Faculty Technology Use Report 2002-2003 |
|
| Executive Summary | |
The Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) recommended that the Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment (DIIA) be allocated funds in 2002-2003 to conduct an assessment and evaluation of the use of technology in teaching and learning. The DIIA staff met with the Vice President for Information Technology to discuss the assessment concept and goals in September, 2002. The first priority was to design a study to establish baseline measures, using multiple methods. Four areas for assessment and evaluation were defined: (a) an analysis of ITAC vision plans, (b) an assessment of faculty use of technology, (c) a survey of faculty use of course management software, and (d) a collection and evaluation of existing models and research results. To guide the work, research questions for each of the four areas were developed. The results summarized below describe the key trends identified by the assessment and evaluation endeavor.
The top five technology funding requests submitted during 2000–2003 were for (a) classroom improvement, (b) lab upgrades and teleconference facilities, (c) increased network capacity, (d) hardware, software, and peripherals, and, in a tie for fifth, (e) services such as help desk improvement (2000-2002) and (f) curriculum development (2002-2003).
The top five technology requests recommended for funding by reviewers during 2000–2002 were for (a) classroom improvement, (b) lab upgrades and teleconference facilities, (c) increased network capacity, (d) hardware, software, and peripherals, and (e) curriculum development.
The top five self-reported expenditures for 2001–2002 were for (a) increased network capacity, (b) lab upgrades and teleconference facilities, (c) hardware, software, and peripherals, (d) classroom improvement, and (e) curriculum development.
In general purpose classrooms, (a) less than 40% of the faculty used technology equipment regularly, (b) the most frequently used items were an overhead projector or a document camera, and (c) versatility of equipment and familiarity with using it appear to be related to use rate.
In technology-enhanced classrooms, (a) less than 40% of the faculty surveyed used technology equipment regularly, (b) the faculty used the document camera or computers more frequently than other equipment, and (c) inadequate training in use of the equipment, unfamiliarity with how to incorporate the equipment into teaching, and availability of equipment seemed to be factors related to the use pattern.
In technology-enhanced classrooms, (a) the document camera was used the most frequently for the most types of uses and (b) computer-projected PowerPoint was used the next most frequently for the next most types of uses.
Students prefer multiple uses of technology in classroom instruction, say that the quality of the use of technology is as important as the quantity, and seem to prefer that technology supplement the lecture by providing examples.
Faculty opinions about effects on student learning are mixed. Several faculty report using technology to provide more “real-time” data, either through accessing the Web or using simulations in class. Several faculty had students use technology to make presentations in class. Students reported the use of the PowerPoint and the document camera to give examples, organize lecture outlines, and to present figures and graphs for visualization.
Blackboard is the most used course management tool at UT Austin.
Content management, discussion board, and online grade book are the most frequently used features in course management tools.
For the most part, respondents seemed satisfied with their specific course management tool and its features.
A centralized area in the course management tool for course materials distribution and communications seemed to improve teaching by facilitating course materials organization and communication with students.
Respondents believe that student learning was improved by centralized access in the course management tool to course materials, which allowed students to focus on lectures instead of taking notes, and that communication tools such as chat and the discussion board supported reflective learning and collaboration.
The capability in the course management tool to post course materials, test review materials, and grades and the capability to communicate with the students as a group saved respondents’ time.
More than half of the respondents agreed that centralized support in using the course management tool from the Center for Instructional Technologies and the Center for Teaching effectiveness was adequate, and about one-third thought college- or schoolbased support was adequate.
When asked what would be of most benefit in helping them use technology more effectively, respondents selected course development time, followed by faculty instructional technology training, and then instructional development support.
Based on these results and conclusion drawn from them, the following recommendations are submitted.
- Continue to build literature and resources pertaining to assessment models and results from the work of others.
- Replace overhead projectors with document cameras.
- Increase training opportunities for faculty in the use of instructional equipment.
- Offer more introductory course management software training sessions.
- Offer advanced course management software training that focuses on improved teaching and communication.
- Develop best practices resource for course management software to assist instructors.
- Develop a discussion board for dialog pertaining to course management software teaching and learning experiences.
- Increase instructional support for incorporating technology in course development.
- Increase course development opportunities to facilitate incorporating the use of technology in instruction.
- Establish a common accounting method for vision plan funding requests and reports in order to facilitate future analysis of expenditure trends.