Spodark, E. (2003). Five obstacles to technology integration at a small liberal arts university. T H E Journal, 30(8), 14-18.
Summary
This article discuses five obstacles to integrating technology at a small university in Virginia. The first obstacle addressed is the lack of a clear vision, which the author contends is the first obstacle to integrating technology campus wide. Without a clear vision, faculty members are left to implement technology on their own, which leads to disjointed programs that often put a strain on the available technology support system.
The second obstacle that the author addresses is the lack of leadership. This obstacle flows directly from the first -- a lack of a clear vision directly results in a lack of leadership. If an entire university campus aims to transform into a technology-integrated environment, visible leadership from administrators is critical to achieving this goal. It will be difficult for faculty members alone to create a cohesive, comprehensive technology-rich programs without the leadership and support from senior administration.
The third obstacle presented is a lack of critical mass of technology. Faculty needs to have access to technology that can be incorporated into daily instruction, not just computer labs that can be occasionally reserved during class time. If technology isn't readily available as a permanent fixture in the classroom, faculty members will have the added stress of securing and setting up the technology, which "adds another layer of work on top of an educator's regular teaching duties." The author points out that as a result, the majority of instructors will not put forth the extra effort required to integrate technology into their curriculum.
The fourth obstacle listed is a lack of incentive. Most faculty members are not financially compensated or encouraged to integrate technology into the curriculum. Some support is provided via compensation professional development activities, but large incentives are usually not provided for transforming curriculum into one that is technology-centered. Doing this without compensation can lead to faculty burn out, and most faculty members who do make an effort do so because they find a personal sense in fostering student growth and success.
Lastly, a lack of faculty participation is an obstacle for technology integration. This is a direct combination of the first four obstacles listed. Some faculty are resistant to change and are reluctant to integrate technology into their lessons. Some faculty members are not comfortable enough working with technology and, as a result, hesitate to include it in their instruction. Other faculty members simply do not believe that technology-rich instruction will have an impact on student learning and performance. The author contends that if any of the first four obstacles are present, then faculty participation will be "greatly inhibited".
Reflection
As a faculty member at a very large institution, technology as a permanent fixture in the classroom is probably more realistic for me than it is for the author of this article. I do believe that the other four obstacles in this article apply to me to some degree. I personally find a lack of incentive to be a large impediment to my own integration of technology in my classroom. For me, it is not necessarily the absence of monetary compensation, rather a lack of release time necessary to research, learn, obtain, and implement technologies into my curriculum. I do agree that a lack of leadership could play a major role in the success of a campus-wide technology integration effort, especially at a smaller university. My place of work is very large, so it may not be realistic to expect higher administration to actively lead such an effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment