Technology Adoption of Medical Faculty in Teaching: Differentiating Factors in Adopter Categories

Despite large investments by higher education institutions in technology for faculty and student use, instructional technology is not being integrated into instruction in higher education institutions including medical education institutions. While the diffusion of instructional technologies has reached a saturation point among early adopters of technology, it has remained limited among the mainstream faculty. This investigation explores instructional technology usage patterns and the characteristics of medical school faculty as well as contributing factors to IT adoption. The focus of the study was to explore the differences between faculty members who have adopted new technology and those reluctant or resistant to IT adoption, and to determine whether faculty characteristics contribute to the prediction of faculty adopter categories. Faculties from the disciplines of basic and clinical science at a state university Faculty of Medicine were surveyed to gather data concerning faculty characteristics, adoption patterns, perceptions of computer-use self efficacy, the value of IT, barriers and incentives to adoption and preferences related to help and support in technology adoption. The data analysis was based on Rogers’ theories of diffusion and adopter categories. Significant differences were found between early adopters and the mainstream faculty in terms of individual characteristics, adoption patterns, perceptions of barriers and technology learning preferences The results indicated that computer use self efficacy and rank significantly contribute to the prediction of faculty adopter group.

[1]  Jim Woodell,et al.  Faculty Development and the Diffusion of Innovations. , 2003 .

[2]  Henryk R. Marcinkiewicz.  Computers and Teachers: Factors Influencing Computer Use in the Classroom , 1993 .

[3]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[4]  Dawn Michele Jacobsen.  Adoption patterns and characteristics of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education , 1998 .

[5]  Barbara Seels,et al.  Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field , 1994 .

[6]  Michael J. Albright.  Instructional Technology and Higher Education: Rewards, Rights, and Responsibilities. , 1996 .

[7]  A J Sefton,et al.  Healthcare and the information age: implications for medical education , 1998, The Medical journal of Australia.

[8]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Handbook of Research for educational Communications and Technology , 1997 .

[9]  Terry Anderson,et al.  Faculty Adoption of Teaching and Learning Technologies: Contrasting Earlier Adopters and Mainstream Faculty , 2017 .

[10]  Willian Geoghegan,et al.  Whatever Happened to Instructional Technology , 1994 .

[11]  Charles A. Schwartz,et al.  Managing technological change: strategies for college and university leaders , 2000 .

[12]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study , 1999, MIS Q..

[13]  Susan M. Land,et al.  Strategies for Motivating Higher Education Faculty to Use Technology , 2000 .

[14]  Iris M. Riggs,et al.  The Development and Partial Validation of Microcomputer Utilization in Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument in a Science Setting , 1993 .

[15]  Thomas H. Spotts.  Discriminating Factors in Faculty Use of Instructional Technologyin Higher Education , 1999, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[16]  Dan Surry,et al.  Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology , 1997 .

[17]  P. Albion.  Self-Efficacy Beliefs as an Indicator of Teachers' Preparedness for Teaching with Technology , 1999 .