Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.84.4.206-212
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Faculty and Student Use of Technologies, User
Productivity, and User Preference in Distance
Education
Jensen J. Zhao , Melody W. Alexander , Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman & Allen
D. Truell
To cite this article: Jensen J. Zhao , Melody W. Alexander , Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman &
Allen D. Truell (2009) Faculty and Student Use of Technologies, User Productivity, and User
Preference in Distance Education, Journal of Education for Business, 84:4, 206-212, DOI:
10.3200/JOEB.84.4.206-212
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.4.206-212
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 75
View related articles
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:52
FacultyandStudentUseofTechnologies,
UserProductivity,andUserPreference
inDistanceEducation
LILAWALDMAN
UNIVERSITYOFWISCONSIN–WHITEWATER
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
JENSENJ.ZHAO
MELODYW.ALEXANDER
BALLSTATEUNIVERSITY
MUNCIE,INDIANA
ALLEND.TRUELL
BALLSTATEUNIVERSITY
MUNCIE,INDIANA
HEIDIPERREAULT
MISSOURISTATEUNIVERSITY
SPRINGFIELD
ABSTRACT.
ABSTRACT.TheauthorssurveyedfacultyandstudentsinAssociationtoAdvance
CollegiateSchoolsofBusiness-accredited
U.S.businesscollegesontheiruseofinformationtechnologiesindistanceeducation
andtheirperceptionsofthetechnologies’
effectonproductivityandtechnologypreference.Theauthorscollecteddatafrom
140professorsacrossthenationand300
studentsfrom4states.ThefindingsindicatedthatfacultyandstudentsusedInternet-basedtoolsheavilyandperceivedthem
asproductivityenhancers.However,significantdifferencesexistedbetweenfaculty
andstudents(e.g.,althoughsignificantly
moreinstructorspreferredusingTV-based
livevideoandaudio,significantlymore
studentspreferredusingInternetlivevideo
andaudio).
Keywords:distanceeducation,impactoftechnologies,userpreference,userproductivity
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
206
JournalofEducationforBusiness
R
W
ith technological advancement,
Internet-basedteachingandlearning tools have become more versatile,
userfriendly,andcosteffective.TheInternetisbeingusedmorethanotherdistance
educationdeliverymethodssuchasinteractiveTV,mailcorrespondence,andlive–
remotelocationcombinations(Hickman,
2003; Zhao, Whitesel, Truell, & Alexander, 2007). The Internet has reshaped
education on all levels and encouraged
educators to envision all the possibilities (Shank, 2000). The National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES; 2003)
reportedthatapproximately90%ofpublic
collegesanduniversitiesoffereddistance
education. Among them, 90% reported
that they offered Internet courses using
asynchronous computer-based instruction as a primary mode of instructional
delivery.Inaddition,51%reportedusing
two-way video and audio, 43% offered
Internetcoursesusingsynchronouscomputer-based instruction, 41% reported
using one-way prerecorded video, and
only 29% reported using CD-ROM as
a primary mode of instructional delivery(NCES).Mostuniversitiesconsidered
onlinedistancecoursestobeacrucialpart
oftheirlong-termstrategy(SloanConsortium,2004).
As Internet course delivery systems
changed the educational mode from
traditional instructor-centered teaching
to student-centered learning, educators
were eager to explore how new infor-
mation technologies and their growing convergence—such as voice-over
Internet, Internet interactive TV, wirelessInternet,mobilelaptopcomputing,
personaldigitalassistants,Web-conferencing,video-streaming,virtualreality,
and gaming environments—influence
distance teaching and learning (Crawford,Rudy,&theEDUCAUSECurrent
Issues Committee, 2003; Hay et al.,
2007;Metcalfe,2000;Sass,2006).
