Factors Influencing Faculty Use of Instructional Technology

Although shortage of equipment, facilities, and institutional support may play a role in inhibiting use of technology, Geoghegan (1994) argues that the most important reason for limited use is in the human realm. He puts forth a model of innovation and change which indicates an approximately normal distribution when number of new adopters are plotted against time. Along this continuum, he identifies five categories of adopter: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. There can be a "chasm" between early adopters and the early majority, such that the innovation is never adopted by the mainstream.

In the case of faculty and use of instructional technology, Geoghegan contrasts early adopters, who are risk takers, more willing to experiment, generally self-sufficient, and interested in the technology itself with early majority faculty who are more concerned about the teaching/learning problem being addressed than the technology used to address it, view ease of use as critical, and want proven applications with low risk of failure. Thus, University support groups should include staff with good pedagogical understanding and basic knowledge of a wide range of academic and professional disciplines.

A survey carried out at Western Michigan University in 1993 (Spotts and Bowman, 1993) lends credibility to Geoghegan's ideas. Factors identified by more than half of the respondents as important in influencing the use of instructional technology were: availability of equipment, promise of improved student learning, funds to purchase materials, compatibility with subject matter, advantages over traditional methods, increased student interest, ease of use, information on materials in their discipline, compatibility with existing course materials, university training in technology use, time to learn the technology and comfort level with technology.