Qualitative Instrument Results
There were twelve questions on the qualitative instrument that were designed to elicit information about teacher practices and beliefs. Three of these questions, why the participant became a professor, what the participant likes best about his/her job, what the participant's philosophy of teaching is, were presented in the above descriptions of the participants. Because the philosophies of teaching were so varied, it was impossible to find commonalities that can be generalized among them. However, there were many shared commonalities to why the participant became a professor and what he/she likes best about his/her job.
Many participants never intended to become professor, but were led to this academe because of a variety of factors (Table 9). From Group A, six did not intend to become professors; two had backgrounds in teaching before becoming professors, and two had college mentors who steered them toward the professoriate, and therefore intended to become a professor. From Group B, two did not intend to become professors, five had backgrounds as teachers before entering higher education, and three planned, or intended, to become professors. From Group C, three did not intend to pursue this profession, three had backgrounds as teachers, and four intended to enter academia.
Group A clearly had the largest number of professors who had not planned to become professors, nor did they have a background in teaching, but for whatever personal reason, ended up in the professoriate. At the same time, Group B had the largest number with a prior background in teaching, but this group also had the largest number from the various fields in education.
From the thirty interviews, there were six primary aspects that the participants liked best about their jobs. These things were working with students or teaching, research, making a difference in a student's life, the "light bulb" factor when students understand a concept, the freedom/flexibility that higher education affords, or the opportunities for self-learning (Table 10). In Group B, half of its members liked working with students or teaching the best. Also, equally across groups, there were many who said that the freedom or flexibility of working in higher education is their favorite aspect. Another aspect that was spread across groups was the opportunity to make a difference in a student's life. Groups A and C had three members saying this was their favorite aspect, while Group B had one member in this category. Only two faculty members mentioned liking the research aspect of their jobs the best.
There were many varied aspects that the participants liked best about teaching. In fact, in most instances, there was little agreement on the most favorite aspect. Table 11 lists the aspect that narrowly emerged as dominant in each group. Of special note is that the aspect listed as dominant in from Group A was not mentioned by anyone in Group B or in Group C. Likewise, the dominant aspect in Group B was not mentioned by anyone in Group A or in Group C. Finally, the dominant aspect of Group C was mentioned only once, by one member of Group A.
There was, however, more agreement on what the participants liked least about teaching (see Table 12). The members of Group A disliked assessment (giving a student a grade) the most, but only one disliked grading papers or homework the most. Conversely, in Group B, half of the participants disliked grading papers or homework, and only one disliked assessment the greatest. The dominant aspect from Group C, negative student attitudes and behaviors, was not mentioned by anyone from Group A or Group B.
The participants in the study were asked to describe a typical class session for their favorite class. They were asked to describe what happened after the students came into the class and sat down at their desks or tables. All the mentioned methodologies were then added up, and six instructional methods were found to be the most common (see Table 13). Those methods are instructional technology, the lecture, question and answer sessions, discussions in either small or large groups, group work, and active learning. There seemed to be a difference in method implementation across groups in two areas. Instructional technology was the first area, and this was expected since the participants were grouped according to their instructional technology use. The second method that showed a difference across groups was the lecture method. In Group A, only six members mentioned using the lecture. In Group B, seven members mentioned this technique, but in Group C, nine out of ten members mentioned using the lecture as a teaching technique for a typical class session.
After describing typical methodologies for the class, the participants were asked to think back to the first time they had taught the class and to try and remember if their teaching methods had changed, and if they now teach the class differently (Table 14). Most faculty had taught their class many times, with the lowest number of times taught being only two by a member of Group B, and the highest was over 70 by a member of Group C. Approximately half of the participants, 16 total, said that there had not been a significant change in methods used in the course from the first time they taught it until now. Of the 16 that did not change methods, 10 were from Group C. Stated differently, no one in Group C had changed their teaching methods even if they had been teaching the course for years. Group C was made up exclusively of tenured professors, so the assumption is that each one of them has been teaching for a number of years.
