This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 02:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for BusinessPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Technology Use in the Classroom: Preferences ofManagement Faculty MembersJoy V. Peluchette a & Kathleen A. Rust ba University of Southern Indiana Evansville, Indianab Elmhurst College Elmhurst, IllinoisPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Joy V. Peluchette & Kathleen A. Rust (2005) Technology Use in the Classroom: Preferences of ManagementFaculty Members, Journal of Education for Business, 80:4, 200-205, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.80.4.200-205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.4.200-205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin 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 theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

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

lthough faculty members have arange of technology choices at their

disposal, very little is known about theirpreferences and the factors that mayinfluence or limit their choice (Dusick,1998; Frost & Fukami, 1997; Grasha &Yangarber-Hicks, 2000; Spotts, 1999).This is particularly true in the businessdisciplines. Instead, researchers havetended to focus on faculty perceptions ofparticular instructional technologies(Boose, 2001; Piotrowski & Vodanovich,2000; Seay, Rudolph, & Chamberlain,2001) or on student learning and satisfac-tion with certain technologies (Arbaugh,2000; Driver, 2002).

Our purpose in this study was toexamine faculty preferences for variousinstructional technologies in undergrad-uate management courses. We believethat this assessment could help facultymembers at schools of business betterunderstand factors that may influencefaculty use of technologies and identifyfactors that faculty members believelimit their teaching effectiveness withthe use of technology. With this knowl-edge, education staff may be able to bet-ter use resources to serve the needs ofboth faculty members and students.

Instructional Technology Choices

Business faculty members have awide range of technologies that they can

use to better, and in some cases replace,traditional teaching methods. For exam-ple, instructors may use lecture-enriching technology, such as Power-Point presentations, or take advantageof video conferencing to bring guestlecturers from distant places into theclassroom. Instructors also can usecomputer-based technologies such aselectronic mail, Web pages, chat rooms,and electronic bulletin boards in theclassroom to facilitate communicationbetween the instructor and student out-side the classroom. A number of com-puter simulations are now available forfaculty members to use, providing avery real application of course materialfor students. In addition, in manyschools of business, interactive televi-

sion (Seay et al., 2001) or Internet-based instruction is used in delivery ofonline courses (Boose, 2001; Driver,2002). Although all of these technologyoptions exist, there is little empiricalevidence regarding how faculty mem-bers make choices between the variousoptions that are available to them. Whatare some of the factors that influence orpose restrictions on their choices?Because of the limited research that hasbeen done on this issue, we sought toundertake this exploratory study of therange of factors that, according to theliterature results, may have an impact onhow such choices are made.

Factors That Might Influence orLimit Technology Choice

For faculty members to use instruc-tional technology, they must be comfort-able with it and see it as a convenient andbeneficial tool (Dusick, 1998; Reznich,1997; Spotts, 1999). An instructor’s ownfeelings of competence, as well as his orher perception of student preferences intechnology use, may influence the deci-sion on what type of technology shouldbe used in the classroom (Grasha & Yan-garber-Hicks, 2000). Also, at many col-leges and universities, there is now anincreased awareness of the importance ofconsidering learning styles and studentneeds in course curriculum design (Papo,

Technology Use in the Classroom:Preferences of

Management Faculty MembersJOY V. PELUCHETTE KATHLEEN A. RUST

University of Southern Indiana Elmhurst CollegeEvansville, Indiana Elmhurst, Illinois

ABSTRACT. In this study, the authorsinvestigated faculty members’ prefer-ences regarding the use of technologiesas instructional tools in managementcourses. They mailed surveys to 500management faculty members nation-wide; 124 were returned with usabledata. Respondents indicated that coursesubject and classroom environmentalfactors did not affect their use of pre-ferred technologies; however, time con-straint was an issue for most of the fac-ulty members, particularly for women.Female faculty members were alsomore likely than their male colleaguesto see their perception of students’learning style as limiting the effectiveuse of their preferred instructional tech-nologies.

200 Journal of Education for Business

A

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

58 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

2001). Because technology mediums canplay a major role in the classroom expe-rience, technology choice may be influ-enced by such learning style factors.

