Wheeler, B., Adopting Classroom Technology: A Faculty Development Program. Poster presented at: New England Faculty Development Consortium (NEFDC) 2016, May 24; Somerville, MA.

1. 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.
References
Braun, 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 Collection
Semester-long faculty development/education technology program.
Two classroom observations
Two online surveys
Two technology consultations
Participants
13 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