Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Faculty use of technology in postsecondary education

By Ann Lampkin

Abstract

This study was designed to examine six questions concerning faculty use of technology in postsecondary education in relationship to faculty age, gender, academic rank, employment status, principal field of teaching, and type of institution where the faculty member is employed. The study used archival data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) to describe and examine faculty use of technology in postsecondary education. The researcher analyzed archival data collected in 2004 by RTI. In 2004 34,330 eligible sample members were identified; 29,820 (87%) were contacted, and 26,110 (76%) completed the survey (NCES). The findings of this study indicated that further research is needed in the following three areas: 1) the examination of gender and faculty use of technology in postsecondary education. 2) the relationship between faculty employment status and faculty use of technology in postsecondary education, and 3) the type of institution (2- vs. 4-Year) in which faculty work and faculty use of technology in postsecondary education

Topics: Social Work
Publisher: DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:digitalcommons.auctr.edu:dissertations-1710

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2000). 1). Technology and social work education: Recent empirical studies.
  2. (2007). A concerns-based adoption model study ofuniversity instructors engaged in faculty developmentfor enhancing learning with technology. Thesis (Ed. D.)--San
  3. (2007). A longitudinal study of information technology impact on business faculty in distance education.
  4. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program.
  5. (2006). A study ofthe process used by academic affairs administrators at participating institutions ofhigher education to select instructional technology toolsforfaculty use in instruction in undergraduate classes. West Hartford:
  6. (2007). Active learning and technology: Designing change for faculty, students, and institutions.
  7. (2004). An examination of alternative instructional methods.
  8. (2008). An instructional design course for clinical educators: First iteration design research reflections.
  9. (2008). An overview ofonline education: attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns and recommendations.
  10. (2007). Analysis of predictive factors that influence faculty members’ technology adoption level.
  11. (2002). Are colleges and universities doing enough to develop part-time faculty use of instructional technology?
  12. (2001). Back to the future.
  13. (2009). Blended learning as a new approach to social work education.
  14. (2008). Blended learning versus traditionalface-to-face learning: A four-year study exploring students’ learning growth. Thesis (M.Ed.) -- La Trobe University,
  15. (2004). Bridging the gap: Creating faculty development opportunities at a large medical center.
  16. (1998). Bringing senior faculty on board the technological revolution: one model.
  17. (2008). Building institutional capability in e-learning.
  18. (2005). Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In
  19. (2007). Computer technology-infused learning enhancement.
  20. (2008). Conflicting perceptions and complex change: Promoting web supported learning in an arts and social sciences faculty.
  21. (2007). Connecting organizational environments with the instructional technology practices of community college faculty.
  22. (2000). Designing a faculty development program on technology: If you build it, will they come?
  23. (2005). Development ofa technology mentoringprogram using Rogers’ Diffusion of innovations.
  24. (2009). Distance education programs in social work: Current and emerging trends.
  25. (2002). Educational computing concerns of postsecondary faculty.
  26. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives.
  27. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity.
  28. (2007). Factors influencing accounting faculty members’ decision to adopt technology in the classroom.
  29. (2004). Factors which motivate community college faculty to participate in distance education.
  30. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology.
  31. (2003). Faculty adoption ofcomputer technologyfor instruction in the North Carolina Community College System.
  32. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction.
  33. (2003). Faculty development and the diffusion of innovations.
  34. (2000). Faculty motivation and inhibitors for participation in distance education.
  35. (2002). Faculty orientation to instruction and use oftechnology in postsecondary education in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International. 62-12. Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of
  36. (2007). Faculty perceptions of technology projects.
  37. (2007). Faculty professional development program in distance education.
  38. (2009). Faculty transformation: Three forms of inquiry to increase staff capability for teaching with technologies. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching
  39. (2003). Five obstacles to technology integration at a small liberal arts university.
  40. (2010). from Education Full Text database.
  41. (1991). Gender and university teaching: A negotiated difference. SUNY series in gender and society.
  42. (1997). Gender and use of instructional technologies: A study of university faculty.
  43. (1998). Gender differences in e-mail communications.
  44. (2005). Graduate faculty perceptions of online teaching. The Quarterly Review ofDistance
  45. (2008). Helping faculty enhance scholarship.
  46. (2000). How hypermodem technology in social work education bites back.
  47. (2008). Information and communication technology perception of faculty members.
  48. (1999). Instructional reform at research universities: Studying faculty motivation. Review ofHigher Education.