Demographics, such as a facultymember’s age, rank, or gender, also mayinfluence technology use or choice ofmedium. For example, Rosseau andRogers (1998) found that older facultymembers used fewer technology applica-tions. Likewise, more senior facultymembers who are tenured may be lessmotivated to learn new technologies orfeel less competent in using instructionaltechnologies. Recent research has alsorevealed that there may be gender differ-ences in the way that faculty membersuse technology and rate their levels ofknowledge or expertise (Spotts, 1999).For example, in a study of 367 facultymembers at a medium-sized institution,men rated their knowledge of and exper-tise in instructional technology higherthan women did, but both genders hadsimilar frequencies of technology use(Spotts, Bowman, & Mertz, 1997).Campbell and Varnhagen (2002) foundthat women faculty members, because oftheir tendency to explore more relationalapproaches to teaching, use educationaltechnologies for purposes different fromthose of their male colleagues. Thus,gender differences in both perceptionsand uses of technology are worth furtherinvestigation.

In addition, the level of institutionalsupport can play a key role in the use oftechnology (Boose, 2001; Spotts, 1999).In some instances, faculty members maywish to use certain forms of instructionaltechnology (e.g., multimedia support inthe classroom), but their institutions donot have sufficient resources to meettheir needs. Related to institutional sup-port is the issue of technical support.Faculty members indicate that technicalproblems such as slow systems and soft-ware or server problems are importantfactors in determining how or whetherthey decide to use certain instructionaltechnologies (Hantula, 1998; Piotrowski& Vodanovich, 2000). Papo (2001), forexample, indicated that faculty frustra-tion with slow equipment delivery,equipment set-up time, and limited fund-ing for technology upgrades can foster areluctance to use instructional media. Inother situations, faculty members may

feel pressured by their institutions to usecertain technologies (e.g., interactivetelevision delivery or Internet-basedinstruction) and may have mixed feelingsabout whether they have received ade-quate training and whether such tech-nologies are appropriate (Bocchi, East-man, & Swift, 2004). Such issues willbecome more important as schools ofbusiness face increasing pressure fromboth their institutions and their accredit-ing agencies to incorporate technology-enhanced instruction (Driver, 2002).

Course subject may influence thechoice of technology used to support thelearning experience. Decisions on whattypes of technology to use for a particu-lar course are likely to be influenced bythe instructor’s learning objectives, aswell as what textbook publishing compa-nies may have designed and developedfor the course subject. For example,many faculty members now use a com-puter simulation in strategic managementcourses because they believe that thesimulation provides a more realistic setof scenarios for students in makingstrategic business decisions. Likewise,those teaching production and operationsmanagement might use the computer inclass to show students how to solve prob-lems using Excel spreadsheets.

Class size also can influence the typeof technology used in a course. It maybe possible to enhance the learningexperience of classes with large studentenrollments through technology. Forexample, using videos and PowerPointpresentations to support the lectureteaching method in large classes helpsto provide visual support to the learningexperience. Similarly, the use of chatrooms and electronic bulletin boardsmay assist student groups in workingtogether on assignments in large classes(Papo, 2001). Class size also may serveto limit the use of technology in somecourses. For example, the instructor’spreference may be to have each studentseated at a computer terminal duringclass, but this may not be possible ifclass enrollment exceeds the facilityspace in computer teaching labs. Largecourse enrollments can hinder the effec-tiveness of online instruction and theuse of e-mail or discussion boards forclassroom support. A nationwide surveycited in a recent article in The Chronicle

of Higher Education stated that, whenasked about their attitudes and experi-ence with distance education, facultymembers indicated that they were hap-piest when teaching online courses forwhich there were enrollment limits(Carr, 2000). Likewise, Bocchi et al.(2004) argued for the importance of lowenrollments (20 students or fewer) foreffective distance education in onlineMBA instruction.

The use of some forms of instruction-al technology requires substantial time,either in terms of course development,course management, or maintainingone’s currency with the technology (Boc-chi et al., 2004). These time constraintsmay result from the faculty member’sother teaching, research, service, oradministrative responsibilities. Althoughin recent studies investigators have begunto question the time difference expendedwith certain instructional technologies(Hilsop & Ellis, 2004), substantial em-pirical evidence indicates that time con-straint is a major drawback to faculty useof instructional technology (Hulbert &McBride, 2004; Vannatta & Fordham,2004; Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 1999,2001).

