Technology Usage Among Community College Faculty

This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 20 October 2014, At: 09:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Community College Journal ofResearch and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

Technology Usage AmongCommunity College FacultyMelissa B. Jackowski a & Duane Akroyd ba Division of Radiologic Science, The University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina, USAb Department of Leadership, Policy, and Adult andHigher Education , School of Education, NorthCarolina State University , Raleigh, North Carolina,USAPublished online: 11 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Melissa B. Jackowski & Duane Akroyd (2010) Technology UsageAmong Community College Faculty, Community College Journal of Research andPractice, 34:8, 624-644, DOI: 10.1080/10668920701831530

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920701831530

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10668920701831530

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920701831530

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

TECHNOLOGY USAGE AMONG COMMUNITYCOLLEGE FACULTY

Melissa B. Jackowski

Division of Radiologic Science, The University of North Carolina at ChapelHill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

Duane Akroyd

Department of Leadership, Policy, and Adult and Higher Education,School of Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

North Carolina, USA

Community colleges are increasing their use of part-time faculty who aretaking a leading role in utilizing technology for instructional purposes.Part-time faculty are less likely than their full-time counterparts to usetechnology for instructional purposes and are less likely to teachnon-face-to-face classes. For community colleges to be successful inexpanding technology-based education, they must promote technologyuse by all faculty. This quantitative, national study reports factors foundto predict faculty use of technology for instructional purposes.

The increasing utilization of, and dependence upon, part-time facultyin two-year colleges has been called ‘‘one of the more significanttrends in higher education’’ (Valadez & Anthony, 2001, p. 97).Community colleges employ a larger percentage of part-time facultythan do four-year institutions. Although public two-year institutionsrepresent 33% of all degree-granting institutions and employ only29% of all faculty, they employ 44% of all part-time higher-education

Address correspondence to Melissa B. Jackowski, UNC Division of Radiologic Science,

Bondurant Hall-Suite 3050, CB#7130, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7130. E-mail: melissa_jackowski@

med.unc.edu

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34: 624–644, 2010

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1066-8926 print=1521-0413 online

DOI: 10.1080/10668920701831530

624

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

faculty (Berger, Kirshstein, & Rowe, 2001). Increasingly, two-yearinstitutions are employing more part-time faculty. From 1988 to1993, the percentage of part-time faculty at public two-year institu-tions rose from 52% to 62% (U.S. Department of Education, 1997).According to Outcalt (2002), part-time faculty now account fornearly 65% of all community college faculty. Due to an increasedrate of retirement, it is likely that the numbers of part-time facultyupon whom two-year institutions have come to depend will continueto increase. Additionally, Pederson (2001) has noted that due toeconomic recession, institutions, including community colleges, willattempt to control costs in many ways, including their increasinguse of part-time faculty.

Although the use of part-time faculty is increasing in two-yearinstitutions, part-time community college faculty are not treated inthe same ways as are their full-time counterparts. Equity concernssurrounding part-time faculty include low pay, role ambiguitycaused by poor integration into the institution, and lack of accessto technology (Akroyd, Gillett-Karam, & Boos, 1999; Gappa &Leslie, 1993; Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne, 1982; McGuire, 1993;Monroe & Denman, 1991; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1996;Warburton, Chen, & Bradburn, 2002).

Part-time faculty, reportedly, have less access to technology thando their full-time counterparts. The U.S. Department of Education(Warburton, Chen, & Bradburn, 2002) reported that in the fall of1998 part-time instructional faculty were less likely to have accessto the Internet than full-time faculty. In two-year institutions, 94%of full-time faculty had access as compared to 85% of part-time fac-ulty. In addition, full-time faculty were more likely to use e-mail andcourse-specific websites than their part-time counterparts. The litera-ture also indicates that full-time faculty are more likely to teachnon-face-to-face (distance education) classes than their part-timecounterparts. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education reportedthat 9.48% of full-time faculty taught non-face-to-face courses com-pared to 8.35% of part-time faculty. When adjusting for covariationof other variables including gender, teaching discipline, level of class-room discussion, highest degree, internet access, institution’s com-puting resources, institution type, and total FTE enrollment,part-time faculty were less likely than full-time faculty to teachnon-face-to-face classes.

Two-year institutions employ a majority of part-time faculty whoreportedly are inadequately compensated, poorly integrated, and lim-ited in access to technological resources. At the same time, com-munity colleges are taking a leading role in using technology for

Technology Usage Among Community College Faculty 625

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

instructional purposes. With community college faculty at the helmof such endeavors, part-time faculty, who traditionally are teachingfewer non-face-to-face courses compared to their peers, need to besupported in their use of instructional technology, including usingdistance learning media and other electronic methodologies.

Distance learning can be used in many ways to supplement, orreplace, the traditional classroom. Many instructors are using weblinks to offer their students access to additional resources on theInternet. Some are communicating via e-mail and setting up onlineclass discussion groups. More and more, entire courses are beingoffered via the Internet.

Though distance education offerings, especially via the Internet,have increased at both two-year colleges and four-year institutions,recent studies have shown that community colleges are becomingthe primary providers of distance education courses. In 2002, theU.S. Department of Education reported that faculty at two-yearinstitutions are more likely to teach distance education and non-face-to-face classes than faculty at private not-for-profit doctoral orliberal arts institutions.

