Implications
This study looked at three groups of faculty in terms of instructional technology incorporation: the Leaders, the Aspirers and the Resisters. The Leaders already believe in instructional technology as a teaching methodology and are putting that belief into practice in the classroom. The Aspirers similarly already believe in instructional technology and are working toward its incorporation. The Resisters generally believe in the value of instructional technology, but do not, for a variety of reasons, many of which are intrinsic, incorporate it. The six major findings have implications for resource centers in terms of assisting faculty in the incorporation of instructional technology.
Finding number one found: There is an inconsistency between the way many faculty perceived themselves as teachers and how they scored on the Grasha-Reichmann Teaching Style Inventory. This finding indicates that faculty resource centers must first deal with the issue of who a person is as a teacher before working on the incorporation of instructional technology. Since faculty may have a misperception of the relationship between who they think they are as a teacher and who they actually are, the first step for resource centers should be in working with faculty to clarify this disparity. Once a faculty member has an accurate idea of who they are, including knowledge of their teaching practices and beliefs, resource centers can then work within individual frameworks to assist in the incorporation of instructional technology. The implication here is that resource centers must change their initial focus and deal more with teaching issues that address intrinsic issues rather than with external technology or resource issues.
Finding number two found: There is a difference in teaching methodology among Groups A, B and C. One implication for resource centers in terms of this finding would be to begin to work within each individual's parameters regarding teaching methodology. It is unlikely that teaching instructionist faculty to use a constructionist instructional technology would meet with much success. Instead, energy and resources would be better spent in working within the faculty member's teaching style and beliefs by choosing an appropriate methodology in which to incorporate instructional technology. What this means is that instead of teaching an instructionist faculty member how to use a constructionist instructional technology, for example, electronic group discussions via a chat room, resource centers could teach that faculty member how to incorporate instructionist technologies like using graphics in a PowerPoint presentation. This kind of change would focus on teaching faculty instructional technologies that fit within their belief systems. Once they are exposed to some technologies, they may be more disposed to further investigate other instructional technology possibilities.
Finding number three found: There are differences among groups in terms of changing teaching methodology. Group C came into the professoriate with clearly defined beliefs about teaching and exhibited those beliefs in their teaching methodologies. They continued with their established methodologies and changed very little, if at all over the years. This very fact is troubling on two levels. First, times and students change, and so should teaching methodologies change in order to meet the needs of those students (Oblinger, 2004) . As Catherine, Group A, said, "Times change, learners change." Second, how can we get members of Group C to incorporate instructional technology if they have a history of never experimenting with or changing their traditional methodology? We are asking them to do something with technology that they have never even done with other teaching methods. We are asking them to reexamine the fundamental aspect of who am I? as a teacher. This is a tall request. It is also not easy.
There are, however, some findings from this study that can be addressed in a more straightforward manner. Finding number 4 stated that There are differences among groups in beliefs about the benefits of instructional technology incorporation. The differences are critical in encouraging faculty to incorporate instructional technology. It is important for faculty developers and trainers to understand the faculty members' existing beliefs about instructional technology. It is also important to realize that no faculty member comes to instructional technology as a tabula rasa, and that each faculty member has beliefs in regards to instructional technology. Once those beliefs are known, which is, in the case of this finding, determining whether the faculty member sees instructional technology as a tool for information or as a tool for instruction, then the trainer can work within this parameter and meet the expectations and needs of the faculty member. It is important to begin with the faculty member's beliefs and understanding of instructional technology, and then work to shift that faculty member into a more instructional belief of technology, since using technology in the classroom should be about more than simply information gathering and dissemination.
The question then becomes more focused. Exactly how can we change these beliefs, especially when research shows that beliefs, especially those held for a long time, are resistant to change (Pajares, 1992) . Prawat (1992) argued that for change to occur, the faculty member must be dissatisfied with his/her existing beliefs in some manner, and he/she must be able to connect the new beliefs with previous beliefs. Zhao and Cziko (2001) assert that in order for faculty to incorporate instructional technology, three conditions must be met. First, the faculty member must believe that using technology is more effective in meeting higher-level goals than other methods. Second, the teacher must believe that using technology will not cause disturbances to other higher-level goals. Last, the faculty member must have appropriate ability and resources. Essentially, what this research means is that the faculty member must want to change because of a perceived need, and must be able to change in a way that fits into his/her existing framework of who am I? in terms of teaching. Precisely how to do this is not clear, but may be related to the implications of the next finding of this study.
Implications of finding number 5: There are more intrinsic barriers to faculty instructional technology incorporation than extrinsic is critical in understanding and accelerating faculty technology incorporation, and seems to contradict current research. The research that has been done to determine why faculty choose not to readily incorporate instructional technology into their teaching has pointed almost exclusively to external barriers such as a lack of institutional and financial support, a lack of time, a lack of technical knowledge, and a lack of technology support (Betts, 1999; Butler & Sellbom, 2002; Chizmar & Williams, 2001; Groves & Zemel, 2000; Parker, 1997; Rutherford & Grana, 1995; Skeele & Daly, 1997; Wetzel, 1993). This study speculates that the real barriers inhibiting incorporation are intrinsic, and that beliefs about teaching must be examined, discussed, and possibly changed before effectively addressing extrinsic barriers. The key question, then, is, How do we change someone's beliefs? Jeffrey, Group B, may have an easy answer.
I have a friend at another university who is an extremely clever man, much cleverer than I could ever pretend to me. But he won't touch technology and I think part of it is the luddite rebel in him. The other part of it is just the fact that nobody has really tried doing a good job of really sitting down with him and pointing out the benefits.
If we follow Prawat's (1992) ideas that to change, one must want to change, and that change must fit into an existing belief framework, what we, as faculty technology trainers and developers must do is work to change existing beliefs by working within this model. What this may mean is that we need to start with the faculty member's current teaching methodology, critique it, convince the faculty member that there are ways to make that methodology more effective, perhaps by, as Jeffrey suggests, showing the faculty member the possibilities, and then gradually work to move that faculty member toward instructional technology. During this process, we can give the faculty member time, money, knowledge, reward, and other resources, but our focus must be on the intrinsic—fear, change, and fear of change. This means a fundamental shift from the way we currently work with faculty. This also may mean a change in the way higher education as an institution deals with technology.
Asmar (2002) argues that for changes in teaching practice to take place at the tertiary level, which would include incorporating instructional technology, support must come from the institution's hierarchy. Change in teaching methodology is not something that can be done in a piecemeal fashion. What the implications here are that the culture of teaching itself must be changed, and along with these cultural changes would come changes in beliefs about the benefits and usefulness of instructional technology.
What does this mean for faculty technology trainers and developers? Clearly, our job with Group A is already done, if indeed we ever had much contact with this group. Group B already believes in the benefits, and therefore we can address the extrinsic barriers. It is, therefore, on Group C that we need to concentrate. If we, as technology professionals, believe that instructional technology can benefit the teaching and learning process, and if we believe that it is important for us to reach as many faculty as possible and to entice more faculty into instructional technology incorporation, and if we believe that the rate of incorporation among faculty is too slow, then it is the members of Group C on whom we must concentrate.
"To teach an individual something new means to effect conceptual change in his or her personal beliefs,"(Kagan, 1992). Kagan's point is very powerful. What we are trying to do as faculty trainers and developers is to convince faculty to change, perhaps even on a fundamental level, the way they have been teaching and, more importantly, the way they believe they should teach. After we have convinced them to view teaching in a new way, we will need to convince them that technology is a methodology that is valuable and useful. As Neal pointed out, "Most faculty members are slow to adopt new technology simply because they are not convinced that using it will improve their students' learning" (1998, p. B4) . Robert from Group A also makes this point.
I think that technology requires you to change the way you teach, it's not so that you are using technology, it is how you are using it. And that means you have to view your students differently, view your role as a teacher differently, that's one thing I learned in some of the workshops is the whole idea of active learning, I was doing it, but I didn't have a name for it. It's the idea that the students is no longer passive listening but engaging in the process of learning something. The old way of just presenting the lectures and giving the exams and getting it over with is easier, so, until people say, "I'm ready to change" or "my teaching assignments require me to change" and the university has a policy in place to encourage technology, we are not going to see that.
Michael, Group C, also makes this point when he spoke of faculty resistance to instructional technology incorporation. "Some of them [colleagues] are resistant for the perfect reason. [It] is that they love to force themselves to really teach." His implication here is that using instructional technology as a teaching method is possibly a crutch that faculty are using to avoid developing themselves as teachers. His other implication here is that using instructional technology is perhaps not even real teaching.
The implications of the last major finding of this study, The discussion of student learning styles is not uniform across groups are various and difficult to pinpoint exactly. However, what is clear is that some students are missing out on important educational opportunities if they are continually being taught in a manner that is not consistent with their learning style. The problem is, as evidenced by the results of this study, that the prevalence and importance of faculty discussion of student learning styles is not consistent. Learners are changing, and with that change comes a change in style of learning (Oblinger, 2004) . The way students learned in the past and they way in which they were taught may no longer be the best way for today's student. It is important that faculty are aware of individual student learning style differences, and this is an area in which resource centers can offer much assistance. Once more faculty become aware of differences, then these differences can be addressed and the process of teaching and learning improved.
In summary, it is clear that no longer are workshops that focus on the extrinsic enough to reach those Resisters in Group C. These faculty need to see how and why they should incorporate instructional technology. They need to become convinced instructional technology is a better way. To convince them, we, as technology trainers, will have to start with their beliefs about teaching and about who they are as a teacher.