Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.4.200-205
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Technology Use in the Classroom: Preferences of
Management Faculty Members
Joy V. Peluchette & Kathleen A. Rust
To cite this article: Joy V. Peluchette & Kathleen A. Rust (2005) Technology Use in the
Classroom: Preferences of Management Faculty 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
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 95
View related articles
Citing articles: 11 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: 12 January 2016, At: 22:35
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Technology Use in the Classroom:
Preferences of
Management Faculty Members
JOY V. PELUCHETTE
University of Southern Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
A
lthough faculty members have a
range of technology choices at their
disposal, very little is known about their
preferences and the factors that may
influence or limit their choice (Dusick,
1998; Frost & Fukami, 1997; Grasha &
Yangarber-Hicks, 2000; Spotts, 1999).
This is particularly true in the business
disciplines. Instead, researchers have
tended to focus on faculty perceptions of
particular instructional technologies
(Boose, 2001; Piotrowski & Vodanovich,
2000; Seay, Rudolph, & Chamberlain,
2001) or on student learning and satisfaction with certain technologies (Arbaugh,
2000; Driver, 2002).
Our purpose in this study was to
examine faculty preferences for various
instructional technologies in undergraduate management courses. We believe
that this assessment could help faculty
members at schools of business better
understand factors that may influence
faculty use of technologies and identify
factors that faculty members believe
limit their teaching effectiveness with
the use of technology. With this knowledge, education staff may be able to better use resources to serve the needs of
both faculty members and students.
Instructional Technology Choices
Business faculty members have a
wide range of technologies that they can
200
Journal of Education for Business
KATHLEEN A. RUST
Elmhurst College
Elmhurst, Illinois
ABSTRACT. In this study, the authors
investigated faculty members’ preferences regarding the use of technologies
as instructional tools in management
courses. They mailed surveys to 500
management faculty members nationwide; 124 were returned with usable
data. Respondents indicated that course
subject and classroom environmental
factors did not affect their use of preferred technologies; however, time constraint was an issue for most of the faculty members, particularly for women.
Female faculty members were also
more likely than their male colleagues
to see their perception of students’
learning style as limiting the effective
use of their preferred instructional technologies.
use to better, and in some cases replace,
traditional teaching methods. For example, instructors may use lectureenriching technology, such as PowerPoint presentations, or take advantage
of video conferencing to bring guest
lecturers from distant places into the
classroom. Instructors also can use
computer-based technologies such as
electronic mail, Web pages, chat rooms,
and electronic bulletin boards in the
classroom to facilitate communication
between the instructor and student outside the classroom. A number of computer simulations are now available for
faculty members to use, providing a
very real application of course material
for students. In addition, in many
schools of business, interactive televi-
sion (Seay et al., 2001) or Internetbased instruction is used in delivery of
online courses (Boose, 2001; Driver,
2002). Although all of these technology
options exist, there is little empirical
evidence regarding how faculty members make choices between the various
options that are available to them. What
are some of the factors that influence or
pose restrictions on their choices?
Because of the limited research that has
been done on this issue, we sought to
undertake this exploratory study of the
range of factors that, according to the
literature results, may have an impact on
how such choices are made.
Factors That Might Influence or
Limit Technology Choice
For faculty members to use instructional technology, they must be comfortable with it and see it as a convenient and
beneficial tool (Dusick, 1998; Reznich,
1997; Spotts, 1999). An instructor’s own
feelings of competence, as well as his or
her perception of student preferences in
technology use, may influence the decision on what type of technology should
be used in the classroom (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000). Also, at many colleges and universities, there is now an
increased awareness of the importance of
considering learning styles and student
needs in course curriculum design (Papo,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
2001). Because technology mediums can
play a major role in the classroom experience, technology choice may be influenced by such learning style factors.
Demographics, such as a faculty
member’s age, rank, or gender, also may
influence technology use or choice of
medium. For example, Rosseau and
Rogers (1998) found that older faculty
members used fewer technology applications. Likewise, more senior faculty
members who are tenured may be less
motivated to learn new technologies or
feel less competent in using instructional
technologies. Recent research has also
revealed that there may be gender differences in the way that faculty members
use technology and rate their levels of
knowledge or expertise (Spotts, 1999).
For example, in a study of 367 faculty
members at a medium-sized institution,
men rated their knowledge of and expertise in instructional technology higher
than women did, but both genders had
similar frequencies of technology use
(Spotts, Bowman, & Mertz, 1997).
Campbell and Varnhagen (2002) found
that women faculty members, because of
their tendency to explore more relational
approaches to teaching, use educational
technologies for purposes different from
those of their male colleagues. Thus,
gender differences in both perceptions
and uses of technology are worth further
investigation.
In addition, the level of institutional
support can play a key role in the use of
technology (Boose, 2001; Spotts, 1999).
In some instances, faculty members may
wish to use certain forms of instructional
technology (e.g., multimedia support in
the classroom), but their institutions do
not have sufficient resources to meet
their needs. Related to institutional support is the issue of technical support.
Faculty members indicate that technical
problems such as slow systems and software or server problems are important
factors in determining how or whether
they decide to use certain instructional
technologies (Hantula, 1998; Piotrowski
& Vodanovich, 2000). Papo (2001), for
example, indicated that faculty frustration with slow equipment delivery,
equipment set-up time, and limited funding for technology upgrades can foster a
reluctance to use instructional media. In
other situations, faculty members may
feel pressured by their institutions to use
certain technologies (e.g., interactive
television delivery or Internet-based
instruction) and may have mixed feelings
about whether they have received adequate training and whether such technologies are appropriate (Bocchi, Eastman, & Swift, 2004). Such issues will
become more important as schools of
business face increasing pressure from
both their institutions and their accrediting agencies to incorporate technologyenhanced instruction (Driver, 2002).
