Barriers to and Strategies for Faculty Integration of IT

Abstract

At most institutions of higher education, faculty members wear many “hats.” Among other responsibilities, they are expected to teach, conduct research, and participate in institutional and public service. Within the teaching realm, faculty members have always had multiple responsibilities. For example, in addition to being content experts, they may need to become course design, assessment, communication, community or interaction experts. Instructors can be described as architects, consultants, resources, reviewers, and role models (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2006). It is primarily (though not exclusively) in the teaching realm where instructional technology (IT) is relevant. The more that faculty utilize IT, the more the non-content aspects of teaching become salient. Depending on level of faculty expertise, asking them to increase the time and effort they put into their teaching might reduce the time and effort they can devote to research, service, and other institutional requirements and responsibilities. Why should they, especially if there is very little acknowledgment or tenure/promotion credit given for incorporating IT into their teaching? This is, in part, why many faculty members may have to be dragged “kicking and screaming” into using these technologies.

Learning management system migration: An analysis of stakeholder perspectives

“…Problems encountered during the transition fell into two categories (themes): technical and faculty issues. Given the many barriers that faculty typically encounter when working with instructional technologies (Brinthaupt, Clayton, & Draude, 2009), it was not a surprise that there were several faculty-related behavioural and technical issues that emerged during the transition process. One administrative issue noted was the lack of compensation for the time required to convert courses from one LMS (form) to another.…”

IRRODL Volume 13, Number 1

“…Given the many barriers that faculty typically encounter when working with instructional technologies (Brinthaupt, Clayton, & Draude, 2009), it was not a surprise that there were several faculty-related behavioural and technical issues that emerged during the transition process. One administrative issue noted was the lack of compensation for the time required to convert courses from one LMS (form) to another.…”

13: Evolution of a Peer Review and Evaluation Program for Online Course Development

“…Because the FPAs are faculty members, they are more likely to be constrained by competing job demands than if information technology staff were serving in this capacity. As Brinthaupt, Clayton, and Draude (2009) noted, faculty interested in integrating instructional technologies experience a number of technology-related barriers (the wide range of options, the pace of changes and innovations) and academic-related barriers (time and effort, tenure and promotion concerns). Many of the challenges we experienced with implementing the FPA program are directly or indirectly related to these kinds of barriers.…”