ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING: A CAMPUS-WIDE APPROACH

Sylvia Bedwell Brace1, Gina Roberts2, Lucinda T. Lea3, and Sarah Barlow4

INTRODUCTION

As an emerging major institution of higher education in the state, region, and nation, Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) is committed to helping its students become educated men and women. Through five colleges and thirty-five departments, MTSU offers instruction in the basic and applied sciences, business, education, liberal arts, and communication. Even though the primary focus is on undergraduate education, Masters degrees in nine areas, the Specialist in Education, and the Doctor of Arts degrees are also offered. The diverse student body of 18,000 consists of full and part-time students, both traditional college age and adult learners. The administration, along with 700-plus talented faculty members, is dedicated to providing MTSU students with a positive educational experience in a supportive campus environment.

From the decision in 1989 to provide every full-time faculty member with a microcomputer to the opening of a new academic building equipped with forty-seven technology-based classrooms in 1997, the administration has established the support of instructional technology as a crucial part of the higher education equation. Since 1994, MTSU faculty have enjoyed a comprehensive level of instructional technology support that features access to technology that includes a campus-wide network, sixty-one technology-based classrooms, over sixty computer labs, and two multimedia development centers; training in the use of hardware and software; consultation with instructional technology staff; release time to develop technology-based instructional materials; and recognition of their instructional technology achievements.

The faculty at MTSU who use technology as a tool to enhance instruction now represent the mainstream, not just the early adopters. A large number of faculty have taken advantage of these instructional technology resources. Over two hundred have taught in a technology-based classroom, seventy-two have received release-time grants, and over three hundred have attended on-campus workshops, conferences, and institutes related to instructional technology. Therefore, in terms of sample size and longevity, a study to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of using educational technologies should begin to provide relevant data.

Thus far, faculty reaction to and perceived effectiveness of these instructional technology integration efforts have been measured through surveys administered during each activity, informal discussion with faculty, and a few formal interviews with faculty and students. A study of MTSU faculty is currently being conducted to assess the status and effectiveness of instructional technology.

THE STUDY

When preparing for this study, we were confronted with the question, "How do we measure the effectiveness of instructional technology?" While we were tempted to compare it to traditional teaching, we realized our attempts would be futile as traditional teaching comprises many dynamic, immeasurable, and complex components. We decided that instructional technology at MTSU could best be evaluated by measuring its impact on the depth and breadth of content covered, student performance, and good teaching practices that were widely acknowledged as catalysts for improved learning. The good teaching practices used in the survey were adapted from the "seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education." (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) These practices include student interaction with instructor, student collaboration, student participation and feedback, and instructor's expectation of students' performance.

While technology will not transform poor teaching practices, can its effective use in the classroom benefit good teaching practices? Is technology being applied in MTSU classrooms in ways that facilitate these good practices? Does the use of technology in the various disciplines strengthen the foundation of quality education? The purpose of this study is to answer these questions and provide information that will assist with future instructional technology planning.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

A four-page, four-part questionnaire is the survey instrument being used in the study. The questionnaire will be mailed to all 700-plus MTSU faculty. The faculty will have a two-week period in which they must complete and return the questionnaire. The questionnaire was tested by a sample group of faculty and deemed a viable test instrument that took an average of ten to fifteen minutes to complete.

The questionnaire begins by giving faculty an opportunity to express some general feelings and beliefs regarding instructional technology at MTSU. The first section sets the stage by summarizing the wide variety of instructional technology applications and resources available at MTSU and encouraging faculty to respond based on their general impression or feeling. In this section of the questionnaire, faculty rate how much they agree with a variety of statements that measure their perceptions about various types of instructional technologies and their value in the classroom. Other questions ask faculty to rate their level of skill and knowledge using and developing the various types of instructional technologies. This section also gauges faculty opinions and attitudes about office computers, technical support, multimedia development centers, technology-based classrooms, instructional technology workshops, faculty development grants and awards, and instructional technology special events such as institutes and conferences.

The second part of the survey is the heart of the study. It measures the frequency of use of various instructional technology applications by MTSU faculty. The instructional technology applications include using computer applications to present lecture outlines or demonstrate specific concepts; using audio/visual equipment to display materials; communicating electronically with students; and assigning students supplementary use or development of materials such as Web pages, computer-assisted instruction modules, and computer-based applications. In this section, faculty evaluate the effect of these applications on the depth and breadth of content covered, student performance, and good teaching practices including interaction with students, student collaboration, student participation and feedback, and faculty expectation of student performance.

The third segment of the questionnaire gathers information about the projected future use and development of instructional technology by MTSU faculty. Faculty rate the likelihood of a series of statements that regard their anticipated use of various types of instructional technologies within the next eighteen to twenty-four months.

The final portion of the questionnaire gathers basic demographic information such as years in higher education, years at MTSU, professional rank, tenure status, department, and discipline. In this section, an open-ended statement allows faculty to discuss why they feel instructional technology is or is not important. Another open-ended statement provides faculty with the opportunity to make additional comments.

CONCLUSION

The results of the study will be available in February 1998 and presented in March 1998 at the ICTE conference. We expect the results of the study to provide information regarding the degree to which various types of instructional technologies are being used; the breadth of the adoption of instructional technology across the various disciplines; the importance of instructional technology in the education process; and the projected use of instructional technology in the coming years. This information will allow for more effective allocation of instructional technology resources and improved planning so that instructional technology at MTSU can support good teaching practices and help faculty build a strong foundation for student learning.

REFERENCES

Chickering, Arthur and Zelda Gamson (1987) "Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education," AAHE Bulletin (March).

1 Instructional Technologies and Microcomputer Applications Manager, Office of Information Technology, Middle Tennessee State University
2 Web Instructional Technology Specialist, Innovative Technologies Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
3 Director, Office of Information Technology, Middle Tennessee State University
4 Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University

The results of this study will be available in February 1998. Results will provide information that will help determine measures for improving educational technology resources and services for MTSU faculty and students.