1. Leading
Head:
EXPERIENCE
OF
TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
FOR
PROFESSORS
1
Research Proposal
The Experience of Technology Integration for College Professors
Respectfully Submitted By
Krista M. Hess
East Stroudsburg University
kristamhess@gmail.com
610-360-2377

2. EXPERIENCE
OF
INTEGRATING
TECHNOLOGY
FOR
PROFESSORS
2
Needs Statement
College
Professors
integrate
technology
in
their
classrooms
every
day.
It
may
just
be
a
simple
PowerPoint
presentation
or
it
could
be
an
intensive
Web
Quest.
However,
this
group
of
people
seems
to
never
be
looked
at
for
this
particular
topic.
At
this
point,
technology
integration
in
the
classroom
is
nothing
new,
but
a
lot
of
research
seems
to
focus
on
the
same
old
things.
These
things
are
usually
K-­‐12
teachers,
their
students,
college
students,
or
pre-­‐service
education
majors.
Past
research
also
uses
mostly
the
same
methods
like
survey,
pre-­‐post
testing,
and
other
perception-­‐based
methods.
It
seems
a
new
focus
needs
to
be
put
on
a
forgotten
group
of
integrators
and
an
observation
of
their
actual
adoption
of
technology.
If
professors
are
participants
in
a
study,
they
have
usually
volunteered
and
are
part
of
a
project
study.
In
Breda,
Clement,
and
Waeytens’
study
they
do
use
faculty
members
at
a
University.
However,
they
use
seminars
and
pre-­‐post
tests
as
their
arena
to
study
them.
They
also
are
trying
to
discover
a
relationship
between
the
teachers’
instructional
beliefs
and
teaching
approach
(Breda,
Clement,
and
Waeytens,
2003).
There
is
a
need
to
understand
the
experience
itself
of
integrating
technology
for
college
professors.
In
this
study,
the
focus
will
be
on
two
college
professors
who
integrate
technology
in
to
their
lessons
every
day.
Discovering
what
the
actual
process
is
like
and
discussing
the
positives
and
negatives
will
hopefully
shed
new
light
on
the
field.
Beneath a teacher’s use of technology, is usually an administrative pressure or need to do so.
Through this study, discovering the policies and regulations for using technology in the
classroom, if there are any, will be important. If there are regulations, this could affect the
professors’ use of technology. Also, with East Stroudsburg University’s (ESU) recent change to
larger General Education classes (upwards of 200 students) a concern, as in other studies, is
being confronted with issues of large class teaching (Hannon, Bretag, 2010).
The purpose of this study is to take this new situation in to account. Both professors who will be
interviewed and observed teach general education communication studies courses with this new
number of students, along with major-related courses. Their previous technology integration in
the class will be questioned, and their new modifications will be observed.
Barriers in the classroom are also a topic of concern when integrating technology. ESU is an
older University, originating in 1893. A lot of the school’s buildings are old and technologically
behind. According to ESU’s website, the newest building was erected between 2006 and 2008
and before that the newest building was erected in 1979. Therefore, few classrooms have
computers, let alone Smart Boards. The ease with which the professors can integrate in this
environment will be taken in to account as a large part of their experience. In a study by Goktas,
Yildirim, and Yildirim (2009), crowded classrooms, lack of computers & other presentation
equipment in classrooms, and lack of computer laboratories for use in free time were found as
main barriers to integrating information and communication technologies. This can be related to
ESU’s current situation in integrating technology overall. Finding out the main barriers these
particular professors come face to face with will affect their experience.

