Faculty Input for Future Allocation of Scarce Educational Technology Resources
Keywords:Educational technology, faculty, community college, higher education, resources, management, survey
Faculty are major stakeholders in the California community college (CCC) systemâ€™s ability to meet three primary mission objectives: increase student access, prepare students for transfer, and remain competitive. Educational technology (ET) can play a vital role in keeping the CCCs competitive, and modern learner-centric models rely heavily on faculty using ET, but ET is expensive. With 113 CCCs operating in an era of constrained budgets, the efficient allocation of scarce ET resources remains a challenge for the CCC system. Faculty input regarding their use of educational technology (ET) is invaluable, but no published empirical research explores the present and future use of ET by the CCC faculty. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to survey CCC faculty to determine their present ET hardware and software use, and their anticipated ET use five years in the future. Survey data from 655 active CCC faculty were analyzed using t-tests at the p < .05 threshold for statistical significance. Cohenâ€™s D was used to describe the magnitude of anticipated change from current to future ET use. Results demonstrate that CCC faculty anticipate significant increases in their use of ET hardware and software over the next five years. Results also show that 42% of faculty had never been asked about their use of ET by an influencer, indicating that faculty are underutilized stakeholders in ET planning. Combined, these findings can be utilized by CCC administrative decision makers towards meeting their mission objectives by the efficient allocation of scarce ET resources.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Center for American Progress and Innosight Institute. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2011/02/08/9034/disrupting-college/
Immerwahr, J., Johnson, J., & Gasbarra, P. (2008). The iron triangle: College presidents talk about costs, access, and quality. National Center Report# 08-2. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503203
Murray, M. C., & PÃ©rez, J. (2015). Informing and performing: A study comparing adaptive learning to traditional learning. DigitalCommons@ Kennesaw State University. Retrieved from http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol18/ISJv18p111-125Murray1572.pdf
Kirshstein, R., & Wellman, J. (2012). Technology and the broken higher education cost model: Insights from the Delta Cost Project. Educause Review, 47(5), 12-22.
Shulock, N., & Offenstein, J. (2012). Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy. Career Opportunities: Career Technical Education and the College Completion Agenda, Part I: Structure and Funding of Career Technical Education in the California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: California State University. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED534073
Pathak, V. & Pathak, K. (2010), Reconfiguring the higher education value chain. Management in Education, 24(4), 166â€“171.
TomaÅ¡eviÄ‡, I., StojanoviÄ‡, D., SimeunoviÄ‡, B., RadoviÄ‡, M., & AndriÄ‡-GuÅ¡avac, B. (2015, August). Proceedings from 14th Toulon-Verona Conference: Organizational Excellence in Services. Creating Value in Higher Education Institutions, 1179-1188. ISBN: 978 88904327-1-2
Bowen, W. G. (2012). The â€œcost diseaseâ€ in higher education: Is technology the answer. The Tanner Lectures, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://www.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/files/ITHAKATheCostDiseaseinHigherEducation.pdf
Hutaibat, K. A. (2011). Value chain for strategic management accounting in higher education. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 206. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p206
Zemsky, R. (2013). Checklist for change: Making American higher education a sustainable enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.  Lapovsky, L. (2013). The Higher Education Business Model. Retrieved from http://agb.org/sites/default/files/legacy/2014_nct_tiaa_cref.pdf
Mirriahi, N., & Alonzo, D. (2015). Shedding light on students' technology preferences: Implications for academic development. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 12(1), 6.
Guidry, K. R., & BrckaLorenz, A. (2010). A comparison of student and faculty academic technology use across disciplines. Educause Quarterly, 33(3), 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.emich.edu/strategicplan/documents/supporting_materials/trends_in_higher_education_and_the_labor_market.pdf
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88. Retrieved from http://origin-search.proquest.com/docview/216132147?accountid=34899
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business ethics quarterly, 4(4), 409-421.
