download Chapter 4 Current Use of Technology & Its Educational Impact
The vast majority of Lehigh faculty and students believe that technology is having a positive impact on their teaching and learning. 88% of faculty strongly agreed (46%) or agreed (42%) that technology has enhanced their teaching and 80% strongly agreed (32%) or agreed (48%) that technology has enhanced their students’ learning. Moreover, the survey data reveals a significant increase from 2002 in the percentage of faculty who believe that technology is having a positive impact in this area, as seen in the following figures:
| Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall, technology has enhanced my teaching. | 46% (83) |
42% (77) |
11% (20) |
2% (3) |
0% (0) |
| Overall, technology has enhanced my students' learning. | 32% (58) |
48% (87) |
19% (34) |
2% (4) |
0% (0) |
Figure 2.1. By college, the percentage of regular faculty who agree or strongly agree that the technology has enhanced their teaching, shown together results from the 2003 survey.
Figure 2.2 By college, the percentage of regular faculty who agree or strongly agree that the technology has enhanced their teaching, shown together results from the 2003 survey.
| CAS | CBE | COE | RCEAS | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall, technology has enhanced my teaching. | 82% (+12) |
94% (+16) |
100% (+15) |
91% (+11) |
87% (n/a) |
| Overall, technology has enhanced my students' learning. | 76% (+13) |
94% (+13) |
86% (+20) |
73% (-4) |
79% (n/a) |
It is clear that there has been a sizable and significant shift in faculty perspective on the effectiveness of technology in the past five years. We attribute this change to a number of factors, including a commitment of financial resources to classroom technology and to software and library resources; a cultural change among existing faculty towards an increased willingness to try new approaches in their classrooms; the hiring of a large number of new faculty who may arrive on campus familiar with academic uses of technology; and the gradual normalization of certain uses of technology such as email, Blackboard, and PowerPoint. We also believe that the efforts of the Lehigh Lab, including effective faculty development programming, the work of the Lehigh Lab Faculty Fellow, and the high quality of library, technical, and classroom support have played a central role in this increase. Evidence for this conclusion is discussed in the 'Effectiveness' section of this website (and in Section 4.II.D.5. of the Middle States Report).
It is also clear, if somewhat puzzling, that faculty in three of the four colleges rate the impact on their teaching more positively than they rate the impact on their students’ learning. In one sense, it is surprising that the gap exists at all, since improvement in teaching seems possible only if there is improvement in learning. However specific comments made by faculty help explain these gaps. One professor in CAS reporting finding Blackboard, Turnitin, and smart classrooms useful but expressed uncertainty as to whether “students take full advantage of the resources that technology offers them.” An assistant professor in COE had a different concern: “Blackboard has helped me to be more organized [but] sometimes technology can detract from the interaction between instructor and student.” An associate professor in RCEAS put the concern this way: “Overall I feel that the average student in the class has a better understanding of the subject matter when the technology tools are employed. [However,] the down side of all of this is that for some students, making the material too convenient and packaged, they are no longer making the hand/mind connection.” Observations such as these help explain why many faculty view technology’s role in teaching differently than its role in learning. Despite this difference, however, we still find the number of faculty who believe that technology is helping teaching and learning to be quite high; in fact, the more significant finding is the sizable increase over five years in the number of faculty who believe technology is enhancing teaching and learning.
One other measure of this change is seen in our survey of faculty attitudes towards technology adoption. Faculty were asked to describe their approach to technology at present and five years ago. The changes in early adopters and mainstream users, combined with the decrease in skeptical users and nonusers (as seen in the graph below) are exactly the trends we would like to see as we try to cultivate a culture of appropriate technology adoption on our campus.
Survey Question 7 "Which of the following best describes your approach to using technology in your teaching (a) at present and (b) five years ago."
Innovator: I tend to develop new technologies or discover new uses of existing technologies.
Early adopter: I tend to be among the first to use new technologies.