Additionally, a 2003 report from the U.S. Department ofEducation indicates that community colleges have the greatestnumber, 48%, of enrollments in distance education courses comparedto all other institutions. This same report noted that public two-yearinstitutions offer the greatest number, 44%, of distance educationcourses (Waits & Lewis, 2003). Furthermore, the report from theU.S. Department of Education (2003) notes that Internet coursesusing asynchronous instruction (i.e., listservs, e-mail, and mostweb-based instruction) are more likely to be used as the primarymode of instructional delivery at public two-year institutions (95%)compared to public four-year (87%) and private four-year institutions(86%) (Waits & Lewis, 2003).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Taking into consideration the disparities in the uses of technology anddistance education offerings, not only by type of institution, but alsoby faculty position (full-time versus part-time), one must consider thefactors that motivate faculty to teach with technology. Certain demo-graphic factors have been associated with faculty uses of technology.These factors include personal and professional characteristics such asgender, years of teaching, union membership, and discipline; otherfactors include institutional characteristics such as size (enrollment),

626 M. B. Jackowski and D. Akroyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

wealth (educational expenditure per student), and student-facultyratio (Bailey & Matsuzuka, 2003; Bradburn, 2002; Schifter, 2002;Handy, Hunter, & Whiddett, 2001; Kagima & Hausafus, 2001;American Council of Education [ACES], 2000; Gao, 2000; NationalEducation Association [NEA], 2000; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000; Kirk& Shoemaker, 1999; Montgomery, 1999; Ndahi, 1999; Betts, 1998,Kagima, 1998; Igbaria & Zinatelli, 1997; US Department ofEducation, 1997; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Dillon, Hengst,& Zoller, 1991; Dillon, 1989; Clark, Soliman, & Sungaila, 1985).

Personal and professional characteristics have been found to beassociated with faculty uses of technology. In terms of gender, femalecommunity college faculty have been reported to be positive aboutthe uses of technology (Clark, 1993). Venkatesh and Morris (2000)found that women also tend to be more influenced by ease of use.The easier the technology is to use, the more likely they will adoptit. A majority of faculty who teach via distance education have beenteaching for 10–20 years (Ndahi, 1999; NEA, 2000). In addition,faculty who teach business, engineering, and computer sciencetend to be more disposed to using technology (Clark, 1993; ACES,2000; Warburton, Chen, & Bradburn, 2002). Union membershiphas been associated with the likelihood of training in technologyuse, which could positively affect use (NEA, 2000).

Institutional characteristics have also been associated withfaculty use of technology. As institutional size and wealth increase,so does the likelihood that faculty will use technology for teaching(NCES, 2000). In terms of student-faculty ratio, a National EducationAssociation report in 2000 stated that it is often assumed that student-faculty ratios will increase with the use of distance education.

In addition to personal and professional and institutionalcharacteristics, the literature suggests that certain internal and exter-nal motivating factors can affect faculty use of technology. Intrinsicmotivators include training=competence and autonomy. Extrinsicmotivating factors include time commitment and compensation.

COMPETENCE

Faculty’s perceptions of their technological competence have beenfound to be both an inhibitor and motivator regarding technology inteaching. Faculty who feel competent in the use of technology are morelikely to participate in distance education and other technology-basedinstruction. Faculty who do not feel competent are less likely tomake use of instructional technology. The following are three main


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

factors that can affect confidence in technology use for teaching: (a)training, (b) technical support, and (c) adequacy of resources.

Extensive findings support training as an effective and necessarymotivator for technology use (Ensminger & Surry, 2002; Bower,2001; Dooley & Murphy, 2001; Kagima & Hausafus, 2001; Gao,2000; Groves & Zernel, 2000; Schifter, 2000; Dusick, 1999; Mitra,Steffensmeier, Lenzmeier, & Massoni, 1999; Ndahi, 1999; Richard,1999; Schauer, Rockwell, Fritz, & Marx, 1998; Wolski & Jackson,1999; Igbaria & Zinatelli, 1997; Olcott & Wright, 1995; Dillon &Walsh, 1992; Taylor & White, 1991). In Schifter’s 1999 study, shesurveyed full-time faculty and administrators of a Research 1,state-related university to ascertain how faculty and administratorsview faculty participation in distance education. She notes, ‘‘The easyanswer to preparing faculty to be more comfortable with technologyis to provide learning opportunities’’ (Schifter, 2000, p. 46).

In addition to training, technical support is an important factoraffecting faculty competence regarding the use of technology forteaching (Schifter, 2002; Handy et al., 2001; Kagima & Hausafus,2001; Wilson, 2001; Dooley & Murphy, 2000; Farinella, Hobbs, &Weeks, 2000; Gao, 2000; Surry & Land, 2000; Venkatesh & Morris,2000; Dusick, 1999; Kirk & Shoemaker, 1999; Mitchell, 1999; Mitraet al., 1999; Montgomery, 1999; Ndahi, 1999; Richard, 1999; Olcott& Wright, 1995; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Taylor & White,1991). Wilson (2001) studied faculty attitudes toward distanceeducation in the Kentucky higher education system. She surveyedall full-time faculty members at nine Kentucky state-supportedinstitutions and found lack of support to be a barrier to the use ofinstructional technology. At least one-third of all respondents weredissatisfied with technical computer support. In 2000, Surry andLand proposed a framework to assist higher education administra-tors to increase the use of technology on their campuses. The authorssuggested strategies for motivating faculty to use technology. Awidespread notion in their confidence- building strategies is the ideathat there must be a support system in place including the hiring oftechnology support and media development personnel.