Method

The sample for this study consisted offull-time faculty members in the area ofmanagement from colleges and univer-sities across the United States. Usingthe Directory of Management Faculty(Hasselback, 2001), we drew up a strat-ified sample (by rank) from randomlyselected institutions. Of the 500 ques-tionnaires mailed, 126 were returned,producing a response rate of 25.2%.Because 2 of the returned surveys hadmissing data, we used only 124 of thequestionnaires for data analysis. Of the124 participants, 65% were men and35% were women. Nineteen percent ofthe respondents had the rank of assistantprofessor, 34% were associate profes-sors, and 39% were full professors. Ofthe sample, 67% had been teaching forat least 11 years, and 57% had been attheir current institutions for 11 years ormore. Nearly half of the faculty mem-bers taught primarily in the areas ofstrategic management (25%) and orga-nizational behavior (20%), with the

March/April 2005 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

58 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

ceived as influencing or limiting theirchoices of teaching methods. Ourresults showed that 77% of the respon-dents agreed that their preferred instruc-tional technologies greatly enhancedtheir teaching effectiveness. Eighty-three percent indicated that they werecomfortable with learning new tech-nologies. Course subject did not appearto be a limiting factor for most facultymembers (66%) in their use of preferredtechnology, and classroom environmen-tal factors received mixed results as alimiting factor. Only 25% of the respon-dents indicated that their perception ofstudent learning needs influenced theirchoices of instructional technology.Almost 90% of the faculty membersviewed their institutions as supportingthe use of technology in the classroom,and 82% perceived such support fromtheir department heads as well. Onlyabout 25% of the respondents felt pres-sured by their institutions to use certaintechnologies. Time constraints wereviewed by 75% of the faculty membersas limiting their ability to learn newinstructional technologies and by 50%as limiting their interest in using newtechnologies.

Class size did not appear to be a majorconsideration in faculty members’ pref-erences for technology use, except in thecases of respondents who used e-mailand Web pages or chat rooms and dis-cussion boards for instructional support.Large class size was found to have a sig-nificant negative correlation with e-mailand Web page use (r = –.376, p < .010)and with the use of chat rooms and dis-cussion boards (r = –.496, p < .012),indicating a preference for smaller num-bers of students in classes using thesemethods of technology. Notably, classsize did not appear to be an issue forthose teaching online courses. This find-ing could be attributed to the small num-ber of respondents who indicated a pref-erence for teaching courses in whichsuch technology is used.

Results from t tests showed signifi-cant gender differences in instructionaltechnology preferences for two of thetechnology options. Compared withmale faculty members, female facultymembers indicated a significant prefer-ence for the combined use of Power-Point and a whiteboard or blackboard, t

202 Journal of Education for Business

remaining faculty members teaching anassortment of other management disci-plines. The typical class size for 63% ofthe sample was 20–39, with 23% havinglarger classes of 40–59 students. Mostfaculty members indicated that, on aver-age, 75% of the students in their classeswere of traditional age (18–24 years).

The questionnaire that we developedfor our study contained three parts. In thefirst section of the survey, we asked par-ticipants to rank their preferred instruc-tional technologies (as shown in Table 1).In the second section of the survey, weasked participants to use a 5-point scaleranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1(strongly disagree) to indicate the extentto which they perceived that various fac-tors influenced or limited their choices ofinstructional technology. In the final sec-tion, we requested demographic informa-tion, such as sex, rank, age, years ofteaching, years at current institutions,and year that the respondents’ doctoraldegrees were conferred. We asked addi-tional questions about the instructors’main teaching areas, typical class sizes,and percentages of traditional students intypical classes.

Given the exploratory nature of thisstudy, we used descriptive statistics toexamine faculty instructional technology

preferences and their perceptions regard-ing factors that may influence or limittechnology use. To examine the relation-ship between class size and the rankingof instructional technology preferences,we used Spearman rank correlations.Finally, we performed t tests to test forgender differences in preferences regard-ing instructional technologies and in per-ceptions of factors influencing or limit-ing use of technology.