Mainstream user: I tend to wait and see whether new technologies work before I use them.
Skeptical user: I tend to be very reluctant to use technologies but do use some.
Nonuser: I tend to avoid technology altogether and prefer not to use it all.
| Innovator | Early Adopter | Mainstream User | Skeptical User | Nonuser | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approach Present | 15 | 70 | 81 | 9 | 3 |
| Approach 5 Years Ago | 15 | 61 | 63 | 25 | 6 |
| Percent Change | 0% | +15% | +29% | -64% | -50% |
These figures raise some interesting questions about where Lehigh’s future focus should lie. As recommended by the 2003 Middle States Periodic Review Report, our faculty development programming countenances the existence of these different faculty groups (innovator, early adopter, etc) and their particular needs related to support and change. We encourage the Lab to follow a strategy that continues this approach in order to maintain the trends seen in the past five years. However, we specifically encourage the Lab, and the campus at large, to do more to support the needs of those faculty devoted to innovations to discover if an even larger percentage of our campus population might begin to see themselves in this way.
At the same time, we hope all who promote such changes will remain respectful of a common faculty view on this subject; namely, that not every problem has a technological solution and not every instructor should be pressured into being an innovator. As an associate professor in CBE noted, “What I don't like is the suggestion that we should use technology just to say we are using it. Faculty may take some time to adopt it; part of that may just be that it takes time to learn new tools and to think out how to effectively incorporate them into a class, but part may also be that, in some areas of different courses, technology doesn't have much to offer.” A professor in CAS made a similar point this way: “technology should be like a well-stocked kitchen: you don't need saffron every day but it’s lovely when you find it waiting for you late one Thursday afternoon.” We believe that the Lab, in philosophy and in practice, takes this approach and should continue to do so. By supporting change in this way, many faculty will naturally move along the adoption curve, while others will not. The outcome, we believe, will be change that is organic, properly suited to our campus culture and, as a result, sustainable.
Turning now to student views, we see that, when asked about the overall value of technology in their education, 94% of students strongly agreed (55%) or agreed (39%) that technology has enhanced their own learning and 80% of students strongly agreed (32%) or agreed (48%) that technology has enhanced their instructors’ teaching.
| … | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall, technology has enhanced my learning. | 55% (719) |
39% (501) |
4% (52) |
<1% (10) |
<1% (3) |
| Overall, technology has enhanced my instructor's teaching. | 32% (417) |
48% (619) |
15% (189) |
3% (42) |
<1% (9) |
These numbers offer further evidence that technology is being deployed in effective, educationally meaningful ways on our campus.
Library and technology support staff had similar views on the effectiveness of faculty and student uses of technology to enhance teaching and learning. 96% thought that faculty use was very effective or effective and 96% thought student use was very effective or effective.
| … | Very Effective | Effective | Ineffective | Very Ineffective | Don't Know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty use of technology to enhance teaching and learning. | 17% | 70% | 4% | 0% | 11% |
| Students use of technology to enhance student learning. | 19% | 63% | 4% | 0% | 11% |
To better understand how faculty and students were applying technology, we asked them to rank the educational value of thirteen specific uses. The following chart shows the percentage reporting that the use of technology was ‘very valuable’ or ‘valuable’ in their teaching/learning (the list is in rank order according to faculty response):
| … | Faculty | Students |
|---|---|---|
| Communications (using email, instant messaging, discussion boards, announcements, etc.) | 92% | 85% |
| Course management (distributing course documents, collecting assignments, etc.) | 88% | 82% |
| Access to student records (using Portal/Banner, Blackboard to access grades, rosters, etc.) | 86% | 87% |
| Presentation (classroom presentations, online displays of information, etc.) | 75% | 75% |
| Library research (students using online databases, journals, websites, online books and articles, etc.) | 74% | 62% |
| Writing (students using Word, shared documents, blogs, journals, peer review, wikis, online tutorials, etc.) | 60% | 80% |
| Engagement (increasing student involvement and interest in their learning) | 55% | 65% |
| Basic research/analysis (students using technology to conduct experiments, analyze data, etc.) | 43% | 41% |
| Teaching to diverse learning styles (offering students multiple ways of learning information) | 37% | 47% |
