Professors' Usage of Computer Mediated Technology.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the level of concerns of professors (n=108) who use or do not use Computer-Mediated-Communication (CMC) for instructional purposes at a midwestern land-grant research university. Data was gathered during the spring semester 1999, using the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ). The SoCQ was developed to assess the seven hypothesized stages of concern about an innovation, in this case Computer-Mediated-Communication. Sixty-three percent of the sample indicated they were users of CMC. Fifty-one percent indicated they did not use CMC for instructional purposes, and seventy-five percent of the users indicated they had never had formal training using the CMC system.

The sample indicated that the most intense concerns for the professors were in the categories of awareness, informational, and personal. The lowest intensity of concern for the professors was for the category of collaboration, indicating that the professors were more interested in fulfilling their self-needs concerning educational technology. Users of CMC indicated that their most intense concern was at the impact stage. Nonusers of CMC indicated that their most intense concern was for the self-stages

Introduction

Today, the Internet is considered the world's largest computer network. The Internet provides inexpensive and easy access to a fast-growing, global information service, for both providers and consumers of information (Ford, 1995). The Internet allows users to exchange textual and other messages and connect millions of people in business, academia, government, and organizations in more than fifty countries. The Internet is capable of retrieving software, pictures, and other information worldwide. People worldwide are using the Internet for communicating and to share resources for collaboration, but more than a global information service, the Internet is a social technology (Sproull & Faraf, 1995).

Computer-Mediated-Communication (CMC) (Romiszowki, 1997) pertains to any form of organized interaction between people, utilizing computers or the computer network as mediums of communication. CMC's main characteristics are interactivity, demassification, and asynchrony. Communication through computers can be synchronous (real-time communication) or asynchronous (delayed communication). CMC supports both synchronous and asynchronous communication in different combinations. Through the use of CMC, an individual can access information; an individual can communicate with many people, or numerous individuals can communicate with multitudes of people (Jonassen, 1996).

The use of e-mail and the World Wide Web (WWW) has become an integral part of academia. Educators have developed specific curricula, classrooms, and collaborative student projects to be incorporated when using electronic instruction (Jonassen, 1996; Romiszowki, 1989). Professors are incorporating CMC through computer networks for accessing databases, library information, and other resources online, and e-mail to communicate with students. Professors are utilizing listservs for conversations and debates on the Web. Professors worldwide are using e-mail and web pages for collaborative writing (Jonassen, 1996; Paulsen, 1994; Romiszowki, 1989)

Colleges and universities are remarkably conducive to the computer network. However, there has been resistance to many educational innovations introduced in higher education over the years. Some educators view CMC as another innovation that will come and go (Cuban, 1993). Nevertheless, CMC success will depend on acceptance in the academic realm (Rogers, 1986).

As a medium, CMC is still in the early stages of study. Due to CMC's newness in academia, there is not sufficient data available identifying CMC's effectiveness in the academic community. The study examined professors' usage of computer-mediated technology for instructional purposes.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to determine the level of concerns of professors (n=108) who use or do not use CMC for instructional purposes at a midwestern land-grant research university. Data was gathered during the Spring Semester 1999, using the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ).

Gene E. Hall, Archie A. George, and William L. Rutherford created the SoCQ in 1974 to assess professors' concern about innovations in curriculum and instructional strategies. The SoCQ was selected by the researchers because of its ability to assess seven hypothesized Stages of Concern about innovations in academia. The seven stages include awareness, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, and refocusing (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett, 1973). Other instruments available to the researchers did not encompasses such a wide range of concerns associated with curriculum and instructional strategies; therefore, an older validated instrument was utilized.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for all variables. Raw scores for each of the seven stages were tallied and converted to norm percentiles. To interpret the different levels of concern, the highest stage score and the second highest stage score were analyzed. The complete profile (Profile Interpretation) was analyzed by examining the percentile scores for all seven stages to interpret the meaning of the different highs and lows and their interrelationships.

Descriptive Findings

The overall return rate for the survey was fifty-two percent (n=56), and five questionnaires were returned incomplete. Results indicated that the majority of the respondents (n=22) were between 40 to 59 years of age, and twenty-two percent (n=11) of the faculty were over 60 years old. Fifty-five percent (n=28) of the professors were female. Twenty-eight percent of the professors were ranked as instructors, where twenty-six percent (n=13) were ranked as associate professors. Twenty-four percent (n=12) of the professors worked for the Department of Health Science, Kinesiology, and Recreation and Dance, whereas twenty percent (n=10) of the sample worked in the Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling, and Foundations (see Table 1).

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics.

Variable                Frequency    Percent

Age
  20-29                     1          2.0
  30-39                     3          5.9
  40-49                    22         43.1
  50-55                    14         27.5
  60 & Over                11         21.6

Gender
  Female                   28         54.9
  Male                     23         45.1

Rank
  Full                     12         23.5
  Associate                13         25.5
  Assistant                12         23.5
  Instructor               14         27.5

Department
Vocational & Adult          6         11.8
Curric & Instruction        6         11.8
Lead, Counsel,             10         19.6
  & Foundations
Health Science,            12         23.5
  Kinesology,
  Recreation Dance
Nursing                     9         17.6
Rehab & Research            7         13.7
No Department               1          2.0      Note. n = 51

The sample indicated that thirty-nice percent (n=20) of the professors never had been involved with CMC for communications purposes. Twenty-two percent (n=11) indicated that they had been involved with CMC for five and more years. Twenty-four percent (n=12) indicated they have used CMC for 1-2 years in their instruction (see Table 2).