A survey of business faculty and
graduatestudentsindistanceeducation
(Zhao, Alexander, Waldman, & Perreault,2003)reportedthat(a)e-mailand
Internet lecture notes and assignments
were most heavily used by faculty and
students, followed by Internet discussion groups, TV-based two-way video
and audio, Internet two-way video and
audio, Internet chat groups, and telephone and voicemail; (b) e-mail and
Internet lecture notes and assignments
wereratedasthebestinenhancinguser
productivity; and (c) Internet two-way
video and audio were most preferred
by faculty and students, followed by
e-mail. The survey also identified the
importance of technology training in
distanceeducation.
ResearchalsofoundthatthestudentcenteredInternetonlinecoursesrequire
instructors to be role models, facilitators, coaches, supervisors, organizers,
problem solvers, and liaisons (e.g.,
Roberson & Klotz, 2002; Scagnoli,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
2001).Instructorsprovidedtheresources, activities, and feedback, whereas
students determined how fast and how
in-depthtoexamineasubject(Appleton,
1999). However, shifting the programs
and courses from the physical campus
to the digital campus was not an easy
undertaking;considerableplanningand
developmentofaninfrastructurewould
be needed to avoid problems associatedwithdistanceeducation(Boettcher
& Vijay-Kumar, 2000). Faculty and
students’ unfamiliarity with or inadequate use of technologies was a major
cause of the problems and failures in
distance education (Boulton, 2008;
White,2000).
Although distance educators rated
their personalized feedback to studentsthroughe-mailasimportant,they
reportedthatthesheervolumeofe-mail
becomes problematic. In traditional
courses, students did not expect feedback until the next scheduled meeting,
but with online courses they expected
immediate feedback. This expectation
caused some instructors to feel that
theyhadtobeavailabletothestudents
100% of the time, including evenings
andweekends(White,2000).
Alternatively, online students’
responses from several studies at variouseducationallevelsrevealedthatthe
onlineeducationalenvironmentbrought
benefits, limitations, and challenges to
learners. Students selected online education for its flexibility, 24/7 availability, and luxury of not commuting to
class (Choj, Kim, & Kim, 2007; InstituteforHigherEducationPolicy,2000;
Lüdert, Nast, Zielke, Sterry, & Rzany,
2008).Althoughstudentslikedtheconvenience and flexibility of the online
courses, they encountered problems
suchasthoseofbecomingfamiliarwith
thenewtechnologiesandlearninghow
toaccessandnavigatesites,howtocommunicatewithprofessors,participatein
online discussion, collaborate on team
projects, and take online assignments
and tests (e.g., Motteram & Forrester,
2005; Mupinga, Nora, & Yaw, 2006;
Temple,Kemp,&Benson,2006).
Researchersalsoreportedthatonline
students perceived e-mail communication with instructor and posted course
materials as most valuable to learners
(Frey, Yankelov, & Faul, 2003; Zhao
et al., 2003). Online students expected
faculty to initiate e-mail communication,teachonlinecoursesaschallenging
asthetraditionalclassroomcourses,and
providestudentswithquickfeedbackon
their assignments. Online students felt
that frequent communication with the
instructor put them at ease, reassuring
them that they were not missing anything from the class or were not alone
in cyberspace (e.g., Lorenzetti, 2005;
Mupingaetal.,2006).
Because Internet technologies are
the driving force of fast-growing distanceeducation,aneedexistsforevaluating how faculty and students use
information technologies in distance
education now and how information
technologiesaffectteachingandlearning productivities and users’ preferencesoftechnologies.
Purpose
Thepurposeofthepresentstudywas
to assess how faculty and students use
information technologies for distance
courses and how faculty and students
perceive the impact of information
technologies on their productivity and
technology preference. To make that
assessment,weaddressedthefollowing
researchquestions:
ResearchQuestion1(RQ1):Whatinformation technologies do faculty and
students use more or less frequently
in teaching and learning distance
courses?
RQ2: Do significant differences exist
betweenfacultyandstudentsinusing
information technologies for their
distancecourses?
RQ3: How do faculty and students
perceivetheimpactofinformationtechnologiesontheirteachingandlearning
productivityindistancecourses?
RQ4: Do significant differences exist
between faculty and students in perceiving the impact of information
technologies on their teaching and
learningproductivity?
RQ5: Which information technologies
do faculty and students prefer more
orlessfordistancecourses?
RQ6: Do significant differences exist
between faculty and students in the
preference of information technologiesfordistancecourses?
The purpose of the study was to
provide (a) school administrators
with the findings they need to make
a cost-effective technology investment
in distance programs, (b) information
for educators who plan to teach or to
improve distance courses, and (c) the
participating schools and faculty with
feedbackonhowinformationtechnologiesareusedinotherschoolsandhow
users perceive the impact of informationtechnologiesontheirproductivity
andtechnologypreference.
Procedures
Following the guidelines for survey
questionnaire construction (Frey, Botan,
Friedman,&Kreps,1991),weprepared
two questionnaires to identify faculty
andstudentexperiencesofdistanceeducationandtheirperceptionsoftheimpact
ofinformationtechnologiesontheirproductivityandtechnologypreference.We
used perceptions in the study because
theyconstitutepeople’sobservationsand
recognitions of reality; people do not
deal with reality per se, but rather with
perceptionsofreality(Watzlawick,1978;
Werther,Ruch,&McClure,1986).Productivity, as commonly defined, refers
totherelationbetweeninputandoutput,
or the measure of how well resources
(e.g., human, technological, financial)
are combined and used to produce a
desired result (Ivancevich & Matteson,
1996; Schuler, Beutell, & Youngblood,
1989;Wertheretal.).
Wedevelopedbothquestionnaireson
thebasisoftherelatedliteraturereview
and our experience with distance education. The questionnaires contained
the following sections: (a) demographic
profiles of the participants, (b) use of
informationtechnologiesinteachingand
learning online courses, (c) technology
impactonteachingandlearningproductivity,and(d)facultyandstudentpreferencesofthetechnologies.A12-member
panel of experts that included distance
educators and administrators validated
the content of the questionnaire. The
panel’s evaluation indicated that the
instrumentcoveredthestatedobjectives.
In 2006, there were 436 Association
toAdvance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International-accredited
businessschoolsintheUnitedStates.An
March/April2009
207
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
advanced search we performed on the
AACSBWebsite,whichresultedinidentifying 414 colleges that had some type
ofdistanceeducationcourseinplace.To
increase the response rate, we sent the
deans of all 414 colleges a cover letter
with five faculty questionnaires and a
Websurveylink.Thecoverletterinvited
the schools to participate in the present
study and asked the deans to randomly
identify up to five professors who have
been teaching distance courses. Of the
414deanscontacted,34calledtoreport
thattheydidnothavedistanceeducation
coursesinplacebutwereinthedevelopment phase and planned to offer them
shortly. An additional nine sent back
blankthesurveys,indicatingnodistance
education was in place. Therefore, 393
ofthe436AACSB-accreditedU.S.business schools offered distance education
in2006.Fromtheseschools,wereceived
140 usable responses with 51 (36.4%)
from the Web survey and 89 (63.6%)
frompapermail.WewereunabletofollowupbecausetheAACSBlabelswere
received with a stipulation of one-time
useonly.
To obtain student input we asked
faculty respondents who were teaching
graduatedistancecoursestoencourage
their distance students to volunteer for
thestudy.Inall,18professorsindicated
theywouldencouragetheirdistancestudents to participate in the survey. Studentswereinformedthattheirparticipationwasvoluntaryandhadnoeffecton
their final grades. Data were collected
from students in 2006. This volunteer
sampling procedure (Frey et al., 1991)
resultedinatotalof300usableresponseswith152(51%)frompapermailand
148(49%)fromtheWebsurvey.
