The First Year Study
The first year the two-week format was implemented, a pre- and post-intervention instrument was administered. Additionally, the proposals for acceptance submitted by the participants were examined and field notes taken on each participant during a campus-wide presentation of work done on their online or supplemented courses during and after the workshop were examined. The data collected from all three sources seemed to represent an emerging pattern. In discussing their teaching, some of the faculty tended to use language like, "I," "my teaching," "lecture," and other phrases that pointed toward a more instructionist/teacher-centered outlook on teaching. On the other hand, some of the faculty used language such as, "the student's learning," "they," "group work," and so on that seemed indicate a more constructionist/student-centered outlook on teaching. The first group, the instructionists, also seemed to be less enthusiastic about instructional technology, slightly more resistant to instructional technology incorporation, and more traditional in the technologies they did employ (for example, using PowerPoint to deliver a lecture). The second group, the constructionists, were more positive in their verbalization about how technology could be used to improve teaching and learning, were more excited about its incorporation, and seemed to be more creative in their current technology uses (for example using the web to seek out information).
The results obtained from the three data sources of the First Year study pointed to a possible correlation between teaching style and attitudes about instructional technology use. This correlation would be more fully explored in the study that was conducted the following year.
The Second Year Study
In the summer of 2003, a study compared the results of a Hogarty's Perceptions of Computers and Technology to the Grasha-Reichmann Teaching Style Inventory (Appendix B). These instruments were selected to determine whether there was a correlation between teaching style and attitudes about instructional technology. Grasha's work with teaching styles is prominent and respected, and Hogarty's Perceptions of Computers and Technology (Appendix C) has been tested and validated through common factor analysis (Hogarty, Lang, & Kromrey, 2003). For this study, the wording of particular titles, sections, and questions in Hogarty's Perceptions of Computers and Technology was slightly modified (Appendix A) to make it applicable to higher education. For example, "General School Support" was changed to "General Institutional Support, " and "on-site computer specialist" was changed to "technical support staff."
Three sections of Hogarty's instrument are related to integration of computers and technology in the schools. These three sections are teacher software use, student software use, and integration of computers in the classroom. In the modified version, the sections on student software use and integration of computers in the classroom were omitted due to the appropriateness of these questions for higher education. Another two sections of the instrument were devoted to measure support of computer use. In the modified version, these sections were slightly modified to reflect the administrative structures of higher education. One section of the instrument measured teacher confidence and comfort using computers, while the final section of the instrument focused on teacher attitudes toward computers.
The data were collected from 11 higher education faculty members taking part in a two-week technology and teaching workshop. The data were collected via Hogarty's instrument on the first day, and via Grasha's Teaching Style inventory, given on the second day of the workshop. The results of the Grasha-Reichmann Teaching Style Inventory were that all participants tested either high or moderate on all styles—no one was low in any category. Therefore, the results reflect that the high in each particular category was compared to the moderate in each category. Essentially, this means that if one person scored high on the Formal Authority scale, they were compared to someone who scored moderate on the same scale in terms of their answer to Hogarty's questionnaire. A paired samples t-test was run and the results were significant at the .05 level. The following registered as statistically significant.
Formal Authority:
- High Formal Authority were less inclined to use application software (.014)
- High Formal Authority were less inclined to use technology as a research tool (.082)
- High Formal Authority were less inclined to use technology as a productivity tool (.048).
Expert:
- High Experts were less inclined to use application software (.033).
- High Experts were less inclined to use instructional software (.017)
- High Experts were less inclined to use technology as a research tool (.082).
- High Experts were less inclined to use technology as a productivity tool (.008).
- High Experts were less inclined to use technology in cooperative group settings (.029).
Delegator:
- High Delegators had a positive affinity toward computer use (.043).
Personal Model:
- High Personal Models had a higher frequency of using technology to promote student centered learning (.045).
- High Personal Models had a higher frequency of using technology to aid in decision-making and problem solving (.013).
- High Personal Models had a lower frequency of using technology for fun and entertainment (.026).
The results of the pilot study clearly point to a possible correlation between teaching style and attitudes toward and use of technology.