Interactive Multimodal Technology-mediated Distance Education ...

QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Birch, Dawn P. and Burnett, Bruce M. (2008) Interactive Multimodal Technologymediated Distance Education Courses: The Academic's Perspective. Japanese Journal of Educational Media Research 15(1):pp. 43-60.

© Copyright 2008 (please consult author)

研究ノート

教育メディア研究　Vol. １５，No. １，43−60

Interactive Multimodal Technology-mediated Distance Education Courses: The Academic’s Perspective

BIRCH, Dawn（University of Southern Queensland, Australia）

BURNETT, Bruce（Queensland University of Technology, Australia）

Advances in educational technology and the continued emergence of the Internet as a major source of global information have encouraged educators to take advantage of this growing array of resources and move beyond traditional face-to-face and distance education correspondence modes toward a rich technology-mediated e-learning environment. Moreover, ready access to multimedia at the desk-top has provided an opportunity for educators to develop flexible, engaging and interactive learning resources, incorporating multimedia and hypermedia. This paper presents the findings of a study that investigated individual factors influencing academics’ adoption and integration of educational technology at an Australian university, for the purpose of developing interactive multimodal technology-mediated distance education courses. These distance education courses include a range of multimodal learning objects and multiple representations of content in order to cater for different learning styles and modal preferences, with the aims of providing a more inclusive curriculum that more closely reflects the on-campus learning experience and improved learning outcomes. Individual factors influencing academics’ development of these courses included pragmatic, opportunistic and personal motivations and concerns. Implications for distance education providers and individual marketing educators arising from these factors and subsequent recommendations are presented.

Keyword：distance education, e-learning, educational innovation, marketing education INTRODUCTION

focused on the experience of a major distance education and e-learning provider in Australia,

The focus of the qualitative study reported

where in 2003, academics commenced the

in this paper was on academics’ development

process of converting traditional print

of interactive multimodal technology-

based distance education materials to an

mediated distance education courses. An

interactive multimodal technology-mediated


e-learning format. This paper focuses on

course uses multimedia and information and

individual factors, including pragmatic,

communication technology (ICT) to develop

opportunistic and personal motivations and

engaging and interactive course resources

concerns influencing academics’ development

and uses multiple presentation modes

of interactive multimodal technology

to represent the content knowledge and

mediated distance education courses. The

appeal to different learning styles and modal

paper commences with an explanation of

preferences (Birch & Sankey 2008). The study

the institutional context for the study. Next,

− 43 −

the transformation of distance education and

reduce the considerable costs of printing and

the development of interactive multimodal

distributing print-based packages. Marketing

technology-mediated courseware for distance

academics at the university embraced this

education students are discussed. Then,

opportunity and led the way by converting

individual factors which influence academics

the entire undergraduate marketing program

to develop interactive multimodal technology

to interactive multimodal technology-mediated

mediated distance education courses are

format. Despite the uptake by the majority of

addressed. Finally, implications are discussed

marketing academics, by the end of 2007, less

and recommendations for distance education

than ten percent of the 1000 courses on offer

institutions and individual marketing educators

at the university, across five faculties, had been

are provided.

converted to technology-mediated format.

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

THE TRANSFORMATION OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

The study reported in this paper focused

on factors influencing academics’ development

of interactive multimodal technology

communications technology have placed

A d v a n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l a n d

mediated distance education courses at an

pressure on higher distance education

Australian university. The university is a

institutions to move beyond traditional face

major provider of distance education and

to-face and distance education correspondence

e-learning courses, and has established an

modes toward a rich technology-mediated

international reputation for excellence in the

e-learning environment, in order to remain

use of educational technology and the delivery

viable in an increasingly competitive global

of online education. Enrolments exceed 26,000

distance education market (Bates 2006).

students each year from over 120 nationalities

The World Wide Web and desktop access

and approximately 20 percent of enrolments

to multimedia has created opportunities for

are international students. Approximately

educators to develop interactive and engaging

two-thirds of the university’ s students

e-learning resources that enhance the learning

study in distance education mode, either as

environment (Gill 2004). Technological and

an external or web student. Traditionally,

societal changes mean that traditional

distance education courses at the university

approaches to distance education will not

have been delivered via static, print-based

meet the needs of distance learners in the

packages, typically comprising an introductory

future (Taylor 2004). For example, today’ s

book, a study guide and a book of selected

younger “techno-savvy” students (the digital

readings. Since 2000, each course has been

generation) have grown up in a highly visual

supplemented by an online course homepage.

interactive electronic world, while mature

In 2003, university management identified an

age students, many of whom are working

opportunity to convert the print-based distance

full-time while studying part-time, require

education study materials to a technology

more flexible, mobile and convenient learning

mediated format (CD/online), and thus

options (Jafari, McGee & Carmean 2006;

− 44 −

Oliver & Goerke 2007). In recent times, static,

presentation modes (multimodal presentation)

print-based distance education courses are

appeals to different sensory modes and may

being transformed through the adoption

lead learners to perceive that it is easier

and integration of educational technology

to learn and improve attention rates, thus

and the development of more interactive

leading to improved learning performance,

blended, hybrid or multimodal technology

in particular for lower-achieving students

mediated courses (McDonald & Mayes 2005).