We edited and coded each completed questionnaire and prepared frequencycounts,percentagedistributions,
weighted means, and cross-tabulations
for data analysis. For the 5-point Likert-type scale, we used the midpoints
ofeachscalerange(therealouterlimits) to determine participants’ degree
of technology preference: Weighted
mean responses of 5.0–4.5 indicated
most preferred, 4.4–3.5 indicated more
preferred, 3.4–2.5 indicated preferred,
2.4–1.5 indicated less preferred, and
1.4–1.0 indicated least preferred. We
also conducted the Pearson chi-square
208
JournalofEducationforBusiness
testtodetermineanysignificantdifferencesatthe.05alphalevelbetweenthe
faculty and students in distance education. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the
demographicprofilesofthefacultyand
studentparticipants.
Findings
The present findings are reported in
thefollowingsequence:(a)facultyand
studentuseofinformationtechnologies
indistancecourses,(b)facultyandstudent perceptions of technology impact
on their teaching and learning produc-
tivity, and (c) faculty and student preference of information technologies in
distancecourses.
FacultyandStudentUseofInformation
Technologies
Amajorityoffacultyreportedheavy
useofInternetlecturenotesandassignments(64%)ande-mail(60%),whereas
only 48% of students reported heavy
useofthesetwotechnologies(seeTable
3).Incontrast,lessthanonequarterof
facultyreportedregularuseofthesetwo
technologies, whereas approximately
TABLE1.DemographicProfilesofDistanceEducationFacultyin2006
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Unidentified
Rank
Fullprofessor
Associateprofessor
Assistantprofessor
Other
Distanceteachingexperience
1–2years
3–4years
5yearsormore
Frequency(%)
63
33
4
29
26
17
28
24
22
54
n
88
47
5
40
37
24
39
34
31
75
Note.N=140.
TABLE2.DemographicProfilesofDistanceEducationStudentsin2006
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Unidentified
Age
Youngerthan25
25–30
31–40
41orolder
Unidentified
Program
Masterofartsormasterofscience
Masterofbusinessadministration
Other
Distancelearningexperience
Firstsemester
Morethanonesemester
Unidentified
Frequency(%)
43
51
6
20
37
24
13
6
12
85
3
24
70
6
Note.Otherreferstoresponsesthatincludeddoctoralprograms.N=300.
n
129
152
19
59
110
72
39
20
37
254
9
72
209
19
TABLE3.ComparisonofFacultyandStudentUseofInformationTechnologiesforDistanceEducation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
Technology
Internetlecturenotesandassignments
E-mail
InternetandWeb-baseddiscussiongroups
Internetchatgroups
Internettwo-waylivevideoandaudio
Internetone-waylivevideoandaudio
TV-basedtwo-waylivevideoandaudio
Telephoneandvoicemail
Videotapes,CDs,DVDsmailedtostudents
Specialcomputernetwork
Internetone-waylivevideo
andtwo-wayaudio
TV-basedone-waylivevideoandaudio
Fax
Traditionalmailcorrespondence
TV-basedone-waylivevideoand
two-wayaudio
Heavy(%)
Regular(%)
Occasional(%)
None(%)
Faculty
Student
Faculty
Student
Faculty
Student
Faculty
Student
64*
60*
46
21
19**
18
17
16
15
11
48*
48*
39
13
2**
28
3
3
10
7
19*
24*
21
19
12
12*
9
17
11
11
41*
39*
27
21
4
24*
3
11
21
10
1
9
15
24
16
13
6
38
24
6
9
12
18
26
7
12
2
37
32
6
16
7
18
36
53**
57*
68*
29*
50
72
2
1
16
40
87**
36*
92*
49*
37
77
9
4
3
2
7
3
4
1
9
6
4
4
8
3
8
5
16
4
26
30
9
3
12
27
66
86
67
64
76
91
76
67
1
4
6
3
7
3
86
91
Note.Forfaculty,N=140;forstudents,N=300.