While training and technical support have been found to beimportant factors affecting faculty use of technology, adequacy ofresources has also been suggested to affect faculty use of technology(Ensminger & Surry, 2002; Jones, Lindler, Murphy, & Dooley, 2002;Bower, 2001; Wilson, 2001; Gao, 2000; Groves & Zernel, 2000; Surry& Land, 2000; Dusick, 1999; Kirk & Shoemaker, 1999; Ndahi, 1999;Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Beaudoin, 1990). Gao’s (2000) qualitativestudy of Baylor University faculty determined the availability of,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

and access to, reliable and updated equipment, including both hard-ware and software, to be the most important factors affecting facultyuse of technology for teaching. Likewise, Ndahi (1999, p. 9) foundthat, ‘‘The lack of properly functioning equipment causes frustrationand subsequent dislike for the use of technology.’’ Ensminger &Surry’s (2002) study of factors that facilitate the implementation ofonline programs for higher education faculty indicated that adequacyof resources is the single most important factor affecting faculty inthe implementation of online degree programs.

AUTONOMY

Walker and Quinn (1996) note that educators often refer to auto-nomy as what attracts them to the teaching profession. Instructorscite independence and freedom as the most satisfying aspects of theirwork. Autonomy can be both a motivator and an inhibitor to tech-nology use. Taylor and White’s (1991) study of faculty at the Univer-sity of Southern Queensland reported autonomy to be a benefitperceived to be associated with off-campus (distance) education.On the other hand, Dillon and Walsh (1992) note that faculty oftenhave little ownership over technological resources. This includes little,if any, control in the scheduling of facilities, selecting software andplacement of hardware. In addition, Olcott and Wright (1995) reportthat faculty perceptions that distance education requires a teamapproach may undermine faculty autonomy and control of curricula.

The literature reveals contradictory findings regarding autonomyas a barrier or motivator for using technology. Most of the literatureaffirms the importance of allowing faculty to be involved in theplanning and implementation of new technology. Educators mustbe allowed to maintain their autonomy throughout the process.Ensminger and Surry (2002, p. 5) note, ‘‘. . . faculty consider partici-pation in designing developing and decision making importantwhen implementing an innovation.’’

TIME COMMITMENT AND COMPENSATION

When examining the influence of workload and release time onfaculty use of technology, the findings can be grouped into threecategories: (a) the amount of time required to teach with technology(Jones et al., 2002; Bower, 2001; Ellis, 2000; Kirk & Shoemaker, 1999;Wolcott & Betts, 1999); (b) increased workloads and lack of releasetime as barriers to participation (Schifter, 2002; Wilson, 2001; Ellis,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

2000; Mitchell, 1999; Ndahi, 1999; Richard, 1999; Olcott & Wright,1995; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992); and (c) studies suggestingthat decreased workloads and release time can be motivators forusing technology (Ensminger & Surry, 2002; Gao, 2000; Ellis, 2000;Surry & Land, 2000; Kirk & Shoemaker, 1999; Wolcott & Betts,1999; Schauer et al., 1998).

There is no question that using technology for distance educationrequires more faculty time than traditional methods of instruction.Many faculty are not comfortable or trained in the use of e-mail orweb products. Time is required to learn the technology and tobecome proficient in its use. The Wolcott and Betts (1999) study ofincentives for faculty participation in distance education revealed thatteaching via distance education requires additional planning, morepreparation, creation of extensive course materials, and more timespent communicating with off-campus students. As one of Ellis’ fac-ulty participants in distance education noted, ‘‘I know full well thatit takes more time to devote to delivery and develop the same courseby distance than it does by resident instruction’’ (Ellis, 2000, p. 237).

This increased time commitment has been found to be a barrier tofaculty use of technology. The industrial and technical teachereducation faculty in Ndahi’s (1999) study cited workloads not beingadjusted to compensate for adequate time to plan and coordinatedistance education to be a major problem. Wilson’s 2001 study ofKentucky’s higher education faculty reveals that time is ranked asthe primary barrier to using instructional technology.

Because heavy workloads and the lack of release time are barriersto the use of technology in teaching, it is an obvious assumptionthat release time and decreased workloads are motivators for theuse of technology by faculty. Research pertaining to faculty use oftechnology has found these factors to be motivators for use. Othershave suggested implementing these reward systems to promote useof technology by faculty (Crawford & Gannon-Cook, 2002; Ensminger& Surry, 2002; Gao, 2000; Ellis, 2000; Surry & Land, 2000; Kirk &Shoemaker, 1999; Wolcott & Betts, 1999; Schauer et al., 1998).

In addition to workload and release time, monetary compensationhas also been found to be a factor in faculty use of technology forteaching (Crawford & Gannon-Cook, 2002; Schifter, 2002; Bower,2001; Ellis, 2000; Kirk & Shoemaker, 1999; Wolcott & Betts, 1999;Olcott & Wright, 1995; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992). TheWolcott & Betts 1999 study of faculty incentives for participationin distance education found that nonparticipators cited increase insalary and monetary support as two of the motivators for their futureparticipation. It was cited that a lack of extrinsic incentives, especially


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

financial rewards, might account for faculty nonparticipation indistance education. ‘‘One of the truisms of distance education isthat teaching a distance education course involves a considerableamount of work’’ (Wolcott & Betts, 1999, p. 35). As Crawford andGannon-Cook (2002) note, for faculty to be persuaded to take onthe additional commitment, they must be given external compen-sation such additional royalties, money stipends, course releases,and tenure consideration.