Course subject may influence the
choice of technology used to support the
learning experience. Decisions on what
types of technology to use for a particular course are likely to be influenced by
the instructor’s learning objectives, as
well as what textbook publishing companies may have designed and developed
for the course subject. For example,
many faculty members now use a computer simulation in strategic management
courses because they believe that the
simulation provides a more realistic set
of scenarios for students in making
strategic business decisions. Likewise,
those teaching production and operations
management might use the computer in
class to show students how to solve problems using Excel spreadsheets.
Class size also can influence the type
of technology used in a course. It may
be possible to enhance the learning
experience of classes with large student
enrollments through technology. For
example, using videos and PowerPoint
presentations to support the lecture
teaching method in large classes helps
to provide visual support to the learning
experience. Similarly, the use of chat
rooms and electronic bulletin boards
may assist student groups in working
together on assignments in large classes
(Papo, 2001). Class size also may serve
to limit the use of technology in some
courses. For example, the instructor’s
preference may be to have each student
seated at a computer terminal during
class, but this may not be possible if
class enrollment exceeds the facility
space in computer teaching labs. Large
course enrollments can hinder the effectiveness of online instruction and the
use of e-mail or discussion boards for
classroom support. A nationwide survey
cited in a recent article in The Chronicle
of Higher Education stated that, when
asked about their attitudes and experience with distance education, faculty
members indicated that they were happiest when teaching online courses for
which there were enrollment limits
(Carr, 2000). Likewise, Bocchi et al.
(2004) argued for the importance of low
enrollments (20 students or fewer) for
effective distance education in online
MBA instruction.
The use of some forms of instructional technology requires substantial time,
either in terms of course development,
course management, or maintaining
one’s currency with the technology (Bocchi et al., 2004). These time constraints
may result from the faculty member’s
other teaching, research, service, or
administrative responsibilities. Although
in recent studies investigators have begun
to question the time difference expended
with certain instructional technologies
(Hilsop & Ellis, 2004), substantial empirical evidence indicates that time constraint is a major drawback to faculty use
of instructional technology (Hulbert &
McBride, 2004; Vannatta & Fordham,
2004; Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 1999,
2001).
Method
The sample for this study consisted of
full-time faculty members in the area of
management from colleges and universities across the United States. Using
the Directory of Management Faculty
(Hasselback, 2001), we drew up a stratified sample (by rank) from randomly
selected institutions. Of the 500 questionnaires mailed, 126 were returned,
producing a response rate of 25.2%.
Because 2 of the returned surveys had
missing data, we used only 124 of the
questionnaires for data analysis. Of the
124 participants, 65% were men and
35% were women. Nineteen percent of
the respondents had the rank of assistant
professor, 34% were associate professors, and 39% were full professors. Of
the sample, 67% had been teaching for
at least 11 years, and 57% had been at
their current institutions for 11 years or
more. Nearly half of the faculty members taught primarily in the areas of
strategic management (25%) and organizational behavior (20%), with the
March/April 2005
201
TABLE 1. Instructional Technology Preferences of Faculty Members
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Instructional technology
method
No technology
Blackboard (chalk) or
whiteboard
PowerPoint presentations
Videos
Computer simulations or
virtual reality
E-mail and Web pages
Chat rooms and electronic
bulletin boards
Courses fully online
PowerPoint and blackboard
or whiteboard
Videos and tape recordings
Other
Transparencies
No preference
5
Response frequency (%)
4
3
2
1
n
M
3.1
26.8
0
22.0
15.6
18.3
31.3
19.5
50.0
13.4
32
82
1.75
3.30
27.8
5.9
9.4
22.8
30.6
9.4
17.7
40.0
21.9
10.1
10.6
18.8
21.5
12.9
40.6
79
85
32
3.25
3.05
2.28
8.9
0
22.2
12.0
17.8
16.0
31.1
28.0
20.0
44.0
45
25
2.68
1.96
5.3
46.3
5.3
16.4
15.8
10.4
0
14.9
73.7
11.9
19
67
1.68
3.70
0
48.4
54.0
33.3
14.3
19.4
15.3
0
33.3
9.7
23.0
0
33.3
12.9
7.6
0
19.0
9.7
0
66.7
21
31
13
3
2.43
3.84
2.33
Note. Respondents rated their preferred methods on a scale ranging from 5 (most preferred) to 1
(least preferred).
remaining faculty members teaching an
assortment of other management disciplines. The typical class size for 63% of
the sample was 20–39, with 23% having
larger classes of 40–59 students. Most
faculty members indicated that, on average, 75% of the students in their classes
were of traditional age (18–24 years).
The questionnaire that we developed
for our study contained three parts. In the
first section of the survey, we asked participants to rank their preferred instructional technologies (as shown in Table 1).
In the second section of the survey, we
asked participants to use a 5-point scale
ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1
(strongly disagree) to indicate the extent
to which they perceived that various factors influenced or limited their choices of
instructional technology. In the final section, we requested demographic information, such as sex, rank, age, years of
teaching, years at current institutions,
and year that the respondents’ doctoral
degrees were conferred. We asked additional questions about the instructors’
main teaching areas, typical class sizes,
and percentages of traditional students in
typical classes.
Given the exploratory nature of this
study, we used descriptive statistics to
examine faculty instructional technology
202
Journal of Education for Business
preferences and their perceptions regarding factors that may influence or limit
technology use. To examine the relationship between class size and the ranking
of instructional technology preferences,
we used Spearman rank correlations.
Finally, we performed t tests to test for
gender differences in preferences regarding instructional technologies and in perceptions of factors influencing or limiting use of technology.