p
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Faculty and Student Use of Technologies, User
Productivity, and User Preference in Distance
Education
Jensen J. Zhao , Melody W. Alexander , Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman & Allen
D. Truell
To cite this article: Jensen J. Zhao , Melody W. Alexander , Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman &
Allen D. Truell (2009) Faculty and Student Use of Technologies, User Productivity, and User
Preference in Distance Education, Journal of Education for Business, 84:4, 206-212, DOI:
10.3200/JOEB.84.4.206-212
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.4.206-212
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 75
View related articles
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:52
FacultyandStudentUseofTechnologies,
UserProductivity,andUserPreference
inDistanceEducation
LILAWALDMAN
UNIVERSITYOFWISCONSIN–WHITEWATER
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
JENSENJ.ZHAO
MELODYW.ALEXANDER
BALLSTATEUNIVERSITY
MUNCIE,INDIANA
ALLEND.TRUELL
BALLSTATEUNIVERSITY
MUNCIE,INDIANA
HEIDIPERREAULT
MISSOURISTATEUNIVERSITY
SPRINGFIELD
ABSTRACT.
ABSTRACT.TheauthorssurveyedfacultyandstudentsinAssociationtoAdvance
CollegiateSchoolsofBusiness-accredited
U.S.businesscollegesontheiruseofinformationtechnologiesindistanceeducation
andtheirperceptionsofthetechnologies’
effectonproductivityandtechnologypreference.Theauthorscollecteddatafrom
140professorsacrossthenationand300
studentsfrom4states.ThefindingsindicatedthatfacultyandstudentsusedInternet-basedtoolsheavilyandperceivedthem
asproductivityenhancers.However,significantdifferencesexistedbetweenfaculty
andstudents(e.g.,althoughsignificantly
moreinstructorspreferredusingTV-based
livevideoandaudio,significantlymore
studentspreferredusingInternetlivevideo
andaudio).
Keywords:distanceeducation,impactoftechnologies,userpreference,userproductivity
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
206
JournalofEducationforBusiness
R
W
ith technological advancement,
Internet-basedteachingandlearning tools have become more versatile,
userfriendly,andcosteffective.TheInternetisbeingusedmorethanotherdistance
educationdeliverymethodssuchasinteractiveTV,mailcorrespondence,andlive–
remotelocationcombinations(Hickman,
2003; Zhao, Whitesel, Truell, & Alexander, 2007). The Internet has reshaped
education on all levels and encouraged
educators to envision all the possibilities (Shank, 2000). The National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES; 2003)
reportedthatapproximately90%ofpublic
collegesanduniversitiesoffereddistance
education. Among them, 90% reported
that they offered Internet courses using
asynchronous computer-based instruction as a primary mode of instructional
delivery.Inaddition,51%reportedusing
two-way video and audio, 43% offered
Internetcoursesusingsynchronouscomputer-based instruction, 41% reported
using one-way prerecorded video, and
only 29% reported using CD-ROM as
a primary mode of instructional delivery(NCES).Mostuniversitiesconsidered
onlinedistancecoursestobeacrucialpart
oftheirlong-termstrategy(SloanConsortium,2004).
As Internet course delivery systems
changed the educational mode from
traditional instructor-centered teaching
to student-centered learning, educators
were eager to explore how new infor-
mation technologies and their growing convergence—such as voice-over
Internet, Internet interactive TV, wirelessInternet,mobilelaptopcomputing,
personaldigitalassistants,Web-conferencing,video-streaming,virtualreality,
and gaming environments—influence
distance teaching and learning (Crawford,Rudy,&theEDUCAUSECurrent
Issues Committee, 2003; Hay et al.,
2007;Metcalfe,2000;Sass,2006).