Results

Our findings for use of instructionaltechnology methods showed thestrongest preference for methods otherthan those listed. The next strongestpreferences were for “PowerPoint andblackboard or whiteboard” and “black-board or whiteboard.” In examining thesurvey questionnaires, we found that theitem most frequently listed in the“other” category was overhead trans-parencies and use of overhead projector.Faculty members demonstrated the leastpreference for “courses fully online”and “no technology.” We providedescriptive statistics and mean valuesfor these rankings in Table 1.

In Table 2, we present descriptive sta-tistics for factors that respondents per-

TABLE 1. Instructional Technology Preferences of Faculty Members

Response frequency (%)

5 4 3 2 1 n M

No technology 3.1 0 15.6 31.3 50.0 32 1.75Blackboard (chalk) or 26.8 22.0 18.3 19.5 13.4 82 3.30

whiteboardPowerPoint presentations 27.8 22.8 17.7 10.1 21.5 79 3.25Videos 5.9 30.6 40.0 10.6 12.9 85 3.05Computer simulations or 9.4 9.4 21.9 18.8 40.6 32 2.28

virtual realityE-mail and Web pages 8.9 22.2 17.8 31.1 20.0 45 2.68Chat rooms and electronic 0 12.0 16.0 28.0 44.0 25 1.96

bulletin boardsCourses fully online 5.3 5.3 15.8 0 73.7 19 1.68PowerPoint and blackboard 46.3 16.4 10.4 14.9 11.9 67 3.70

or whiteboardVideos and tape recordings 0 14.3 33.3 33.3 19.0 21 2.43Other 48.4 19.4 9.7 12.9 9.7 31 3.84

Transparencies 54.0 15.3 23.0 7.6 0 13No preference 33.3 0 0 0 66.7 3 2.33

Note. Respondents rated their preferred methods on a scale ranging from 5 (most preferred) to 1(least preferred).

Instructional technologymethod

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

58 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

using instructional technology and learn-ing new techniques. It is interesting tonote, however, that the technologies moststrongly preferred by the faculty mem-bers are generally considered to be fairly“low tech” (overhead transparencies,PowerPoint, and blackboard and white-board). One possible reason for this find-ing may be that nearly half of the respon-dents taught either organizationalbehavior or strategic management, inboth of which instructors tend to makeextensive use of experiential learning orcase analyses and student presentations.Because these learning methods do notlend themselves well to online teaching,only a few of the faculty members in oursample expressed a preference for onlinecourses.

Although classroom environmentalfactors and course subject proved not tobe strong factors in limiting the use ofpreferred technologies, large class sizewas a significant deterrent to the use ofe-mail and Web pages as well as chatrooms and discussion boards. Most fac-ulty members also viewed time con-straints as a limiting factor in their abil-ity to learn and be interested in usingnew instructional technologies. Thisresult was more pronounced among thefemale faculty members. Staff at institu-tions interested in encouraging the useof technology to aid instruction may findthat faculty members will need sufficientrelease time to retool or learn new tech-nologies and should realize that classenrollment size might deter instructorsfrom using certain technologies.

There were some interesting genderdifferences in our results. Comparedwith the women, the men in our sampleshowed a stronger preference for the useof no technology in the classroom. Doesthis finding indicate that they are lesscomfortable with using technology or donot see it as appropriate for the coursesthat they are teaching? Perceptions ofstudents’ learning needs appeared toplay a larger role in influencing use ofinstructional technology among thefemale faculty members. Could womenfaculty members be more perceptive ofstudent learning needs and place greaterweight on this factor in their use of tech-nology? These issues warrant furtherinvestigation.

In general, the management faculty

March/April 2005 203

= 2.132, p < .038. Compared with thewomen, the men in our sample showeda significant preference for the use of notechnology, t = –2.293, p < .03. Weshow these results in Table 3.

