VOL. 16, No. 1, 70-84
The growth in computer applications, and use of the Internet in particular, has signalled change for the delivery of distance teaching. Massey University is a multi-campus, multi-mode institution with an academic staff in excess of 1,400. This article reports on the findings from a survey of staff in the Colleges of Business, Science, and Education about their current use of Web-based technology in distance teaching, future intentions to use such technology, and major barriers to the uptake of the technology. The Web-based technologies most commonly used by staff for teaching purposes were e-mail contact with students and accessing the library databases. Respondents identified numerous advantages associated with Web-based learning approaches, but most did not believe Web-based technology was any more effective than conventional correspondence-based distance learning. The chief barriers identified were the time required in learning how to use Web-based technology and develop appropriate courses, the lack of training, and the continuing time requirements associated with using and monitoring Web-based technology in teaching. In a subsequent factor analysis, barriers were found to group together into three distinct categories, each of which was associated with different dependent variables measuring staff acceptance of Web-based teaching initiatives. These results suggest that different barriers will be influential at different stages in the diffusion process. Educational institutions that plan to adopt Web-based teaching as part of their distance education portfolio are advised to implement a flexible and dynamic strategy to alleviate these barriers.
La croissance des applications informatiques, et de l'utilisation de l'Internet en particulier, a signalé un changement dans la diffusion et le mode de transmission de l'enseignement à distance. Massey University est une institution multi-campus et multi-modes qui compte un surplus de 1400 personnes dans son personnel relatif aux études. Cet article rend compte des résultats d'une étude du personnel dans les départements de business, science et éducation sur: leur usage actuel, dans l'enseignement à distance, de la technologie basée sur le Web, leurs intentions futures d'utiliser une telle technologie et les principaux obstacles à l'utilisation de la technologie. Les technologies basées sur le Web généralement les plus utilisées par le personnel pour l'enseignement étaient la communication par courrier électronique avec les étudiants et l'accès à la base de données de la bibliothèque. Les répondants ont identifié nombre d'avantages associés aux approches d'apprentissage basées sur le Web, mais la plupart ne croyaient pas que cette technologie était plus efficace que l'apprentissage à distance conventionnel, basé sur la correspondance. Les principaux obstacles identifiés étaient: le manque de formation, le temps requis pour apprendre comment utiliser les technologies basées sur le Web et pour développer les cours appropriés ainsi que celui continuellement requis pour l'utilisation et le contrôle de ces technologies dans l'enseignement. Dans une analyse subséquente de facteurs, les obstacles se sont avérés être groupés en trois catégories distinctes, dont chacune était associée avec différentes variables dépendantes mesurant l'acceptation par le personnel des initiatives d'enseignement basées sur le Web. Ces résultats suggèrent que différents obstacles seront influents à différentes étapes dans le processus de diffusion. Les institutions d'enseignement qui prévoient adopter l'enseignement basé sur le Web dans leur portfolio d'éducation à distance sont avisées d'implanter une stratégie flexible et dynamique pour amenuiser les obstacles.
The growth of the World Wide Web (the Web), combined with rapid technological advances in computing power, has paved the way for Web-based distance learning. The use of the Web for delivery of distance courses is a major development that is changing the way knowledge is imparted to the widest audience inside and outside the classroom. These technological innovations are profoundly influencing university practices and policies and may even be fundamentally altering our conceptualizations of education.
Many reasons have been suggested as to why universities and other teaching institutions should introduce Web-based instruction. The three most commonly advanced rationales for incorporating Web-based technology into distance education are to enhance the quality of learning, to maintain competitive advantage, and to improve access to education and training (Bates, 1997; Inglis, 1999; Oliver, 1999).