  49. (2007). Instructional technology and faculty development: How iWRITE challenges course design and teaching methods.
  50. (2007). Integrating technology into the teaching-learning transaction: Pedagogical and technological perceptions of management faculty.
  51. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions.
  52. (2008). Investigating the factors affectingfaculty members’ decision to teach or not to teach online in higher education. Thesis (Ph.D.) in Computer Science--University of Maine,
  53. (2005). Misconceptions and realities about teaching online.
  54. (2008). Moving teaching and learning with technology from adoption to transformation.
  55. (2005). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved March 3, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Hixon, E.
  56. (2008). Past, present, and future trends in teaching clinical skills through web-based learning environments.
  57. (2004). Pedagogical beliefs, perceptions, andpractices offacully in web-based instruction: A multiple case study. University ofNorth Carolina at Greensboro,
  58. (2003). Perceptions of faculty on the effect of distance learning technology and preparation time.
  59. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors’ integration of technology in classroom-based practices.
  60. (2005). Planning faculty development for successful implementation of web-based instruction.
  61. (2007). Predicting use of technology-based methods of classroom instruction.
  62. (2008). Preparing engineering faculty to teach online.
  63. (1998). Preparing social work doctoral students for teaching: Report of a survey.
  64. (2008). Rethinking faculty role in a knowledge age.
  65. (2006). Secondary analysis in social work research education: Past, present, and future promise.
  66. (2006). Socrates and technology: A new millennium conversation.
  67. (2009). Strategic technology planning in higher education.
  68. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use technology.
  69. (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills primarily online: An evaluation.
  70. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research.
  71. (2000). Teaching with technology: Seventy-five professors from eight universities tell their stories.
  72. (2002). Teaching with technology: Use of telecommunications technology by postsecondary instructionalfaculty and staff in fall 1998. NCES 2002—161, by
  73. (2002). Teaching with technology. Use oftelecommunications technology by postsecondary instructionalfaculty and staff infall
  74. (2009). Teaching, technology, and time perceptions ofuse of time by higher education faculty teaching online courses and teaching in traditional classroom settings.
  75. (2008). Technology acceptance in an academic context: Faculty acceptance of online education.
  76. (2008). Technology adoption into teaching and learning by mainstream university faculty: A mixed methodology study revealing the “how, when, why, and why not.”
  77. (2006). Technology adoption of medical faculty in teaching: Differentiating factors in adopter categories.
  78. (2005). Technology and higher education: Challenges in the halls of academe.
  79. (2007). Technology and olderfaculty: A descriptive study ofolder Florida community college faculty. UMI Dissertation Services.
  80. (2005). Technology in social work education and curriculum: The high tech, high touch social work educator.
  81. (2007). Technology in the classroom: Friend or foe.
  82. (2001). Technology practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.
  83. (2005). Technology use in the classroom: Preferences of management faculty members.
  84. (2006). The adopter chasm an investigation on characteristics offaculty adopters ofinstructional technology and the impact uponfaculty use.
  85. (2008). The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach (2 ed.).
  86. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation.
  87. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses.
  88. (2003). The impact ofinformation technology on pedagogy in higher education. Thesis (Ed.D. in Education) --
  89. (2003). The integration of technology into teaching by university college of education faculty. In
  90. (2001). The integration oftechnology into teaching by university college ofeducationfaculty. Thesis (M.S.)--Oklahoma
  91. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies.
  92. (2006). The Pedagogy of Technology Integration.
  93. (2006). The relationship betweenfaculty use oftechnology as a teaching tool and student satisfaction in higher education. Thesis (doctoral) --
  94. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: using technology to capture pedagogic form.
  95. (2001). The tower under siege: Technology power and education.
  96. (2002). The web’s impact on social work education: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions.
  97. (2007). Thesis (M.A.)--Richard Stockton College ofNew
  98. (2008). Transforming the college through technology: A change of culture.
  99. (2004). University instructor& reflections on their first online teaching experiences.
  100. (2006). University teachers’ experiences in courseware development.
  101. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty.
  102. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools.
  103. (2007). Viability of the “technology acceptance model” in multimedia learning environments: a comparative study.
  104. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? Reaching mainstream faculty.
  105. (2006). Why do they do it? Initial and sustaining motivatorsfor teaching online in higher education. Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Georgia,
  106. (2004). Winter). Implementing partnerships across the curriculum with technology.
  107. (2005). Wireless technology in higher education: The perceptions offacully and students concerning the use ofwireless laptops.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.