(Moreno & Mayer 2007; Zywno 2003). Previous

Many distance education courses are now

research has revealed a range of pedagogical

being delivered fully online and/or via other

motivations for the development of interactive

electronic means, including CD ROM or DVD.

multimodal technology-mediated distance

education courses including catering more

Interactive multimodal technology

mediated distance education courses involve

effectively to the learning needs of different

the use of multimedia and information and

student groups, improved learning outcomes,

communication technology (ICT) to develop

retention and progression rates, challenging

engaging and interactive course resources and

students to become learner-centred, self

use multiple presentation modes to represent

directed, resourceful and independent

the content knowledge and appeal to different

learners, replicating aspects of the on-campus

learning styles and modal preferences (Birch

experience, engaging students in the learning

& Sankey 2008; Fleming 2001). Interactive

experience, revitalising and re-energising the

multimodal technology-mediated courses for

curriculum, and providing a rich e-learning

distance education at the case university

environment (Birch & Sankey 2008; Sankey

typically comprise a printed introductory book

& St Hill 2005). Given these pedagogical

and an interactive CD, and are supplemented,

motivations and benefits for students, why

to varying degrees, by an online course

have so many academics at the case university

homepage. The interactive CD houses most of

been reluctant to convert their traditional

the course resources and includes introductory

print-based distance education courses to

information, study modules, assessment items,


readings and other useful resources. The

format? This study sought to address this

multimedia enhancements may include video

problem and identify individual academic

and audio introductions, recorded lecture

factors that influence the development of

presentations, interactive audio-enhanced


diagrams and simulations, interactive quizzes

distance education courses.

and crosswords, video and audio content and graphics. Technology-mediated delivery allows

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS INFLUENCING

the embedding of links to useful websites

A C A D E M I C S ’A D O P T I O N A N D

and hyperlinked examples and activities,

INTEGRATION OF EDUCATIONAL

including links to the course textbook website,

TECHNOLOGY

educational websites, generic university resources and online course homepages.

multimodal distance education course

Material presented in a variety of

− 45 −

The development of an interactive

requires academics to adopt and integrate

and software and lack of computing skills (Jones

educational technology. The literature reveals

& Kelley 2003).

that a range of individual factors influence

academics’ adoption and integration of

opportunity to access advanced technology

educational technology, including pragmatic,

and multimedia as a means of enhancing their

opportunistic or personal motivators and

teaching profile, being seen to be innovative,

inhibitors. Academics’ pragmatic motivations

“state of the art” and progressive (Betts 1998;

Some academics are excited by the

for the adoption and integration of educational

Cowan, 2006; Schifter 2002). However, other

technology include the desire to develop

academics perceive that embracing new

courses that better cater to student needs

technology may result in personal and career

for greater access, flexibility and convenience

costs, such as less time to devote to research

(Maguire 2005). In particular, meeting the

and other activities that lead to promotion and

unique needs of distance education students,

tenure (Maguire 2005). However, studies have

many of who are working full-time and/or

indicated that academics are undecided as to

raising a family, and are unable to access the

whether adopting and integrating educational

traditional on-campus experience (Wolcott &

technology into their courses will facilitate

Betts 1999). The convenience of being able

or hinder promotion and tenure (Wolcott &

to communicate effectively with students via

Betts 1999). Many academics feel personally

electronic means, independent of time and

motivated to use technology, enjoying the

place, is perceived by many academics to

intellectual challenge, and gaining personal

be a genuine practical advantage (McCorkle,

satisfaction and self-gratification from so doing

Alexander & Reardon 2001). Other academics

(Capobianco & Lehman 2004). The application

have adopted and integrated educational

of educational technology has appealed to

technology as a means of catering more

some academics, in terms of the excitement

effectively to the changing needs of the

or novelty of doing something new, different

“digital generation” (Oliver & Goerke 2007).

or innovative (Cowan 2006; Weston 2005).

Pragmatic inhibitors to the adoption of

The adoption and integration of educational

educational technology include lack of time and

technology may facilitate renewal and

the subsequent negative impact on academic

regeneration, with some academics reporting

workloads (Moser 2007). Exacerbating

a desire to “energise” their teaching (Jones

the time problem may be the institution’ s

& Kelley 2003). However, the need to adapt

reluctance or inability to allow release time

one’ s teaching style, redesign their course

or teaching relief for this purpose (Chizmar &

and undertake more rigorous course planning

Williams 2001). Academics have also reacted

has deterred some academics from changing

to student concerns about the shift from

familiar or entrenched instructional practices,

printed to electronically-delivered distance

tools and pedagogies (Covington, Petherbridge

education materials (McPhail & Birch 2004).

& Egan Warren 2005).