3. EXPERIENCE
OF
INTEGRATING
TECHNOLOGY
FOR
PROFESSORS
3
The actual technology used in the classroom of these professors will also be a major part of this
study. In a study done in Pakistan it was found that most of the teachers used technology to
mostly create question papers. They did not use it for classroom facilitation. These teachers
enjoyed the re-usability of all their materials (JAMIL). Do the professors being studied in this
particular research use technology for only their use or do they use it to facilitate in the
classroom? If their use of technology is on the lesser side, why is that? One professor is a
younger female professor and the other is an older male. Will this make a difference in how they
integrate? Gender and age have been studied before, in relation to anxiety and its affect on
innovativeness, and it was found that a difference in gender related responses were not
significant indicating a fairy homogenous effect regarding impact (Rogers). It has been found,
however, that there is a significant relationship between technology integration and computer
anxiety and innovativeness (Rogers, 2010).
A teacher’s innovativeness has also been written about extensively by Everett Rogers (1995). In
his book, Diffusion of Innovations, he discusses the S-curve, which correlates to all the concerns
discussed so far in this paper. He explains the different types of innovators, which are: the
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. He also explains the
Innovation-decision process and the relation between the two. Because of the difference in age
between the two professors in this study, their pre-service education technology experience more
than likely differs and will affect their innovativeness. One professor received his Doctorate in
1990; the other received hers in 2003. The more than 10-year gap between these will be an
interesting difference to see the results from. They also both use different types of technology in
the classroom, and one refuses to use one that the other swears by. Discovering why that is,
where they are on the s-curve, and possibly in a decision process about another technology, will
be interesting to ascertain.
In the end, the overall purpose of this study will be to discover the actual experience of a college
professor in the 21st century classroom. Their classroom beliefs, theories, and student
relationships will all be taken in to consideration and put up against all the other topics and
concerns discussed in this proposal. This will culminate in the majority of, if not their entire,
experience. The main focus will be on whether the experience is a positive one or not and their
perceptions will be studied, but the genuine experience will be the most vital ingredient.
Methodology
This will be a Phenomenological study will find out what the experience of integrating
technology for a college professor is like to help better understand this focus from another point
of view.
Questions
Primary Question: What is the experience of integrating technology for the college professor?
Secondary Questions:
Is the experience overall more positive or negative for the professor?
Does the professors’ teaching theory/ies affect their integration?
Do the professors show an understanding of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in
the classroom?

4. EXPERIENCE
OF
INTEGRATING
TECHNOLOGY
FOR
PROFESSORS
4
Where on the S-Curve do the professors lie?
Research Design
Interviews and classroom observation are the primary data collection tools so that both
perception and actual experience are taken in to account. No other methods will be used.
First, the professors will be given a semi-structured interview on their technology use in the
classroom (Shulz). This interview will also cover the professors’ education history, technology
use history, and their future ideas of using technology. After these interviews the researcher will
observe the professors’ classrooms. Each professor teaches more than one subject to a couple of
sections of students. Therefore, the researcher will strive to observe at least one section of each
subject and more, if possible. Through out the process of observing, the researcher will interview
the professors according to what happens in the class that day. These questions will not be pre-
planned. After several observations have been concluded, the researcher will again perform a
semi-structured interview based on findings through the transcribing process. The professors will
be able to ask their own questions as well. This will conclude the research. All observations and
interviews will be voice-recorded by the researcher and then transcribed to find similar and
differing views between the professors along with what their experiences are mostly made up of.
To better this phenomenological study, Van Manen’s work will be read before the beginning of
research.

5. EXPERIENCE
OF
INTEGRATING
TECHNOLOGY
FOR
PROFESSORS
5
References
Breda, J., Clement, M., & Waeytens, K. (2003). An interactive training programme
for beginning faculty: issues of implementation. International Journal of
Academic Development, 8(1/2), 91-104. doi: 10.1080/1360144042000277964
Goktas,
Y.,
Yildirim,
S.,
&
Yildirim,
Z.
(2009).
Main
barriers
and
possible
neablers
of
icts
integration
into
pre-­‐service
teacher
education
programs.
Educational
Technology
&
Society,
12(1),
193-­‐204.
Hannon, J., & Bretag, T. (2010). Negotiating contested discourses of learning
technologies in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1),
106-120.
JAMIL, M., & SHAH, J.H. (2011). Technology: its potential effects on teaching in
higher education. New Horizons in Education, 59(1), 38-51
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusions of innovations. (4th ed., pp. 161-203). New York:
Free Press.
Rogers, R.K., & Wallace, J.D. (2011). Predictors of technology integration in
education: a study of anxiety and innovativeness in teacher preparation.
Journal of Literacy and Technology, 12(2), 28-61.
Schulz, L.L., & Rubel, D. (2011). Phenomenology of alienation in high school: the
experiences of five male non-completers. Professional School Counseling,
14(5), 286-298.
Van
Manen,
M.
(1997).
Researching
lived
experience:
human
science
for
an
action
sensitive
pedagogy
(2
ed.).
London:
Althouse
Press.
http://www4.esu.edu/aboutesu/