Studies suggesting factors that may affect faculty use of technologyfail to conceptualize their work. The framework for this study (seeFigure 1) was intended to help community college administratorsto more fully conceptualize and understand the many factors thataffect faculty use of technology.

Few studies have been conducted using logistic analysis. ‘‘Logisticregression allows one to predict a discrete outcome such as group

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework; Factors that Affect Faculty Use of

Websites for Instructional Purposes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

membership from a set of variables that may be continuous, discrete,dichotomous, or a mix’’ (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996, p. 575).Our research lent itself to logistic regression because the dependentvariable (use of web) is dichotomous. Additionally, the complex listof independent variables included a mix of dichotomous, discrete,and continuous variables.

Trends indicate that the use of technology for instructionalpurposes in community colleges will continue to increase. As notedby Freberg, Floyd, and Marr (1995), ‘‘the potential for technologyis enormous. Distance learning provides access to higher educationfor underserved segments of the population and increases facultyproductivity’’ (p. 145). There is no question that distance educationwill increase access to higher education for many populations ofstudents, ‘‘however, responsibility for instructional quality and con-trol, the improvement of learning, and the aggregate effectivenessof distance education will rest on the faculty’’ (Olcott & Wright,p. 5, 1995). In the case of the community college, this means thatthe increasing number of part-time faculty will need to take a moreproactive role in utilizing instructional technology.

Although it has been reported that faculty are the key to successfulimplementation and outcomes of distance education, many studiescite faculty resistance to instructional technology as a primary barrierto the continued growth of distance education programs (Jones et al.,2002, p. 3). Olcott andWright (1995) have observed that many facultyresist participation in distance education. As community colleges con-tinue their trend of increased utilization of distance education, facultyresistance must be addressed and resolved. As Surry and Land (2000)note, ‘‘to increase the utilization of technology on campus, adminis-trators will have to understand technological change from thefaculty’s perspective and develop strategies for encouraging facultyto use technology’’ (p. 149). To develop appropriate strategies toencourage faculty use, it is imperative that administrators understandthe factors that affect faculty use of technology. Research must beconducted to determine these factors. This research is becoming moreand more important as the demand for distance education andtechnology-enhanced courses will continue to increase in the future.

This study proposes a model of factors that affect technologyuse among both part-time and full-time community college faculty.The research evaluated two specific research questions: (a) Is therea significant difference between part-time and full-time faculty accessto the Internet? and (b) What is the predictive value of selected intrin-sic motivating factors (use of institutional funds for instructionaltraining and satisfaction with autonomy); extrinsic motivating factors


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(satisfaction with time commitments and satisfaction with compen-sation); personal and professional characteristics (gender, yearsteaching, union membership, discipline and part-time versus full-timework status); and institutional characteristics (size, wealth andstudent-faculty ratio) on community college faculty use of websitesfor instructional purposes?

The research used a national data set and, therefore, has nationalpolicy implications. It will be beneficial in a practical sense by provid-ing higher education administrators the tools that they need to betterfoster technology use by faculty. By discerning the factors that affecttechnology use, administrators can reflect on and adjust currentpractices to better promote increased utilization of technology forinstructional purposes and subsequent distance education offeringsby both full and part-time faculty.

METHODOLOGY

Data for this study were from the 1999 National Study of Postse-condary Faculty (NSOPF: 99), a survey project funded by theNational Center for Educational Statistics (Abraham et al., 2002).The research included two-stage stratified clustered probabilitysampling. In the first stage, postsecondary institutions were sampled;in the second stage, faculty from first stage institutions were sampled.The sample consisted of 960 institutions and 28,576 faculty.Additionally, there was an institutional survey; the response ratefor this survey was 93%. There were 4,392 public two-year collegefaculty respondents from 298 public, two-year colleges.

The study only included two-year faculty at public institutions whomet the following criteria: teaching was their primary responsibility,they taught credit courses, and they were not administrators.Applying these criteria resulted in 1,824 part-time faculty and 1,786full-time faculty for a total of 3,610 respondents. Some totals donot equal not equal 3,610; some respondents either did not respondto all questions or not all questions were applicable. Weighteddata were used for the descriptive and logistic analyses becausethe unweighted sample was not representative of the population(Abraham et al., 2002).

ANALYSIS OF DATA

For question 1, respondents indicated if they had had Internet accessduring the fall of 1998 term (at work only, at home only, at work and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

home, or no Internet access). These responses were cross tabulatedwith faculty status (full-time or part-time); chi-square tests ofindependence were performed to determine if a significant relation-ship exits between faculty status and Internet access.

For question 2, a logistic regression model was used. This analysiswas chosen because ‘‘. . . the logistic regression model describeshow the probability of a particular category depends on the valueof the explanatory variable’’ (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). The level ofsignificance used in developing the regression models was .05.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The percentages of the sample based on faculty group were 33.29%full-time and 66.71% part-time. The distributions of gender, race,marital status, family status, and mean age were similar for bothfull-time and part-time faculty groups. While the distributions of racewere similar for both groups, full-time faculty members had the high-est percentage of non-White faculty (10.31%) compared to part-timefaculty (8.86%). In addition, the mean age distributions were similarfor both groups, but there were some differences when age was exam-ined by category. Part-time community college faculty comprised ahigher percentage of the ‘‘44 and under’’ group (part-time¼ 38.06%and full-time¼ 27.8%) and the ‘‘over 65’’ group (part-time¼ 7.42%;full-time¼ 2.99%). A majority of the full-time faculty ranged from45–64 years in age (69.22%).