Results
Our findings for use of instructional
technology methods showed the
strongest preference for methods other
than those listed. The next strongest
preferences were for “PowerPoint and
blackboard or whiteboard” and “blackboard or whiteboard.” In examining the
survey questionnaires, we found that the
item most frequently listed in the
“other” category was overhead transparencies and use of overhead projector.
Faculty members demonstrated the least
preference for “courses fully online”
and “no technology.” We provide
descriptive statistics and mean values
for these rankings in Table 1.
In Table 2, we present descriptive statistics for factors that respondents per-
ceived as influencing or limiting their
choices of teaching methods. Our
results showed that 77% of the respondents agreed that their preferred instructional technologies greatly enhanced
their teaching effectiveness. Eightythree percent indicated that they were
comfortable with learning new technologies. Course subject did not appear
to be a limiting factor for most faculty
members (66%) in their use of preferred
technology, and classroom environmental factors received mixed results as a
limiting factor. Only 25% of the respondents indicated that their perception of
student learning needs influenced their
choices of instructional technology.
Almost 90% of the faculty members
viewed their institutions as supporting
the use of technology in the classroom,
and 82% perceived such support from
their department heads as well. Only
about 25% of the respondents felt pressured by their institutions to use certain
technologies. Time constraints were
viewed by 75% of the faculty members
as limiting their ability to learn new
instructional technologies and by 50%
as limiting their interest in using new
technologies.
Class size did not appear to be a major
consideration in faculty members’ preferences for technology use, except in the
cases of respondents who used e-mail
and Web pages or chat rooms and discussion boards for instructional support.
Large class size was found to have a significant negative correlation with e-mail
and Web page use (r = –.376, p < .010)
and with the use of chat rooms and discussion boards (r = –.496, p < .012),
indicating a preference for smaller numbers of students in classes using these
methods of technology. Notably, class
size did not appear to be an issue for
those teaching online courses. This finding could be attributed to the small number of respondents who indicated a preference for teaching courses in which
such technology is used.
Results from t tests showed significant gender differences in instructional
technology preferences for two of the
technology options. Compared with
male faculty members, female faculty
members indicated a significant preference for the combined use of PowerPoint and a whiteboard or blackboard, t
TABLE 2. Faculty Perceptions of Situational Factors Affecting
Instructional Technology Use
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Question
My preferred instructional
technology greatly enhances
my teaching effectiveness.
Classroom environmental
factors limit the effective
use of my preferred
instructional technology.
My perception of students’
preferred learning style
limits my choice of
instructional technology.
Course subject and/or
nature of curriculum limit
the effective use of my
preferred instructional
technology.
My institution supports the
use of technology in the
classroom.
The head of department
supports the use of
technology in the
classroom.
I feel pressured by my
institution to use certain
technologies.
I am comfortable with
learning new instructional
technologies.
Time constraints limit my
ability to learn new
instructional technologies.
Time constraints limit my
interest in using new
instructional technologies.
5
Response frequency (%)
4
3
2
1
n
M
0
124
4.04
28.2
49.2
21.0
1.6
15.3
29.8
11.3
36.3
6.5
123
3.11
0.8
24.2
14.5
51.6
8.1
123
2.58
4.8
20.2
7.3
51.6
14.5
122
2.48
47.6
41.9
5.6
4.0
0.8
124
4.31
37.1
45.2
11.3
4.8
1.6
124
4.11
8.1
16.1
8.1
52.4
15.3
124
2.49
29.8
53.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
123
4.05
29.8
45.2
1.6
16.1
6.5
123
3.76
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).
= 2.132, p < .038. Compared with the
women, the men in our sample showed
a significant preference for the use of no
technology, t = –2.293, p < .03. We
show these results in Table 3.
We also found gender differences in
perceptions of factors that might influence or limit use of instructional technology (see Table 4). Our t test results
showed that female faculty members
were more likely than their male colleagues to see their perception of students’ learning styles as limiting the
effective use of their preferred instructional technology, t = 2.20, p < .03.
Female respondents were also more
likely than their male colleagues to view
time constraints as limiting (a) their
ability 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 some
interesting findings with regard to faculty use of instructional technology. Most
of those surveyed clearly preferred using
some form of technology, believed that
their preferences enhanced their teaching
effectiveness, and were comfortable with
learning new technologies. These findings demonstrate a positive view on the
part of faculty members with regard to
using instructional technology and learning new techniques. It is interesting to
note, however, that the technologies most
strongly preferred by the faculty members are generally considered to be fairly
“low tech” (overhead transparencies,
PowerPoint, and blackboard and whiteboard). One possible reason for this finding may be that nearly half of the respondents taught either organizational
behavior or strategic management, in
both of which instructors tend to make
extensive use of experiential learning or
case analyses and student presentations.
Because these learning methods do not
lend themselves well to online teaching,
only a few of the faculty members in our
sample expressed a preference for online
courses.
Although classroom environmental
factors and course subject proved not to
be strong factors in limiting the use of
preferred technologies, large class size
was a significant deterrent to the use of
e-mail and Web pages as well as chat
rooms and discussion boards. Most faculty members also viewed time constraints as a limiting factor in their ability to learn and be interested in using
new instructional technologies. This
result was more pronounced among the
female faculty members. Staff at institutions interested in encouraging the use
of technology to aid instruction may find
that faculty members will need sufficient
release time to retool or learn new technologies and should realize that class
enrollment size might deter instructors
from using certain technologies.
There were some interesting gender
differences in our results. Compared
with the women, the men in our sample
showed a stronger preference for the use
of no technology in the classroom. Does
this finding indicate that they are less
comfortable with using technology or do
not see it as appropriate for the courses
that they are teaching? Perceptions of
students’ learning needs appeared to
play a larger role in influencing use of
instructional technology among the
female faculty members. Could women
faculty members be more perceptive of
student learning needs and place greater
weight on this factor in their use of technology? These issues warrant further
investigation.
In general, the management faculty
March/April 2005
203
TABLE 3. Results of t tests for Gender Differences in Instructional Technology Preferences
n
Instructional technology method
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
No technology
Blackboard (chalk) or whiteboard
PowerPoint presentations
Videos
Computer simulations or virtual reality
Email and Web pages
Chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards
Courses fully online
PowerPoint and blackboard or whiteboard
Videos and tape recordings
Other
M
Men
Women
Men
Women
t
df
Significance
21
59
54
54
24
29
16
12
43
14
23
10
23
24
30
8
16
9
7
23
7
8
2.00
3.37
3.24
2.92
2.25
2.82
1.68
1.75
3.46
2.28
4.00
1.30
3.08
3.20
3.26
2.37
2.43
2.44
1.57
4.21
2.71
3.37
–2.293
–0.814
–0.090
1.465
0.262
–1.09
1.49
–0.324
2.132
0.959
–1.03
25.23
38.82
46.95
70.19
16.51
40.91
10.25
16.37
52.16
12.61
11.39
.03*
.42
.92
.14
.79
.28
.16
.75
.03*
.35
.32
*Significant at .05 level.
TABLE 4. Gender Differences in Faculty Perceptions of Factors Influencing Instructional Technology Use
Question
Men
My preferred instructional technology greatly enhances my teaching
effectiveness.
Classroom environmental factors limit the effective use of my preferred
instructional technology.
My perception of students’ preferred learning style limits my choice of
instructional technology.
Course subject and/or nature of curriculum limit the effective use of my
preferred instructional technology.
My institution supports the use of technology in the classroom.
The head of department supports the use of technology in the classroom.
I feel pressured by my institution to use certain technologies.
I am comfortable with learning new instructional technologies.
Time constraints limit my ability to learn new instructional technologies.
Time constraints limit my interest in using new instructional technologies.
M
Women
t
df
Significance
3.99
4.12
0.941
93.83
.34
3.03
3.26
0.909
75.35
.36
2.42
2.86
2.209
69.55
.03*
2.33
4.22
4.03
2.36
4.02
3.55
2.93
2.72
4.47
4.26
2.72
4.11
4.16
3.48
1.788
1.475
1.227
1.541
0.553
2.974
2.264
79.35
74.15
65.47
74.45
78.30
110.50
84.25
.07
.14
.22
.12
.58
.004*
.026*
*Significant at .05 level.
members in our study indicated strong
institutional support for the use of
instructional technology and believed
that their department heads reinforced
this support. Only 25% felt pressure
from their institutions to use certain
technologies, which is good news for
staff at schools of business who are
interested in supporting technology use
for instruction.
REFERENCES
Arbaugh, J. (2000). An exploratory study of the
effects of gender on student learning and class
participation 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 students in an online MBA program and implica-
204
Journal of Education for Business
tions for teaching them. Journal of Education
for Business, 79(4), 245–253.
Boose, M. (2001). Web-based instruction: Successful preparation for course transformation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 17(4), 69–81.
Campbell, K., & Varnhagen, S. (2002). When faculty use instructional technologies: Using
Clark’s delivery model to understand gender
differences. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 32(1), 31–56.
Carr, S. (2000, July 7). Many professors are optimistic on distance learning, survey finds. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(44), A35.
Driver, M. (2002). Investigating the benefits of
Web-centric instruction for student learning: An
exploratory study of an MBA course. Journal of
Education for Business, 77(4), 236–246.
Dusick, D. (1998). What social cognitive factors
influence faculty members’ use of computers
for teaching? A literature review. Journal of
Research 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 of
teaching. Academy of Management Journal,
40(6), 1271–1281.
Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2–10.
Hantula, D. (1998). The virtual industrial/organizational psychology class: Learning and teaching in cyberspace in three iterations. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
30, 205–216.
Hasselback, J. R. (2001). Directory of management faculty. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Hilsop, G., & Ellis, H. (2004). A study of faculty
effort in online teaching. Internet & Higher
Education, 7(1), 15–32.
Hulbert, L., & McBride, R. (2004). Utilizing
videoconferencing in library education: A team
teaching approach. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 45(1), 26–35.
Papo, W. (2001). Integration of educational media
in higher education large classes. Education
Behavior, 14, 417–428.
Seay, R., Rudolph, H., & Chamberlain, D. (2001).
Faculty perceptions of interactive television
instruction. Journal of Education for Business,
77(2), 99–106.
Spotts, T. (1999). Faculty use of instructional
technology in higher education: Profiles of contributing and deterring factors. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences, 59(10-A), 3738.
Spotts, T., Bowman, M., & Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and use of instructional technologies: A
study of university faculty. Higher Education,
34(4), 421–436.
Vannatta, R., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology
use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253–271.
Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (1999). Views of
academic I-O psychologists toward Internetbased instruction. The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 37(1), 52–55.
Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Internetbased instruction: A national survey of psychology faculty. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
28(4), 253–256.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Media International, 38(2/3), 95–99.
Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. (2000). Are the
reported barriers to Internet-based instruction
warranted? A synthesis of recent research. Education, 121(1), 48–53.
Reznich, C. (1997). A survey of medical school
clinical faculty to determine their computer use
and needs for computer skills training. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Rosseau, G., & Rogers, W. (1998). Computer
usage patterns of university faculty members
across the lifespan. Computers in Human
March/April 2005
205
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Technology Use in the Classroom: Preferences of
Management Faculty Members
Joy V. Peluchette & Kathleen A. Rust
To cite this article: Joy V. Peluchette & Kathleen A. Rust (2005) Technology Use in the
Classroom: Preferences of Management Faculty 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
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 95
View related articles
Citing articles: 11 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: 12 January 2016, At: 22:35
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Technology Use in the Classroom:
Preferences of
Management Faculty Members
JOY V. PELUCHETTE
University of Southern Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
A
lthough faculty members have a
range of technology choices at their
disposal, very little is known about their
preferences and the factors that may
influence or limit their choice (Dusick,
1998; Frost & Fukami, 1997; Grasha &
Yangarber-Hicks, 2000; Spotts, 1999).
This is particularly true in the business
disciplines. Instead, researchers have
tended to focus on faculty perceptions of
particular instructional technologies
(Boose, 2001; Piotrowski & Vodanovich,
2000; Seay, Rudolph, & Chamberlain,
2001) or on student learning and satisfaction with certain technologies (Arbaugh,
2000; Driver, 2002).
Our purpose in this study was to
examine faculty preferences for various
instructional technologies in undergraduate management courses. We believe
that this assessment could help faculty
members at schools of business better
understand factors that may influence
faculty use of technologies and identify
factors that faculty members believe
limit their teaching effectiveness with
the use of technology. With this knowledge, education staff may be able to better use resources to serve the needs of
both faculty members and students.
Instructional Technology Choices
Business faculty members have a
wide range of technologies that they can
200
Journal of Education for Business
KATHLEEN A. RUST
Elmhurst College
Elmhurst, Illinois
ABSTRACT. In this study, the authors
investigated faculty members’ preferences regarding the use of technologies
as instructional tools in management
courses. They mailed surveys to 500
management faculty members nationwide; 124 were returned with usable
data. Respondents indicated that course
subject and classroom environmental
factors did not affect their use of preferred technologies; however, time constraint was an issue for most of the faculty members, particularly for women.
Female faculty members were also
more likely than their male colleagues
to see their perception of students’
learning style as limiting the effective
use of their preferred instructional technologies.
use to better, and in some cases replace,
traditional teaching methods. For example, instructors may use lectureenriching technology, such as PowerPoint presentations, or take advantage
of video conferencing to bring guest
lecturers from distant places into the
classroom. Instructors also can use
computer-based technologies such as
electronic mail, Web pages, chat rooms,
and electronic bulletin boards in the
classroom to facilitate communication
between the instructor and student outside the classroom. A number of computer simulations are now available for
faculty members to use, providing a
very real application of course material
for students. In addition, in many
schools of business, interactive televi-
sion (Seay et al., 2001) or Internetbased instruction is used in delivery of
online courses (Boose, 2001; Driver,
2002). Although all of these technology
options exist, there is little empirical
evidence regarding how faculty members make choices between the various
options that are available to them. What
are some of the factors that influence or
pose restrictions on their choices?
Because of the limited research that has
been done on this issue, we sought to
undertake this exploratory study of the
range of factors that, according to the
literature results, may have an impact on
how such choices are made.
Factors That Might Influence or
Limit Technology Choice
For faculty members to use instructional technology, they must be comfortable with it and see it as a convenient and
beneficial tool (Dusick, 1998; Reznich,
1997; Spotts, 1999). An instructor’s own
feelings of competence, as well as his or
her perception of student preferences in
technology use, may influence the decision on what type of technology should
be used in the classroom (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000). Also, at many colleges and universities, there is now an
increased awareness of the importance of
considering learning styles and student
needs in course curriculum design (Papo,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
2001). Because technology mediums can
play a major role in the classroom experience, technology choice may be influenced by such learning style factors.
Demographics, such as a faculty
member’s age, rank, or gender, also may
influence technology use or choice of
medium. For example, Rosseau and
Rogers (1998) found that older faculty
members used fewer technology applications. Likewise, more senior faculty
members who are tenured may be less
motivated to learn new technologies or
feel less competent in using instructional
technologies. Recent research has also
revealed that there may be gender differences in the way that faculty members
use technology and rate their levels of
knowledge or expertise (Spotts, 1999).
For example, in a study of 367 faculty
members at a medium-sized institution,
men rated their knowledge of and expertise in instructional technology higher
than women did, but both genders had
similar frequencies of technology use
(Spotts, Bowman, & Mertz, 1997).
Campbell and Varnhagen (2002) found
that women faculty members, because of
their tendency to explore more relational
approaches to teaching, use educational
technologies for purposes different from
those of their male colleagues. Thus,
gender differences in both perceptions
and uses of technology are worth further
investigation.
In addition, the level of institutional
support can play a key role in the use of
technology (Boose, 2001; Spotts, 1999).
In some instances, faculty members may
wish to use certain forms of instructional
technology (e.g., multimedia support in
the classroom), but their institutions do
not have sufficient resources to meet
their needs. Related to institutional support is the issue of technical support.
Faculty members indicate that technical
problems such as slow systems and software or server problems are important
factors in determining how or whether
they decide to use certain instructional
technologies (Hantula, 1998; Piotrowski
& Vodanovich, 2000). Papo (2001), for
example, indicated that faculty frustration with slow equipment delivery,
equipment set-up time, and limited funding for technology upgrades can foster a
reluctance to use instructional media. In
other situations, faculty members may
feel pressured by their institutions to use
certain technologies (e.g., interactive
television delivery or Internet-based
instruction) and may have mixed feelings
about whether they have received adequate training and whether such technologies are appropriate (Bocchi, Eastman, & Swift, 2004). Such issues will
become more important as schools of
business face increasing pressure from
both their institutions and their accrediting agencies to incorporate technologyenhanced instruction (Driver, 2002).