Student resistance has arisen due to the costs

associated with printing materials from the

willingness to take risks has also been

web, lack of access to the required hardware

identified as a major impediment to technology

− 46 −

Resistance to change and a lack of

adoption and integration (McGee & Diaz 2007).

adoption and integration of educational

Some academics have expressed anxiety

technology for the purpose of developing

and fear that they will lose autonomy or


control over the curriculum if they embrace

distance education courses at an Australian

organisational initiatives regarding technology

university (Yin 2003). The primary source of

(Weston 2005). Moreover, the fear of negative

information to address the research question

impacts on student evaluations, if the

was gathered from in-depth, semi-structured

technology does not work or is not accepted

interviews. Fourteen academics (including

by students, has been found to be a major

four pioneers, six early adopters, and four non

deterrent for some academics (McCorkle,

adopters) and three instructional designers

Alexander & Reardon 2001). Lack of rewards

were interviewed for the study. The academics

and recognition from management and

came from various disciplines across three

peers have been found to inhibit academics’

different faculties, and included, among others,

willingness to adopt and integrate educational

academics teaching in the fields of marketing,

technology (Chizmar & Williams 2001; Maguire

public relations and mass communications.

2005; Moser 2007). The personal characteristics

The analysis of the interviews transcripts

of the academic may also influence the

was conducted with the assistance of NVivo

adoption and integration of educational

software, which allowed the researcher to

technology. Innovators and early adopters

identify key themes and issues from the

of educational technology may be more

interview data. The themes and issues were

adventurous, less risk averse, comfortable with

clustered into three major areas representing

change and like to try new and novel ideas

individual, institutional and pedagogical factors.

(Moser 2007; Rogers 1995). The need to acquire

This paper reports the main findings and

“cutting-edge” status and dissatisfaction

implications related to individual factors.

with the status quo have been major driving forces for some academics in adopting

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

educational technology (McCorkle, Alexander & Reardon 2001). Moreover, an academic’ s

A number of individual factors influencing

attitudes toward technology, in terms of their

academics’ development of interactive

perceptions of its relative advantage over

multimodal technology-mediated courses were

current methods, compatibility with current

raised during the interviews. Issues were

practices, usefulness and ease of use, are

categorised as being primarily pragmatic,

primary determinants of whether a technology

opportunistic or personal in nature. A

will be adopted (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw

summary of the individual factors is presented

1989).

in table 1, and then each factor is briefly addressed.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

An exploratory case study was used to

investigate the factors influencing academics’

− 47 −

Table 1 Interview subjects (N=17) by category, faculty, discipline and gender Category

Faculty

Discipline

Gender

Pioneer

Arts

Mass communications

Female

Pioneer

Business

Project management

Male

Pioneer

Business

Economics

Male

Pioneer

Business

Human resource management

Male

Early Adopter

Arts

Mass communications

Female

Early Adopter

Arts

Public relations

Female

Early Adopter

Arts

Public relations

Male

Early Adopter

Business

Marketing

Male

Early Adopter

Business

Accounting

Male

Early Adopter

Education

Early childhood

Female

Non-Adopter

Arts

Public relations

Male

Non-Adopter

Arts

Mass communication

Female

Non-Adopter

Business

Accounting

Female

Non-Adopter

Business

Human resource management

Male

Instructional Designer

Business

Female


Education/Business

Female


Arts/Business

Male

Pragmatic factors. Pioneers and early

education materials and a more convenient

adopters expressed a desire to provide

means of communicating independent of time

flexible, convenient and mobile study options

and place (McCorkle, Alexander & Reardon

for distance education students, in particular

2001). One pioneer provided the example of

for students who are studying part-time

a student studying at a station in Antarctica,

and working to support a family (Maguire

who with the enablement of technology is

2005). For example, interactive multimodal

able to communicate and submit assignments

technology-mediated courses can be viewed

electronically and gain timely feedback.

on a computer laptop while the student is

Pioneers and early adopters perceived that

using public transport or listened to while

today’ s students are technology literate, have

driving. Interviewees perceived technology

higher expectations, and are more discerning

mediated courses allow students, across the

and sophisticated in “the way they take in

globe, faster and easier access to their distance

and use information” (Oliver & Goerke 2007;

− 48 −

Table 2 I ndividual factors influencing academics’ development of interactive multimodal technology-mediated distance education courses Factor Pragmatic

Opportunistic

Personal

Issues raised

•

providing flexible and convenient study options

•

catering for new-age and generation Y students

•

concern about equitable student access

•

lack of time and increased academic workloads

•

exploring new ways of delivering distance education courses

•

being seen to be progressive

•

impact on research output

•

impact on academic promotion

•

the academic’ s attitude toward teaching

•

a renewed and re-energized approach to teaching

•

self-improvement and personal challenge

•

the academic’ s personal characteristics

•

the academic’ s attitude toward change and technology

•

lack of rewards and recognition from management and peers

•

intrinsic rewards and recognition from students

Sankey, 2005). A number of those interviewed

interviewees to be a more viable and inclusive

observed that generation Y students are

option.