Table 2 Years using CMC of Surveyed Professors

Practice      Frequency    Percent

Never            20         39.2
1 Year            6         11.8
2 Years           6         11.8
3 Years           4          7.8
4 Years           3          5.9
5 Years+         11         21.6
NR                1          2.0      Note. n = 51

Thirty-seven percent (n=19) of the sample indicated they were non-users of the CMC for instructional purposes. Thirty-seven percent (n=19) of the sample indicated they were novice users of CMC. Twenty-six percent (n=13) of the professors indicated they were intermediate, old hand, or past users of CMC for instruction (see Table 3).

Table 3 Experience using CMC

Experience          Frequency    Percent

Nonuser                19         37.3
Novice                 19         37.3
Intermediate            4          7.8
Old Hand                8         15.7
Past User               1          2.0

Note. n = 51

Seventy-five percent (n=38) of the participants indicated that they had no formal training using CMC, whereas twenty-five percent (n=13) indicated they had some training (see Table 4).

Table 4 Formal Training Using CMC

Training       Frequency     Percent

No                 38          74.5
Yes                13          25.5

Note. n = 51

Fifty-one percent (n=26) of the sample indicated that they had not used CMC for instructional purposes, whereas forty-nine percent indicated they had used CMC in instructions (see Table 5).

Table 5 Actual Use of CMC with Instructional Purposes

Usage     Frequency     Percent

No            26          51.0
Yes           25          49.0

Note. n = 51

Stages of Concern Findings

The highest levels of concern for the professors were in the categories of awareness (14%; percentile=91), informational (19.85%; percentile=72), and personal (19.74%; percentile=72). The lowest level of concern for the professors was for the category of collaboration (16.32%; percentile=31), indicating that the professors in this study were more interested in fulfilling their self-needs concerning educational technology than collaborating with other professors (see Figure 1).

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Users of CMC indicated awareness (11.32%; percentile=84), informational (19.91%; percentile=72), personal (19.80%; percentile=72), and management (18%; percentile=69) were the highest level of concern. The lowest level of concern for the professors using CMC was for collaboration (19.04%; percentile=48), again, indicating the desire not to collaborate with other professors for instructional purposes (see Figure 2).

[Figure 2 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Non-users of CMC indicated the highest level of concern was the self-stage. Non-users had the highest concern for awareness (14.49%; percentile=91), informational (19.74%; percentile=72), and personal (16.29%; percentile=59) categories. Collaboration (12.25%; percentile=19) was indicated as the lowest category for non-users (see Figure 2).

Summary

The first step in endorsement of new technologies is acceptance; however, CMC has met with resistance. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of concerns of professors (n=108) who use or do not use Computer-Mediated-Communication for instructional purposes at a midwestern land-grant research university.

Sixty-three percent of the sample indicated they were users of CMC. Yet fifty-one percent of the sample indicated that they did not use CMC for instructional purposes. Of the users, seventy-five percent indicated that they had never had formal training using the CMC system.

Awareness, informational, personal, and management were indicated as the highest level of priority by the professors using the CMC system. Non-users of CMC indicated their highest levels of concern were awareness, informational, and personal, and did not include the management stage as a concern. Collaboration was indicated as the lowest level of concern for both users and non-users of CMC.

As indicated in this study, collaboration by professors that use Computer-Mediated-Communication needs to be intensely incorporated into the learning process. Training of professors in the area of usage of CMC for both personal and instructional purposes will enhance the quality and quantity of Computer-Mediated-Instruction. Educational technologies need to be incorporated into learning environments in order to launch academia into the 21st Century.

References

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185-210.

Ford, A. (1995). Spinning the web. How to provide information on the Internet. U.K. International: Thomson Publishing.

Hall, G.E., Wallace, R.C. Jr. & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin, research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED095 126).

Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Paulsen, M. F. (1994). An overview of CMC and the online classroom in distance education. In Z.L. Berge & M. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in distance education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Reid, J.E. & Woolf, P.(1996) Online curriculum development at shorter college: A report from the field. {On-line}. Available: http://www.caso.com/iu/articules/reid02.html.1996 {1998, October 6}.

Romiszowski, A. J., & Hass, J. A. (1989). Computer-mediated communication for instruction: Using e-mail as a seminar. Educational Technology, 29(10),7-14.

Sproull, L., & Faraj S. (1995). Atheism, sex and databases: The net as a social technology. In Kahin, Brian., & Keller, James (Eds.). Public access to the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ana B. Martinez, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas

Renee L. Cambiano, Northeastern State University, OK

Jack B. De Vore, University of Arkansas

Ana Beatriz Martinez, Ed.D., Associate Professor, Coordinacion de Extension, Facultad de Humanidades y Educacion. <[e-mail]>. Renee L. Cambiano, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor in the Department of Teacher Education. <[e-mail]>. Jack B. De Vore, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the Department of Vocational and Adult Education. <[e-mail]>.