Was there a significant difference between part-time and full-timefaculty access to the Internet? As demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, thedistribution of web use by faculty group was similar both overall andby specific use of the web. Only about one third of community collegefaculty were using the web, and most were using it to post generalclass information, information related to homework and to providelinks to other information.

Table 3 demonstrates that a higher percentage of full-timefaculty members (10.56%) were teaching distance education coursescompared to part-time faculty (6.30%). This is congruent with the

Table 1. Full-time and part-time faculty—percentage by web use

Total sample Full-time Part-time

% of sample-yes 33.50 34.34 33.07

% of sample-no 66.50 65.66 66.93


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

literature, which indicates that full-time faculty are more likely toteach non-face-to-face (distance education) classes than theirpart-time counterparts (Warburton, Chen, & Bradburn, 2002).

While the results for question 1 indicate that a majority of bothfull-time (94%) and part-time (84%) had some type of access to theInternet, 43% of part-time faculty did not have Internet access atwork (compared to 13% for full-time faculty). Chi-square (weighted)v2 (3, N¼ 244,829)¼ 23,282.3432, p< .0001 indicates that there was asignificant relationship between faculty status and Internet access(Table 4). More specifically, a greater percentage of full-time facultymembers (87%) had access to the Internet at work and at homethan did part-time faculty (58%). A greater percentage of part-timefaculty (43%) had no Internet access or Internet access only at homecompared to full-time faculty (13%).

This leads to the conclusion that part-time faculty have less accessto the Internet than their full-time counterparts. These findings arecongruent with the literature, which suggests that part-time facultyoften do not receive the support assistance they need in order toaccess web resources (McGuire, 1993). They usually have no com-puter, unlike their full-time counterparts, who are more likely toreceive this support. Internet access is one critical factor in using

Table 3. Full-time and part-time faculty—percentage teaching distance

education classes

Total sample Full-time Part-time

% of sample-teaching one or more distance

education classes

7.83 10.56 6.30

% of sample-teaching no distance

education classes

92.17 89.44 93.70

Table 2. Full-time and part-time faculty who use the web—percentage of web use by specific purpose

Full-time Part-time

% Postgeneral class information 76.40 71.38

% Postinformation on homework 67.20 60.23

% Postpractice exams=exercises 29.70 28.30

% Postexams or exam results 24.01 23.09

% To provide links to other information 82.01 84.59


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

the web for instructional purposes; therefore, this finding may impactsome of the other findings in this study.

What was the predictive value of selected intrinsic motivatingfactors (use of institutional funds for instructional training and satis-faction with autonomy); extrinsic motivating factors (satisfactionwith time commitments and satisfaction with compensation);personal and professional characteristics (gender, years teaching,union membership, discipline and part-time versus full-time workstatus); and institutional characteristics (size, wealth and student-faculty ratio) on community college faculty use of websites forinstructional purposes? Logistic regression was used to answer thisquestion. (See Table 5)

As can be seen in Table 6, there is no discernable multicollinearityof variables in this model; all tolerance levels are between .56 and .95.

As reported in Table 5, satisfaction with autonomy was found tobe a significant indicator of community college faculty use of the web.

Satisfaction with compensation, gender, and faculty status(part-time versus full-time) must also be mentioned because theyapproach the .05 significance level. Those faculty members who weremore satisfied with compensation were less likely to use the web forinstructional purposes.

The predicted odds of using the web for instructional purposes formale faculty are 1.247 greater than the odds for female faculty, whenall other variables are held constant. In other words, the odds of malefaculty using the web for instructional purposes are 25% higher thanthe odds for female faculty.

Table 4. Internet access by faculty status

Both at home

and at work

At work

only

At home

only

No access to

the internet Total

Part-time

Frequency 65,975 27,873 43,428 26,038 163,314

(Row Pct.)� 40.40 17.07 26.59 15.94 (66.71%)

(Col. Pct.)� 60.99 49.54 88.24 83.49

Full-time

Frequency 42,190 28,388 5,788.7 5,148.2 81,515

(Row Pct.)� 51.76 34.83 7.10 6.32 (33.29%)

(Col. Pct.)� 39.01 50.46 11.76 16.51

Total 108,165 56,261.5 49,216.8 31,186 244,829

44.18% 22.98% 20.10% 12.74% 100%

�All data is calculated for population estimates.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The predicted odds of using the web for instructional purposesfor part-time faculty are 0.755 times the odds for full-time faculty,holding all other variables constant. In other words, the odds ofpart-time faculty using the web for instructional purposes are 25%lower than the odds for full-time faculty.