not accustomed to extensive reading;

rather, they “are more into seeing things

negative impact on academic workloads were

done in an animated multimedia rich way” .

identified by interviewees as major inhibitors

Hence, according to one early adopter, if the

for academics’ development of interactive

university “wants to stay viable and be seen as


innovative and leaders in education’ , academics

education courses (Moser 2007; O’ Quinn &

should ‘be willing to change the product in

Corry 2002). Early adopters and non-adopters

order to suit our students” , and meet the

expressed concerns about the lack of time

“requirements of today’ s new-age students” .

to think, research, strategise, conceptualise,

However, some interviewees perceived that

plan, train, develop, edit, update and maintain

delivering courses purely online may lead to

(Franklin et al. 2001). The development of

inequities, due to limited and costly access to

multimedia elements involves trial and error,

the Internet and slow dial-in for some students

and “takes quite a bit of a mindset leap, and

La c k o f t ime a nd t he s u bseq uen t

(Eastman & Owens Swift 2001; Jones & Kelley

that needs time” . Pioneers commented on the

2003). Hence, until equitable access for all

time it takes to update and “ensure currency”

students can be assured, CD or DVD, rather

of technology-mediated courses (Weston 2005).

than pure online delivery, was perceived by

Less technologically-competent academics

− 49 −

may require even more time to learn how to

eventuate. The need to allow adequate time for

use technology. Moreover, institutions may be

the development of an interactive multimodal

reluctant or financially unable to offer release

technology-mediated course and to take a

time to develop and update course materials

staged-approach to development was identified.

(Chizmar & Williams 2001). Interviewees

A number of those interviewed advised against

agreed that unless workload is allocated for this

including “time-sensitive” information, thus

purpose, wide-scale development of interactive

reducing the need for “constant updating” . One

multimodal technology-mediated courses, as

pioneer emphasised the value of developing

well as the realisation of the full potential

re-usable learning objects, in particular, when

of the use of multimedia and information

teaching an undergraduate and postgraduate

technology within these courses, may not

course in a similar area.

pragmatic motivators for and inhibitors to adopting and integrating educational Table 3 Academics’ technology

Pragmatic motivators

Pragmatic inhibitors • lack of time and academic workloads

• s tudent demands and need for greater

• t ime and cost of training and

access, flexibility and convenience • c onvenience of communicating via

development

electronic means

• s tudent resistance due to printing costs,

• r esponse to organisational directives and

access issues and technological ability

concern for the commercial viability of

• c oncerns about security issues, including

the organisation

copyright and intellectual property

O p p o r t u n i s t i c f a c t o r s. P i o n e e r s a n d

(McCorkle, Alexander & Reardon 2001). Some

early adopters perceived that developing

interviewees perceived the opportunity to


improve and challenge themself (Capobianco

learning materials provided them with an

& Lehman 2004; Jones & Kelley 2003). Some

exciting opportunity to explore new ways

of those interviewed agreed that reduced time

of delivering distance education courses

for undertaking discipline-based research is an

and “review the way they presented their

inhibitor (Smith 2001). However, a number of

materials” (Earle 2002). One early adopter

those interviewed had taken the opportunity

had “waited for a long time to be able to

to conduct education-based research on

explore new things in education practice” .


Pioneers and early adopters were motivated

technology-mediated courses, with one

by “using new technology, being innovative,

pioneer reporting seven published research

keeping up with what’ s out there, and using

outputs. Some interviewees perceived that

leading-edge technology or new things”

development of an interactive multimodal

− 50 −

technology-mediated would have a negative or

& Betts 1999). For example, an early adopter

neutral impact on promotional opportunities;

reported that her involvement had favourably

however, a number of pioneers and early

influenced the promotion panel, because it

adopters perceived it had enhanced their

demonstrated she was “willing to look at new

promotional prospects (Maguire 2005; Wolcott

ideas” .

opportunistic motivators for and inhibitors to adopting and integrating educational Table 4 Academics’ technology

Opportunistic motivators

Opportunistic inhibitors

• a ccess to advanced technology and

• a focus on research rather than teaching

multimedia

• a focus on activities that are more likely

• b e seen to be innovative, “state of the

to lead to promotion and tenure

art” and progressive and thus enhance their teaching profile

Personal factors. Interviewees revealed that

modern learning and teaching philosophies


may also be an influencing or “triggering”

technology-mediated distance education

factor. For example, one instructional designer

courses may depend upon the importance

observed that “the innovators that are doing

academics place on teaching relative to

the hybrid multimodal things are constantly

other academic pursuits, such as research.

reflecting on their practices” . A number of

One instructional designer observed that

pioneers and adopters perceived that their

academics who “are intrinsically motivated

involvement in the development of interactive

to give the most for the students” , have

multimodal technology-mediated courses had

“a love of teaching” , are “dedicated to the

allowed them to re-energise and renew their

learning outcomes of their students” appear

interest in, and approach to, teaching (Jones &

to be more likely to develop an interactive

Kelley 2003). One pioneer explained that print

multimodal technology-mediated course. A lack

based distance education materials are a “tired

of understanding of, or concern for, pedagogy

format” and it was “more fun doing things

may present a barrier to the development of

online or electronically” . Developing interactive


multimodal technology-mediated courses

courses, with one pioneer proposing that

had “revitalised” their interest in teaching,

“80 percent of the people in the Faculty of

“renewed” their enthusiasm and challenged

Business probably wouldn’ t even know what

them to teach in a more effective manner.

pedagogy was, let alone be concerned about

it” . Moreover, an academic’ s willingness to

academic may influence the adoption and

reflect on their teaching practice and embrace

integration of educational technology (McGee

− 51 −

The personal characteristics of the

& Diaz 2007; Rogers 1995). One instructional

adopters considering themselves to be early

designer explained that some academics are

adopters of technology. For example, one non

more “risk-averse” and prefer to “wait for

adopter declared “I love technology, it just

others to take the first step” . For example,

makes life so much easier and I think provides

one early adopter explained that while he does

a lot more opportunities” . Conversely, one of

not perceive himself to be risk-averse, he does

the pioneers was difficult to persuade when it

not “rush overboard into the first gimmick” ;

comes to trying new technologies, because he

rather he waits for the technology “to settle

does not “like technology for technology sake” ,

down just a little” before embracing it (Moser

and needs to “see the benefit it’ s likely to

2007). Willingness to change, move on, try new

produce for students” . Moreover, some of the

things and receptivity to new technologies also

pioneers and early adopters did not consider

appears to influence academics’ development

themselves to be particularly technologically

of interactive multimodal technology-mediated

capable; while, some of the non-adopters

distance education courses (Weston 2005). For

indicated that they are both interested in,

example, one pioneer explained, “I certainly

and very capable with, technology. One

don’ t remain wedded to entrenched views” .

early adopter described some academics as

Conversely, the lack of adoption by academics

“techno-phobic” , while others do not consider

may be partially attributed to “constant

using technology to be “part of an academic’

change” in technologies being introduced,

s role” . For example, one non-adopter saw his

with one pioneer stating “we’ ve had so many

role as “facilitating learning” and “distributing

changes to how we teach, but we’ ve never

knowledge” , rather than being “a specialist in

been given very much time to learn those new

development like this” . Indeed, according to

systems” . According to one non-adopter, when

one early adopter, for wide-scale adoption of

it comes to new technologies being introduced,


“there’ s been a lot of resistance to change

courses to occur, some academics will need

generally” . For example, one instructional

to “be dragged to their keyboards kicking

designer emphasised the “unfortunate timing”

and screaming” , in particular, some older

of the “hybrid delivery” initiative, which had

academics. For example, one older non-adopter,

coincided with a “whole lot of angst about

having received negative reports from one of

WebCT” .

the pioneers who had become frustrated and

An interest in, and liking for, technology

experienced set-backs with the technology,

appears to influence the development of

had been dissuaded from even attempting to


adopt educational technology, stating “it will

courses, but it is not necessarily a predictor

ruin my life” (Moser 2007). This non-adopter

(Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw 1989). Not all

confessed he had been avoiding technology,

of the academics interviewed fitted neatly

which he perceived to be “threatening” and

into their predicted category, with some of

explained “perhaps my age is showing and my

the pioneers and early adopters perceiving

generation is showing here, my culture was a

themselves to be somewhat risk-averse with

culture of print” . One early adopter suggested

respect to technology and some of the non

some academics may be ‘hostile to it or are

− 52 −

resistant to it, because they don’ t see how it

re employed to do” . Early adopters argued

might improve what they’ re doing’ . Hence, one

that if academics were encouraged and saw

of the non-adopters advised against simply

a “reward mechanism or something in it for

“imposing” new technologies on educators and

themselves” , such as a “reduced marking load”

suggested the need to discuss with educators

or “some teaching relief” , then they would be

how the new technology could be used and the

more likely to get involved. Due to the lack

implications for implementation.

of extrinsic rewards, one of the instructional

designers believed “a lot of academics will

A lack of extrinsic rewards inhibits

academics’ development of interactive

make the call that their time is better spent


on research than devoting themselves to

education courses (Moser 2007). One early

teaching” . Lack of recognition by management

adopter perceived “there’ s really no reward

and peers for the time and effort involved

systems, no compensation for you doing it” ,

in adopting and integrating educational

while another observed “from the Faculty

technology also appears to be a major barrier

point of view it’ s, well, that’ s what you’

(Maguire 2005). For example, when asked if

personal motivators for and inhibitors to adopting and integrating educational technology Table 5 Academics’ and personal characteristics of adopters of educational technology

Personal motivators

Personal inhibitors

• personal motivation to use technology

• entrenched instructional practices

• enjoyment in the intellectual challenge

• resistance to change

• p e r s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e l f -

• fear of loss of autonomy or control over

gratification

the curriculum

• development of new ideas – novelty

• lack of incentives

• acquisition of cutting-edge status and

• a need to adapt one’ s teaching style,

dissatisfaction with the status quo

develop new skills and redesign course content

• attitude and approach to teaching • regeneration and energising of teaching

• a need for more rigorous course planning • deviation from entrenched instructional practices

Personal characteristics of adopters of educational technology • innovative

• conservative

• willing to take risks

• risk-averse

• positive attitude toward technology

• negative attitude toward technology

• adequate technological ability –

• limited technological ability –

“techno-savvy”

“techno-phobic” • lack of perceived self-efficacy

− 53 −

he felt he had been rewarded or recognized

supported and rewarded to develop e-learning

for his efforts in developing his interactive

environments that more closely match the

multimodal technology-mediated course, one

requirements of today’ s digital generation, and

pioneer responded “apart from the fact that

as a means of revitalising the curriculum and

you’ re sitting here talking to me now, I don’

improving course delivery. While, intrinsic

t think anyone else in the faculty could give

rewards and recognition from students may

a damn about it” . One of the non-adopters

motivate and encourage pioneers and earlier

cryptically observed “you can go to a lot of

adopters, later adopters may need to be

work for a package, and it’ s not valued, and

motivated by extrinsic rewards, such as a

there’ s no one looks at it, except the students” .

reduced marking load or teaching relief, as well

Hence, one of the non-adopters considered this

as recognition from management and peers.

lack of recognition was a good reason “not to

Moreover, academics should be encouraged

engage in it, because why bother” . However,

to conduct research on their learning and

one early adopter perceived that, as a senior

teaching practices, including how they design

lecturer, it was “incumbent” on him “to do

and deliver their distance education courses.

something without having to expect another

Promotional policies and panels also need

reward” . Moreover, some of the pioneers and

to place greater value on effective teaching

early adopters indicated that they had found

practice and the design and delivery of

the experience to be intrinsically motivating

innovative distance education resources.

and rewarding and expressed a sense of

“self-satisfaction” , “achievement” and “self

Given the time it takes to develop

and maintain an interactive multimodal

gratification” (Capobianco & Lehman 2004).

technology-mediated course, wide-scale

The development of interactive multimodal

adoption and integration will only eventuate if

technology-mediated courses appears to have

workload allocations are made. Moreover, due

been an enjoyable, exciting and satisfying

to the time required to develop, maintain and

experience for the academics involved. In

update interactive multimodal technology

addition to intrinsic rewards, recognition from

mediated courses, it is important to encourage

students was also identified as a valued reward.

cost-effective and sustainable development. Thus, academics should be encouraged to

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

take a staged approach to development, avoid including information that is time-sensitive,

Interactive multimodal technology

and where possible, develop re-usable learning

mediated distance education courses provide

objects. The amount and pace of change in

flexible, convenient and mobile study options,

technologies may create resistance amongst

faster and easier access to materials and the

some academics, and in particular older and

convenience of communicating effectively,

“techno-phobic” academics. Hence, distance

independent of time and place. Hence, in order

education providers need to consider the

for distance education providers to remain

impact of technological change and the way

viable in an increasing competitive global

in which technologies are implemented on

market, academics need to be encouraged,

academics’ willingness to embrace those

− 54 −

technologies a nd integrate them into

developing or intend to develop interactive

their teaching practice. Moreover, a lack


of understanding or appreciation of how

education courses may need to conduct a

educational technology can be effectively

similar study to determine if the factors that

used to assist students to learn may inhibit

impact on academics at the case university

academics’ development of these courses, in

differ, in anyway, from their institution. Indeed,

particular, those with entrenched traditional

given the case university’ s extensive experience

teaching practices. Hence, academics’

and expertise in distance education, and more

preconceptions and traditional methodologies

recently in e-learning, other institutions with

sho u ld be c ha l le n g ed, a nd a ca demics

less experience in distance education may not

need to understand the nexus between

have established the same level of expertise

technology and pedagogy. Institutions

and infrastructure support, and thus may face

should encourage academics to be reflective

even greater challenges. Conversely, tertiary

about their teaching practice and explore

institutions who are receiving higher levels of

how educational technology can be used to

government funding than the case university

improve student learning outcomes. Personal

may not be experiencing the same resource

factors influencing academics’ adoption and

constraints, and thus may be able to provide

integration of educational technology are

higher levels of support to academics.

varied; hence, institutions should recognise the different needs of different adopter groups

CONCLUSION

and tailor support and training initiatives

accordingly.

