (pp. 20-33).
Hammond, N., Gardner, N., Heath, S., Kibby, M., Mayes, T., McAleese, R., Mullings, C. & Trapp, A. (1992). Blocks to the effective use of information technology in higher education. Computers in Education, 18 ,1-3, 155-162.
Jaeger, R. M. (1988). "Section VI: Survey Methods in Educational Research," in R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary Methods for Research in Education. American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC (pp. 301-388)
Kaufman, R. (1982). Identifying and solving problems: A systems approach. San Diego: University Associates.
Kaufman, R., Stakenas, R. G., Wager, J. C., & Mayer, H. (1981). Relating needs assessment, program development, implementation, and evaluation, Journal of Instructional Development, 4,4, 17-26.
Lewis, R. J., & Wall, M. (1988). Exploring obstacles to uses of technology in higher education: A discussion paper. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.
McNeil, D. R. (1985). Status of technology in higher education: A reassessment. Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 860)
Rossett, A. (1987).Training Needs Assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Rossett, A. (1991). Needs Assessment. In G. J. Anglin (ed), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. (pp. 156-169).
Rothwell, W. J. & Kazanas, H. C. (1992). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.<
TO: Faculty Members
FROM: Muriel Woods
Director, Auraria Media Center
SUBJECT: Faculty Survey
DATE: April 18, 1994
The Media Center staff has been working to improve a number of
services for campus faculty. For example, because we recognized
the difficulty that lack of equipment delivery to the classroom
has caused faculty, a major emphasis has been placed on
implementing the Classroom Equipment Plan, which will permanently
place pieces of equipment in selected classrooms. Other services
have also been developed, such as computer produced graphics for
slides, transparencies and video.
As we plan for Fall Semester and beyond we want to improve and
develop services in ways most useful to the faculty and would,
therefore, appreciate your assistance. The attached survey will
enable us to know both which services you feel are important and
which ones you personally expect to use. It will take only a few
minutes to complete and the results will be used in our planning
process. Please check or circle the appropriate responses in each
section, fold and staple/tape the survey, and return it to the
Media Center; the return address is printed on the back of the
second page.
Because we want and appreciate your input, each faculty member who
returns the survey will receive one of the following to support
your teaching; a set of 5 color transparencies with graphics
designed based on your instructions, a blank VHS video tape, a set
of transparency markers or a box of computer disks; there will
also be a drawing for one rental film up to $ 100 in value
provided without cost. To receive your teaching item, remove this
cover memo, complete the registration page and the survey. Please
return your completed survey and registration separately by May 6,
1994.
FcSrvyCv.r
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Faculty Service Questionnaire (REFORMATTED FOR ASCII TEXT)
Auraria Media Center
April 18, 1994
___________________________________________________________________
Please circle one number for each item that best describes your
response to the statements below: -- Almost Always (5)
-- Occasionally (3)
-- Almost Never (1)
1. I use Media Center services 5 4 3 2 1
If "Almost Never," were you aware
that media services are available?
YES NO
___________________________________________________________________
A. Media Center Services: How important are these services for
higher education?
-- (5) Very Important
-- (3) Moderately Important
-- (1) Very Unimportant
1. Checking out media equipment
2. Analysis, design, and/or evaluation of instructional media
3. Design and development of computer-assisted instruction
4. Design and production of instructional materials (graphics,
video, overhead transparencies, computer-based instruction)
5. Distance education consultation and production
6. Equipment consultation and systems design
7. Film and video checkout and/or rental
8. Installation of media/data presentation equipment in
selected classrooms
9. Maintenance and repair of equipment
10. Making copies of existing media (audio or video cassettes)
11. Multimedia (CD-ROM) authoring and mastering
12. Recording off-air and satellite transmitted video programs
13. Sending and/or receiving interactive teleconferences
14. Video or fiber optic delivery systems
15. other (please specify): ___________________________________________________________________
B. QUALITY OF MEDIA CENTER SERVICES: -- (5) Strongly Agree
-- (3) Agree
-- (1) Strongly Disagree
1. Personnel I've come in contact with are always courteous and
eager to help
2. Services are of high quality
3. other (please specify): ___________________________________________________________________
C. I PLAN TO USE THESE MEDIA CENTER SERVICES: -- (5) Almost Always
-- (3) Often
-- (1) Almost Never
1. Checking out media equipment
2. Analysis, design, and/or evaluation of instructional media
3. Design and development of computer-assisted instruction
4. Design and production of instructional materials (graphics,
video, overhead transparencies, computer-based instruction)
5. Distance education consultation and production
6. Equipment consultation and systems design
7. Film and video checkout and/or rental
8. Installation of media/data presentation equipment in
selected classrooms
9. Maintenance and repair of equipment
10. Making copies of existing media (audio or video cassettes)
11. Multimedia (CD-ROM) authoring and mastering
12. Recording off-air and satellite transmitted video programs
13. Sending and/or receiving interactive teleconferences
14. Video or fiber optic delivery systems
15. other (please specify): ___________________________________________________________________
D. PLEASE CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER INDICATING HOW YOU MIGHT
USE VARIOUS EQUIPMENT: -- (3) I use
-- (2) I would use
-- (1) I donÕt need
1. Overhead projector
2. Slide projector
3. Movie projector
4. TV receiver/monitor
5. Campus-wide TV distribution system
6. Video/data projector or video/data monitor
7. VCR (Video cassette recorder/player)
8. Opaque projector
9. CD-ROM equipment
10. Video camcorder
11. CD player (audio)
12. Audio cassette recorder/player
13. LCD panel (computer screen projector)
14. CD-I (interactive CD equipment)
___________________________________________________________________
E. THINGS WE NEED:
-- (5) Greatly Needed
-- (3) Needed
-- (1) ... to consider
Please list other media-related things your department may need: 1. (specify):Enter feedback, comments, questions, or suggestions:
101 Considerations About Technology
Assessment Instruments and Design Issues
Computer Efficacy Links (2001)
Computer Self-Efficacy Survey (FORM)
Faculty Service Needs Assessment
NM Competencies for Entry-Level Information Technology Coordinators
NM Technology Competencies for All Teachers
Organizations and Technical Assistance
Teachers and Technology (2001)
Technology Competencies (2001)
Understanding Databases (2001)
Caution: Machine generated language translations may contain significant errors. Use with care.
Update:
