A study conducted in Team-Based Learning (TBL) classrooms confirmed that technology barriers exist in these technology-enhanced learning spaces just as they do in traditional classrooms (Ertmer, 1999; Wheeler, 2015). This research study aims to ameliorate the TBL classroom technology adoption factors and barriers found in previous literature through mixed methods and action research by examining the following research question; how does a faculty development intervention program impact instructors’ adoption of classroom technologies and influence their ability to negotiate technology barriers?

Learning technology barriers are well defined in traditional classrooms. Yet faculty experience additional and unique challenges pedagogically when teaching in Team-Based Learning (TBL) classrooms (Van Horne et al., 2014; Van Horne, Murniati, Gaffney, & Jesse, 2012). The pedagogical support that instructors received is well covered in faculty development literature (Foote, 2014). However, there is less support for faculty to address technological barriers experienced during their pedagogical pivot into these new technology-enhanced learning spaces.

The research question is examined using experiential learning, the adult learning theory pioneered by Kolb (2000; 1984). Research methods include classroom observations, online surveys, and consultations in order to investigate the faculty adoption of technology in TBL classrooms. This poster discusses preliminary results of the study.

Overall findings of this ongoing research study will contribute to the larger literature on Active Learning Classrooms (ALC’s) and to technology adoption and barriers research. This study will also add insights into the practitioner field of faculty development in technology by way of the underpinning action research methodology which seeks to ameliorate the challenging technology issues that instructors experience in technology-enhanced learning spaces. Additionally, this study provides insights for faculty development practitioners supporting instructional technologies.

Adopting Classroom Technology: A Faculty Development Program Bradford D. Wheeler

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA College of Education, Department of Math, Science, and Learning Technologies

Introduction Methods

Abstract

Review of Literature

Constructivist Learning Spaces• SCALE-UP Classrooms• TILE (Transform, Interact

Learn, Engage) Classrooms• TEAL (Technology Enabled

Active Learning) Classrooms• TBL (Team-Based Learning)

Classrooms

Faculty Development in Technology

Adoption and Barriers Literature• First-order (lack of time,

training, support, etc.)• Second-order (compatibility

with beliefs, philosophy, etc.)

Data Analysis Results

Descriptive statistics will be utilized to capture the cohort profile of technology use and demographics of participants

Classroom observations will be analyzed for technology use and frequency of use by instructor

Qualitative data analysis is being conducted through open coding which helps uncover themes and subthemes in qualitative data (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis guide (2006) will be utilized as a framework to analyze qualitative interview data.

With the above data, technology use over time will be discussed.

ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597

Foote, K. T. (2014). Factors Underlying the Adoption and Adaption of a University Physics Reform over Three Generations of Implementation Kathleen Teressa Foote North Carolina State University. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(3).

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (2000). The Process of Experiential Learning. In Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy (pp. 313–331). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4

Van Horne, S., Murniati, C., Gaffney, J. D. H., & Jesse, M. (2012). Promoting Active Learning in Technology-Infused TILE Classrooms at the University of Iowa TILE Classrooms at the University of Iowa. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2).

Van Horne, S., Murniati, C. T., Saichaie, K., Jesse, M., Florman, J. C., & Ingram, B. F. (2014). Using Qualitative Research to Assess Teaching and Learning in Technology-Infused TILE Classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 17–26. doi:10.1002/tl.20082

Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and Space: Empirical Research on New Learning Environments. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 34(4).

Wheeler, B. D. (2015). Factors that Influence Faculty Adoptions of Technologies in Team-Based Learning (TBL) Classrooms. Unpublished Manuscript.

Theoretical Framework

Kolb (1984, 2000) Experiential Learning

• An iterative model of in-situ learning

Action Research• Praxis research aligned

with professional development

Action research connects the androgogical foundations of

Kolb’s experiential learning to data collection activities pertaining to technology

adoption.

Data CollectionSemester-long faculty development/education technology program.

Two classroom observations

Two online surveys

Two technology consultations

Participants13 cross-discipline instructors with various levels of TBL classroom teaching experience. All instructors were assigned to one of five new TBL classrooms at UMass Amherst, each seating between 54-99 students.

Qualitative Analysis Framework (Braun and Clarke, 2006)

Emergent Findings

Data analysis is at Phase I. Preliminary and early analysis indicates the following about faculty:

• Lack of time to prepare lessons• Lack of technology to meet all

disciplines (for example, audio equipment is not sufficient for faculty in fields that use sound, e.g. music, phonetics)

• Instructors select a small subset of technology based on pedagogical need

• Unreliable equipment and hardware failures are cited frequently, faculty often avoided such tools afterwards.

• Access to on-site support services is not always clear or accessible

• Converting a course pedagogically to active learning is very demanding, similarly, the technology required to support this shift is also challenging to adopt and maintain