Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system

  • Richard E. West
  • Greg Waddoups
  • Charles R. Graham
Research Article

Abstract

In this study, we used qualitative methods to help us better understand the experiences of instructors as they are persuaded to adopt a course management system and integrate it into their teaching. We discuss several patterns explaining how instructors implemented Blackboard, a CMS, by experimenting with individual features, facing both technical and integration challenges, and attempting to adapt Blackboard features to match their goals and practices. We also give explanations for why instructors either (a) embraced the tool and grew more dependent on it, (b) reduced their use of the tool to only some features, or (c) discontinued the tool and actively sought replacement options. In this paper we explain why instructors fell into any one of these three areas and what implications this may have for training and support needs.

Keywords

CMS Blackboard Course management system Adoption Integration Evaluation 

References

  1. Ali, A. (2003). Faculty adoption of technology: Training comes first. Educational Technology, 43(2), 51–53.Google Scholar
  2. Arnone, M. (2002). Course-management outfits still seek elusive profits. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 12, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dexter, R. R. (2005). Instructional leadership for systemic change: The story of San Diego’s reform. School Administrator, 62(9), 57–57.Google Scholar
  5. Dutton, W. H., Cheong, P. H., & Park, N. (2004). The social shaping of a virtual learning environment: The case of a university-wide course management system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(1), 69–80.Google Scholar
  6. Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.Google Scholar
  7. Ellis, C. (2004). Benchmarking blackboard: From champions to transformers. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.bbmatters.net/bbmattersproject/Articles/article_item.asp?SubmitArticleID=50Google Scholar
  8. Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305.Google Scholar
  9. Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23–27.Google Scholar
  10. Farquhar, J. D., & Surry, D. W. (1994). Adoptional analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Educational and Training Technology International, 31(1), 19–25.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzgibbon, K. M., & Jones, N. (2004). Jumping the hurdles: Challenges of staff development delivered in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 29(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleming, J., & Love, M. (2003). A systemic change model for leadership, inclusion, and mentoring (SLIM). Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 53.Google Scholar
  13. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Havelock, R., & Zlotolow, S. (1995). The change agent’s guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2005). Online learning as information delivery: Digital myopia. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 353–367.Google Scholar
  18. Hutchins, H. M. (2001). Enhancing the business communication course through WebCT. Business Communications Quarterly, 64(3), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irani, T., & Telg, R. (2001). Planning for the next wave: Assessing current faculty distance education training and development needs. Journal of Applied Communications, 85(4), 7–18.Google Scholar
  20. Joseph, R., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2005). Formative research on an early stage of the systemic change process in a small school district. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 937–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Klecker, B. M. (2002). Evaluation of electronic Blackboard enhancement of a graduate course in school counseling. Paper presented at the conference for the Mid-South Educational Research Association, held at Chattanooga, TN.Google Scholar
  23. Massimo, V. S. (2003). Integrating the WebCT discussion feature into social work courses: An assessment focused on pedagogy and practicality. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 22(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCarney, J. (2004). Effective models of staff development in ICT. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, D. N., George, M. P., & Fogt, J. B. (2005). Establishing and sustaining research-based practices at Centennial School: A descriptive case study of systemic change. Psychology in the Schools, 42(5), 553–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40–42.Google Scholar
  28. Moersch, C. (1996). Computer efficiency: Measuring the instructional use of technology. Learning and Leading with Technology, 24(4), 52–56.Google Scholar
  29. Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems. Denver: Educause Center for Applied Research.Google Scholar
  30. Pollack, T. A. (2003). Using a course management system to improve instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Small Computer Users in Education, held at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edn.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). Introduction: The imperative for systemic change. In C. M. Reigeluth, & R. J. Garfinkle (Eds.), Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Reigeluth, C., & Garfinkle, R. (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Surry, D. W. & Ensminger, D. C. (2002, April). Perceived importance of conditions that facilitate implementation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  35. Vessell, D. C. (2001). Comparing the WWW and WebCT to traditional methods of supporting an undergraduate psychology course: Is it effective? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
  36. Yaskin, D., & Everhart, D. (2002). Blackboard learning system (Release 6) product overview white paper. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://products.blackboard.com/cp/release6/LSR6WP.pdfGoogle Scholar
  37. Yaskin, D., & Gilfus, S. (2001). Blackboard 5: Introducing the blackboard 5: Community portal system. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://company.blackboard.com/docs/cp/orientation/CommunityPortalWhitePaper.pdfGoogle Scholar
  38. Yaskin, D., & Gilfus, S. (2002). Blackboard 5: Introducing the blackboard 5: Learning system. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://company.blackboard.com/docs/cp/orientation/EnterpriseLearningWhitePaper.pdfGoogle Scholar
  39. Yip, M. C. W. (2004). Using WebCT to teach courses online. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 497–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard E. West
    • 1
  • Greg Waddoups
    • 2
  • Charles R. Graham
    • 3
  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Instructional TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Western Governor’s UniversitySalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Instructional Psychology & Technology Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations