Paper

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Almost every organization will incur a level of change over that organizations’ lifetime. Whether an organization has been in existence for generations due to proper adaptation or an organization has failed due to an unwillingness to budge, change has and will be present. Most change efforts exert heavy human and economic tolls (Beer & Nohria, 2000, p. 137). In higher education, faculty hold high influence on change efforts and faculty’s willingness to embrace change could set the pace for the change effort.

Introduction to the Problem

Leaders in higher education are generally considered responsible for setting institutional direction and ensuring institutional success. Advancing in technology have required major and consistent change in all aspects of the higher education system. While technological advances effect the institution as a whole, the current research will inquire on whether or not additional effort should be focused on the institutions’ faculty. Technology is impacting instruction with online, hybrid, and distance learning options (Andrade, 2011, p. 218). Despite an ever-changing classroom environment, many pedagogies and tools used in university classrooms have remained unchanged (Sutton & DeSantis, 2017, p 223).

The need for further research on leading technological change within faculty was not only fueled by academic concern but economic concern. Siegel, Acharya, and Sivo (2017) wrote that new technologies that are not fully adopted “increase the overall operational and logistical costs that may ultimately lead to discontinuation of the new technology, thereby depriving faculty, students, and the institution of its benefits” (p. 65).

Statement of the Problem

Beer and Nohria (2000) warned of the “proliferation of recommendations” that often led to the muddling of change attempts within organizations (p. 137). Higher education tends to have faculty split based on the ability of some members to progress as other members of faculty are lefts behind.

A fostering of faculty’s acceptance of online delivery methods was found critical for institutions that consider online learning to be a key part of the institutions’ strategic plans and to attract increased enrollment (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018, p. 139). Ramirez and Gillig found that to facilitate faculty acceptance of online delivery strategies, “college administrators need to understand how both students and faculty perceive online learning and the factors that shape their perceptions about the quality of online teaching and learning” (p. 139).

Purpose of the Study

The objective of the current study was to investigate literature on change efforts in higher education fueled by faculty needs to adopt and implement new pedagogical technologies. Attention will be given to best practices of technological implementation by faculty and the inspiration of said faculty to implement.

Research Questions

The current study aims to find enough evidence to assure that additional change effort should be focused specifically on faculty’s use of technology in the classroom. Studies on organizational change and technology will be investigated to and the current research question.

Research Question Should additional and consistent effort be focused on faculty adoption of pedagogical technology?

Significance of the Study

The current study is significant in that the study aims to provide evidence through literature to the importance of additional focus on faculty and technology during institutional change efforts. The current study should add to the body of literature on the subjects of change efforts within higher education.

Assumptions and Limitations

The current study may prove limited in that new knowledge gained may not be implemented to receive quantitative data to add to the current body of knowledge. The current study assumes focus on faculty during higher education change efforts was to the extent that additional efforts would be required.

Nature of the Study

The current study will be exploratory in nature. The majority of information provided has been retrieved from current literature on change efforts within higher education, technological advances in teaching, and faculty willingness to support change effort.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The following chapter will intently review literature on enacting change efforts in higher education. Specific attention will be given to literature on faculty and technology driven change efforts.

Introduction

With both faculty inability and unwillingness to use new technology recognized as the problem, the following literature review will provide material on thoughtful implementation of technology and motivating strategy. Challenges will be presented followed by the role of administrators as leaders in the higher education context.

Kotter (2012) understood that regardless of level or locations, culture was important because culture could powerfully influence human behavior, could be difficult to change, and because culture’s near invisibility makes it hard to address directly (p. 157). Kotter would add that “generally, shared values, which are less apparent but more deeply ingrained in the culture, are more difficult to change than norms of behavior” (p. 157). As technology becomes the culture of the institution, technology should not be neglected in the classroom.

Challenges

Many factors have been found to prevent or hinder faculty from adapting to technological advances in higher education. Change agents have always faced resistance, no matter how needed a change effort may be, and no matter how close the agents are to the process and the people that the agents are dealing with; “resistance can come from anywhere, even the same level as the agents themselves” (Jick & Peiperl, 2003, p. 362).

Software presents a myriad of challenges such as difficult interfaces, slow response time, or other repairable issues that the university administration and IT could address (Burnett, Shemroske, & Khayum, 2014, p. 66). Burnet et al. recognized an additional challenge in the form of responsibilities associated with the software (p. 66). Faculty need to view the IT department differently and perceptions of organizational support can change with proper positive motivators, such as rewards for early adopters and praise for using the system (p. 66).

Change Blindness

Sutton and DeSantis (2017) wrote on the concept of change blindness in that change blindness describes a humans’ tendency to “ignore alterations in the environment” (p. 223). The authors’ outline an extensive list of changes in higher education that have led to the evolution of classroom environments including the emergence of novel technologies, expectations from students, and learning assessments (p. 223).

