New Technology Adoption by Business Faculty in Teaching: Analysing Faculty Technology Adoption Patterns
Education Journal
Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2018, Pages: 5-15
Received: Dec. 18, 2017; Accepted: Dec. 24, 2017; Published: Jan. 31, 2018
Views 986      Downloads 69
Author
Sharif Musbah Abu Karsh, Department of Banking and Financial Sciences, Faculty of Administrative and Financial Sciences, Arab American University, West Bank, Palestine
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The present investigation surveyed business teachers in traditional university Palestine. Information gathered about technology use patterns, computer experience and use of technology for teaching, perceived computer use self-efficacy, perceived value of IT, perceived incentives, and barriers. This study was designed to establish how instructional technologies were used by business teachers in these universities, and to explore the differences between teachers who have adopted new technology and those reluctant or resistant to IT adoption, and to determine whether business teachers’ characteristics contribute to the prediction of teachers’ adopter categories.
Keywords
Technology Adoption, Diffusion of Innovation, Adopter Categories, Business Teacher’s Technology Use
To cite this article
Sharif Musbah Abu Karsh, New Technology Adoption by Business Faculty in Teaching: Analysing Faculty Technology Adoption Patterns, Education Journal. Vol. 7, No. 1, 2018, pp. 5-15. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20180701.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Abu Karsh, Sharif. M. (2016). Using Information Technology to Enhance Business Education in Palestine: A Theoretical View, the journal INFORMATION- An International Interdisciplinary Journal / ISI, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 19, No.10 (B). pp. 4779-4794, October, 2016, Website: www.information-iii.org.
[2]
Albright, M. J. (1998). Instructional Technology and Higher Education: Rewards, Rights, and Responsibilities. Keynote Address at the Southern Regional Faculty and Instructional Development Consortium, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, February 5 1996, ERIC, ED392412.
[3]
Anderson, T., Varnhagen, S., & Campbell, K. (1999). Faculty Adoption of Teaching and Learning Technologies: Contrasting Earlier Adopters and Mainstream Faculty. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28 (2-3), 71-98.
[4]
Carlile, S., & Sefton, J. (1998). Healthcare and Information Age: Implications for Medical Education. Medical Journal of Australia, 168 (7), 340-343.
[5]
Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 145-158.
[6]
Enochs, L. G., Riggs, I. M., & Ellis, J. D. (1993). The Development and Partial Validation of Microcomputer Utilization in Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument in Science Setting. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 257-263.
[7]
Geoghegan, W. H. (1994). Whatever Happened to Instructional Technology. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Business and Schools Computing Association, July 17-20, 1994, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
[8]
Green, K. C. (1999). The 1999 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education. The Campus Computing Project, retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://www.campuscomputing.net/summaries/1999.
[9]
Green, K. C. (2000). The Real IT Challenge: People, Not Products. Converge, January, retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://www.centerdigitaled.com/converge/?pg=mag&issue=1:2000.
[10]
Hair, J.F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
[11]
Holloway, R. E. (1996). Diffusion and Adoption of Educational Technology: A Critique of Research Design. In. Jonassen, D. H (Ed.), Handbook of Research For Educational Communications and Technology, New York, USA: Simon& Schuster Macmillan, 1107-1133.
[12]
Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption Patterns and Characteristics of Faculty Who Integrate Computer Technology for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Doctoral Dissertation. Educational Psychology, University of Calgary, retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs//phd/diss/.
[13]
Jacobsen, D. M. (2000). Examining Technology Adoption Patterns by Faculty in Higher Education. Paper presented at the ACEC2000: Learning Technologies, Teaching and the Future of Schools, July 6-9, 2000, Melbourne, Australia.
[14]
Kotrlik, J. W., Redmann, D. H., Harrison, B. C., & Handley, C. H. (2000). Information technology related professional development needs of Louisiana agriscience teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41 (1), 18-29.
[15]
Lichty, M. (2000). The Innovation-Decision Process and Factors That Influence Computer Implementation by Medical School Faculty. Doctoral Dissertation, Instructional Technology, Wayne State University, UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations, 9966157.
[16]
Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and Teachers: Factors Influencing Computer Use in the Classroom. Journal of the Research on Computing in Education, 26 (2), 221-237.
[17]
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9 (3), 319-342.
[18]
Oates, K. D. (2001). University Faculty Who Use Computer Technology. Doctoral Dissertation, Instructional Technology, Georgia State University, USA. UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations, 3008105.
[19]
Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (4), 631-643.
[20]
Redmann, D. H., & Kotrlik, J. W. (2004). Analysis of technology integration in the teaching-learning process in selected career and technical education programs. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 29 (1), 3-25.
[21]
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1-16). New York: Academic Press.
[22]
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th Ed.), New York, USA: Free Press.
[23]
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N. & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Washington, D. C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education.
[24]
Spotts, T. H. (1999). Discriminating Factors in Faculty Use of Instructional Technology in Higher Education. Educational Technology and Society, 2 (4), 92-99.
[25]
Surry, D. W., & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for Motivating Higher Education Faculty to Use Technology. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37 (2), 145-15.
[26]
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (3), 253-271.
[27]
Waugh, W. L. (2004). Using personal attributes to predict technology adoption: A study of college faculty. NABTE Review, (31) 58-63.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
548 FASHION AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10018
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-688-8931