A survey of business faculty and
graduatestudentsindistanceeducation
(Zhao, Alexander, Waldman, & Perreault,2003)reportedthat(a)e-mailand
Internet lecture notes and assignments
were most heavily used by faculty and
students, followed by Internet discussion groups, TV-based two-way video
and audio, Internet two-way video and
audio, Internet chat groups, and telephone and voicemail; (b) e-mail and
Internet lecture notes and assignments
wereratedasthebestinenhancinguser
productivity; and (c) Internet two-way
video and audio were most preferred
by faculty and students, followed by
e-mail. The survey also identified the
importance of technology training in
distanceeducation.
ResearchalsofoundthatthestudentcenteredInternetonlinecoursesrequire
instructors to be role models, facilitators, coaches, supervisors, organizers,
problem solvers, and liaisons (e.g.,
Roberson & Klotz, 2002; Scagnoli,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
2001).Instructorsprovidedtheresources, activities, and feedback, whereas
students determined how fast and how
in-depthtoexamineasubject(Appleton,
1999). However, shifting the programs
and courses from the physical campus
to the digital campus was not an easy
undertaking;considerableplanningand
developmentofaninfrastructurewould
be needed to avoid problems associatedwithdistanceeducation(Boettcher
& Vijay-Kumar, 2000). Faculty and
students’ unfamiliarity with or inadequate use of technologies was a major
cause of the problems and failures in
distance education (Boulton, 2008;
White,2000).
Although distance educators rated
their personalized feedback to studentsthroughe-mailasimportant,they
reportedthatthesheervolumeofe-mail
becomes problematic. In traditional
courses, students did not expect feedback until the next scheduled meeting,
but with online courses they expected
immediate feedback. This expectation
caused some instructors to feel that
theyhadtobeavailabletothestudents
100% of the time, including evenings
andweekends(White,2000).
Alternatively, online students’
responses from several studies at variouseducationallevelsrevealedthatthe
onlineeducationalenvironmentbrought
benefits, limitations, and challenges to
learners. Students selected online education for its flexibility, 24/7 availability, and luxury of not commuting to
class (Choj, Kim, & Kim, 2007; InstituteforHigherEducationPolicy,2000;
Lüdert, Nast, Zielke, Sterry, & Rzany,
2008).Althoughstudentslikedtheconvenience and flexibility of the online
courses, they encountered problems
suchasthoseofbecomingfamiliarwith
thenewtechnologiesandlearninghow
toaccessandnavigatesites,howtocommunicatewithprofessors,participatein
online discussion, collaborate on team
projects, and take online assignments
and tests (e.g., Motteram & Forrester,
2005; Mupinga, Nora, & Yaw, 2006;
Temple,Kemp,&Benson,2006).
Researchersalsoreportedthatonline
students perceived e-mail communication with instructor and posted course
materials as most valuable to learners
(Frey, Yankelov, & Faul, 2003; Zhao
et al., 2003). Online students expected
faculty to initiate e-mail communication,teachonlinecoursesaschallenging
asthetraditionalclassroomcourses,and
providestudentswithquickfeedbackon
their assignments. Online students felt
that frequent communication with the
instructor put them at ease, reassuring
them that they were not missing anything from the class or were not alone
in cyberspace (e.g., Lorenzetti, 2005;
Mupingaetal.,2006).
Because Internet technologies are
the driving force of fast-growing distanceeducation,aneedexistsforevaluating how faculty and students use
information technologies in distance
education now and how information
technologiesaffectteachingandlearning productivities and users’ preferencesoftechnologies.
Purpose
Thepurposeofthepresentstudywas
to assess how faculty and students use
information technologies for distance
courses and how faculty and students
perceive the impact of information
technologies on their productivity and
technology preference. To make that
assessment,weaddressedthefollowing
researchquestions:
ResearchQuestion1(RQ1):Whatinformation technologies do faculty and
students use more or less frequently
in teaching and learning distance
courses?
RQ2: Do significant differences exist
betweenfacultyandstudentsinusing
information technologies for their
distancecourses?