Table 5. Maximum likelihood estimates for web use—community college

faculty (likelihood ratio [p¼<.0001, chi-square¼ 14,443.6266, df¼ 12] [R-square¼ .05, C statistic¼ 0.616])

Variable

Parameter

estimate (b)Standard

error p-value

Log odds

ratio

Use of institutional funds for instructional

training (�training)�0.1035 0.0689 0.1328 0.813

Satisfaction with autonomy (�autonomy) 0.2816 0.0415 <.0001�� 1.325

Satisfaction with time commitments

(�timecommit)

0.0388 0.0332 0.2438 1.040

Satisfaction with compensation (�compens) �0.0585 0.0341 0.0859 0.943

Gender (�gender) 0.1105 0.0651 0.0896 1.247

Years of teaching (�yrsteach) �0.00905 0.00637 0.1551 0.991

Union membership (�union) �0.1060 0.0659 0.1080 0.809

Discipline (�discipline) 0.0683 0.0554 0.2177 1.146

Size (�size) 7.735E-6 8.74E-6 0.3766 1.000

Wealth (�wealth) 8.154E-6 0.000039 0.8340 1.000

Student-faculty ratio (�ratio) 0.0138 0.0106 0.1932 1.041

Faculty status (full-time vs. part-time)

(�ptftstatus)�0.2814 0.1525 0.0650 0.755

Intercept �3.5329 0.4995 <.0001

�SAS variable name. ��Values with p-value .05 or less.

Table 6. Multicollinearity diagnostics—web use model for

all community college faculty

Variable Tolerance Variance inflation

Training 0.84312 1.18607

Autonomy 0.69913 1.43035

Timecommit 0.56953 1.75584

Compens 0.58783 1.70116

Gender 0.95701 1.04492

Yrsteach 0.77705 1.28692

Union 0.82064 1.21856

Discipline 0.94339 1.06001

Size 0.85360 1.17151

Wealth 0.82219 1.21627

Ratio 0.89438 1.11809

Ptftstatus 0.60598 1.65023


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with autonomy and satisfaction with compensation,gender, and faculty status (part-time versus full-time) were variablesassociated with community college faculty use of websites for instruc-tional purposes. Faculty who are more satisfied with their autonomyare more likely to use the web for instructional purposes.

Some faculty members using the web are less likely to be satisfiedwith their compensation than those faculty who are not using the webto enhance instruction. This suggests that faculty who are providingtechnology-enhanced instruction are not being compensated fordoing so. Wolcott and Betts (1999) found that nonparticipators citedincrease in salary and monetary support as two of the motivators fortheir participation. These findings suggest that a lack of extrinsicincentives, especially financial rewards, accounts for faculty nonpar-ticipation in the use of technology.

Gender was also found to be a factor associated with faculty use ofthe web for instructional purposes. Males are more likely thanfemales to use the web for teaching. Ease of use has been reportedto be directly related to training and technical support. The findingsof this study, in conjunction with prior research, suggest that there isa lack of training and support for faculty; hence the finding thatwomen are less likely to use the web for teaching purposes.

Faculty status (part-time versus full-time) was also found to beassociated with use of the web for instructional purposes. Part-timefaculty are less likely than full-time faculty to use the web for instruc-tional purposes. This finding is consistent with the findings of theU.S. Department of Education report that full-time faculty are morelikely to use course specific websites than their part-time counterparts(Warburton, Chen, & Bradburn, 2002). More specifically, a greaterpercentage of full-time faculty (87%) have access to the Internet atwork and at work and home than do part-time faculty (58%). Thus,full-time faculty have the resources they need to create and useinstructional websites.

The findings of research question 2 have a significant impacton practice. It is clear that to promote the use of technologyadministrators need to provide incentives such as monetary sup-port, training, and infrastructure support to all faculty. They alsoneed to communicate with faculty that using technology may notdecrease autonomy but may increase satisfaction with autonomy.Essentially, administrators must insure that faculty have thetools they need to be successful and that they are compensatedfor their efforts.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

When examining the results collectively, it becomes apparentthat there are some initiatives that community college administratorsneed to consider if they are to promote the use of technology for bothfull and part-time faculty. The main themes for promoting use areinfrastructure support, communication, training, and compensation.

It has been reported that part-time faculty are not always treatedequally with their full-time counterparts. More specifically, they oftenlack infrastructure support such as an office and computer resources.This research revealed that part-time faculty have less access to theInternet than their full-time counterparts. If community colleges areto continue to increase their use of part-time faculty while increasingtheir distance education offerings, administrators need to provideinfrastructure support for part-time faculty. Without the necessarytools such as office space, computers, and Internet access, part-timefaculty will not be able to assist community colleges in their effortsto be a leading distance education provider. The resources of manycommunity colleges are limited. Administrators may want to reorga-nize existing space to provide shared offices for part-time instructors.In addition, when new construction projects are in planning stages,offices for part-time instructors should be considered.

It is important that administrators communicate with and involvefaculty when planning new educational initiatives. If there are plansfor creating technology-enhanced courses or even courses taughtentirely via distance, faculty should be involved from the beginning.Administrators will want to solicit and heed faculty concerns toensure successful implementation. Autonomy is important to faculty;therefore, they must be assured that they will retain autonomy whendesigning and implementing new course-teaching media.

It is crucial that faculty receive the training needed to develop andenhance their skills and knowledge required to make the transitionfrom traditional face-to-face teaching to technology-enhancedcourses. Administrators should provide mentors and training pro-grams to help faculty become competent and feel comfortable withthe transition. It is recommended that faculty have formal trainingregarding software, hardware, and distance course design. It is alsoimportant that they work with veteran distance education facultywhen designing courses and during their first semester of teaching.