The introduction of Web-based instruction offers the promise of enhancing the learning experience of distance education students in several ways. Those who endorse a constructivist or collaborative approach to teaching and learning believe that facilitating real interaction between students, or between students and the instructor, is the most important mechanism by which Web-based instruction can enhance the learning experience (Daugherty & Funke, 1998; Inglis, 1999; Kirkwood, 1998; Oliver, 1999). From the perspective of constructivists, the real potential of the Web is that it offers distance students the possibility of establishing a “virtual learning community” where knowledge, ideas, and perspectives can be freely exchanged.
Other studies have highlighted the capacity of information and communication technologies to build student motivation, to engage students, and to develop self-directed and autonomous learning (Akerlind & Trevitt, 1999; Daugherty & Funke, 1998). Computer-assisted instruction has been shown to improve learning outcomes for students (Fletcher-Flinn & Gravett, 1995; Ryan, 1991). Moreover, the quality of the learning experience for distance students is also thought to be enhanced by the greater range of presentation forms available and the interactivity with the material that is now possible. The new Web-based technologies also provide ready access to the latest information and experts around the world. Students can use the Web to access up-to-date and pertinent material. This helps ensure that the learning experience will be most relevant and useful to the student in a dynamic environment where knowledge is at a premium.
For many educational institutions the adoption of Web-based instruction may be driven not so much by pedagogical imperatives as by business concerns. Bates (1997) suggests that the new Web-based technologies may be perceived by some institutions as a convenient replacement for labor, thereby reducing the costs of education. He goes on to warn, however, that the materials and the new technologies by which they are delivered can only partly substitute for the interaction between a learner and a real teacher. If technological systems are used to reduce labor costs, this may ultimately be at the expense of quality of learning. Arguments that stress cost savings achieved by increasing learner reliance on self-instructional materials and reducing teacher-student contact may in the end be incompatible with those that emphasize gains in learning outcomes or improvements in quality (Inglis, 1999).
The economic rationale also relies to a large extent on the notion of economies of scale. Educational institutions may hope that by moving to Web-based delivery they can target a much larger market, attract more students, increase student intakes into courses, and thereby reduce the cost of teaching each student (Kirkwood, 1998). Savings may also be anticipated by eliminating printing and mailing costs. However, cost savings may not be as great as some organizations anticipate. Overheads associated with communication and infrastructure requirements, the development of materials, and the provision of ongoing support for staff and students may make it a more costly proposition than expected (James & Beattie, 1996). This has been borne out in a recent study in which it was estimated that changing from conventional correspondence-based approaches to Web-based delivery would in fact increase costs (Inglis, 1999).
However, even if it should prove to be more costly than anticipated, there may be good strategic reasons to shift to Web-based delivery. For many educational institutions it may provide opportunities to develop an international presence or allow them to capitalize on expanding local markets and increasing student demand. Furthermore, Inglis (1999) argues that although the move to Web-based delivery cannot be fully justified by cost savings alone at present, educational institutions need to gain experience and position themselves to take advantage of these new distance education systems. In a climate where universities are experiencing greater fiscal constraints and increasing competition from other national and international providers, those that fail to do so may not survive.
It is often pointed out that asynchronous Web-based technologies provide students with more flexible access to education. Learning can be done when and where it is convenient for the student (Bates, 1997; Daugherty & Funke, 1998; Inglis, 1999). Paradoxically, however, access may be impeded. Several commentators have noted that requiring students to access the Web may deny some students the opportunity to participate in education and appears to be at odds with the notion of openness in distance education (Bates, 1997; Davison, 1996; Inglis, 1999; Kirkwood, 1998). In particular, those students who cannot afford the technology and who lack the skills and confidence will be most disadvantaged. Kirkwood (1998) argues that where Web-based technology is made mandatory for study, existing inequalities between students are likely to be exacerbated. Vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities, older students, women, rural students, and those from poorer socioeconomic environments may be especially at risk. Until information and communication technologies on which Web-based instruction is based become sufficiently commonplace and affordable, we might expect the gulf between the haves and have nots to increase rather than be diminished by the advent of Web-based technology in distance education.
Fabry and Higgs (1997) write about the discrepancy that exists between the level of technology use expected of educators and the actual use and integration of technology in the classroom. Although much has been written about the value of computers for learning, the successful integration of technology into the tertiary student’s course depends not only on access and availability, but also on how teachers embrace and use computers.
A number of reasons account for the gap between actual and expected use of computers. Some of the barriers to effective use of technology include teachers’ attitudes and resistance to change, concerns about funding, training deficiencies, inadequate access, time constraints, and lack of technical support. A 1995 study of postgraduate education in Australia by James and Beattie (1996) revealed a slow uptake of flexible delivery options, with print remaining the dominant medium of instruction. Factors found to be inhibiting widespread implementation included concerns over academic standards, the adverse impact on other academic work (particularly on research and writing), and the absence of adequate support. These are recurring themes that have been identified by researchers in other countries (Daugherty & Funke, 1998; Hare & McCartan, 1996; Thompson & Holt, 1996).
Developments in communication and information technology and in Web-based instruction continue unabated. Although the new technologies offer great promise, important issues need to be considered if this promise is to be realized. It would be helpful for institutions that hope to take advantage of these developments to know what experience their staff currently have, what their attitudes toward Web-based technology are, and what they perceive to be the major barriers to the implementation of this technology. Furthermore, although several studies have explored barriers to the uptake of Web-based teaching initiatives, there has been no attempt to quantify the impact of these or to explore how barriers might influence different outcomes associated with the adoption of new technology. These questions are the focus of this study.
Massey University is a multi-campus, mixed-mode institution that offers conventional classroom teaching alongside distance teaching and block courses. It is New Zealand’s largest university and a major provider of distance education, with a roll of more than 16,000 distance students and 12,500 internal students. Massey University prides itself on offering second-chance education, and University policy is to allow open entry at the undergraduate level for those over the age of 21.
The approach to distance education is primarily first generation, relying on written study guides and texts. However, over the last decade the university has been encouraging staff to incorporate a range of synchronous and asynchronous computer-based technologies into their courses. In particular, the use of WebCT was endorsed by the university. Although other shells for the delivery of Web-based material could be used, no “official” support was available to staff members who used these alternative applications.
The main form of support available for WebCT was an online teaching support consultant. This individual provided some one-to-one assistance with the development and maintenance of WebCT courses, conducted departmental visits where he discussed WebCT and how it could be used, and maintained a listserv (www-teach@massey.ac.nz) devoted to online design and delivery issues with most of the postings relating to WebCT. He also acted as a resource person, supplying manuals and linking together people working on similar design issues. In addition, an online course on how to use WebCT was available for staff members and a Certificate in Flexible Learning and Teaching with a module on WebCT was being developed.
At the time of this survey the uptake of Web-based teaching technologies was relatively slow. Of a total of 1,287 distance education courses offered, only 16 were using WebCT, although a similar number were in operation using other applications such as FrontPage or Dream Weaver. During this period a further 40 courses were being developed using WebCT, and nearly 300 courses incorporated mailing lists.
Participants were all academic staff from the Colleges of Business, Science, and Education at the Palmerston North campus of Massey University. Taken together staff from these three Colleges offer 3,252 courses internally and 911 courses in distance mode. Nearly half of the College of Education offerings are available in distance mode (45.2%), a quarter of the offerings from the College of Business (25.1%), and only 7.6% of the offerings from the College of Science. Because it was not possible to identify and target only those staff involved in distance education, we included a question in the survey asking about their involvement in distance teaching.
Questionnaires were mailed to all 719 staff in the three Colleges, and usable responses were received from 250, a response rate of 34.8%. As indicated in Table 1, more than two thirds of the respondents were aged 40 or older. There were more men (65%) than women (35%), and more than half of those responding were from the College of Science. A considerable spread of experience in distance teaching was evident, with just over 30% of the respondents indicating no prior experience and just over 10% reporting more than 15 years experience. Because the study focused on use of the Web in distance instruction, those respondents (20%) who indicated that they were not engaged in any form of distance education were eliminated from the sample. This left a total of 180 respondents for all further analyses. This reduction in sample size was not completely unexpected, especially given the higher number of noninstructional staff (research only) in the College of Science and the much smaller proportion of courses offered from that College in distance mode.
Following university ethics procedures, questionnaires were posted to staff in the internal mail along with a letter explaining the purpose of the research and a return envelope. The voluntary nature of the study was emphasized, and participants were assured that their responses would be anonymous. A reminder was sent using departmental and college electronic mailing lists four weeks after the initial mailing to enhance the response rate.
The survey incorporated questions about a range of demographic factors including gender, age, occupational position, and distance education experience. Respondents were also asked about technology use in their teaching; its relative value; and the main barriers, advantages, and disadvantages associated with Web-based technology. In addition, we included several scales adapted from the literature on innovation diffusion and technology acceptance, measuring such constructs as computer experience, computer enjoyment, computer self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and future intentions to use Web-based technology.
The percentage of respondents incorporating different Web-based technologies in their teaching is shown in Table 2. It is most notable that overall, staff appear to make little use of most of the technologies. The only exceptions were e-mail communications with students, which more than 90% of participants used, and remote access of the library’s electronic databases, which more than 70% incorporated into their distance education courses. Chat rooms (10.8%), video- or audioconferencing (10.1%), and Web-based tests (6.5%) were the technologies least likely to be used by staff in their teaching. Usage rates for the remaining Web-based technologies were somewhat better, but in no case did more than 30% of the staff surveyed indicate that they used one of these particular technologies in their distance teaching.
Respondents were presented with a series of statements that identified potential barriers to their use of technology. The number and percentage of respondents who rated each barrier as strong or very strong (on a 5-point scale ranging from No Barrier to Very Strong Barrier) is shown in Table 3. Three of the four most prohibitive barriers identified by staff were related to issues of time. The most significant barrier, identified by more than 70% of the respondents, was the time required to learn how to use the technology. A majority of staff also felt that the time associated with developing and implementing Web-based courses posed a real impediment to their use of the technology in teaching. Similarly, ongoing monitoring of Web-based courses was perceived as a considerable barrier to the effective use of Web-based technology.
Issues related to organizational support for the implementation of Web-based teaching were also seen as significant barriers by many of those surveyed. Lack of technical support, scanty training, insufficient resources, meager teaching support, and the perception that the institution did not recognize or reward efforts to integrate Web-based technologies into teaching were all identified as important barriers by many of the academic staff. In contrast, few of those surveyed indicated they had a personal dislike of computers or felt that threats to job security posed much of a barrier to their use of Web-based teaching technologies.
Table 4 shows the results from an exploratory factor analysis of the barrier items and provides the alpha coefficients for each factor scale. The factor analysis was performed using principal components extraction with Varimax rotation. Initial analyses identified five factors with eigen values greater than one, which together accounted for 67.3% of the variance. Problems with the interpretability of the factor structure and concerns regarding the stability of two of the factors (each of which had only two items that loaded) led us to rerun the factor analysis with a more stringent cut-off of 1.5 for the eigen values. This analysis resulted in a parsimonious three-factor solution, which collectively accounted for 52.9% of the variance.
Factor 1, labeled personal barriers, appears to represent individual obstacles to the uptake of Web-based technology. The items loading on this factor reflect staff concerns about the personal time, effort, and skills required to implement Web-based learning. Factor 2, categorized as attitudinal barriers, incorporates a cluster of items that reflect broader philosophical concerns and affective reactions to Web-based learning in general. The final factor, labeled organizational barriers, includes items that ask about institutional support and encouragement of Web-based teaching.
