June 11, 2001
Dr. Karen I. Adsit
Dr. Clinton W. Smullen
In February of 2001, the UT Office of Research and Information Technology’s Division of Educational Technology requested a survey of all UT full-time, regular faculty. The survey was conducted by the UT Institute of Research and Assessment. This analysis reviews the findings with particular emphasis the responses of UTC faculty members, and develops recommendations for action based on these responses. A copy of the full ORIT report may be found at http://www.utc.edu/~techcomm/Statewide_Survey.pdf .
UTC faculty members returned surveys (361 distributed, with 113 returned) at a lower rate than any other campus surveyed (31%). We attribute this to two causes: the lack of direct applicability of many of the survey questions to UTC (discussed below), and the perception among UTC faculty that this effort was a “UT” survey not relevant to UTC faculty. Among the UTC faculty members returning survey responses there were no significant demographic differences reported by ORIT from faculty who reported from other campuses statewide.
Among UTC faculty, 68% reported their office computer as “sufficient” for their needs; this was a significantly lower percentage than Knoxville (over 80%) and Martin (about 87%). We note that both Knoxville and Martin have faculty desktop computer replacement plans in effect with 3-year replacement cycles. For UTC faculty, the item reported at the top of the list in importance related to the integration of technology in teaching was new or updated hardware and software. The items ranked second and third were access to technology-enhanced classrooms, and funding for project and course development.
Forty-nine percent of UTC faculty reported their computing skills were good or excellent, while 29% reported average to poor skills. The proportion at UTC reporting average to poor skills was less than that reported by all other campuses surveyed. Approximately 90% of those responding from UTC were interested in using technology in their teaching. The largest impediment to expanding the use of instructional technology reported from UTC was a lack of time.
The current uses of technology at UTC closely matched those in use at Knoxville and the other campuses, including the frequency of instructional use of a computer and the percentage of faculty who create their own instructional materials.
UTC faculty indicated interest in some new technologies and services that are not available or are not supported at UTC. The new technologies ranked at the top were using web-based tutorials for students, self-assessments available online, and audio/video streaming. The new services requested were online official grade submission, electronic course roster, and access to a central repository of resources.
UTC faculty selected the following methods of learning about instructional technology:
|
70% |
Hands-on workshops |
|
60% |
Structured self-paced tutorials |
|
52% |
Self-instruction |
|
50% |
One-on-one mentoring |
Many of the survey questions related to the use of “CourseInfo” by Blackboard Systems. At the time of the survey, CourseInfo was the online course delivery and management system used by Knoxville, while UTC used Web-Course-In-A-Box (WCB). Since the survey, Blackboard has bought WCB, and starting this summer, UTC has begun the process of moving to Blackboard version 5 (as has Knoxville). However, since at the time of the survey UTC did not support or train for CourseInfo, the relevance of any of the UTC faculty answers to these questions are suspect. Some faculty recognized the intent of the questions (online course management) and responded even though they did not use CourseInfo. It is indeed unfortunate that the survey instrument was not discussed with any UTC faculty or staff before it was mailed. Minor changes in wording could have produced useful information.
In general, the survey was poorly designed for the faculty on the UTC campus. It did not reflect any knowledge of the products used at UTC or by UTC students and, therefore, does not tell us much beyond what we already know. The UTC faculty responses were not surprising to us. The findings reflect what we have found through talking and working with faculty on the UTC campus. Workshops scheduled by the Teaching Resource Center are almost always filled, with waiting lists. UTC faculty are interested in using technology and seek out opportunities to learn about how they can use it better.
The barriers and challenges identified are ones that we have known about and struggled with for a long time.
A. Heavy faculty loads limit the efforts of even well trained and motivated faculty
B. Faculty need access to computers powerful and modern enough to do their work
C. Improvements in the classroom facilities are needed to enhance the use of technology
D. Widespread access is needed to classroom technology equipment, with ease and flexibility of scheduling
E. Faculty development efforts should be supported with time and funding to learn new skills and to develop courses incorporating teaching and learning with technology
F. Additional support personnel are needed for instructional technology efforts and improving and maintaining the infrastructure
G. Additional personnel are needed to support faculty training and assist in course development efforts
The Teaching, Learning & Technology Faculty Fellows program instituted in 2000 (funded by the UC Foundation and CECA) addresses several of the issues listed above, notably faculty time (one course release for the year), support (through the Teaching Resource Center and CECA), hands-on training (both structured and self-paced), and faculty equipment (up to $3,000 for new hardware and software). The program will be continued during the year 2001 with funding promised from Academic Affairs and CECA. An expanded version of this program or guaranteed multiyear support for the TLTFF program could provide a future core of faculty at UTC trained in technology and learning issues.
The results of the survey and the comments recorded on the survey by UTC faculty indicate a continuing need to communicate effectively with faculty regarding the currently available technology at UTC, the availability of training on how to use it, the opportunities for faculty development related to technology, and the policies and procedures for using technology. For example, online course rosters are currently available at UTC through ASIS, although this service was rated second in the request list.
The survey identifies areas for future implementation on the UTC campus, including training sessions, investment in infrastructure, and support efforts:
A. Teaching how to put student surveys and assessment online
B. Audio/video streaming
C. Desktop conferencing
D. Online grade submission
E. A central repository for resources
These areas also present challenges for both training and infrastructure that need to be addressed.
1. Charge the
“Working Group on SACS Suggestion 20” with the task of developing a plan to
improve classroom technology.
Issues related to this which complicate any solution include:
Who “owns” the classroom?
Who schedules the classroom?
Who maintains the classroom?
What classroom infrastructure is needed to enhance instructional technology?
How can the access to classroom technology be streamlined?
Until these issues are addressed we will continually have a difficult time providing technology-enhanced classrooms at the level that faculty have come to need. This group should make recommendations to the Information Technology Advisory Council by January 15, 2002.
2. Charge the managers of ITD, Teaching Resource Center, CECA, HelpDesk, Academic Computing, and Media Resources with developing a plan to improve communications with the faculty regarding classroom technology.
Such communications should include the existing avenues of support for faculty development activities, faculty training, and opportunities for acquiring needed hardware and software. The plan should be in place by November 15, 2001, and implementation of the plan should be started immediately. Any funding requirements could be forwarded to the Technology Committee, for example.
3. Charge the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance with developing and implementing an orderly replacement policy for faculty desktop computers.
4. Charge the Information Technology Advisory Council with preparing a review of new technologies and services to improve teaching and learning. Such a review will include the identification and costs of needed infrastructure improvements, hardware and software upgrades or acquisitions, and additional support.
This review should be ready by December 1, 2001, to allow time for preparation of proposals to the Technology Committee for funding in the spring of 2002. The review should include, but not limited to, the issues raised in the Survey. It should also include an analysis of the advantages and costs of using Blackboard Level 2 and/or 3 to meet the needs of new academic services.