Course subject may influence the
choice of technology used to support the
learning experience. Decisions on what
types of technology to use for a particular course are likely to be influenced by
the instructor’s learning objectives, as
well as what textbook publishing companies may have designed and developed
for the course subject. For example,
many faculty members now use a computer simulation in strategic management
courses because they believe that the
simulation provides a more realistic set
of scenarios for students in making
strategic business decisions. Likewise,
those teaching production and operations
management might use the computer in
class to show students how to solve problems using Excel spreadsheets.
Class size also can influence the type
of technology used in a course. It may
be possible to enhance the learning
experience of classes with large student
enrollments through technology. For
example, using videos and PowerPoint
presentations to support the lecture
teaching method in large classes helps
to provide visual support to the learning
experience. Similarly, the use of chat
rooms and electronic bulletin boards
may assist student groups in working
together on assignments in large classes
(Papo, 2001). Class size also may serve
to limit the use of technology in some
courses. For example, the instructor’s
preference may be to have each student
seated at a computer terminal during
class, but this may not be possible if
class enrollment exceeds the facility
space in computer teaching labs. Large
course enrollments can hinder the effectiveness of online instruction and the
use of e-mail or discussion boards for
classroom support. A nationwide survey
cited in a recent article in The Chronicle
of Higher Education stated that, when
asked about their attitudes and experience with distance education, faculty
members indicated that they were happiest when teaching online courses for
which there were enrollment limits
(Carr, 2000). Likewise, Bocchi et al.
(2004) argued for the importance of low
enrollments (20 students or fewer) for
effective distance education in online
MBA instruction.
The use of some forms of instructional technology requires substantial time,
either in terms of course development,
course management, or maintaining
one’s currency with the technology (Bocchi et al., 2004). These time constraints
may result from the faculty member’s
other teaching, research, service, or
administrative responsibilities. Although
in recent studies investigators have begun
to question the time difference expended
with certain instructional technologies
(Hilsop & Ellis, 2004), substantial empirical evidence indicates that time constraint is a major drawback to faculty use
of instructional technology (Hulbert &
McBride, 2004; Vannatta & Fordham,
2004; Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 1999,
2001).
Method
The sample for this study consisted of
full-time faculty members in the area of
management from colleges and universities across the United States. Using
the Directory of Management Faculty
(Hasselback, 2001), we drew up a stratified sample (by rank) from randomly
selected institutions. Of the 500 questionnaires mailed, 126 were returned,
producing a response rate of 25.2%.
Because 2 of the returned surveys had
missing data, we used only 124 of the
questionnaires for data analysis. Of the
124 participants, 65% were men and
35% were women. Nineteen percent of
the respondents had the rank of assistant
professor, 34% were associate professors, and 39% were full professors. Of
the sample, 67% had been teaching for
at least 11 years, and 57% had been at
their current institutions for 11 years or
more. Nearly half of the faculty members taught primarily in the areas of
strategic management (25%) and organizational behavior (20%), with the
March/April 2005
201
TABLE 1. Instructional Technology Preferences of Faculty Members
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Instructional technology
method
No technology
Blackboard (chalk) or
whiteboard
PowerPoint presentations
Videos
Computer simulations or
virtual reality
E-mail and Web pages
Chat rooms and electronic
bulletin boards
Courses fully online
PowerPoint and blackboard
or whiteboard
Videos and tape recordings
Other
Transparencies
No preference
5
Response frequency (%)
4
3
2
1
n
M
3.1
26.8
0
22.0
15.6
18.3
31.3
19.5
50.0
13.4
32
82
1.75
3.30
27.8
5.9
9.4
22.8
30.6
9.4
17.7
40.0
21.9
10.1
10.6
18.8
21.5
12.9
40.6
79
85
32
3.25
3.05
2.28
8.9
0
22.2
12.0
17.8
16.0
31.1
28.0
20.0
44.0
45
25
2.68
1.96
5.3
46.3
5.3
16.4
15.8
10.4
0
14.9
73.7
11.9
19
67
1.68
3.70
0
48.4
54.0
33.3
14.3
19.4
15.3
0
33.3
9.7
23.0
0
33.3
12.9
7.6
0
19.0
9.7
0
66.7
21
31
13
3
2.43
3.84
2.33
Note. Respondents rated their preferred methods on a scale ranging from 5 (most preferred) to 1
(least preferred).
remaining faculty members teaching an
assortment of other management disciplines. The typical class size for 63% of
the sample was 20–39, with 23% having
larger classes of 40–59 students. Most
faculty members indicated that, on average, 75% of the students in their classes
were of traditional age (18–24 years).
The questionnaire that we developed
for our study contained three parts. In the
first section of the survey, we asked participants to rank their preferred instructional technologies (as shown in Table 1).
In the second section of the survey, we
asked participants to use a 5-point scale
ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1
(strongly disagree) to indicate the extent
to which they perceived that various factors influenced or limited their choices of
instructional technology. In the final section, we requested demographic information, such as sex, rank, age, years of
teaching, years at current institutions,
and year that the respondents’ doctoral
degrees were conferred. We asked additional questions about the instructors’
main teaching areas, typical class sizes,
and percentages of traditional students in
typical classes.
Given the exploratory nature of this
study, we used descriptive statistics to
examine faculty instructional technology
202
Journal of Education for Business
preferences and their perceptions regarding factors that may influence or limit
technology use. To examine the relationship between class size and the ranking
of instructional technology preferences,
we used Spearman rank correlations.
Finally, we performed t tests to test for
gender differences in preferences regarding instructional technologies and in perceptions of factors influencing or limiting use of technology.