It is time consuming and requires extra effort to convert traditionalface-to-face courses to distance-based ones. Administrators need tobe cognizant of this additional time commitment, and faculty shouldbe compensated. Administrators may be able to provide monetary


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

incentives and=or reductions in workloads to reward faculty membersfor their increased efforts and additional time commitment.

When considering these suggestions for practice, administratorswill want to examine their own environments and current settingsbecause the results of this study are based on national, not local, data.Administrators should reflect on their existing initiatives to determinethe extent of their current efforts to promote faculty use of tech-nology. When examining the implications for practice, administratorsshould determine their areas of weakness and launch initiatives toenhance these areas.

This study used 1999 NSOPF data. It may be that the access gapfor part-time community college faculty has narrowed. It may bethat administrators are currently using our suggestions above inpromoting the use of technology on their campuses. It may even betrue that administrators are now expecting new faculty to be hiredwith a level of expertise regarding technology use.

Because the NSOPF data used in this research were collected in1999, it is recommended that this study be replicated with the morerecently released 2006 NSOPF data that examine academic year2003–2004. The current climate with regards to Internet access andtechnological skills may have changed since the NSOPF: 99 data werecollected. In addition, researchers may want to replicate this researchat their specific institutions because their institutional climate anddemographics may be different from those reflected in the nationalstudy.

Research should be conducted to evaluate factors that affectpart-time versus full-time faculty teaching distance educationcourses. The small number of respondents indicating that they teachdistance education courses limited our ability to analyze these twogroups separately.

In the interest of promoting and retaining distance educationfaculty, a national survey should be conducted to evaluate thedifferences in reported job satisfaction variables for those currentlyusing technology and those faculty who are not. Once faculty areteaching distance education courses, it is important for administra-tors to consider factors that may assist in their persistence.

This study represents exploratory research; additional research isneeded regarding faculty uses of technology. The mission of com-munity colleges is, and always has been, to provide affordable andaccessible education focused on the needs of their communities. Asthe 21st century brings new technological advances, it is importantfor community colleges to use these new technologies to continue thismission. The use of distance education can open doors to previously


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

underserved populations of students. Education via the Internetbreaks down distance barriers to education. The use of technologyprovides new media with which to fulfill the community college mis-sion of providing accessible education; it has become imperative thatcommunity college administrators implement initiatives to promotethe use of technology by both full-time and part-time faculty.

REFERENCES

Abraham, S. Y., Steiger, D. M., Montgomery, M., Kuhr, B. D., Tourangeau, R.,

Montgomery, B., & Chattopadhyay, M. (2002). 1999 National Study of Postsecond-

ary Faculty (NSOPF: 99) methodology report (NCES 2002-154). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Akroyd, D., Gillett-Karam, R., & Boos, D. (1999, April). Satisfaction and insti-

tutional support of full-time and part-time community college faculty: A national per-

spective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association (Division J), Montreal, Canada.

Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

American Council on Education. (2000). Developing a distance education policy for

21st century learning. Washington DC: Author.

Bailey, T., & Matsuzuka, Y. (2003, April). Integration of vocational and academic cur-

ricula through the NSF advanced technological education program (ATE). Paper

presented at Accountability for Educational Quality: Shared Responsibility, the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),

Chicago, IL.

Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. American

Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21–29.

Berger, A., Kirshstein, R., & Rowe, E. (2001). Institutional policies and practices:

Findings from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, Institution Survey

(NCES 2001-201). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.

Betts, K. S. (1998). Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in

postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: The George Washington University.

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online

Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved January 5, 2005,

from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html

Bradburn, E. M. (2002). Distance education instruction by postsecondary faculty and

staff: Fall 1998 (NCES 2002-155). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Edu-

cation, National Center for Education Statistics.

Clark, R. G., Soliman, M. B., & Sungaila, H. (1985). Staff perceptions of external

versus internal teaching and staff development. Distance Education, 5(1), 84–92.

Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A

national survey. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 19–33.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Crawford, C. M., & Gannon-Cook, R. (2002, March). Faculty attitudes towards

distance education: Enhancing the support and rewards system for innovative inte-

gration of technology within coursework. Paper presented at the 13th International

Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education,

Nashville, TN.

Dillon, C. (1989). Faculty rewards and instructional telecommunications: A view

from the telecourse faculty. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2),

35–43.

Dillon, C., Hengst, H., & Zoller, D. (1991). Instructional strategies and student

involvement in distance education: A study of the Oklahoma televised instruction

system. Journal of Distance Education, 6(1), 28–41.

Dillon, C., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance

education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5–21.

Dooley, K. E., & Murphy, T. H. (2001). College of agriculture faculty perceptions

of electronic technologies in teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2),

1–10.

Dusick, D. M. (1999). Effects of administrative support policies, cognitive processes,

and motivational beliefs on faculty uses of computer technology: Testing a motiva-

tional model (Unpublshed doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles, CA: University

of South California.

Ellis, E. M. (2000). Faculty participation in the Pennsylvania State University

world campus: Identifying barriers to success. Open Learning, 15(3), 233–242.

Ensminger, D. C., & Surry, D. W. (2002, April). Faculty perceptions of factors that

facilitate the implementation of online programs. Paper presented at 7th Annual

Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Murfreesboro, TN.Farinella, J. A., Hobbs, B. K., & Weeks, H. S. (2000). Distance delivery: The faculty

perspective. Financial Practice & Education, 10(1), 11.

Freeberg, L., Floyd, K., & Marr, B. (1995). Faculty attitudes toward distance

learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(2), 145–159.