The findings of this study revealed

that a number of individual factors of a LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

pragmatic, opportunistic and personal nature influence academics development of

This paper addressed individual factors


that influence academics’ development of

distance education courses. Pragmatic


motivators included the perceived need to

distance education courses. This case study

provide flexible and convenient study options

was confined to one Australian university,

and cater for “new-age” and generation Y

which while being a major provider, is only one

students. However, pragmatic inhibitors

of many providers of distance education across

included concerns about equitable student

the globe. Due to contextual issues, individual

Internet access and slow download times, as

factors that influence academics’ adoption and

well as lack of time and increased academic

integration of educational technology for the

workloads. Strategies for mitigating time

purpose of developing interactive multimodal

and workload problems include allowing


adequate time for development, taking a

courses at the case university may differ from

staged approach to development, developing

other distance education providers. Hence,

re-usable learning objects and avoiding time

other distance education providers who are

sensitive content. Opportunistic factors

− 55 −

included the opportunity for academics to

Administration Vol.1 (3) Fall. Retrieved

explore new ways of delivering distance

August 30, 2005 from

education courses, be seen to be progressive

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.

or “state of the art” , and improve their

html

teaching or challenge themself. Development of an interactive multimodal technology

Birch, Dawn and Sankey, Michael (2008),

mediated course may lead to education

“Drivers for and obstacles to academics’

based research and may positively impact

development of interactive multimodal

on promotional prospects. Personal factors


influencing academics’ development of

courses” International Journal of Education


and Development using ICT Vol. 4 (1)

distance education courses included the academic’ s attitude toward and approach

Capobianco, Brenda, and Lehman, James (2004),

to teaching and, in some cases, their desire

“Using Technology to Promote Inquiry in

for a renewed and reenergized interest in

Elementary Science Teacher Education:

and approach to teaching. Moreover, the

A Case Study of One Teacher Educator’ s

academic’ s personal characteristics and their

Initiatives” Society for Information Technology

attitude toward change and technology,

and Teacher Education International

and in particular their understanding of

Conference 2004 Vol. 1 pp. 4625-4630.

how technology can be used to improve

Retrieved March 4, 2005 from

learning outcomes, appear to influence

ht t p:// p3t3.educa t ion.purdue.edu/

their propensity to develop technology

SITE_2004_Capobianco.pdf

mediated courses. While the apparent lack of recognition and rewards from management

Chizmar, John and Williams, David (2001),

and peers may inhibit the development of

“What do faculty want?” Educause Quarterly, Vol.1 Spring pp. 18-24

interactive multimodal technology-mediated courses by later adopters, pioneers and early adopters perceived that intrinsic rewards and

Covington, David, Petherbridge, Donna

recognition from students motivated them.

and Egan Warren, Sarah (2005), “Best

REFERENCES

approach in transitioning academic

practices: A tria ngulated support Online Journal of to online teaching”

Bates, Tony (2006), Technology, e-Learning and

Distance Learning Administration Vol. 8 (1)

distance education New York: Abingdon.

Spring. Retrieved April 16, 2005 from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/

Betts, Kristen (1998), “ An institutional

ojdla/spring81/covington81.htm

overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education

Cowan, John (2006), On becoming an innovative

in the United States: An institutional

university teacher . New York: Open

study” Online Journal of Distance Learning

University Press.

− 56 −

Davis, Fred, Bagozzi, Richard and Warshaw,

July-August 2006 pp. 50-70.

Paul (1989), “User acceptance of computer t ec h nolog y: A com pa r iso n o f t wo

Jones, Kirby and Kelley, Craig (2003), “Teaching

Management Science theoretical models”

marketing via the Internet: Lessons

Vol. 35 (8) pp. 982-1003.

learned and challenges to be met” Marketing Education Review Vol. 13 (1)

Earle, Rodney (2002), “The integration of

Spring pp. 81-89.

instructional technology into public education: promises and challenges”

Maguire, Loreal (2005), “Literature review:

Educational Technology Magazine Vol. 42 (1)

Faculty participation in online distance

pp. 5-13.

education: Barriers and motivators” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration

Vol. 8 (1) Spring. Retrieved April 4, 2005

Eastman, Jacqueline and Owens Swift, Cathy (2001), “New Horizons in distance

from

education: The online learner-centred

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/

Journal of Marketing marketing class”

spring81/maguire81.htm

Education Vol. 23 (1) April pp. 25-34.

McCorkle, Denny Alexander, Joe and Reardon, “VARK: A guide to learning Fleming, Neil (2001)

Janice (2001), “ Integrating business

styles” Retrieved November 30, 4from

technology and marketing education:

http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.

Enhancing the diffusion process through

asp?p=questionnaire

technology champions” Journal of Marketing Education Vol. 23 (1) April pp. 16-24.

Franklin, Teresa, Turner, Sandra, Kariuki, Mumbi and Duran, Mesat (2001), “Mentoring

McDonald, Jacquelin and Mayes, Terry (2005).

overcomes barriers to technology

Pedagogically challenged: A framework

integration” Journal of Computing in Teacher

for the support of course designers in an

Education Vol. 18 (1) pp 26-30.

Australian distance learning university. Proceedings of the Centre for Research in

Gill, T. Grandon (2004), “Distance learning

Lifelong Learning International Conference, June 24 -26, 2005, Stirling, Scotland.

strategies that make sense: A micro analysis” eLearn Magazine Vol. 3 (2) March.

McGee, Patricia and Diaz, Veronica (2007),

Retrieved November 28, 2004 from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1080000/1

“Wikis and podcasts and blogs! On, my!

070942/p2-gill.html

What is a faculty member supposed to do?” EDUCAUSE September-October 2007

Jafari, Ali, McGee, Patricia and Carmean,

pp. 28-40.

Colleen (2006), “ Managing courses, defining learning: What faculty, students,

McPhail, Janelle and Birch, Dawn (2004),

EDUCAUSE and administration want”

− 57 −

“Students’ attitudes towards technology

e n h a n c e d l e a r n i n g r e s o u r c e s f o r

Technology, Brisbane pp. 251-259.

an introductory marketing course” Proceedings of Australia and New Zealand

Sankey, Michael and St Hill, Rod (2005),

Marketing Educators Conference, November

“Multimodal design for hybrid learning materials in a second level economics

29 – December 1, Wellington, New Zealand.

course” Proceedings of 11th Australasian Moreno, Roxana and Mayer, Richard (2007),

Teaching Economics Conference: Innovation

“I n t e r a c t i v e m u l t i m o d a l l e a r n i n g

for Student Engagement in Economics July

environments” Educational Psychological

11-12, 2005, University of Sydney, Australia

Review Vol. 19, pp. 309-326.

pp. 98-106.

Moser, Franziska (2007), “Faculty adoption of

Schifter, Catherine (2002), “ Perception

educational technology” Educause Quarterly

differences about participating in distance

1 pp. 66 -69.

education” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration Vol. 5 (1) Spring.

Oliver, Beverley and Goerke, Veronica (2007),

Retrieved January 12, 2005, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/

“Australian undergraduates’ use and

spring51/schifter51.html

ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the

Smith, Lois (2001), “Content and delivery: A

Net Generation” Australasian Journal

comparison and contrast of electronic

of Educational Technology Vol. 23 (2)

and traditional MBA marketing planning

pp. 171-186.

courses” Journal of Marketing Education Vol. 23 (1) April pp 35-44.

O'Quinn, Lisa and Corry, Michael (2002), “F a c t o r s t h a t d e t e r f a c u l t y f r o m

Taylor, Jim (2004), “Will universities become

participating in distance education” Online

extinct in the networked world?”

Journal of Distance Learning Administration

Proceedings of ICDE World Conference on

Vol. 5 (4) Winter pp. 1-18. Retrieved

Open and Distance Learning, Hong Kong, 2004.

March 24, 2005 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/

Weston, Timothy (2005), “Why faculty did - or

winter54/Quinn54.htm

did not - integrate instructional software in their undergraduate classrooms”

Rogers, Everett (1995), Diffusion of innovations

Innovative Higher Education Vol. 30 (2) pp.

99-115.

4th edition New York: Free Press. Sankey, Michael (2005), “Multimodal design

Wolcott, Linda and Betts, Kristen (1999),

and the neomillenial learner” Proceedings

“What’ s in it for me? Incentives for faculty

of OLT2005: Beyond Delivery Conference,

participation in distance education” Journal

September 27, 2005, Queensland University of

of Distance Education Vol. 14 (2) pp. 34-49.

− 58 −

Yin, Robert (2003), Case study research: Design and methods 3rd edition Thousand Oaks:

Sage. Zywno, Margarita (2003), “ Hypermedia instruction and learning outcomes at different levels of Bloom’ s taxonomy Global Journal of of cognitive domain” Engineering Education Vo1. 7 (1) pp. 59-70

− 59 −

双方向的マルチモーダル技術を介在した遠隔教育の授業 ― 大学教育の視点から ―

ダウン・バーチ（南クイーンズランド大学、オーストラリア）ブルース・バーネット（クイーンズランド工科大学、オーストラリア）

教育工学の進歩とグローバルな情報の供給源としてのインターネットの出現は，教育者に豊富な資源を利用することを促し，伝統的な対面教育や遠隔教育に変化をもたらし，豊富な技術が介在するeラーニング環境を実現した。さらに，マルチメディアの利用が容易になり，教育者に，柔軟性があり魅力的で双方向的な学習資源を開発する機会を提供した。本研究は，双方向的マルチモーダル技術を介在した遠隔教育の授業を開発するために，オーストラリアの大学において，教育工学の採用と統合に影響を与える要因を明らかにすることを目的とする。こうした遠隔教育の授業は，大学内での学習経験と学習成果を反映する，より包括的なカリキュラムを提供する目的を持ちつつ，様々な学習スタイルや方法の選択を提供するために，マルチモーダルな学習目的と学習内容の多様な提示形式を含んでいる。こうした遠隔教育の授業を大学が開発するときに影響を及ぼす要因は，実用的，日和見主義的，かつ，個人的な動機と関心であった。そして，これらの要因に基づく示唆，および提言が，遠隔教育の提供者とマーケディング教育者に対して示された。

キーワード：遠隔教育，大学教育，e ラーニング，教育工学，マーケティング教育

− 60 −