Table 1 Interview subjects (N=17) by category, faculty, discipline and gender. Category. Faculty. Discipline .... interest in, and approach to, teaching (Jones &. Kelley 2003). ..... Davis, Fred, Bagozzi, Richard and Warshaw,. Paul (1989), âUser ...
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
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,
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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
Instructional Designer
Education/Business
Female
Instructional Designer
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
multimodal technology-mediated distance
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
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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” .
the development of interactive multimodal
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
the development of interactive multimodal
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
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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,
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
“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
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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
multimodal technology-mediated distance
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
multimodal technology-mediated distance
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
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
that influence academics’ development of
distance education courses. Pragmatic
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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
technology-mediated distance education
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
technology-mediated distance education
influencing academics’ development of
courses” International Journal of Education
interactive multimodal technology-mediated
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 −