Workshops with an Extrinsic Focus
As the World Wide Web was not a significant tool in higher education instruction prior to 1994, there is a scarcity of literature that discusses the effectiveness of faculty technology workshops before this time. Millis (1994) , one of the earliest to publish on this issue, discusses what was considered to be typical for the time and for the few years following. She claims that the primary necessity for faculty in terms of instructional technology was to "be trained to integrate and enhance their syllabi, lecture notes, and typical hand-outs, transparencies or slides through the new digital technology by creating richer, more interactive materials" (p. 456). In her mind, technology is important because it can enhance the ways in which the "product" is disseminated. Donovan and Macklin (1998) reported that initial efforts to support faculty at the University of Washington consisted mainly of workshops and faculty showcases. These workshops were "drop-in" and could be led by faculty, staff, or graduate students.
In 1998, Xavier University began a series of summer workshops which were designed at the time when the "early majority" was becoming more and more interested in instructional technology, and the goal was for faculty to develop an instructional technology enhancement in the course (Cagle & Hornik, 2001). The faculty concentrated on incorporating technology into one aspect of one course. The amount of workshop time varied slightly over the course of the three years, and faculty were compensated for their participation. Although Xavier did incorporate pedagogy into the workshops, their basic focus was extrinsic information technologies.
Focusing on the idea of a more revolutionary approach to faculty technology development, Zvacek (2001) encourages the use of "guerilla tactics" to persuade faculty to incorporate technology. Zvacek outlines five methods toward this end and urges developers to move among the people, use persuasive techniques, have constant activity, employ a judicial use of retreat or release time, and work with "regular" forces. Although her techniques sound appealing, and the metaphor she uses appeals even more, the impetus is still placed on the developer, not the faculty member. Zvacek is still addressing time, money, and resources as the answer to issues of faculty incorporation.
Although some institutions like Xavier were starting to understand the importance of dealing with the intrinsic, the enthusiasm and resourcefulness of the early majority technology adoptors gave the illusion that resource centers were fulfilling faculty needs. Thurston, Stuve, Pianfetti, and Thomas (1998) still viewed technology as paramount; their workshops were the typical fare of the day, namely, two or so hours long with consecutive workshops for more complex topics, and were technology driven with no mention of pedagogy. Graduate students, who may have had little formal training in instructional technology and perhaps very little experience in teaching, even led the workshops occasionally.
Additionally, Shapiro and Cartwright (1998) found in their research that technology was central and pedagogy was less important or even absent. "In most cases, targeted workshops assist faculty in gaining skills in specific areas such as building a Web page for their class syllabus, or using e-mail to support class projects" (p.50). These workshops were working toward technology as a means for information dissemination rather than technology as an educational tool.
Padgett and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) created a faculty technology-training program called "The Virtual Guild," in which they attempted to address faculty technology incorporation in various ways based on the faculty member's place in Rogers' (1962) diffusion of innovations scale. In their training model, the emphasis was on technology instruction for accelerating incorporation. Even though the researchers understood that each faculty member moved toward technology from a different standpoint and beginning point, their solution to greater and more extensive incorporation appeared to be based in technology only.
White and Myers (2001) reported on a workshop they had conducted in the summer of 1999, in which they trained faculty in the use and implementation of WebCT. This workshop focused on the technical aspects of using this delivery format. Although their research was primarily interested in student perceptions and feedback, they did report that the faculty had found that time was the main issue of concern in developing the online instruction. The faculty noted that more time was needed to learn WebCT, to create and upload new course information, to provide student training in the use of the program, and to monitor and update the existing course. These comments again focus on the extrinsic or resource-based issues and barriers to incorporation of technology in instruction.
Much like the difference between learning to fish and being handed a fish, Overholtzer (2001) attempts to address extrinsic incorporation barriers by shifting the focus of faculty technology instruction from training to equipping. Instead of using a task-oriented approach, this method will empower faculty to learn on their own by focusing on the process of learning.
In their "Twelve Hints for a Workshop Program," Candiotti and Clarke (1998) suggest, to be successful, that faculty be compensated with a stipend, not release time, in order to address the barrier of lack of time or money. They do not, however, give a reason for this suggestion. Another point they also stress is the importance of technical support for these faculty learners.
Kaminiski (2000) details three varying workshops conducted at a large Rocky Mountain university. These workshops were focused on technology and when the worships were modified over the years, they were changed in terms of length rather than a refashioning on an aspect other than technology. Kaminiski reported that faculty indicated that release time and individualized support were the most important factors for their own perceived success. Although the article ostensibly reports successes of the workshops, there is no research to assert this claim. The author claims that the most important aspect for successful integration of technology is to support that integration in the workshop. Again, the focus is on the technological integration rather than pedagogic.
Further review of the literature finds these two patterns repeating. There is a prevalence of workshops that focus on technology and extrinsic barriers, and few that make an attempt to address intrinsic ones. The above workshops and research all attempted to address a systemic approach to the fixing the problem of faculty technology incorporation. Although convincing in design and scope, there is little empirical research to support the results of the workshops. The focus was generally on improving the quality and scope of technology training. If training could be improved system wide, the thought was that faculty would more readily adopt technology into instruction. What these systemic changes failed to realize, however, is that faculty are individuals who are quite purposeful and independent. A systemic change, particularly a change based purely on extrinsic factors, is not the most successful method for progress. As Cuban concluded, "It is a belief system, not an economic or empirical warrant, that determines failure or success," (cited in Holloway, 1998, p. 1110) . What must be addressed is not the extrinsic, but rather the intrinsic.
Workshops with an Intrinsic Focus
As early as 1999, the University of Central Florida understood the need to focus faculty on what faculty do: teach. Sorg et al. (1999) reported on a workshop model that put faculty at the center of an extensive network of people, including programmers, assessment experts, instructional designers, software engineers, and digital media designers. The role of the faculty member was to concentrate on the course itself, and not on the technology needed to transform that course into an online environment. In the workshop model they describe, faculty are offered an eight-week course in which they develop their skills in web-based instruction, not web-based technology. In the workshop sessions, faculty explore instructional tools and modules.
Littlejohn and Sclater (1999) discuss how Strathclyde University in Glasgow dealt with the difficulty of addressing the intrinsic barriers. The University realized the need for a conceptual framework in which to plan the workshops and determined that the focus had to be placed on the teaching and learning, the intrinsic, rather than the technology. "Faculty are continually invited, through the use of face-to-face and electronic discussions, to think about how the technologies would best be used to enhance the student learning process," (1999, p. 216). Additionally, each workshop began with a discussion of pedagogic issues.
The literature shows that there has been an abundance of attempts to address extrinsic incorporation barriers and to induce faculty to incorporate more technology in a less laborious manner. There has, however, been little quantitative gain in technology incorporation when compared to the incorporation rates in professions outside of academe (Dusick, 1998) . The reason for this lack of gain is that faculty technology development has been focused on the extrinsic barriers. Since addressing the extrinsic barriers to incorporation has not yielded significant results in terms of the increase in the number of faculty using instructional technology when compared to other professions, clearly the most reasonable place to look for the actual barriers is to look into intrinsic teacher beliefs. As Zhao and Cziko point out,
Most notable perhaps is the assumption that the lack of teacher involvement in technology has been caused by the lack of suitable training and thus providing more opportunities to develop technological skills to teachers will lead to more technology integration. While at first consideration this may seem quite reasonable, upon closer examination this assumption becomes problematic. The assumed direction of the relationship between use of technology and training could be just the reverse. In other words, it would be as reasonable, if not more so, to assume that teachers did not want to receive training in technology because they saw no need to use it. (2001, p. 6)
Through a framework called Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), Zhao and Cziko (2001) explain why, even with an abundance of material resources and institutional support, faculty are still not using instructional technology. This framework posits that barriers to incorporation are not external, but internal, and in order for faculty to incorporate technology, three conditions must be met. First, the faculty member must believe that 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 must believe that he or she has the ability and resources to use technology. These higher-level goals are part of the theory of PCT, which is that everyone has internal goals that they strive to meet. In this sense, all living organisms control perceptual input, not motor output (Zhao & Cziko, 2001). This control is accomplished by acting on environmental conditions in an attempt to keep perceptions matching reference conditions, or what the organism thinks those conditions should be. In other words, people interact with their environment in a way that matches their perception of reality. In terms of technology, a person would choose to use technology if it helped him/her achieve higher-level goals, in this case, learning. Zhao and Cziko state,
One reason for him [the teacher] to start thinking about using technology might be that he feels that somehow his teaching can and should be improved. If he perceives that his instruction is excellent, his perceived input matches his reference condition (goal), he will not change anything he is currently doing. (2001, p. 13)
This would mean that to change a person's attitude about technology use, the first step would be to discuss teaching and the effectiveness of the individual's teaching. Only then, and only if there is a perceived need for improvement, will technology incorporation be possible.