Advertisement

Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 99–115 | Cite as

Why Faculty Did—and Did Not—Integrate Instructional Software in Their Undergraduate Classrooms

  • Timothy J. Weston
Article

Abstract

Using a comparative case study approach, the researcher followed 13 instructors for 2 years as they attempted to integrate the Visible Human Dissector, an educational software program, into their undergraduate anatomy courses. Instructors were motivated to use the software as a supplement for limited educational resources and because of its ability to provide students with novel educational experiences. Obstacles in technology access and services as well as organizational factors prevented integration. However, personal hesitancy and lack of confidence, posited to be a major obstacle to integration in the literature, played only a minimal role in slow integration for these instructors. The greatest obstacles to changes in instruction supported by the new technology were difficulties in finding computers to run the software in traditional anatomy laboratories.

Key Words

educational technology technology integration software implementation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, T. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. Educause Research Bulletin, Volume 2004, Issue 3. Retrieved September 1, 2004 at http://www.utexas.edu/academic/cit/services/cps/ECARCRS.pdf
  4. Becker, H. J. (2000). Access to classroom computers. Communications of the ACM, 43, 24–25.Google Scholar
  5. Carneville, D. (2004, July 1). Report says educational technology has failed to deliver on its promise. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 14.Google Scholar
  6. Center for Human Simulation. (2004). Overview. Retrieved March 1, 2004 from www.uchsc.edu/sm/chs/open.html.
  7. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834.Google Scholar
  8. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 8, 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.Google Scholar
  10. Green, T. (2001). The 2000 campus computing survey. Retrieved March 1, 2004 from www.campuscomputing.net/Google Scholar
  11. Grice, G. (2001, July 30). Slice of life. The New Yorker, 77, 36–41.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, D. J. (2000). Levels of success in implementing information technologies. Innovative Higher Education, 25, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, J. W., Martineau, L. P., & Clark, R. C. (2000). Technology infusion and higher education: Changing teaching and learning. Innovative Higher Education, 24, 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mills, S., & Ragan, T. (2000). A tool for analyzing implementation fidelity of an integrated learning system. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 48, 21–41.Google Scholar
  15. Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivist learning on the web. Educational Technology, 40, 5–16.Google Scholar
  16. Partee, M. H. (2002). Cyberteaching: Instructional technology on the modern campus. New York, NY: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  17. Rice, M. L., & Miller, M. T. (2001). Faculty involvement in planning for the use and integration instructional and administrative technologies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 328–336.Google Scholar
  18. Seidel, R. J., & Perez, R. S. (1994). An evaluation model for investigating the impact of innovation education technology. In H. F. O’Neil and E. L. Baker (Eds.), Technology assessment in software applications (pp. 151–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Spodark, E. (2003). Five obstacles to technology integration at a small liberal arts university. T.H.E. Journal Online. Retrieved March 1, 2004 at http://www.thejournal.com/
  20. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Warschauer, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday: Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet. Retrieved September 1, 2004 at http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/
  23. Weston, T. J., & Barker, L. J. (2001). Designing, implementing, and evaluating web-based learning modules for university students. Educational Technology, 41(4), 15–22.Google Scholar
  24. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–841.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Weston

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations