1.0 Global Characteristics versus Individual Stories

A potential limitation of considering the integration of technology using the adopter categories derived by Rogersí (1995) diffusion theory lies in their very nature as summaries of global characteristics (i.e., innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority, and laggards). While the adopter categories are useful for simplifying the complexity of adoption patterns in a social system by describing a central exemplar or summarization of the early adopter and other categories, these "defining characteristics" also understate the uniqueness of the individual member. It is worth remembering that early adopters are unique and variable individuals who may resemble each other much less than they resemble the general subgroup characteristics. For example, one can readily appreciate that early adopters possess various and different: levels of ability and skill, beliefs and visions about the value of technology, specific personality traits, levels of risk-taking behavior, motivations to learn about technology (e.g., internal, external, environmental, opportunity), development patterns (e.g., self-taught, peer teaching, formal courses), and have implemented computers in different environments, under different conditions and with different expectations.

Sternberg (1997) profiles the views of expert professors who teach introductory psychology and have written textbooks for the course. His rationale for profiling expert teachers is that the best help comes from seasoned instructors who not only have taught for many years, but from those who have thought deeply about the course, and have come up with new and exciting ideas about how to teach it. His approach to documenting teaching excellence using narrative captured both the similarity and variability between experts, and is useful to professors across disciplines who want to improve their teaching.

Narrative stories and profiles of experts are well suited to capturing exactly those elements or details that formal models, such as theories of diffusion and adopter categories, may leave out. Personal stories, such as the profiles of expert teachers (Sternberg, 1997), capture the subjective emotions, thoughts, and beliefs of the category members. Logic generalizes, stories particularize (Norman, 1993). Diffusion theory allows one to form a global judgment and perspective, while storytelling allows one to take the personal point of view, to understand the particular aspects of expertise and experience embodied by the individual. Stories are not better than logic; logic isnít better than stories (Norman, 1993). It is appropriate to use both in the attempt to characterize early adopters of technology on campus.

2.0 Methodology

This investigation profiled individuals who are both early adopters of instructional technology and excellent teachers. This study begins to address the need for "best help from seasoned instructors" by providing role models for faculty who want to adopt technology in their teaching. This case-by-case analysis models Sternbergís (1997) framework by documenting instances where the adoption of technology and excellent teaching exist in the same individual. The rationale for collecting this information is based upon the value of providing descriptive accounts of this expertise for the benefit of faculty members who wish to develop both their technology integration and teaching skills. Post-secondary instructors from across disciplines can benefit from the collective wisdom of those who have thought deeply about and taught extensively with technology for a number of years. The individual experiences represent great diversity. Faculty members profiled here represent the social and physical sciences, as well as administration and management, and they range from being enthusiastic beginners to seasoned experts at integrating technology in their teaching and research. The individuals share a passion for excellent teaching and continue to pursue new ways to integrate technology to fundamentally improve teaching and learning.

2.1 Information Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with faculty members to gather more in-depth and specific information about the integration of technology for teaching and learning. The primary objective was to record, analyze and interpret the individual faculty memberís experiences, opinions, and perspectives with regard to integrating technology for teaching and learning. While the interview procedure used a semi-structured format guided by specific topics, it was also open-ended in nature to be responsive to emergent topics and themes. Discussion questions were drawn from ten sub-scales of a faculty survey (Jacobsen, 1998) as well as using the following topics as guides: (a) Perceptions of value of computing skills for self and students, (b) computer use patterns and skill, (c) training and staff development (if any) & modeling from mentors, (d) motivation for using technology (instructional, personal, institutional mandate), (e) experiences with technology (early positive or negative), (f) degree to which they require technology use by students, and (g) changes in use, practices, and beliefs about computers over time.

2.2 Interpretive Analysis

Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparison method, and sorted into major themes using a combination of categories derived from prior research on teaching excellence (Andrews, Garrison, and Magnusson, 1996) and from Rogersí (1995) innovation-decision process. Five categories provide a conceptual framework for the consideration of individual stories about adopting technology for teaching and learning: 1) Knowledge: values, beliefs and characteristics, as well as felt needs/problems and degree of innovativeness, 2) Persuasion: expected outcomes and benefits, as well as perceived characteristics of the innovations such as relative advantage and compatibility with existing teaching methods, 3) Decision: processes used to attain desired outcomes, and factors influencing the decision to adopt or reject the innovation, 4) Implementation: specific instructional strategies that support the processes, and 5) Confirmation: motivators and impediments to integrating computer technology, as well as descriptions of continued adoption or discontinuance.

3.0 Case Studies

The following section represents a selective summary of interview results illustrated with condensed excerpts from source transcripts. Cases are presented in no particular order, and pseudonyms are used to provide anonymity for participants.

3.1 Knowledge

The following faculty member has been awarded teaching awards at the University of Calgary, and has integrated various technologies in classroom teaching in the past few years. This individual increases their awareness-knowledge about ways to integrate technology in the classroom using a variety of means. Completing the on-line survey as part of the present investigation (Jacobsen, 1998) was treated as a learning opportunity: "I found it interesting to go through the questionnaire, because it occurred to me that there was a whole lot there that I had heard of, ...I am doing stuff like that, and I am doing that, and so on..., and there was a bunch of stuff that I hadnít really thought about using for the classroom." S/he also described a few instructional strategies being discussed by her/his department to enhance the experience of students in large enrollment (250+) sections, including CD-ROM-based study guides produced by textbook publishers and developing web-based, self-paced instructional modules.

3.2 Persuasion

This individual brings more than two decades of experience in information technology to a consideration of the characteristics of early adopters. As such, this individualís retrospective analysis of some of the issues surrounding the integration of technology is rich and in-depth. This individual was particularly interested in the innovators, the pioneers on the edge of their field who actually develop new technological tools to address certain problems:

"When I look at people, I consider the innovators. Theyíve never sat around waiting for somebody to parachute in with a solution to their problems, they go out and look for it. So, I guess the first instance is the character of the innovator, the self-starter, a desire to get on with something, not just.... There are a lot of academics who, I wonít say go through the motions, but there are a lot of academics who pursue the normal cycle in the normal way. They meet their classes, they write research papers, they supervise graduate students, and whether they contribute anything to the body of knowledge is questionable. But I think that most of the professoriate, certainly a significant portion of the professoriate are ... effective, competent, participants in process. The people that we are talking about are process-changers."

This view is reminiscent of Bereiter and Scardamaliaís (1993) work on competent teachers and expert teachers, and the difference between them in investing cognitive resources in progressive problem solving. Early adopters appear to be constantly pushing the edge of the problem, and as soon as it gets close to being solved, they prefer to reformulate the whole thing and start again with a new problem.

3.3 Decision

This faculty member has more than two decades of experience teaching with and about computers, has been recognized as an excellent teacher with several awards, and concentrates on technology as a major area of research. Excerpts from the interview transcript highlight some of the motivators and impediments to integrating technology for both early adopters and mainstream faculty. An individualís decision to adopt or reject technology for teaching and learning may be influenced by external factors in their research domain that take priority over an internal desire to focus on innovative teaching methods.

"Globally, the extrinsic reward systems have to be there. People at the assistant professor or associate professor level who want to get promoted or get tenure, will find very quickly that unless they are in a Faculty of Education or being sponsored by a Dean or Department Head who has a very strong commitment to quality teaching, they will not get any extrinsic rewards, such as merit pay, tenure, or promotion if they do research of this type ... in chemistry or physics or biology, the pay off is going to be in doing more basic research in their domain, such as NSERC funded research, or MRC funded research ... They make get intrinsic rewards from seeing better quality teaching in themselves, but to get that better quality teaching they have to invest a lot of time and effort, and sometimes their own money because there are no research dollars to do the things they want to do, and the payoff is quite minimal."

The following professor has integrated technology into teaching and learning for over five years, has been awarded teaching excellence awards on campus, and currently uses the World Wide Web as a supplement to on-campus teaching. In addition to addressing workload concerns about the time needed to learn about and integrate technology, the potential threats to employment security, and the possible influence of the annual review process, this individual, who has over twenty years of experience as a member of an academic staff, discussed the possibility that some faculty are concerned about putting their lack of skill with technology on display.

"Another part of it I think is just plain competencies, old fashioned technology skill. Knowledge and skill, and sometimes an unwillingness to look stupid, I mean that is one of the things that you have to recognize when learning a new technology is you have got to become a fool for awhile. Some of my colleagues have difficulty doing that, I donít, I never have, but that is another part of the resistance."

3.4 Implementation

The following faculty member volunteered to participate in an interview after completing the on-line survey (Jacobsen, 1998). This individual is an early adopter of technology for teaching and learning, and has past experience in the information technology industry. The discussion of this case will include attitudes and beliefs expressed by this faculty member about technology integration plans on campus and elsewhere. Even if a technology integration plan has relative advantages for the faculty, if administration attempts to force a seemingly political agenda, the plan is likely to fail. Faculty will become cynical, feel unjustifiably pressured, and not listened to. Focus will shift from the teaching and learning issues, to discussions about the perceived agenda. Faculty may seek to undermine the innovation by actively or passively rejecting the proposal. Another constituency that will be affected by top-down decision making is the student body.

"Some students, particularly those who understand the issues, are vehemently opposed [to a lap-top acquisition requirement]. Their incensed that tuition has doubled in the last five years, and they are looking at another doubling to pay for these computers. Student leaders are very aggressive in opposition to us ... we need to deal with those concerns ... we need to deal with the fact that students have an installed base of hardware that they have bought, invested substantial amounts of time and money in, and now we are going to now say its obsolete."

3.5 Confirmation

The following faculty member has been integrating technology into classroom teaching for more than two decades and conducts both basic and applied research with computer and networking technology. In order to justify the investment of time and effort, faculty members need to be convinced that their technology integration efforts are having the desired or intended effects on student learning. This individual described some of the reinforcing messages that s/he has received from the community about the integration of technology into her/his courses.

"I have had e-mail from people in lots of places saying how they like this course. I have students who have put stuff up on the web for assignments, and then I get e-mail from industry people, people in government, hospitals, all over, who say, ëOh, what you have been doing is exactly what I need to do for my research projectí. I have to write back and say ëthis was an undergraduate assignmentí, or ëI got that out of this textbookí, or whatever. They write from all over and say, ëyou are obviously a great expert on this and this and thisí, and itís nothing, it is just stuff I have put up along the way. So, I say to them, ëwell, these are the people who have developed this, why donít you talk to themí, and the students are really thrilled you know, because I mail it along to the students concerned, and I say talk to these people. ...it makes it all very authentic, because they are not just sharing it with their instructor, they are literally sharing it with other interested people in the world. And our students now do that automatically, they search for other people, and they look for list servers and newsgroups in areas that they have got an interest in, and if they have got a question, technical questions, they ask ëhas anybody had this problem, or does anybody have any research material on something or otherí, and they get all of this stuff coming back and they make contacts."

In addition to observations and evaluations of the quality of student work throughout the course, this instructor draws upon feedback from sources beyond the institution about the relative advantage and effectiveness of using technology as an on-line publishing environment.

4.0 Discussion

The cases presented here provide some insight into the development of expertise, variable experiences, dispositions, decision making, and motivation for technology integration efforts of early adopting faculty members who are also excellent teachers. These are meant to be useful accounts of the individual experience with technology integration, as well as provide insight into the beliefs and values of individual faculty members, their expectations for outcomes and benefits from using technology for teaching and learning, and a variety of instructional strategies they use to support educational processes. There is some consistency in what the individual faculty members regard as important and valuable instructional goals, and also diversity in the characteristics of instructors and their specific instructional methods for integrating technology into teaching and learning. Readers can compare and contrast characteristics and teaching methods of a faculty member who is relatively new to technology integration and a faculty member who has used technology in teaching and learning for over twenty years. The cases present different perspectives on the administrative and cross-campus issues involved in widespread adoption of technology. A goal that was accomplished with this research was the generation of descriptive accounts that provide a means for drawing parallels and contrasts between the early adopter profiles and a faculty member's own educational practice. The cases presented here were reconstructed from interviews and depended upon the individualís retrospective analysis of their technology integration efforts and teaching philosophies. Future research that attempts to profile early adopting faculty who are excellent teachers could also employ a longitudinal observation methodology to be more informative. Although it was not a goal of the present investigation, future research of this kind may also choose to profile excellent teachers who do not integrate technology into their teaching and learning to facilitate a comparison with the early adopter cases presented here.

5.0 Conclusions

The results from interviews with early adopters suggest that there is a relationship between early adoption, motivation, and excellent teaching. The motivation to integrate technology in their teaching tends to be located in the early adopterís beliefs about excellent teaching. The faculty members described ways in which technology enables them to be a better teacher, provided enriched learning opportunities and access to information, and improved communication with students. Early adopters seem to exhibit characteristics of "expert-like learning", such as progressive problem solving, belonging to second-order environments, and flow (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). They often describe or refer to their extensive experience and knowledge about the technology as a given, "it is not rocket science," which suggests they take for granted their greater literacy and fluency with computers, but might also be a sign of indifference or lack of awareness about how others struggle with the technology. However, it must also be said that most of the early adopters interviewed, who have first hand experience with the unreliability of computers and anticipate problems, demonstrate empathy for colleagues who encounter bottlenecks or problems with the technology.

Early adopters appear to regard technology knowledge and skills as one type of expertise, and pedagogical skills as another type of expertise. Some early adopters cringe at the awkward and ineffective uses of technology by their peers, and are convinced that technology cannot improve poor teaching. Early adopters interviewed in this study seem to be constantly changing teaching and learning processes, reformulating and pushing the edges of the problem, creating and designing alternate solutions, and seem to be more content with risk-taking than the status quo. Not only do early adopters appear to have the self-confidence in using technology for teaching and learning, early adopters have intrinsic motivation and a belief structure that integrating technology into their teaching is the right thing to do. An individual early adopter explained that they apply technology in their teaching because it is the solution to her/his problems, not a solution looking for a problem.