A sense of urgency such as the external threats of accreditation processes and requirements were found often used to get faculty members to adopt desired behavior and look past change blindness (Andrade, 2011, p. 220). Andrade would continue in that shared leadership and co-creation of vision were desirable, “particularly in higher education contexts” (2011, p. 218).

Social Media

Throughout the past decade, social media has been a growing influence in higher education (Ramirez & Gillig, 2018, p. 137). Among the many facets of technological influence on higher education pedagogy, social media has begun to insert itself as possibly playing a role in higher education. Increased use of online pedagogy in higher education has revealed a need to analyze factors contributing to student engagement in online courses.

Burnett, Shemroske, and Khayum (2014) echo the sentiment that the relatively recent, explosive growth of social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter “provide ample evidence of the reach of computing technology beyond the domain of application developer” (p. 52). Ramirez and Gillig (2018) found from their study a confirmation that “positive influence of previous online course experience” benefited and motivated students and faculty toward the use of computer technology for educational purposes (p. 148). The authors’ results also revealed that “close to the majority of students and faculty wanted to learn more about Twitter and more than the majority were not afraid of Twitter for educational purposes” (p. 148).

Administration

The role of a Dean or other administrative agent is critical in aligning the goals of the university with participation among collaborators. The ideas and motivational strategies presented in the work of Burnett, Shemroske, and Khayum (2014) pointed to the need for implementation from a team. Further, where intrinsic motivations are not sufficient, a system using a motivational approach was found to be need to provide sufficient direction “which makes clear the expectations of participation amongst faculty members such that other benefits of collaborative technologies may be enough to carry tasks to completion” (Burnett, Shemroske, & Khayum, 2014, p. 56). The authors found a significant relationship between organizational support, motivation, and perceived usefulness, because the faculty received e-learning organizational support from the dean to adopt Blackboard in the form of training and other support. (Burnett, Shemroske, & Khayum, 2014, p. 66)

Among many important technology trends in higher education, Sutton and DeSantis (2017) point to a wave of private investment in classroom technology and rising interest in lowering education costs as catalysts:

These twin revolutions in education technology are rapidly changing expectations of what teaching and learning should be like in all classrooms, including those of higher education. While it might be too early to sound the death knell of the chalkboard, the passive lecture or the Scantron machine, it is hard to imagine these tools and techniques playing a significant role in college and university classrooms for much longer. (Sutton & DeSantis, 2017, p. 224)

Administrations role in enacting change is approached with an understanding that if the root of a problem was not addressed, the entire university could consequently suffer.

Summary

Literature found that faculty were more willing than previously assumed to adopt new technology. Literature also found that while faculty showed a willingness, faculty would need additional support and motivation to continue use of technology. Administration were found to have a key role the developed of vision and implementation of the technological progress in the classroom.

CHAPTER 3. CONCLUSIONS

The problem recognized for the current study was the lack of faculty willingness to support higher education change efforts through the adoption of new technologies for use in classroom instruction. The current study sought to provide evidence for the need focus effort on faculty during the change process

Summary of Study

The current study found through literature investigation that while faculty tend to feel more comfortable with new technology than assumed, faculty will need continual and at times long-length motivation to remain consistent towards adoption of the technology. The current study discovered that administration should make additional effort to ensuring faculty adoption of new technology while simultaneously ensuring that other staff within higher education are not neglected. Sutton and DeSantis (2017) posited that with thoughtful support “grounded in established technology theory, many higher education faculty can take advantages of the capabilities of recently emerged technologies” (p. 227).

Research Questions

The current study believed that evidence through literature could assure that additional change effort should be focused specifically on faculty’s use of technology in the classroom. Studies on organizational change and technology were investigated to answer the current research question.

Research Question Should additional and consistent effort be focused on faculty adoption of pedagogical technology?

Implications and Further Study

Literature revealed that faculty agreed that the use of technology in the classroom supported learning, but as Loague, Caldwell, and Balam (2018) would posit, greater support for integrating technology into instruction is needed (p. 9). Attention should be given in further study on the gains and losses of growing technical support offices on higher education campuses.

REFERENCES

Andrade, M. (2011). Managing change-engaging faculty in assessment opportunities. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 217-233.

Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2009). Cracking the code of change. The Principles and Practice of Change.

Burnett, P., Shemroske, K., & Khayum, M. (2014). Disrupting faculty service: Using technology to increase academic service productivity. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice & Research, 4(2), 48-58.

Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2003). Managing change: Cases and concepts. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Loague, A., Caldwell, N., & Balam, E. (2018). Professors’ attitudes and perceptions about technology use in the classroom. Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 1-11.

Ramirez, D. M., & Gillig, S. (2018). Computer technology and Twitter for online learning and student engagement. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (1947-2900), 10(1/2), 137-153.

Siegel, D., Acharya, P., & Sivo, S. (2017). Extending the technology acceptance model to improve usage & decrease resistance toward a new technology by faculty in higher education. Journal of Technology Studes, 43(2), 58-69.

Sutton, K. K., & DeSantis, J. (2017). Beyond change blindness: Embracing the technology revolution in higher education. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 54(3), 223-228.