We also found gender differences inperceptions of factors that might influ-ence or limit use of instructional tech-nology (see Table 4). Our t test resultsshowed that female faculty memberswere more likely than their male col-leagues to see their perception of stu-dents’ learning styles as limiting theeffective use of their preferred instruc-tional technology, t = 2.20, p < .03.Female respondents were also morelikely than their male colleagues to view

time constraints as limiting (a) theirability to learn, t = 2.97, p < .004, and(b) their interest in using, t = 2.26, p <.026, new instructional technologies.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate someinteresting findings with regard to facul-ty use of instructional technology. Mostof those surveyed clearly preferred usingsome form of technology, believed thattheir preferences enhanced their teachingeffectiveness, and were comfortable withlearning new technologies. These find-ings demonstrate a positive view on thepart of faculty members with regard to

TABLE 2. Faculty Perceptions of Situational Factors AffectingInstructional Technology Use

Response frequency (%)

Question 5 4 3 2 1 n M

My preferred instructional technology greatly enhances my teaching effectiveness. 28.2 49.2 21.0 1.6 0 124 4.04

Classroom environmentalfactors limit the effectiveuse of my preferred instructional technology. 15.3 29.8 11.3 36.3 6.5 123 3.11

My perception of students’preferred learning style limits my choice ofinstructional technology. 0.8 24.2 14.5 51.6 8.1 123 2.58

Course subject and/ornature of curriculum limitthe effective use of my preferred instructionaltechnology. 4.8 20.2 7.3 51.6 14.5 122 2.48

My institution supports theuse of technology in theclassroom. 47.6 41.9 5.6 4.0 0.8 124 4.31

The head of departmentsupports the use oftechnology in the classroom. 37.1 45.2 11.3 4.8 1.6 124 4.11

I feel pressured by myinstitution to use certaintechnologies. 8.1 16.1 8.1 52.4 15.3 124 2.49

I am comfortable withlearning new instructionaltechnologies. 29.8 53.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 123 4.05

Time constraints limit myability to learn newinstructional technologies. 29.8 45.2 1.6 16.1 6.5 123 3.76

Time constraints limit myinterest in using newinstructional technologies. 15.3 35.5 4.0 35.5 8.9 123 3.13

Note. Respondents rated the effect of situational factors on a scale with the following anchors: 5(strongly agree), 4 (agree), 3 (unsure), 2 (disagree), and 1 (strongly disagree).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

58 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

204 Journal of Education for Business

members in our study indicated stronginstitutional support for the use ofinstructional technology and believedthat their department heads reinforcedthis support. Only 25% felt pressurefrom their institutions to use certaintechnologies, which is good news forstaff at schools of business who areinterested in supporting technology usefor instruction.

REFERENCES

Arbaugh, J. (2000). An exploratory study of theeffects of gender on student learning and classparticipation in an Internet-based MBA course.Management Learning, 31(4), 503–519.

Bocchi, J., Eastman, J., & Swift, C. (2004).Retaining the online learner: A profile of stu-dents in an online MBA program and implica-

tions for teaching them. Journal of Educationfor Business, 79(4), 245–253.

Boose, M. (2001). Web-based instruction: Success-ful preparation for course transformation. Jour-nal of Applied Business Research, 17(4), 69–81.

Campbell, K., & Varnhagen, S. (2002). When fac-ulty use instructional technologies: UsingClark’s delivery model to understand genderdifferences. Canadian Journal of Higher Edu-cation, 32(1), 31–56.

Carr, S. (2000, July 7). Many professors are opti-mistic on distance learning, survey finds. TheChronicle of Higher Education, 46(44), A35.

Driver, M. (2002). Investigating the benefits ofWeb-centric instruction for student learning: Anexploratory study of an MBA course. Journal ofEducation for Business, 77(4), 236–246.

Dusick, D. (1998). What social cognitive factorsinfluence faculty members’ use of computersfor teaching? A literature review. Journal ofResearch on Computing in Education, 31(2),123–138.

Frost, P. J., & Fukami, C. V. (1997). Teaching

effectiveness in the organizational sciences:Recognizing and enhancing the scholarship ofteaching. Academy of Management Journal,40(6), 1271–1281.

Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Inte-grating teaching styles with instructional tech-nology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2–10.

Hantula, D. (1998). The virtual industrial/organi-zational psychology class: Learning and teach-ing in cyberspace in three iterations. BehaviorResearch Methods, Instruments, & Computers,30, 205–216.

