Research Article

The Impact of Generational Status on Instructors’ Reported Technology Usage

Susan Troncoso Skidmore 1 *, Linda Reichwein Zientek 1, D. Patrick Saxon 1, Stacey L. Edmonson 1
More Detail
1 Sam Houston State University, United States* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(3), July 2014, 179-197, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6124
OPEN ACCESS   2021 Views   1421 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Although the majority of colleges and universities are equipped with the latest instructional technologies, an appreciable integration of technology has not been observed in instructional practices (Flavin, 2013; Garrison & Akyol, 2009; Salinas, 2008). The purpose of this research is to understand the impact that generational differences can have on developmental education faculty members’ self-reported familiarity, use, and challenges with instructional technology as measured by the Developmental Education Technology Survey (DETS; Skidmore, Saxon, Zientek, & Edmonson, 2012). The DETS was developed to examine the level of technology integration in developmental education programs across Texas higher education institutions. Responses from 753 developmental education faculty members from 68 institutions (69% institutional response rate) are the focus of this study. Findings suggest that generational classification serves as a statistically significant predictor of familiarity with instructional technology. A statistically significantly larger proportion of the faculty of the Silent generation also identified their own skill level as a challenge compared to other generations. Developing an understanding of faculty members’ proclivity to use instructional technology through the lens of generational classification can lead to more targeted professional development, which can help faculty members move towards using instructional technology as a resource to improve teaching and learning.
Keywords: Generational status, Developmental education, Integration of technology, Technology usage

CITATION (APA)

Skidmore, S. T., Zientek, L. R., Saxon, D. P., & Edmonson, S. L. (2014). The Impact of Generational Status on Instructors’ Reported Technology Usage. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(3), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6124

REFERENCES

  1. Boatman, A. (2014). Beyond ready, fire, aim: New solutions to old problems in college remediation. Retrieved on 10 January 2014 from http://www.aei.org/files/2014/03/25/-beyond-ready- fire-aim-new-solutions-to-old-problems-in-college-remediation_085930704998.pdf
  2. Boylan, H. R. (2002). What works: Research-based best practices in developmental education. Boone, NC: National Center for Developmental Education.
  3. Boylan, H. R. (2009). The mistakes we make and how we correct them: What I’ve learned as a consultant. NADE Digest, 4(2), 1-8.
  4. Broom, C. (2010). Entice, engage, endure: Adapting evidence-based retention strategies to a new generation of nurses. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 2, 49-60. doi:10.2147/JHL.S7914
  5. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
  6. CDW-G. (2011). The 2011 CDW-G 21st-century campus report. Retrieved on 26 November 2013 from http://download.1105media.com/CAM/conf/2011/Presentations/T09_Andrew- Lausch_The-21st-Century-Campus-Students-Tell-It-Like-It-Is_07-26-201.pdf
  7. Chatterjee, S., & Simonoff, J. S. (2013). Handbook of regression analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reaching the millennial generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 471-481. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.6.2
  9. Education News. (2009, February). Stimulus package sees education technology's importance to U.S. competitiveness. Retrieved on 29 August 2013 from http://ednews.org/articles/ 34125/1/Stimulus-Package-Sees-Education-Technologys-Importance-to-US- Competitiveness/Page1.html
  10. Effective Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Teaching across generations. Retrieved on 1 November 2013 from http://www.mcc.edu/pdf/pdo/teaching_across_gen.pdf
  11. Epper, R. M., & Baker, E. D. (2009, January). Technology Solutions for developmental math: An overview of current and emerging practices. Retrieved on 2 April 2013 from http://www. gatesfoundation.org/learning/Documents/technology-solutions-for-developmental-math- jan-2009.pdf
  12. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
  13. Flavin, M. (2013). Disruptive conduct: the impact of disruptive technologies on social relations in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International (ahead-of-print), 1- 13. doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.866330
  14. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 19-30. doi:10.1007/s12528-009- 9014-7
  15. Geer, R., & Sweeney, T. A. Students’ voices about learning with technology. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 294-303.
  16. Green, K. C. (1996). The coming ubiquity of information technology. Change, 28(2), 24-31. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1996.9937746
  17. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
  18. Jefferies, A., Cubric, M., & Russell, M. (2013). Enhancing learning and teaching using electronic voting systems–The development of a framework for an institutional approach for their introduction. Cutting-edge technologies in higher education, 6, 17-45. doi:10.1108/S2044- 9968(2013)000006E004
  19. Jorn, L., Martyr-Wagner, M., Mendenhall, T., Molgaard, L., Oliver, J., Sonnack, J., Walker, J. D., (2003). Multi-college faculty survey: Experiences with educational technology at the University of Minnesota (2003). Retrieved on2 April 2013 from http://www.oit.umn.edu/ prod/groups/oit/ @pub/@oit/@web/@evaluationresearch/documents/asset/oit_asset_ 149637.pdf
  20. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In Reigeluth, C. (Ed.) Instructional Design
  21. Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  22. Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Yildirim, G., Arpacik, O., & Goktas, Y. (2013). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011. Computers & Education, 68, 42-50. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.016
  23. Lichy, J. (2012). Towards an international culture: Gen Y students and SNS? Active Learning in
  24. Higher Education, 13, 101–116. doi:10.1177/1469787412441289
  25. Lovely, S., & Buffum, A. G. (2007). Generations at school: Building an age-friendly learning community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  26. Manny-Ikan, E., Tikochinski, T. B., Zorman, R., Dagan, O. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning – An evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Object, 7, 249-273.
  27. Merrill, M. D. (2002). Effective use of instructional technology requires educational reform. Educational Technology, 17(2), 13-18.
  28. Meyer, K. A., & Xu, Y. J. (2007). A Bayesian analysis of the institutional and individual factors influencing the faculty technology use. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 184–195. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.06.001
  29. Mocke, D. (n.d.). Understanding Generation X. Retrieved on 12 February 2013 from http://www.sustainable-employee-motivation.com/generation-X.html
  30. Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78, 691-692. doi:10.1093/biomet/78.3.691
  31. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in Fall 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2004/2004010.pdf
  32. Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 61-77. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-9006-6
  33. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.
  34. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: A new way to look at ourselves and our kids. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
  35. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64. doi:10.1007/BF02504506
  36. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17-35.
  37. Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2009). Effectively using technology in education. Better Evidence- Based Education, 2(1), 20-21.
  38. Salinas, M. F. (2008). From Dewey to Gates: A model to integrate psychoeducational principles in the selection and use of instructional technology. Computers & Education, 50, 652-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.002
  39. Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 17(2), 71–75.
  40. Schibik, T., & Harrington, C. (2004). Caveat emptor: Is there a relationship between part-time faculty utilization and student learning outcomes and retention? AIR Professional File, 91, 1- 10.
  41. Shults, C. (2001). Remedial education: Practices and policies in community colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
  42. Skidmore, S. T., Saxon, D. P., Zientek, L. R., & Edmonson, S. L. (2012). Technology integration in developmental education in Texas. (Contract No. 07272). Austin, TX: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
  43. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow & Company.
  44. Surry, D. W., & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use technology. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(2), 145-153. doi:10.1080/13558000050034501
  45. Székely, L., & Nagy, Á. (2011). Online youth work and eYouth—A guide to the world of the digital natives. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 2186-2197. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011. 07.002
  46. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2011). Developmental education program survey information. Retrieved on 30 January 2013 from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm? objectid=18555FEC-AF44-3B38-21A9F804FDBD3516
  47. Texas House Bill 1244. 82nd Legislature. Regular session. (2011).
  48. Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today's young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled - and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.
  49. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Generational differences in young adults' life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966-2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1045-1062. doi:10.1037/a0027408
  50. Zemke, R., Ranes, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters at your workplace. New York: AMACOM.
  51. Zientek, L. R., Matteson, S. M., Mittag, K. C., & Taylor, S. (2010, November). Evaluating the impact of virtual manipulatives on teacher quality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the School Science and Mathematics Association. Fort Myers, Florida.