Presentation

A Survey of University Faculty Innovation Concerns & Perceptions that Influence the Adoption & Diffusion of a Course Management System: 

A Survey of University Faculty Innovation Concerns & Perceptions that Influence the Adoption & Diffusion of a Course Management System Carol A. McQuiggan Pennsylvania State University Penn State Harrisburg cam240@psu.edu

Background information: 

Background information

Purpose of Study: 

Purpose of Study To distinguish the adopters from the nonadopters Demographics Innovation concerns Perceptions of CMS attributes Communication channels To develop reliable instrument to measure perceived attributes of CMS Inform development of action plan/support model

Theoretical Framework: 

Theoretical Framework Adoption theory Micro-level approach – how each individual is affected Macro-level approach – changes to H.E. system

Theoretical Framework – 2 Models: 

Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) Theoretical Framework – 2 Models

Stages of Concern Questionnaire: 

Stages of Concern Questionnaire To determine faculty concerns about ANGEL Seven levels of concern describe intensity of feelings about an innovation Quantitative measure of the intensities of the seven levels Concerns are developmental

Theoretical Framework – 2 Models: 

Theoretical Framework – 2 Models Diffusion of Innovations (DoI) The innovation (attributes) Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity Trialability Observability Communication channels Time Social system Main elements

Development of Perceived Attributes Survey: 

Development of Perceived Attributes Survey Based on Diffusion of Innovations Five innovation attribute constructs Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity Trialability Observability Constructs defined within context of ANGEL

Slide9: 

Internal Consistency of Attribute Instrument Perceived Attributes Survey

Instrumentation: 

Instrumentation Stages of Concern Questionnaire Perceived Attributes Survey Demographics Questionnaire

Sample: 

Sample 161 returns = 45% response rate Closely reflects population gender contract type campus school Reflects higher percentage of ANGEL adopters than population

Five Research Questions: 

Five Research Questions Q1: Is there a difference between the concerns, attribute perceptions, and communication channels of adopters and nonadopters?

Comparison of Stage Percentile Means of CMS Adopters and Nonadopters: 

Comparison of Stage Percentile Means of CMS Adopters and Nonadopters

Comparison of Peak Stage Scores for CMS Adopters and Nonadopters: 

Comparison of Peak Stage Scores for CMS Adopters and Nonadopters

Second Highest Stage of Concern for ANGEL Adopters: 

Second Highest Stage of Concern for ANGEL Adopters

Second Highest Stage of Concern for ANGEL Nonadopters: 

Second Highest Stage of Concern for ANGEL Nonadopters

Comparison of Attribute Perception Means of CMS Adopters and Nonadopters: 

Comparison of Attribute Perception Means of CMS Adopters and Nonadopters

Communication Channels: 

Communication Channels Adopters Influenced your decision to use/not use ANGEL = 34 Info or advice = 19 No one/No response = 28 (24.1%) 44 different individuals identified Majority identified “Carol McQuiggan” Close proximity/school affiliation Nonadopters Influenced your decision to use/not use ANGEL = 11 Info or advice = 10 No one/No response = 30 (67%) 14 different individuals identified Majority identified “Carol McQuiggan” Close proximity/school affiliation

Question 1 Summary: 

Question 1 Summary Level of concern differs significantly between adopters and nonadopters in every stage except Stage 2-Personal and Stage 3-Management Nonadopters exhibited a typical profile for a nonuser Adopters’ concern about ANGEL has not progressed past Stage 2 and 3

Question 1 Summary: 

Question 1 Summary A significant difference was found between all attribute perceptions for adopters and nonadopters Adopters identified a larger number of colleagues from whom they could obtain information All respondents were in close proximity or had a school affiliation with the colleagues they identified Heavy reliance on the ANGEL support specialist

Five Research Questions: 

Five Research Questions Q2: Do nonadopter attribute perceptions of the CMS differ across their intent to use it?

Comparison of Attribute Perception Means By Intent to Use: 

Comparison of Attribute Perception Means By Intent to Use

Results – Intent to Use: 

Results – Intent to Use Relative Advantage & Compatibility Intend to use next semester & Intend to use next year (p<.05) Intend to use next semester & Do not intend to use (p<.001) Intend to use next year & Do not intend to use (p<.05) Observability Intend to use next year & Do not intend to use (p<.05)

Question 2 Summary: 

Question 2 Summary Attributes will influence adoption Relative advantage over the way they currently teach Compatible with their current teaching methods Able to observe ANGEL in use or attend ANGEL training

Five Research Questions: 

Five Research Questions Q3: Do nonadopter concerns about the CMS differ across their intent to use it?

Comparison of Stages of Concern Means By Intent to Use: 

Comparison of Stages of Concern Means By Intent to Use

Results – Intent to Use: 

Results – Intent to Use Significantly different between those intending to use ANGEL next semester and those with no intent to use it Lower concerns in Stage 0 or 1 Enough information about ANGEL to make adoption decision Higher concerns in Stage 0 or 1 Still require awareness or more information

Five Research Questions: 

Five Research Questions Q4: Do the characteristics of faculty differ across adopters and nonadopters?

Significant Differences Found: 

Significant Differences Found Gender Academic rank Previous use of another CMS School Received training in use of CMS

Gender: 

Gender For sample and population Almost equal number of female and male faculty as adopters Much fewer female nonadopters to male nonadopters School with lowest % of adoption also has highest % of male faculty Female faculty have adopted at a higher percentage rate than the male faculty

Possible Explanations: 

Possible Explanations Faculty support gender bias Higher level of confidence in female faculty in use of technology than previously reported CMS does not support math editor functions needed in School of SET More research recommended

Academic Rank: 

Academic Rank Adopters Assistant, associate, full professor, instructor Nonadopters Lecturer Lack of formal communication structure with part-time faculty Fewer encounters between part-time faculty and full-time faculty

Previous Use of a CMS: 

Previous Use of a CMS Adopters outnumbered nonadopters Have used another CMS (37/4) Have not used another CMS (77/40) Previous use not a major factor in adoption

School: 

School Adopters outnumbered nonadopters in each school Only 45 nonadopters distributed across six schools

Received CMS Training: 

Received CMS Training Completed by more adopters than nonadopters Come to training with intent to use a CMS

Five Research Questions: 

Five Research Questions Q5: Into which adopter category has the CMS adoption progressed to date?

Adoption Progression of Population: 

Adoption Progression of Population

The Late Majority: 

The Late Majority Second-wave or wary adopters 34% of adopter population Represents first significant turn toward institutionalization of ANGEL More risk aversive Require higher level of support Hands-on Problem-solving contexts Peer pressure will play a part

Limitations: 

Limitations Single context Single point-in-time Setting Population/sample size

Discussion/Questions: 

Discussion/Questions Contact information: Carol McQuiggan cam240@psu.edu