| Student collaboration (students working together in online groups, using shared documents, etc.) | 30% | 37% |
| Students' sense of control (helping students set the pace and direction of their learning or extend when and where they can learn) | 29% | 62% |
| Assessment (using clickers, web-based homework, quizzing, testing, surveying, online writing, etc.) | 29% | 59% |
| Publication (students disseminating their academic work within the class or beyond). | 32% | 38% |
Same data, shown as a chart:
This side-by-side comparison reveals that faculty and students place the highest value on a shared set of core uses of technology, including course management, communication, access to records, and presentation. Fewer individuals from both groups see value in using technology to enhance student collaboration and publication, to accommodate diverse learning styles, or to enhance basic research/analysis. This is perhaps unsurprising, since the core uses—course management, communication, and presentation—constitute enhancements to the most basic pedagogical functions while the other uses may be perceived as specific to some classes but not to others (e.g., nearly all classes require some form of communication, presentation, and document exchange, but not all require student collaboration, not all are able to take student learning styles into consideration, and not all use technology to conduct experiments or analyze data). Moreover, the three core uses employ tools—course management systems, email, discussion boards, basic websites, and PowerPoint—that are older and better established on our campus in comparison with newer tools—wikis, blogs, MapleTA in Blackboard, iTunes—that support collaboration, publication, and assessment. Lastly, some of these uses—e.g., using technology for formative assessment, to increase student control of learning, and to accommodate diverse learning styles—are tied to pedagogical approaches that are becoming increasingly common but are certainly not the norm in all courses.
We composed this list of thirteen uses based on our best estimation of the most useful applications of technology in instruction. However, because there are many uses and tools that do not fall under these thirteen categories, we asked faculty and students to itemize specific technology tools or uses that were not included in our list.
Among those listed by faculty were student digital portfolios; use of CDs and DVDs in class; musical score notation; digital storytelling; podcasting to remote students; geographical information systems; high-performance computing; using the internet to prepare for lectures; Turnitin; increase of in-class interaction due to improved information delivery; social bookmarking; LabView for lab data acquisition; conversion of slide collection to a digital database; Computer Aided Drafting programs; international peer-to-peer faculty interactions; financial data analysis; online lab instruction; and remote experimentation.See all faculty responses to this question (Q4 on the faculty survey)
Among the many items listed by students were accessing archived videostreams; accessing software from public sites; assistive technology; accessing Lehigh content from home; CDs with textbooks; cell phones; clickers; communication with Ph.D. committee members; ability to work in more varied locations; Digital Media Studio for help with presentations and movie making; audio clips during class; laboratory technologies; language improvement; learning how to paint; learning to use Excel and Data Studio for physics lab; LESN archived courses; audio recordings of lecture notes; note-taking software; online card catalog; online learning object libraries; PDAs for organizing; practice problems online; safety in holding important information; supplemental PowerPoint presentations; taking mock tests; using multiple sources from international locations for thesis work; time flexibility; mathematical programs; virtual classrooms; televisions in lecture hall improve visibility of experiments; wireless access. See all student responses to this question (Q4 on the student survey)
These lists give a sense of the many different areas students and faculty see technology as useful in their learning and teaching. However, in order to gain a more qualitative view of successful practices, we asked faculty to share some of the most effective ways they use technology in their teaching (Q6: “Please list a few of the most effective ways you use technology to support learning or list some of the reasons you believe technology has not been useful to you in your teaching.”)
Many faculty described ways that technology is improving the way they teach in their classrooms:
“I have developed PowerPoint lectures that include mainly visual images used to illustrate points in my lecture. I used to present these images using standard format slides which was very clumsy and limiting. Now that I can use digital technology I can focus the students' learning much better, and they understand and appreciate the imagery to a much higher degree.”