RQ3: How do faculty and students
perceivetheimpactofinformationtechnologiesontheirteachingandlearning
productivityindistancecourses?
RQ4: Do significant differences exist
between faculty and students in perceiving the impact of information
technologies on their teaching and
learningproductivity?
RQ5: Which information technologies
do faculty and students prefer more
orlessfordistancecourses?
RQ6: Do significant differences exist
between faculty and students in the
preference of information technologiesfordistancecourses?
The purpose of the study was to
provide (a) school administrators
with the findings they need to make
a cost-effective technology investment
in distance programs, (b) information
for educators who plan to teach or to
improve distance courses, and (c) the
participating schools and faculty with
feedbackonhowinformationtechnologiesareusedinotherschoolsandhow
users perceive the impact of informationtechnologiesontheirproductivity
andtechnologypreference.
Procedures
Following the guidelines for survey
questionnaire construction (Frey, Botan,
Friedman,&Kreps,1991),weprepared
two questionnaires to identify faculty
andstudentexperiencesofdistanceeducationandtheirperceptionsoftheimpact
ofinformationtechnologiesontheirproductivityandtechnologypreference.We
used perceptions in the study because
theyconstitutepeople’sobservationsand
recognitions of reality; people do not
deal with reality per se, but rather with
perceptionsofreality(Watzlawick,1978;
Werther,Ruch,&McClure,1986).Productivity, as commonly defined, refers
totherelationbetweeninputandoutput,
or the measure of how well resources
(e.g., human, technological, financial)
are combined and used to produce a
desired result (Ivancevich & Matteson,
1996; Schuler, Beutell, & Youngblood,
1989;Wertheretal.).
Wedevelopedbothquestionnaireson
thebasisoftherelatedliteraturereview
and our experience with distance education. The questionnaires contained
the following sections: (a) demographic
profiles of the participants, (b) use of
informationtechnologiesinteachingand
learning online courses, (c) technology
impactonteachingandlearningproductivity,and(d)facultyandstudentpreferencesofthetechnologies.A12-member
panel of experts that included distance
educators and administrators validated
the content of the questionnaire. The
panel’s evaluation indicated that the
instrumentcoveredthestatedobjectives.
In 2006, there were 436 Association
toAdvance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International-accredited
businessschoolsintheUnitedStates.An
March/April2009
207
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
advanced search we performed on the
AACSBWebsite,whichresultedinidentifying 414 colleges that had some type
ofdistanceeducationcourseinplace.To
increase the response rate, we sent the
deans of all 414 colleges a cover letter
with five faculty questionnaires and a
Websurveylink.Thecoverletterinvited
the schools to participate in the present
study and asked the deans to randomly
identify up to five professors who have
been teaching distance courses. Of the
414deanscontacted,34calledtoreport
thattheydidnothavedistanceeducation
coursesinplacebutwereinthedevelopment phase and planned to offer them
shortly. An additional nine sent back
blankthesurveys,indicatingnodistance
education was in place. Therefore, 393
ofthe436AACSB-accreditedU.S.business schools offered distance education
in2006.Fromtheseschools,wereceived
140 usable responses with 51 (36.4%)
from the Web survey and 89 (63.6%)
frompapermail.WewereunabletofollowupbecausetheAACSBlabelswere
received with a stipulation of one-time
useonly.
To obtain student input we asked
faculty respondents who were teaching
graduatedistancecoursestoencourage
their distance students to volunteer for
thestudy.Inall,18professorsindicated
theywouldencouragetheirdistancestudents to participate in the survey. Studentswereinformedthattheirparticipationwasvoluntaryandhadnoeffecton
their final grades. Data were collected
from students in 2006. This volunteer
sampling procedure (Frey et al., 1991)
resultedinatotalof300usableresponseswith152(51%)frompapermailand
148(49%)fromtheWebsurvey.
