Extrinsic Barriers
Wilson (2001) reported that respondents of her study ranked time as the primary barrier toward faculty incorporation of instructional technology. The lack of time was manifest in various ways, including lack of time to prepare course materials and lack of time to participate in technology training. Additional barriers identified by the respondents were lack of support and lack of equipment. In order to address these barriers, Wilson recommended that more institutional support was needed for faculty to successfully use distance education.
To find out what motivates and what inhibits faculty to participate in distance education, Betts (1999) surveyed a total of 532 subjects, which included faculty and deans. Betts formulated lists of the top 10 motivators for faculty already participating in distance education, the top 10 motivators for faculty who do not participate, and the top 10 motivators identified by deans. She also gathered a list of the top ten inhibiting factors. The primary inhibitor was the concern over faculty workload. Second was lack of technical support, third was lack of release time, and fourth was the concern about the quality of courses.
Butler and Sellbom (2002) surveyed 410 faculty in a mid-western university to assess what they saw as the primary barriers to faculty technology incorporation. The results indicated that even faculty with a high level of technology proficiency identified the same barriers as those with a lower level of proficiency. Their findings indicated that the biggest issue or barrier for all faculty was the reliability of the technology. The second biggest concern for the respondents was the time it takes to learn new technology, and the third item was a concern about the quality of a course that is technology-based. Butler and Sellbom then offer solutions to the above barriers. The solutions, such as increasing information about the equipment, having a technical support person available at the beginning of class, and checking equipment regularly, all point to external barriers as the critical roadblock in faculty technology incorporation. The logic of these recommendations is clear--make more resources available and the problem will be solved.
Although Chizmar and Williams (2001) did not rank their specific findings about what barriers were the biggest impediments, they did find that the number one problem seemed to be a general lack of time. A secondary problem was lack of release time, while, to the researchers surprise, faculty did not seem as interested as hypothesized in "tangible rewards and incentives for spending time developing classroom technology" (p. 23) as they had thought. This seems to contradict some research, for example, that of Betts (1999) who found that faculty were interested that work with technology become a part of tenure review, or that they receive some kind of supplemental compensation for their work with technology.
Padgett and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) suggest resources to help aid in the incorporation of technology, based on the faculty learner's style in terms of Rogers' (1962) diffusion of innovations. According to Padgett and Conceicao-Runlee, differing resources will help various faculty. The assumption here is that a faculty member faces barriers that are different depending on what level of innovator the faculty member is. For example, to increase incorporation among the early adopters, the researchers suggest increasing time and software resources. To increase incorporation among the late majority, the researchers suggest rewards, resources, incentives, and mandates.
Meltzer and Sherman (1997) list ten "commandments" for successful technology implementation. Although four of their ten commandments involve extrinsic barriers-- provide administrative support, provide time, provide a technology coordinator, provide equipment and access--they also make it clear that learning transfer must be promoted. They explain that technology must be used as a tool to better teaching and learning. The focus must be on the pedagogy, and not on turning on the machines. They stress that technology must be integrated with effective pedagogy.
In a review of literature regarding cognitive factors and faculty technology incorporation, Dusick (1998) concluded, based on the literature, that there were five "environmental" factors that influence a faculty member to use instructional technology, and seven social cognitive factors. The environmental factors were supportive administration, availability of equipment, support and sharing of resources, support staff, and training. Her social cognitive factors were attitude, self-efficacy, competence, time commitment, the risk of using technology, beliefs and perceived relevance, and lack of knowledge. She concluded that the more comfortable faculty are with technology, the more likely they are to integrate it into curricula. To gain this comfort, personal, environmental, and behavioral changes must occur.
Intrinsic Barriers
Ertmer (1999) defines incorporation barriers in terms of first and second order. She outlines first-order barriers as extrinsic to teachers, namely lack of access, insufficient time, lack of support, and so on. The assumption about these beliefs is that if enough resources are acquired, technology incorporation would occur at a greater rate and extent. Second-order barriers, on the other hand, are intrinsic and include teacher beliefs about teaching, about technology, about classroom practice, and willingness to change. These barriers impede fundamental organizational change because fundamental beliefs must first be changed.
For Rutherford and Grana (1995), the biggest barriers to faculty technology incorporation are intrinsic; external resource issues are not the great inhibitor to incorporation; rather, they believe that the single greatest impediment to faculty incorporating technology is fear. This fear takes on several different forms, including, for example, fear of change, fear of time commitment, fear of appearing incompetent, fear of technology lingo, and fear of rejection.
Honey and Moeller (1990) describe the results of their qualitative study of K-12 teachers in two districts in New York state. They did not look at faculty technology development in terms of workshops, but they did address the barriers to incorporation. They found that the teachers they interviewed could be divided into four groups based on their teaching philosophy and attitudes toward and use of technology. The first group was characterized by their student-centered philosophy, and their extensive and creative use of technology. The second group had a student-centered teaching philosophy, but members were hesitant to use technology because of personal fears and inhibitions. The third group had a more teacher-centered philosophy, and members were reluctant to use technology because they feared technology might somehow detract their authority and control, and they felt overwhelmed by educational mandates and did not have spare time to deal with technology. The last group was also student centered, and they would have liked to use technology as a teaching method, but lacked the resources in their schools to do so. Their results point to a strong correlation between teaching philosophy and technology incorporation. They found that those who are more student-centered in teaching philosophy were stronger proponents and users of technology as a teaching method.
Two other early researchers, Hirschbuhl and Faseyitan (1994), began to look at the issue of teaching philosophy as a barrier to incorporation. In their research, they felt that the important question to ask was not Why aren't faculty adopting technology? but, rather, What kind of instructors use computers for instruction? They found that computer self-efficacy, beliefs, and attitude toward computers are the significant factors in incorporation. The solution they suggested, however, was to give faculty more technology training. This solution seemed to contradict their original idea of why faculty were not adopting technology and did not focus on the beliefs a teacher held, nor address attitudes toward computers.
Hagner (2000) reported that the primary reason, almost to a person, that faculty gave for implementing technology innovations was because they thought it was the right thing to do in that students deserved to have the quality of their education improved. He also stated that about 65 percent of respondents listed student benefit and personal satisfaction of a job well done as the primary reward for implementing innovative technology.
In addition to reporting that faculty wanted more institutional support, Wilson (2001) found, although not statistically significant, that faculty were intrinsically motivated to participate in technology, specifically distance learning, because they saw it as a way to facilitate student learning. Her results reported that financial incentives for faculty received the lowest rankings as a motivator for technology development.
The research of Groves and Zemel (2000) did not address the barriers to incorporation, but rather looked at factors influencing the use of instructional technologies in teaching. They found that the most influential factor affecting use was the reliability of equipment. The second most influential factor was improved student learning; the third was increased student interest, and the fourth was advantage over traditional methods of teaching. This study seemed to reveal that it was the value of the learning that was most important to technology use. However, the demographics of this study reveal some important considerations. The subjects of this study were faculty and graduate teaching assistants, and of the total respondents, 85% reported having a computer at home. Assumingly, the results of the survey are influenced by the fact that the respondents were already using technology in some facet, either in their private or professional lives.