Factors Affecting Faculty Use of Video Conferencing in Teaching: A Mixed-method Study

Teaching and learning can now utilize a variety of real-time technologies to build online social presence and learning interactions. However, teachers and students must effectively prepare for this experience; and the identification of contextual and perceptual influences become evolving and necessary (Lehman & Conceição, 2010; Liu & Kaye, 2016). In this paper, the authors explore factors that impact faculty use of synchronous video conferencing (VC) in teaching. The two-phase mixed-method study spanned a year, converging qualitative and quantitative approaches through observations and recordings during a 6-week faculty professional development program, a campus-wide survey, and focus groups. Thematic analysis was used for coding qualitative data (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012). Descriptive statistics, cross tabulation, logistic regression, and standard multiple regression were used to analyze quantitative data. A model with faculty demographic factors and perceived importance of technology features and quality for teaching was initially developed and tested, which explained 69.1% of the variance in predicting faculty use of VC technologies in teaching. The perceived importance of VC features and quality scale generated Cronbach’s Alpha .866. The study then provides meaningful process and recommendations to define institutional support to the VC adoption in teaching.

[1]  Marie Martin,et al.  Seeing is believing: the role of videoconferencing in distance learning , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[2]  Kieran Mathieson,et al.  Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Meredith D. Gall,et al.  Educational Research: An Introduction , 1965 .

[4]  Laura Macia,et al.  Using Clustering as a Tool:Mixed Methods in Qualitative Data Analysis , 2015 .

[5]  Barney Dalgarno,et al.  Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[7]  Jonathan E. Finkelstein.  Learning in Real Time: Synchronous Teaching and Learning Online , 2006 .

[8]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[9]  J. Voogt,et al.  A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies , 2012 .

[10]  Nian-Shing Chen,et al.  Teacher training in a synchronous cyber face-to-face classroom: characterizing and supporting the online teachers' learning process , 2010 .

[11]  K. Perreault,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2011 .

[12]  Yuping Wang,et al.  Distance Language Learning: Interactivity and Fourth-generation Internet-based Videoconferencing , 2013 .

[13]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Barbara Means,et al.  Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies , 2009 .

[15]  Juhong Christie Liu,et al.  Preparing Online Learning Readiness with Learner-Content Interaction: Design for Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning , 2015 .

[16]  Thomas Bliesener,et al.  Training Synchronous Collaborative E-Learning , 2006 .

[17]  Norman E. Wallen,et al.  How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education , 1990 .

[18]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Is Online Life a Breeze? A Case Study for Promoting Synchronous Learning in a Blended Graduate Course , 2007 .

[19]  Päivi Häkkinen,et al.  Shared and personal learning spaces: Challenges for pedagogical design , 2012, Internet High. Educ..

[20]  S. Sabri,et al.  Video conferencing systems , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[21]  R. Burke Johnson,et al.  Research Methods Design and Analysis , 2010 .

[22]  Maura Borrego,et al.  Increasing the Use of Evidence‐Based Teaching in STEM Higher Education: A Comparison of Eight Change Strategies , 2014 .

[23]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Synchronous Learning Experiences: Distance and Residential Learners' Perspectives in a Blended Graduate Course. , 2007 .

[24]  Sarah Cornelius,et al.  Facilitating in a demanding environment: Experiences of teaching in virtual classrooms using web conferencing , 2014, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[25]  Sara A. Bly,et al.  Media spaces: bringing people together in a video, audio, and computing environment , 1993, CACM.

[26]  Florence Martin,et al.  Use of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms: Why, Who, and How? , 2014 .

[27]  Juhong Liu,et al.  Designing for problem-based learning in a collaborative STEM lab: A case study , 2014 .

[28]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[29]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[30]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[31]  Rosemary M. Lehman,et al.  Creating a Sense of Presence in Online Teaching: How to "Be There" for Distance Learners , 2010 .