Results
Our findings for use of instructional
technology methods showed the
strongest preference for methods other
than those listed. The next strongest
preferences were for “PowerPoint and
blackboard or whiteboard” and “blackboard or whiteboard.” In examining the
survey questionnaires, we found that the
item most frequently listed in the
“other” category was overhead transparencies and use of overhead projector.
Faculty members demonstrated the least
preference for “courses fully online”
and “no technology.” We provide
descriptive statistics and mean values
for these rankings in Table 1.
In Table 2, we present descriptive statistics for factors that respondents per-
ceived as influencing or limiting their
choices of teaching methods. Our
results showed that 77% of the respondents agreed that their preferred instructional technologies greatly enhanced
their teaching effectiveness. Eightythree percent indicated that they were
comfortable with learning new technologies. Course subject did not appear
to be a limiting factor for most faculty
members (66%) in their use of preferred
technology, and classroom environmental factors received mixed results as a
limiting factor. Only 25% of the respondents indicated that their perception of
student learning needs influenced their
choices of instructional technology.
Almost 90% of the faculty members
viewed their institutions as supporting
the use of technology in the classroom,
and 82% perceived such support from
their department heads as well. Only
about 25% of the respondents felt pressured by their institutions to use certain
technologies. Time constraints were
viewed by 75% of the faculty members
as limiting their ability to learn new
instructional technologies and by 50%
as limiting their interest in using new
technologies.
Class size did not appear to be a major
consideration in faculty members’ preferences for technology use, except in the
cases of respondents who used e-mail
and Web pages or chat rooms and discussion boards for instructional support.
Large class size was found to have a significant negative correlation with e-mail
and Web page use (r = –.376, p < .010)
and with the use of chat rooms and discussion boards (r = –.496, p < .012),
indicating a preference for smaller numbers of students in classes using these
methods of technology. Notably, class
size did not appear to be an issue for
those teaching online courses. This finding could be attributed to the small number of respondents who indicated a preference for teaching courses in which
such technology is used.
Results from t tests showed significant gender differences in instructional
technology preferences for two of the
technology options. Compared with
male faculty members, female faculty
members indicated a significant preference for the combined use of PowerPoint and a whiteboard or blackboard, t
TABLE 2. Faculty Perceptions of Situational Factors Affecting
Instructional Technology Use
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Question
My preferred instructional
technology greatly enhances
my teaching effectiveness.
Classroom environmental
factors limit the effective
use of my preferred
instructional technology.
My perception of students’
preferred learning style
limits my choice of
instructional technology.
Course subject and/or
nature of curriculum limit
the effective use of my
preferred instructional
technology.
My institution supports the
use of technology in the
classroom.
The head of department
supports the use of
technology in the
classroom.
I feel pressured by my
institution to use certain
technologies.
I am comfortable with
learning new instructional
technologies.
Time constraints limit my
ability to learn new
instructional technologies.
Time constraints limit my
interest in using new
instructional technologies.
5
Response frequency (%)
4
3
2
1
n
M
0
124
4.04
28.2
49.2
21.0
1.6
15.3
29.8
11.3
36.3
6.5
123
3.11
0.8
24.2
14.5
51.6
8.1
123
2.58
4.8
20.2
7.3
51.6
14.5
122
2.48
47.6
41.9
5.6
4.0
0.8
124
4.31
37.1
45.2
11.3
4.8
1.6
124
4.11
8.1
16.1
8.1
52.4
15.3
124
2.49
29.8
53.2
8.1
8.1
8.1
123
4.05
29.8
45.2
1.6
16.1
6.5
123
3.76
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).
= 2.132, p < .038. Compared with the
women, the men in our sample showed
a significant preference for the use of no
technology, t = –2.293, p < .03. We
show these results in Table 3.
We also found gender differences in
perceptions of factors that might influence or limit use of instructional technology (see Table 4). Our t test results
showed that female faculty members
were more likely than their male colleagues to see their perception of students’ learning styles as limiting the
effective use of their preferred instructional technology, t = 2.20, p < .03.
Female respondents were also more
likely than their male colleagues to view
time constraints as limiting (a) their
ability 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 some
interesting findings with regard to faculty use of instructional technology. Most
of those surveyed clearly preferred using
some form of technology, believed that
their preferences enhanced their teaching
effectiveness, and were comfortable with
learning new technologies. These findings demonstrate a positive view on the
part of faculty members with regard to
using instructional technology and learning new techniques. It is interesting to
note, however, that the technologies most
strongly preferred by the faculty members are generally considered to be fairly
“low tech” (overhead transparencies,
PowerPoint, and blackboard and whiteboard). One possible reason for this finding may be that nearly half of the respondents taught either organizational
behavior or strategic management, in
both of which instructors tend to make
extensive use of experiential learning or
case analyses and student presentations.
Because these learning methods do not
lend themselves well to online teaching,
only a few of the faculty members in our
sample expressed a preference for online
courses.
Although classroom environmental
factors and course subject proved not to
be strong factors in limiting the use of
preferred technologies, large class size
was a significant deterrent to the use of
e-mail and Web pages as well as chat
rooms and discussion boards. Most faculty members also viewed time constraints as a limiting factor in their ability to learn and be interested in using
new instructional technologies. This
result was more pronounced among the
female faculty members. Staff at institutions interested in encouraging the use
of technology to aid instruction may find
that faculty members will need sufficient
release time to retool or learn new technologies and should realize that class
enrollment size might deter instructors
from using certain technologies.