Early adopters are concerned about student evaluations of their teaching, and student access and equity issues, but many continue to integrate technology because of their enduring beliefs about the relative advantage, and the potential benefits and value of computers for students. Early adopters described some of the same impediments that other faculty highlighted, such as equipment & software failures, poorly designed classrooms, and slow and clumsy Internet connections. However, a subtle difference was that these difficulties seem to be expected, the early adopters locate the problem in the technology rather than themselves, and do not appear to be deterred by these impediments.

Because of their different levels of computer use and years of experience, each early adopter appeared to have a unique innovation-decision cycle (Rogers, 1995). For example, most of the early adopters used the WWW for demonstrations in their classroom, some of them published information to the web, and only a few required their students post work on the web. Only one described the development and delivery of a web-based course. One early adopter was convinced of the benefits of web-delivered instruction, while another only considers the web as an enhancement to face-to-face instruction. These differences are consistent with Rogersí (1995) suggestion that the same innovation may be desirable to one early adopter in one situation, but undesirable for an early adopter in another situation. Some of the early adopters described events that have lead to their current adoption patterns, and others described factors that may lead to future adoption, discontinuance, or rejection.

Current fiscal realities are impacting the early adopters as well as the mainstream. Some early adopters purchase software using personal resources, since funding is not available on campus, because they believe the application is important for instructional goals and studentsí learning processes. The adoption of presentation software is undesirable to some early adopters, not because of lack of skill, but because there appears to be little relative advantage; the impediments include poor lighting and unreliable equipment, and interactivity is perceived to be low.

Early adopters described their frustration with the annual review process and funding agencies that seem to undervalue their teaching and technology integration efforts. Further, for many early adopters, who are working at the edge of their fields and developing new teaching and learning environments, it is disheartening to be evaluated by department heads and peers who may not share the same belief structure and often fail to understand the significance of and motivation for their work. Early adopters also describe frustration with the "insufficient evidence" argument put forth by peers who do not share their beliefs about the benefits of this type of research and teaching. Two early adopters described the difficulty of doing experimental research on the benefits of technology integration with students because of equity (and ironic) concerns about the control group who does not get the technology intervention.

There were clear signals that some early adopters feel left out of the current planning and decision-making processes in their faculties or departments. Two individuals described situations in which their opinions and expertise were not been called upon by committees when major technology planning was being done and decisions were being made about the acquisition of technology for teaching and learning. One individual described a situation in which their faculty was hiring a new faculty member in the area of information and communications technology, and they were not even consulted or asked to sit on the hiring committee.

Early adopters offered some solutions for bridging the gap between themselves and mainstream faculty. One early adopter suggested providing training and support to increase the comfort level and how-to knowledge of other faculty so they can approach any piece of software and figure it out (i.e., perhaps to become more like an early adopter?). One individual called for increased standardization of hardware, software, and networking in order to make it very convenient for faculty and students to use the technology, and increase the amount of "just in time" training and support by building more critical mass technology skill and knowledge on campus. Another proposed solution from an early adopter was to give experienced faculty members course reductions so that they can invest time creating and developing technology-enhanced curricula that can be standardized throughout a department or faculty. In some cases, early adopters had strong opinions about why mainstream faculty do not adopt technology that may be inaccurate and not supported by research, such as other faculty are too old and fearful about their jobs to adopt. However, the one characteristic that all early adopters appeared to have in common was a willingness to share their knowledge and expertise in some way to encourage further adoption of technology by peers.

The interviews proved to be a valuable way to gather in-depth information from and about early adopters. Rogers (1995) calls for more diffusion research into the "why" or motivations for adopting an innovation, and interviews with early adopters extend our understanding of and provide insight into the early adopters motivation to integrate technology. A comparison of the interviews reveals that early adopters have both common and unique: (1) values, beliefs and characteristics, (2) expectations about outcomes and benefits from integrating computer technology, (3) integration processes to attain outcomes, (4) specific instructional strategies that support educational processes, and (5) motivators and impediments to integrating computer technology.

Acknowledgements

Financial assistance for this work has been made available by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and The University of Calgary Graduate Scholarships Committee. Thanks are also due to the faculty members for their participation in interviews and the examples used to illustrate this article.

References

Andrews, J., Garrison, D. R., & Magnusson, K. (1996). The teaching and learning transaction in higher education: A study of excellent professors and their students. Teaching in Higher Education, 1 (1), 81-103.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing Ourselves: An Inquiry Into The Nature And Implications Of Expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing.

Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption Patterns and Characteristics of Faculty Who Integrate Computer Technology for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Doctoral Dissertation, Educational Psychology, University of Calgary. [On-line]. Available: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/phd/diss/

Kearsley, G. (1996). Teaching excellence: The foundation for technology effectiveness. Educational Technology Review, 6, 24-27.

Norman, D. A. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes In The Age Of The Machine. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Teaching Introductory Psychology: Survival Tips From The Experts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.