It is evident from Table 4 that items loaded on the constructs they measured with little in the way of cross-loading. Alpha coefficients for the factor scales ranged from 0.76 to 0.84, indicating that the scales all exhibited acceptable levels of internal consistency. Taken together the data provide support for the reliability and validity of the barriers measure. Consequently, the factor scores were used in a regression analysis to predict a range of outcome measures related to the uptake of Web-based technology.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the regression analyses used to investigate the influence of personal, attitudinal, and organizational barriers on the decision by academic staff to adopt Web-based technology. Overall, barriers accounted for 35% and 37% of the variance in perceptions of ease of use and current usage respectively. The personal barrier factor explained a significant portion of the variance in both current use ((=–.52, p<.000) and perceptions of the ease of use of the technology ((=–.63, p<.000). The significant negative betas indicate that participants scoring higher on the personal barrier factor were less likely to find the technology easy to use or to be currently using it in their teaching. None of the other barrier factors contributed significantly to current usage or perceived ease of use.
The attitudinal barrier factor was the only factor that accounted for a significant portion of the variance in enjoyment ((=–.46, p<.000), perceived usefulness ((=–.21, p<.05), and future intentions to adopt Web-based technology ((=–.37, p<.000). The significant negative betas indicate that participants who scored higher on the attitudinal barrier factor were less likely to find Web-based technology enjoyable, useful, or intend to use it in the future. Overall, barriers accounted for 22%, 12%, and 21% of the variance in enjoyment, usefulness, and intentions to use respectively. Interestingly, the organizational barrier factor did not contribute significantly to the prediction of any of the outcome measures.
Our results highlight the relatively slow diffusion of Web-based teaching initiatives among the participants in the present study. E-mail and library access were the only Web-based technologies used by most of the respondents. Other more “sophisticated” elements of Web-based teaching such as online tests and discussion forums had much lower rates of adoption by academic staff. The sluggish uptake of full-blown Web-based teaching approaches can be linked to a number of factors that impede the implementation of Web-based teaching by staff. The most commonly mentioned barriers identified in the present study were those related to time pressures, a perceived lack of training and skills, and a scarcity of organizational support and resources. In other studies where teachers have been surveyed, similar concerns have been expressed (Daugherty & Funke, 1998; Hare & McCartan, 1996; James & Beattie, 1996; Mudge, 1999; Schifter, 2000; Thompson & Holt, 1996; Wolcott & Betts, 1999).
Until now no effort has been made to quantify the influence of barriers or to explore systematically the relationship between specific types of barriers and different outcomes associated with the uptake of technology. In the present study a factor analysis of the barrier items resulted in a 3-factor solution that together accounted for slightly more than 50% of the variance in respondents’ ratings. By then using the factor scores in a regression analysis, it was possible to identify the relative contribution of each constellation of barriers to the prediction of a range of uptake outcome measures.
An intriguing pattern of results emerged from this analysis. The important influence of barriers on adoption decisions was clearly established. Overall, the presence and strength of perceived barriers contributed significantly to the prediction of all of the outcome measures. However, barriers were found to explain more of the variance in current use of Web-based teaching and the perceived ease of use of the technology (37% and 35% respectively) than enjoyment, future intentions to adopt, and perceptions of usefulness (22%, 21%, and 12% in that order). Moreover, for each outcome measure only one factor was found to be influential, either personal barriers or attitudinal barriers. Contrary to expectations, the presence of organizational barriers (those related to organizational support and encouragement of the use of Web-based technology) did not contribute significantly to the prediction of any of the outcome measures.
The different roles of personal and attitudinal barriers to the prediction of current use and future intentions to adopt Web-based technology is an interesting finding in this study. Current use of the technology is most closely associated with personal barriers. Those who feel they lack the skills and training to use the technology and who perceive that it requires a greater commitment of time and effort than they have available are less likely currently to incorporate Web-based delivery in their distance teaching. In contrast, future intentions to adopt Web-based teaching were most closely associated with negative attitudes and beliefs about Web-based delivery in general.