There were some interesting gender
differences in our results. Compared
with the women, the men in our sample
showed a stronger preference for the use
of no technology in the classroom. Does
this finding indicate that they are less
comfortable with using technology or do
not see it as appropriate for the courses
that they are teaching? Perceptions of
students’ learning needs appeared to
play a larger role in influencing use of
instructional technology among the
female faculty members. Could women
faculty members be more perceptive of
student learning needs and place greater
weight on this factor in their use of technology? These issues warrant further
investigation.
In general, the management faculty
March/April 2005
203
TABLE 3. Results of t tests for Gender Differences in Instructional Technology Preferences
n
Instructional technology method
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
No technology
Blackboard (chalk) or whiteboard
PowerPoint presentations
Videos
Computer simulations or virtual reality
Email and Web pages
Chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards
Courses fully online
PowerPoint and blackboard or whiteboard
Videos and tape recordings
Other
M
Men
Women
Men
Women
t
df
Significance
21
59
54
54
24
29
16
12
43
14
23
10
23
24
30
8
16
9
7
23
7
8
2.00
3.37
3.24
2.92
2.25
2.82
1.68
1.75
3.46
2.28
4.00
1.30
3.08
3.20
3.26
2.37
2.43
2.44
1.57
4.21
2.71
3.37
–2.293
–0.814
–0.090
1.465
0.262
–1.09
1.49
–0.324
2.132
0.959
–1.03
25.23
38.82
46.95
70.19
16.51
40.91
10.25
16.37
52.16
12.61
11.39
.03*
.42
.92
.14
.79
.28
.16
.75
.03*
.35
.32
*Significant at .05 level.
TABLE 4. Gender Differences in Faculty Perceptions of Factors Influencing Instructional Technology Use
Question
Men
My preferred instructional technology greatly enhances my teaching
effectiveness.
Classroom environmental factors limit the effective use of my preferred
instructional technology.
My perception of students’ preferred learning style limits my choice of
instructional technology.
Course subject and/or nature of curriculum limit the effective use of my
preferred instructional technology.
My institution supports the use of technology in the classroom.
The head of department supports the use of technology in the classroom.
I feel pressured by my institution to use certain technologies.
I am comfortable with learning new instructional technologies.
Time constraints limit my ability to learn new instructional technologies.
Time constraints limit my interest in using new instructional technologies.
M
Women
t
df
Significance
3.99
4.12
0.941
93.83
.34
3.03
3.26
0.909
75.35
.36
2.42
2.86
2.209
69.55
.03*
2.33
4.22
4.03
2.36
4.02
3.55
2.93
2.72
4.47
4.26
2.72
4.11
4.16
3.48
1.788
1.475
1.227
1.541
0.553
2.974
2.264
79.35
74.15
65.47
74.45
78.30
110.50
84.25
.07
.14
.22
.12
.58
.004*
.026*
*Significant at .05 level.
members in our study indicated strong
institutional support for the use of
instructional technology and believed
that their department heads reinforced
this support. Only 25% felt pressure
from their institutions to use certain
technologies, which is good news for
staff at schools of business who are
interested in supporting technology use
for instruction.
REFERENCES
Arbaugh, J. (2000). An exploratory study of the
effects of gender on student learning and class
participation 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 students in an online MBA program and implica-
204
Journal of Education for Business
tions for teaching them. Journal of Education
for Business, 79(4), 245–253.
Boose, M. (2001). Web-based instruction: Successful preparation for course transformation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 17(4), 69–81.
Campbell, K., & Varnhagen, S. (2002). When faculty use instructional technologies: Using
Clark’s delivery model to understand gender
differences. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 32(1), 31–56.
Carr, S. (2000, July 7). Many professors are optimistic on distance learning, survey finds. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(44), A35.
Driver, M. (2002). Investigating the benefits of
Web-centric instruction for student learning: An
exploratory study of an MBA course. Journal of
Education for Business, 77(4), 236–246.
Dusick, D. (1998). What social cognitive factors
influence faculty members’ use of computers
for teaching? A literature review. Journal of
Research 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 of
teaching. Academy of Management Journal,
40(6), 1271–1281.
Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2–10.
Hantula, D. (1998). The virtual industrial/organizational psychology class: Learning and teaching in cyberspace in three iterations. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
30, 205–216.
Hasselback, J. R. (2001). Directory of management faculty. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Hilsop, G., & Ellis, H. (2004). A study of faculty
effort in online teaching. Internet & Higher
Education, 7(1), 15–32.
Hulbert, L., & McBride, R. (2004). Utilizing
videoconferencing in library education: A team
teaching approach. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 45(1), 26–35.
Papo, W. (2001). Integration of educational media
in higher education large classes. Education
Behavior, 14, 417–428.
Seay, R., Rudolph, H., & Chamberlain, D. (2001).
Faculty perceptions of interactive television
instruction. Journal of Education for Business,
77(2), 99–106.
Spotts, T. (1999). Faculty use of instructional
technology in higher education: Profiles of contributing and deterring factors. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences, 59(10-A), 3738.
Spotts, T., Bowman, M., & Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and use of instructional technologies: A
study of university faculty. Higher Education,
34(4), 421–436.
Vannatta, R., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology
use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253–271.
Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (1999). Views of
academic I-O psychologists toward Internetbased instruction. The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 37(1), 52–55.
Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Internetbased instruction: A national survey of psychology faculty. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
28(4), 253–256.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:35 12 January 2016
Media International, 38(2/3), 95–99.
Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. (2000). Are the
reported barriers to Internet-based instruction
warranted? A synthesis of recent research. Education, 121(1), 48–53.
Reznich, C. (1997). A survey of medical school
clinical faculty to determine their computer use
and needs for computer skills training. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Rosseau, G., & Rogers, W. (1998). Computer
usage patterns of university faculty members
across the lifespan. Computers in Human
March/April 2005
205