Because the responses were so varied and so numerous, and seemed not to fit within existing frameworks, I grouped and labeled the results of the benefits of using instructional technology (see Table 15) into two categories, informational and instructional. Examples of benefits that fit into the informational category are information, convenience, flexibility, reduction of waste, research, discipline specific software, and immediate access. Benefits in the instructional category include learning styles, student motivation, entertainment, facilitation, tiered learning, peer learning, guiding, challenging student thinking, active learning and real world connection and learning. The responses from each faculty member in each group were coded and categorized into two groups according to whether the faculty response was deemed to be more informational or instructional. Some faculty identified the benefits as equally informational and instructional. The results indicate that fewer members of Groups A and B saw the benefits of instructional technology incorporation as purely informational as compared to Group C. However, in terms of instruction, the benefits were distributed relatively evenly across groups.
On the drawback side of instructional technology incorporation, there were some developing themes (Table 16). All faculty responses to this question were noted and therefore the responses in each group do not necessarily sum to ten. The themes were, technical difficulties including machines not working, programs crashing, and the like; excessive technology, which means using more technology than is needed for the task at hand; the lack of interaction between teacher and student and among students; style over substance, which means using technology to be "flashy" and look good rather than because it is what is needed at the time; and comfort/adaptability of the technology user when incorporating instructional technology. The majority of Group A saw a major drawback of instructional technology use to be the technical difficulties encountered. In Group C, however, only one participant agreed with this drawback. The other category with a substantial difference among the groups was the comfort and adaptability factor associated with incorporating instructional technology. Four members of Group A claimed this as a drawback, where no one else in either group listed this aspect. Interestingly, only two out of the thirty mentioned time as a drawback. Only one mentioned lack of reward.
Table 17 lists what members of Groups A and B saw as the obstacles to "Resisters" not incorporating instructional technology. Group C was not asked this question, so the responses are from Group A and B only. All responses were noted and many faculty listed more than one obstacle, so the numbers do not necessarily sum to ten. From both groups, eight believed the dislike of change was a major factor in resistance, six believed fear was a factor, three believed comfort with the technology contributed to resistance, four believed that their colleagues did not incorporate technology because they wanted to keep the methodology "status quo" of the lecture and other non-technology methods, and seven believed that other faculty resist incorporation because those faculty do not believe that technology will be a beneficial teaching tool or method. Additionally, five said it was a lack of time, two said a lack of knowledge, two said it was due to technical problems, and four believe a lack of reward, specifically a financial reward, prevents faculty from incorporating. The first five factors in this table, change, fear, comfort, status quo and benefits, deal with intrinsic barriers, while the last four factors, time, technical knowledge, technical problems and reward deal with extrinsic barriers.
Although not specifically asked a question about learning styles, many of the participants discussed learning styles and mentioned them either positively or negatively in terms of their connection to instructional technology (see Table 18). The number who mention learning style begins with the majority from Group A, and then slowly declines until in Group C only two participants discussed learning styles.
In Group A, there were nine faculty who view technology as a teaching tool (see Table 19). Whether the faculty member viewed technology as a teaching tool was determined by looking at responses to various questions and then categorizing the coded responses. Some faculty explicitly stated that they view technology as a tool, like, for example, Richard from Group A who said, "and what I saw in this technology stuff was just a set of tools." Or, like Maria from Group B who said, "technology is the only tool that you can use to get some specific contents, specific kinds of activities and experiences." And Alex from Group C who said, "technology is a process and a means, not an endÉ" Others implied that they view it as a tool by how they use it to achieve a stated objective. For example, Elizabeth in Group A talks about using technology to engage the student and thereby improve the learning process. Joseph, from Group B, discusses technology allowing him to incorporate graphics and visuals into his instruction. Michael, in Group C, is able to disseminate more information to his students because of the tool of technology. There is a higher number of faculty from Group A, all but one member, in fact, who view technology as a teaching tool. In Group B, a large number, eight, view technology as a tool, which in Group C, only slightly more than half view technology in the same way.