“Animations are very useful for showing certain processes. Availability of high quality images is critical for connecting theory to real-world applications. Dissemination of documents with graphical content is easy, as is collection of things like Excel homework files.”
“As above, faster and more accurate delivery has transformed my lectures from teacher talking 100% to about 30% students working on problems in class.”
“It's very useful to bring in current material to the class and show them via projection from a current website. I've been able to use very short video clips on the spur of the moment, related to current events.”
“I would use a document camera in every class if there was one in the room I teach in. It is great for disseminating information, my primary use other than PowerPoint presentations.”
Others focused on the benefits derived from using Blackboard course management system.
“I use Blackboard extensively for making my PowerPoint slides available, posting readings and discussion questions, and emailing students.”
“I teach 19th-century literature and now that there are searchable online databases of primary documents from the 1800s I can have my students conduct research that would have been unimaginable 5-10 years ago. I require class participation but I understand that some students will not want to talk in class. As such, I can assign these non-talkative students to post to Blackboard so that they can get the full credit that their otherwise talkative classmates receive.”
“I use Blackboard's quizzing and discussion features to engage students in course material outside of the scheduled class time and to provide feedback/information in a less stressful environment than in-class testing can be.”
“I use Blackboard for student writing assignments in a class of 135 students. I would likely not give these assignments if they were handed in on paper.”
Some faculty focused on the availability of databases and software:
“Web of Science and Chem Abstracts is extremely necessary to connecting our research to the outside world.”
A few focused on the ability to connect with distant students:
“Creating virtual groups with on-campus and international students who are overseas so that they work together on specific projects.”
“It is extremely valuable to link Distance students with those in the classroom. The preservation of classroom activities and information is most useful to students that must miss classes for sickness, business or sport reasons. Posting files enables coverage of a greater span of material, Discussion Board and Blogs assists with adjustment of class pacing and information exchange.”
And several highlighted uses that generally allowed them to enhance and extend their instruction:
“For economics homework answer keys, which involve math and graphs, I record the answers using Camtasia—voice-over-Powerpoint—and a graphics tablet. As I write graphs and equations using the graphics tablet, I talk through the analysis. I then post the answers on my blackboard course page. Students like these answer keys much more than they like written keys. By my talking through the steps, they build a much better understanding of the material. Because students can pause the recordings and view them more than once, most students seem to prefer to recorded answers not only to written answers but also to going over answers in class.”
“I have created Web-based modules that students complete prior to face-to-face meetings. My use of online exams frees up face-to-face class time for other activities.”
“Using technology in a laboratory setting has given student's knowledge of how cutting-edge techniques are being used in modern research.”
“I use film, online conferencing, digital storytelling and digital projects to help students bring together themes and ideas from my courses.”
“I capture streaming videos of presentations and no longer use classtime for initial presentation. I am much more likely to use class time now for review, application, and question-and-answer. Blackboard has also been very helpful for a much wider range of shared readings.”
See all faculty responses to this question
See student responses to this question
See staff responses to this question
The responses to questions in this area underscore the fact that Lehigh’s faculty, students and staff are using an impressively wide range of academic technologies in pedagogically diverse ways. While not every faculty and student had positive responses (more on that below), the overwhelming majorities in both groups believe that technology is positively affecting the educational experience. Also, from the responses to questions regarding the value of these technologies and faculty attitudes towards them, it is clear that in the past five years an increasing number of faculty are finding their teaching enhanced by technology. Moreover, faculty see themselves as more willing to adopt new technologies sooner. We see all of this as evidence that Lehigh’s model to promote change and encourage such uses is working well. More, we see clear evidence that faculty, staff, and students are benefiting from the many forms of academic technology being deployed on our campus and are doing so in ways that supplement in-class learning experiences, enhance communications, mitigate the distance between students, and help faculty achieve learning objectives specific to their disciplines.