Hasselback, J. R. (2001). Directory of manage-ment faculty. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Hilsop, G., & Ellis, H. (2004). A study of facultyeffort in online teaching. Internet & HigherEducation, 7(1), 15–32.

Hulbert, L., & McBride, R. (2004). Utilizingvideoconferencing in library education: A teamteaching approach. Journal of Education forLibrary and Information Science, 45(1), 26–35.

Papo, W. (2001). Integration of educational mediain higher education large classes. Education

TABLE 3. Results of t tests for Gender Differences in Instructional Technology Preferences

n M

Instructional technology method Men Women Men Women t df Significance

No technology 21 10 2.00 1.30 –2.293 25.23 .03*Blackboard (chalk) or whiteboard 59 23 3.37 3.08 –0.814 38.82 .42PowerPoint presentations 54 24 3.24 3.20 –0.090 46.95 .92Videos 54 30 2.92 3.26 1.465 70.19 .14Computer simulations or virtual reality 24 8 2.25 2.37 0.262 16.51 .79Email and Web pages 29 16 2.82 2.43 –1.09 40.91 .28Chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards 16 9 1.68 2.44 1.49 10.25 .16Courses fully online 12 7 1.75 1.57 –0.324 16.37 .75PowerPoint and blackboard or whiteboard 43 23 3.46 4.21 2.132 52.16 .03*Videos and tape recordings 14 7 2.28 2.71 0.959 12.61 .35Other 23 8 4.00 3.37 –1.03 11.39 .32

*Significant at .05 level.

TABLE 4. Gender Differences in Faculty Perceptions of Factors Influencing Instructional Technology Use

M

Question Men Women t df Significance

My preferred instructional technology greatly enhances my teaching effectiveness. 3.99 4.12 0.941 93.83 .34

Classroom environmental factors limit the effective use of my preferred instructional technology. 3.03 3.26 0.909 75.35 .36

My perception of students’ preferred learning style limits my choice ofinstructional technology. 2.42 2.86 2.209 69.55 .03*

Course subject and/or nature of curriculum limit the effective use of my preferred instructional technology. 2.33 2.72 1.788 79.35 .07

My institution supports the use of technology in the classroom. 4.22 4.47 1.475 74.15 .14The head of department supports the use of technology in the classroom. 4.03 4.26 1.227 65.47 .22I feel pressured by my institution to use certain technologies. 2.36 2.72 1.541 74.45 .12I am comfortable with learning new instructional technologies. 4.02 4.11 0.553 78.30 .58Time constraints limit my ability to learn new instructional technologies. 3.55 4.16 2.974 110.50 .004*Time constraints limit my interest in using new instructional technologies. 2.93 3.48 2.264 84.25 .026*

*Significant at .05 level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

58 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

March/April 2005 205

Media International, 38(2/3), 95–99.Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. (2000). Are the

reported barriers to Internet-based instructionwarranted? A synthesis of recent research. Edu-cation, 121(1), 48–53.

Reznich, C. (1997). A survey of medical schoolclinical faculty to determine their computer useand needs for computer skills training. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Rosseau, G., & Rogers, W. (1998). Computerusage patterns of university faculty membersacross the lifespan. Computers in Human

Behavior, 14, 417–428.Seay, R., Rudolph, H., & Chamberlain, D. (2001).

Faculty perceptions of interactive televisioninstruction. Journal of Education for Business,77(2), 99–106.

Spotts, T. (1999). Faculty use of instructionaltechnology in higher education: Profiles of con-tributing and deterring factors. DissertationAbstracts International Section A: Humanitiesand Social Sciences, 59(10-A), 3738.

Spotts, T., Bowman, M., & Mertz, C. (1997). Gen-der and use of instructional technologies: Astudy of university faculty. Higher Education,

34(4), 421–436. Vannatta, R., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dis-

positions as predictors of classroom technologyuse. Journal of Research on Technology in Edu-cation, 36(3), 253–271.

Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (1999). Views ofacademic I-O psychologists toward Internet-based instruction. The Industrial-OrganizationalPsychologist, 37(1), 52–55.

Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Internet-based instruction: A national survey of psychol-ogy faculty. Journal of Instructional Psychology,28(4), 253–256.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

58 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014