We edited and coded each completed questionnaire and prepared frequencycounts,percentagedistributions,
weighted means, and cross-tabulations
for data analysis. For the 5-point Likert-type scale, we used the midpoints
ofeachscalerange(therealouterlimits) to determine participants’ degree
of technology preference: Weighted
mean responses of 5.0–4.5 indicated
most preferred, 4.4–3.5 indicated more
preferred, 3.4–2.5 indicated preferred,
2.4–1.5 indicated less preferred, and
1.4–1.0 indicated least preferred. We
also conducted the Pearson chi-square
208
JournalofEducationforBusiness
testtodetermineanysignificantdifferencesatthe.05alphalevelbetweenthe
faculty and students in distance education. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the
demographicprofilesofthefacultyand
studentparticipants.
Findings
The present findings are reported in
thefollowingsequence:(a)facultyand
studentuseofinformationtechnologies
indistancecourses,(b)facultyandstudent perceptions of technology impact
on their teaching and learning produc-
tivity, and (c) faculty and student preference of information technologies in
distancecourses.
FacultyandStudentUseofInformation
Technologies
Amajorityoffacultyreportedheavy
useofInternetlecturenotesandassignments(64%)ande-mail(60%),whereas
only 48% of students reported heavy
useofthesetwotechnologies(seeTable
3).Incontrast,lessthanonequarterof
facultyreportedregularuseofthesetwo
technologies, whereas approximately
TABLE1.DemographicProfilesofDistanceEducationFacultyin2006
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Unidentified
Rank
Fullprofessor
Associateprofessor
Assistantprofessor
Other
Distanceteachingexperience
1–2years
3–4years
5yearsormore
Frequency(%)
63
33
4
29
26
17
28
24
22
54
n
88
47
5
40
37
24
39
34
31
75
Note.N=140.
TABLE2.DemographicProfilesofDistanceEducationStudentsin2006
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Unidentified
Age
Youngerthan25
25–30
31–40
41orolder
Unidentified
Program
Masterofartsormasterofscience
Masterofbusinessadministration
Other
Distancelearningexperience
Firstsemester
Morethanonesemester
Unidentified
Frequency(%)
43
51
6
20
37
24
13
6
12
85
3
24
70
6
Note.Otherreferstoresponsesthatincludeddoctoralprograms.N=300.
n
129
152
19
59
110
72
39
20
37
254
9
72
209
19
TABLE3.ComparisonofFacultyandStudentUseofInformationTechnologiesforDistanceEducation
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:52 11 January 2016
Technology
Internetlecturenotesandassignments
E-mail
InternetandWeb-baseddiscussiongroups
Internetchatgroups
Internettwo-waylivevideoandaudio
Internetone-waylivevideoandaudio
TV-basedtwo-waylivevideoandaudio
Telephoneandvoicemail
Videotapes,CDs,DVDsmailedtostudents
Specialcomputernetwork
Internetone-waylivevideo
andtwo-wayaudio
TV-basedone-waylivevideoandaudio
Fax
Traditionalmailcorrespondence
TV-basedone-waylivevideoand
two-wayaudio
Heavy(%)
Regular(%)
Occasional(%)
None(%)
Faculty
Student
Faculty
Student
Faculty
Student
Faculty
Student
64*
60*
46
21
19**
18
17
16
15
11
48*
48*
39
13
2**
28
3
3
10
7
19*
24*
21
19
12
12*
9
17
11
11
41*
39*
27
21
4
24*
3
11
21
10
1
9
15
24
16
13
6
38
24
6
9
12
18
26
7
12
2
37
32
6
16
7
18
36
53**
57*
68*
29*
50
72
2
1
16
40
87**
36*
92*
49*
37
77
9
4
3
2
7
3
4
1
9
6
4
4
8
3
8
5
16
4
26
30
9
3
12
27
66
86
67
64
76
91
76
67
1
4
6
3
7
3
86
91
Note.Forfaculty,N=140;forstudents,N=300.
p