Avenues for Further Research
The following were among the areas that suggest further research.
- Only members of Groups A and B were systematically asked their opinions about why they believe faculty resist instructional technology incorporation. These participants believed that the resistance was based more on intrinsic barrier rather than extrinsic. The Resisters themselves should be asked this question to see if they themselves see intrinsic barriers as the most important.
- In the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the Teaching Styles Inventory, the Delegator style for Group A resulted in a significance of .082, which, given the sample size of this study, could signify a trend. The possible trend needs further investigation.
- There is enough evidence to suggest that the expectation of this study was not disproved. An avenue for further research would be to compare the results Hogarty's Perceptions of Computers and Technology and the Grasha-Reichmann Teaching Style Inventory, but with valid sample size.
- There is enough evidence to question whether some participants may be aware of their actual teaching style, but are identifying with how they would like to be in terms of teaching style rather than how they actually are. This needs to be investigated to determine whether it is possible that teachers use methodologies that do not match their beliefs.
- Another avenue for further research but completely unrelated to instructional technology is the finding that there were no women in the group of the seven faculty who said they became a professor because of the influence of a mentor, usually at the undergraduate level.
Summary
Unless and until faculty technology resource centers at institutions of higher education connect technology very closely with pedagogic concerns, efforts toward bringing about technological implementation will remain incomplete. Such centers have attempted to improve instruction, have compensated faculty for course development, have given time, and have given support. Unfortunately, these external resources may merely be masking the real issue. If technology incorporation is indeed dependent on teaching beliefs, then perhaps faculty trainers and other administrators can devote resources to address these beliefs. There is no concrete evidence, contrary to what the literature implies, that simply providing resources to a faculty member for the development of instructional technological advances, improves, or encourages faculty technology development. If evidence exists that points to teaching beliefs being at the heart of the reluctance and resistance to incorporate instructional technology, then not only will valuable resources such as time, money, and technology be saved, but the entire process of understanding instructional technology and its role in education will be clarified. This study has clearly shown that beliefs about teaching and learning are the key to further incorporation of instructional technology.