Gao, Y. (2000). A qualitative study of the main factors that influence university faculty’s use

of technology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Waco, TX: Baylor University.

Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D.W. (1993). Improving the status of part-timers in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Groves, M. M., & Zernel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher

education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional

Media, 27(1), 57–65.

Handy, J., Hunter, I., & Whiddett, R. (2001). User acceptance of inter-

organizational electronic medical records. Health Informatics Journal, 7,

103–107.

Igbaria, M, & Zinatelli, N. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small

firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279–306.

Jones, E. T., Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Dooley, K. E. (2002). Faculty

philosophical position towards distance education: Competency, value, and

educational technology support. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administra-

tion, 5(1). Retrieved January 6, 2005, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/

ojdla/spring51/jones51.html


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Kagima, L. K. (1998). Faculty computer self-efficacy and integration of electronic

communication in teaching college courses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology.

Kagima, L. K., & Hausafus, C. O. (2001). Faculty: The central element in

instructional technology integration. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences:

From Research to Practice, 93(4), 33–36.

Kirk, J. J., & Shoemaker, H. (1999). Motivating community college instructors

to teach online: An exploration of selected motivators. In T. J. Bastiaens,

J. N. Streumer, & Y. Krul (Eds.), Performance and learning support with on-line

help systems: An effectiveness study (pp. 15–22). Academy of Human Resource

Development (AHRD) Conference Proceeding, CE 078 963.

Leslie, D. W., Kellams, S. E., & Gunne, G. M. (1982). Part-time faculty in American

higher education. New York: Praeger.

McGuire, J. (1993). Part-time faculty: Partners in excellence. Leadership Abstracts,

6 (6), 103.

Mitchell, M. R. (1999). Effects of faculty motivation in distributive education

environments at institutions of higher education. Proceedings at the 21st National

Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology

(Houston, TX, February) (pp. 269–274).

Mitra, A., Steffensmeier, T., Lenzmeier, S., & Massoni, A. (1999). Changes in

attitudes toward computers and use of computers by university faculty. Journal

of Research and Computing in Education, 32(1), 189–202.

Monroe, C., & Denman, S. (1991). Assimilating adjunct faculty: Problems and

opportunities. ACA Bulletin, 77, 56–62.

Montgomery, C. J. (1999). Faculty attitudes toward technology-based distance education

at the university of Nevada, Las Vegas (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

National Education Association (NEA). (2000). A survey of traditional and distance

education learning higher education members. Washigton, DC: Author.

Ndahi, H. B. (1999). Utilization of distance learning technology among industrial

and technical teacher education faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,

34(4), 21–37.

Olcott, D., & Wright, S. J. (1995). An institutional support framework for increasing

faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. The American Journal

of Distance Education, 9(3), 5–17.

Outcalt, C. (Ed.). (2002). Community college faculty: Characteristics, practices,

and challenges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 118. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey Bass.

Pedersen, R. P. (2001, April 2). It’s time to clean up higher education’ dirtiest little

secret. Community College Week, 13, 4–5.

Richard, W. (1999). Framing the issues: What’s next on the NLII’s Agenda? Educom

Review, 34(4), 34–37.

Roueche, J., Roueche, S., & Milliron, M. (1996). Identifying the strangers: Exploring

part-time faculty integration in American community colleges. Community

College Review, 23, 33–48.

Schauer, J., Rockwell, S. K., Fritz, S., & Marx, D. (1998). Education, assistance, and

support needed for distance delivery: Faculty and administrators’ perception.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

In Distance Learning ’98. Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on distance

teaching & learning (Madison, WI, August 5–7).

Schifter, C. (2002). Perception differences about participating in distance education.

Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1), EJ649247.

Schifter, C. (2000, March–April). Faculty motivators and inhibitors for participation

in distance education. Educational Technology, 43–46.

Surry, D. W., & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education

faculty to use technology. Innovations in Education and Training International.

ISSN 1355–8005.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York,

NY: HarperCollins

Taylor, J. C., & White, J. V. (1991). Faculty attitudes toward teaching in the distance

education mode: An exploratory investigation. Research in Distance Education,

3(3), 7–11.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997).

Instructional faculty and staff in higher educational institutions: Fall 1987 and Fall

1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Valadez, J. R., & Anthony, J. S. (2001). Job satisfaction and commitment of two-year

college part-time faculty. Community College Journal of Research & Practice,

25(2), 97–108.

Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for

directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance

and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.

Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary

institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Walker, C. J., & Quinn, J. W. (1996). Fostering instructional vitality and motivation.

In R. Menges & M. Weimer (Eds.), Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to

improve practice (pp. 315–336). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Warburton, E. C., Chen, X., & Bradburn, E. M. (2002). Teaching with technology:

Use of telecommunications technology by post secondary instructional faculty and

staff in Fall 1998 (NCES 2002-161). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Wilson, C. (2001). Faculty Attitudes about distance learning. Educause Quarterly, 2,

70–71.

Wolcott, L. L., & Betts, K. S. (1999). What’s in it for me? Incentives for faculty

participation in distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 34–49.

Wolski, S., & Jackson, S. (1999, February–March). Technological diffusion within

educational institutions: Applying the technology acceptance model. Paper

presented at SITE 99: The 10th international conference of the Society for

Information Technology & Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 09:

21 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Technology Usage Among Community College Faculty