Taves, M., & Dispensa, M. (2013). Ithaca College 2013 Faculty survey on instructional technology final report. Information Technology Services. Retrieved from http://www.ithaca.edu/its/services/iss/docs/facsurvey/2013FacSurveyFinal.pdf
Taves, M., Dispensa, M., & Borch, C. (2011). 2011 Faculty survey on instructional technology final report. Ithaca College. Retrieved from http://www.ithaca.edu/its/services/iss/docs/facsurvey/2013FacSurveyFinal.pdf
Frazee, J. P. (2014). Report on results from instructional technology services faculty support survey - 2014. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. Retrieved from http://its.sdsu.edu/docs/2014-its-survey-report.pdf
Hartman, A., Barnet, B., Pfeifer-Luckett, R., Mann, P., & Wong, L. (2014). Faculty & staff survey on online teaching, learning & support report â€“ 2014. Learn@UW Executive Committee. Retrieved from https://www.wisconsin.edu/systemwide-it/download/it-projects/fac-survey/Faculty Survey Final Report - 2014.pdf
San JosÃ© State University Annual Report. (2014). Annual report: 2014 SJSU faculty survey summary on instructional technology. Information Technology Services and Academic Technology Departments. http://www.sjsu.edu/at/ec/Survey/SJSU_2014_Faculty_Survey_Summary_Instructional_Technology.pdf
University of California. (2002). Office of Information Technology at Santa Barbara: Faculty questionnaire on the use of information technology in teaching. Retrieved from http://www.oit.ucsb.edu/committees/ATWG/2002_faculty_survey.pdf
California Community College Chancellorâ€™s Office. (2015). Management information systems data mart: Fall 2015 employees. http://datamart.cccco.edu/Faculty-Staff/Staff_Demo.aspx
Harris, B. (2016). California community college chancellorâ€™s office: Long range master plan. Retrieved from http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/Reports/MasterPlan_2016_ADA_Final.pdf
Brown, E. G. (2016, January). Governorâ€™s 2016-2017 Budget Summary. California Legislature Regular Session 2015-16. Retrieved from http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
Jones, N. A. (2006). From â€œsage on the stageâ€ to â€œguide on the sideâ€: The challenge for educators today. ABAC Journal 26(1), 1â€“18. Retrieved from http://www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2006/jan06/vol26no1_article01.pdf
Harker, P. (2014). Commentaryâ€”making sense of higher educationâ€™s future: An economics and operations perspective. Service Science 6(4), 207-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/serv.2014.0079
Argosy University. (2014). Institutional Review Board Handbook â€“ September 2014. Retrieved from https://ucmrp.edmc.edu/idc/groups/webcontent/@edmc_aug/documents/webcontent/edmc-03428020.pdf
Goldstein & Associates (2011). California State University Northridge: 2011 Information technology 2011 survey analysis. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/techsurvey11_analysis.pdf
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. American Educational Research Association.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014a). The digest of educational statistics. 2013 All faulty, all colleges., employment. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_315.10.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014b). The digest of educational statistics. 2003 All faculty in 2 year colleges, degree. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_315.50.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014c). The digest of educational statistics. 2013 All full time faculty, all colleges, rank, ethnicity. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_315.20.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014d). The digest of educational statistics. 2013 All full time faculty, all colleges, gender. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_314.20.asp
Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Traxler, J. (Eds.). (2007). Mobile learning. A handbook for educators and trainers. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/356/879
Ferriter, W. M., & Ramsden, J. T. (2012). Communicating & connecting with social media. Solution Tree Press.
Brown, M. (2015, July/August). Six trajectories for digital technology in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review 50(4). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/six-trajectories-for-digital-technology-in-higher-education
Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. [Research report]. Louisville, CO. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Harvard University. (2008). Instructional technology survey. Cambridge, MA: Department of Romance Languages and Literatures. Retrieved from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/digitalnatives/files/2008/03/instructionaltechnologysurvey.pdf
Elzarka, S. (2012). Technology use in higher education instruction. CGU Theses & Dissertations. Paper 39. doi:10.5642/cguetd/39
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Levine, A. E. (2000). The future of colleges: 9 inevitable changes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(9), B10. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Future-of-Colleges-9/10560
Mott, J. D., & Granata, G. (2006). The value of teaching and learning technology: Beyond ROI. Educause Quarterly, 29(2), 48.
How to Cite
- Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by any other publisher.
- It is also the authors responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular source are submitted with the necessary approval.
- The authors warrant that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required.
- The authors ensure that all the references carefully and they are accurate in the text as well as in the list of references (and vice versa).
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under aÂ Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (SeeÂ The Effect of Open Access).
- The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.