These results have practical implications for organizations that wish to encourage the acceptance of Web-based learning among academic staff. The salience of distinct barriers at different points in the innovation adoption process suggests that organizations must adopt a flexible strategy for their elimination. The formulation of intentions to behave in a certain way (e.g., to start using an innovation) is commonly understood to precede the individual’s engagement in that behavior (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). Therefore, for an organization that wishes to encourage the adoption of an innovation, eliminating negative attitudes and beliefs about that innovation would appear to be a critical first step. Once this is achieved, attention can then be turned to eliminating other barriers (such as those reflected in the personal barriers factor) that may be preventing an individual from translating his or her intentions into behavior.
Although it was noteworthy that organizational barriers did not play an influential role in determining uptake decisions, this does not mean that organizational initiatives are redundant.
Various approaches such as guided mastery learning experiences, persuasive communications, and publicizing and promoting successful uptake experiences by peers may be appropriate interventions that an organization can use to encourage positive attitudes and beliefs about Web-based learning. These same techniques may also be helpful in eliminating personal barriers to the uptake of the technology. Furthermore, staff concerns over the amount of time required to implement and monitor Web-based teaching initiatives were among the most significant barriers identified in our survey. This is clearly an area where organizations can effectively intervene. Providing adequate support, ensuring reasonable workloads and making it easier for staff to make the transition to the new technologies would assist in facilitating the rapid diffusion of Web-based teaching initiatives.
In conclusion, it is vital for educational organizations to be aware of the barriers that hinder staff from implementing Web-based approaches in distance education. The promise of Web-based distance learning can only be fulfilled if teachers have the opportunity and motivation to use this technology. Substantial investments in information technology by universities will count for nothing if staff are overwhelmed by the barriers they encounter.
Akerlind, G., & Trevitt, A.C. (1999). Enhancing self-directed learning through educational technology: When students resist the change. Innovations in Education and Training International, 36(2), 96-105.
Bates, A.W. (1997). The impact of technological change on open and distance learning. Distance Education, 18(1), 93 -109.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Davison, T. (1996). Distance learning and information technology: Problems and solutions in balancing caring, access and success for students. Distance Education, 17(1), 145-158.
Daugherty, M., & Funke, B.L. (1998). University faculty and student perceptions of Web-based instruction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 21-39.
Fabry, D.L., & Higgs, J.R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education: Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 385-395.
Fletcher-Flinn, C., & Gravett, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 219-242.
Hare, C., & McCartan, A. (1996). Maximising resources in search of quality: Identifying factors to enable the integrative use of IT in teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 33(4), 178-184.
Inglis, A. (1999). Is online delivery less costly than print and is it meaningful to ask? Distance Education, 20(2), 220-239.
James, R., & Beattie, K. (1996). Postgraduate coursework beyond the classroom: Issues in implementing flexible delivery. Distance Education, 17(2), 355-368.
Kirkwood, A. (1998). New media mania: Can information and communication technologies enhance the quality of open and distance learning? Distance Education, 19(2), 228-241.
Mudge, S.M. (1999). Delivering multimedia teaching modules via the Internet. Innovations in Education and Training International, 36(1), 11-16.
Oliver, R. (1999). Exploring strategies for online teaching and learning. Distance Education, 20(2), 240-254.
Ryan, A. (1991). Meta-analysis of achievement effects of microcomputer applications in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 161-184.
Schifter, C.C. (2000). Faculty participation in asynchronous learning networks: A case study of motivating and inhibiting factors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 15-22. [Online]. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnWeb/journal/jaln-vol4issue1.htm
Thompson, D.J., & Holt, D.M. (1996). Tertiary pedagogy encounters the technological imperative. Distance Education, 17(2), 335-354.
Wolcott, L., & Betts, K. (1999). What’s in it for me? Incentives for faculty participation in distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 34-49. [Online]. Available: http://www.icaap.org/vol14.2/Wolcott_et_al.html
Karl Pajo is a lecturer in the Department of Human Resource Management where he teaches organizational behavior.
Catherine Wallace is a lecturer in the Department of Communication and Journalism where she teaches courses in communications technology. Both Karl and Catherine have been involved in distance education for many years.