Principle: The case study looks at the correlation between the use of instructional technology, including e-mail, the World Wide Web, newsgroups, file transfer protocol, and Gopher, with various characteristics of this faculty, including demographics and teaching styles, and with their perception of the effectiveness of instructional technology, access to technology and administrative support.
Design: The survey was sent to the total population of the faculty and 168 were returned, a 23% return rate. One interesting statistic that was used was the symmetric lambda to test the strength of the relationship between discipline and the use of technology. The symmetric lambda is used when the researcher doesn't want to specify which variable is the dependent variable.
Independent Variables: Questions were asked on gender, age, years teaching, rank, discipline, teaching styles, perception of the effectiveness of instructional technology, access to technology and administrative support. The measurement of teaching style was based on the Teaching Style Inventory. Teaching style was measured on 4 facets: teaching methods, teaching characteristics, classroom management and evaluation techniques. Styles were measured on a continuum from "traditional" (recitation and drill), "transitional" (whole-class approach) to "individualized". Almost 90% of the faculty fit into the "transitional" category, which makes this measure less than ideal.
Dependent Variables: The dependent variable was the use of instructional technology, including e-mail, the World Wide Web, newsgroups, file transfer protocol, and Gopher. The authors didn't convey how this was measured.
Procedures: This study was a one time survey.
Results: The strength of all significant results was low.
|Years teaching|| |
|Teaching style|| |
|Perception of effectiveness|| |
|Perception of access|| |
|Perception of administrative support|| |
Comments: Low response rate, no attempt to contact non-respondents to test for potential differences in respondents and non-respondents, no information on the operationalization of "use of technology"