ACHIEVING WIDESPREAD INTEGRATION 
OF IT IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: 
WHAT CAN INFORMATION RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS DO?

A CAUSE95 CURRENT ISSUES SESSION

MODERATED BY 

Betty LeCompagnon
Duke University

Mark Resmer
Sonoma State University


SUMMARY

The discussion was based on a premise advanced by 
Jane Marcus of Stanford University, in Change 
magazine, March/April 95, that adoption of new 
technologies by faculty is a function of perceived 
value, communication with others, and availability 
of resources. Each of these factors was discussed 
in depth at the session.

Why do people adopt IT in their teaching/learning? 

The primary motivation appears to be a desire to 
solve existing problems, where technology is 
perceived as having a potential to provide such 
solutions. Identifying suitable problems seems to 
be a significant challenge for both the faculty 
concerned and for IT organizations providing 
faculty support. The group felt it was most 
important that IT organizations focus on a better 
understanding of the problems being addressed by 
faculty before attempting to develop solutions. 
Examples of problem areas include improvement of 
teaching/learning strategies, using technology as a 
catalyst to promote collaborative learning, 
facilitating access to information resources, and 
addressing tasks where raw computational power is 
required.

Secondary motivating factors are generally 
externally generated, and include such elements as 
research grants and institutional/professional 
rewards and encouragement, as well as student 
expectations which serve as a source of pressure 
for faculty to adopt technology in their teaching. 
A corollary of these student expectations is a 
desire on the part of many faculty to prepare their 
students for their future in an increasingly 
technological world. One can also not discount peer 
pressure from colleagues as a motivating factor - 
as early adopters push institutions to place 
greater importance on the application of 
technology, other faculty may fear being left 
behind.

Participants in the discussion felt that one could 
not discount personal characteristics in 
determining which faculty will make effective use 
of information technology in their teaching. In 
general such individuals are characterized by a 
high level of energy in other areas, and a 
passionate commitment to their work. Some 
participants felt that integration of technology 
into instruction was a means of maintaining self-
esteem for older faculty when their research 
activities declined, though there was considerable 
variation of opinion on this point.
               
Finally, there is what might be dubbed the "Field 
of dreams" factor: availability of resources may in 
itself serve as a catalyst for activities that 
would not otherwise take place.

Why do faculty resist integration of IT? 

A wide range of obstacles were seen as impeding the 
integration of IT into teaching and learning. 
Practical issues included a perception that more 
time and effort was required to use technological 
tools than traditional resources, and the 
prevalence of "horror stories" related to such 
issues as rapid obsolescence of software developed 
by faculty, and changing technology making hard-
earned skills obsolete. Difficulty in accessing 
basic technology resources such as workstations and 
networks was also seen as a significant impediment.

Less tangible obstacles include tenure review 
criteria that do not recognize the importance of 
technology-related work, and political issues such 
as the perception that the wrong people (e.g. 
administrators) are pushing technology for the 
wrong reasons. A related concern is that technology 
may not necessarily enhance the quality of 
instruction, and that those pushing for its 
adoption may not recognize this possibility.

Cultural factors also play a part in the form of 
resistance to change of any kind and fear of the 
unknown. Faculty who fail to integrate technology 
into their teaching are frequently happy with the 
status quo and do not see the value of changing the 
way they teach. Lack of training, especially in the 
substantive issues of how technology is used, 
rather than just the mechanics of its use, can be a 
compounding factor.

What are the successful models for faculty 
development?

A good general recipe for faculty development 
programs is to start small, set realistic 
expectations, and not overwhelm the participants. 
Successful programs combine the commitment, energy, 
and expertise of successful faculty leaders with 
broad representation of those who are in the 
process of learning about technology and its 
possibilities. It is also most important that any 
program include an element of proactive needs 
assessment - it is essential that faculty are asked 
what they need before programs are developed.

Support models that have been found to be 
successful range from the provision of dedicated 
support staff and structured development teams to 
the use of student/faculty pairings, such as 
graduate students undertaking final projects that 
are real ones for another faculty member, instead 
of working on meaningless "toy" projects. Such 
student/faculty pairings need to be within the 
discipline of the faculty member. A concern was 
raised by some participants as to whether such 
pairings foster adoption or hinder it by allowing 
the faculty to use the student as a means of 
avoiding direct contact with the technology.

Mentoring programs, such as one which requires that 
"If I teach you, you teach one other person", and 
multi-institutional support and development 
activities are other successful support models. The 
Web is an important factor in making such external 
collaborations realistic, in that it greatly 
enhances the portability of solutions between 
institutions.

Another dimension of faculty development is 
training, though "peer interaction" is perhaps a 
better term. In this spirit, it was suggested that 
faculty training workshops and new faculty 
orientations include presentations by exemplary 
graduates, and include a wide range of 
constituencies with differing degrees of 
sophistication in the integration of IT. Libraries, 
IT organizations, media centers, and 
teaching/excellence centers were all seen as having 
a potential part to play in offering such 
opportunities for peer interaction.

Special programs such as IT grants for faculty 
development, New Media Centers, and incentives such 
as certificates or prizes for exemplary work were 
seen as being useful additional catalysts in 
bringing about a high level of activity in faculty 
adoption of technology.

What resources are needed for faculty development?
          
There was general consensus that people are more 
important than tools in this area. Staff who are 
knowledgeable in instruction, instructional 
technology, and design are a prerequisite for 
significant faculty development in this area. Given 
the general lack of fiscal resources for such 
staffing, suggested approaches to developing this 
resource draw heavily on students, both while at 
the institution, and by keeping them on as 
professional staff for some time after graduation. 
Solutions are likely to differ greatly between 
different classes and sizes of institution. Release 
time for faculty is also an important prerequisite 
for success.

Another important human resources objective should 
be to get staff out of the Computer Center and into 
the work environment of the faculty. As well as 
enhancing the quality of communication and level of 
understanding between faculty and support staff, 
this approach should foster the development of a 
critical mass of technology users in academic 
areas.

While the human dimension may indeed be the most 
important one, we cannot ignore the need for other 
resources. Aside from the obvious need for adequate 
funding to support faculty development programs in 
general, the focus of the discussion was on access 
to technology. Many institutions have created 
specialized faculty IT resource centers. Are such 
centers really needed? The consensus was that they 
were not sufficient on their own; only being 
profitable if they served as a vehicle for the 
right people to use them. This was less true of 
high-tech classrooms, and of generalized provisions 
for faculty and student access, which both 
integrated the use of technology more closely into 
the everyday educational experience of the faculty 
and students, and permitted faculty who had an 
interest in adopting technology to do so on a wide 
scale.

Additional materials/resources:

The following suggestions for additional resources 
in this area were received from participants at the 
session:

"Whatever happened to Instructional Technology?" 
Contact: Whg@vnet.ibm.com

AAHE listserve

Send email to Listproc@list.cren.net containing the 
single line:

subscribe AAHESGIT first last

where "first" and "last" are your actual first and 
last names, or look at the following URL for more 
information about AAHE:

http://www.ido.gmu.edu/aahe/welcome.html