3: Results

[next chapter] [previous chapter] [contents]

Teaching Applications
Outcomes of Computer-mediated Communications
Barriers to Implementing Computer-mediated Communication
Forces for Change
Age and Sex
Sex Differences
Age
Differences Due to Perspective
Strategic Planning
Technical Resources
Connectivity
Private Providers
Desktop/Laptop Computers
Other Resourcing Issues

This section presents and discusses the ranking of questionnaire items arising from Phase 1, and the feedback received during Phase 2 where respondents were invited to comment on the Phase 1 results. Although there were several absolute differences between those individuals taking a university perspective and those taking a discipline perspective as well as between males and females on certain items, these did not give rise to different rankings of questionnaire items. Therefore, for feedback in Phase 1 and for presentation in this section of the report, results have been grouped and treated as a whole. A later section deals specifically with the differences that emerged between these groups.

Teaching Applications

In this section respondents were asked to rate on a 7 point scale, the likelihood that each of the following events would occur within the next five years. The results are ranked in accordance with the overall mean and presented in Table 5 as mean ratings (with standard deviations in brackets). They have been divided into three groups based on the likelihood of occurrence: most likely, moderately likely, and least likely to occur.

Overall the ranking of items contained few surprises and generally reflected patterns of existing usage. It appears that when forecasting the likelihood of particular technologies being incorporated into teaching in the next three to five years, the extent to which various forms of technology are used and known is a strong influence. Several comments from Phase 2 reinforced this point of view. One participant in particular expressed the opinion that:

The responses seem to be VERY conservative and unfamiliar with what technology is in the lab and test-phase. They also show low awareness of the development of a technological revolution and its prediction, particularly in early adopter and revolutionary phases. The questionnaire outcomes seem to be a better measure of academic attitudes at this time, than a measure of what is likely to happen.

Most academic and administrative staff in universities are familiar to varying degrees with computer assisted presentations using for example Powerpoint, email and other Internet functions. Although not all staff have searched the Internet and used it, discussion in universities and in the media have given this form of communication and information access a high priority. Hence, it is not difficult for them to see how it could be used in teaching. Similarly, many staff currently log in remotely to search library data bases, also influencing the perceived likelihood of wider use of this approach. These and related items fall into the 'most likely to occur' grouping in Table 5.

Table 5: Likelihood of Occurrence of Events

On the other hand, only a few academics have experience of videoconferencing, broadcast and interactive TV services, and remotely controlled scientific experiments. This has no doubt influenced the perception of likelihood of adoption and these items were placed in the 'least likely' group. During the second phase of the modified Delphi exercise several respondents expressed great surprise at the low rankings for interactive TV (Q1.14) and broadcasting (Q1.7). These responses were from staff in universities with experience of these technologies. An example of a quote is given below:

.......the extent to which broadcast television will be used in OLA/PAGE programs is ranked low. Yet the OLA program alone has grown to the size where it is catering to a student body equivalent to one university. Television is a major component of the teaching for OLA students and therefore at the present time would contribute to more students than the on-line delivery of course material (which presently is hardly supported at all) which has been ranked in the ėmost likely categoryî.

Similarly, with questions relating to desktop and classroom based videoconferencing which also fell into the 'least likely to occur group', some respondents pointed out that their universities already had facilities in place for both these forms of communication. And again one respondent commented that:

The low ranking of the use of video conferencing probably reflects the small number of people who have used it. There is evidence in the data to suggest that it is more popular among people who have used it.

A point related to the underlying influence of familiarity on perceived likelihood is the dynamic nature of attitudes towards technology. Developments are occurring at a rapid rate and as academics and other staff are exposed to new applications and possibilities, attitudes and predictions will change accordingly. This could happen within a short space of time. A comment from one participant reflects on this:

When I originally completed the questionnaire I agreed with the ranking of questions dealing with collaboration and video conferencing. However, over the past few weeks I have seen a range of software products and techniques which have made me rethink my ideas totally. I know of some multi million dollar initiatives in the USA which will push collaborative development and live one-to-one video up the scale of priority to most likely to occur. I, like most others, have been taking an Australian perspective and have not paid enough attention to developments overseas!!! The world market has set these two questions very high on its list of priorities.

The 'moderately likely to occur' group of items included a number of computer applications that related to content delivery, Internet usage and administration. No special theme or focus emerged in this particular group of items. However, several interesting observations and comments on CD-ROMS, Internet usage and collaboration did emerge which provide insight into future trends and directions.

The use of CD-ROM material as an instructional resource was placed at the top of the moderately likely category. One respondent who thought this item should have been ranked higher drew attention to the developments overseas with respect to the use of CD-ROMS:

I understand that in the USA students are able to purchase CD-ROMS with their reading for some courses. It has been suggested here that every student be given a CD-ROM on enrolment containing all the texts and reading materials prescribed, to obviate problems of getting hold of this material in the Library. Only the antiquated Copyright Act is preventing this from happening right now, and there is a committee of inquiry into changing the Act going on at the moment.

Our focus groups suggested that universities could widen or diversify what could be studied through the use of the Internet. Several respondents were surprised that so few academics seemed to be requiring students to use examples drawn from the Internet or to present assignments with full multimedia capability as primary and high schools were already requiring their students to do so. The respondent commented that:

It depends on the disciplines being considered­the acceptability of Internet based material does vary enormously ­ is perhaps best accepted in some of the sciences? Perhaps [resistance to requiring students to use Internet information] reflects nervousness about departing from the old academic processes of validation etc.

Further, some respondents were greatly surprised to find the moderate ranking of the item concerned with offering courses via the Internet (Question 1.13). As one respondent commented:

There are already some educational sites where entire courses are on the Web and can be accessed by anyone and the material used by anyone. The more people who see the benefits of this approach, the more likely it is that more material will become available on a shared basis. The issues which will slow this process down are copyright and intellectual property.

On the other hand, one respondent quite correctly pointed out that the moderate response to the question about offering all aspects of courses via the Internet related to:

...a case of an arithmetic mean conveying a false message. I think some courses are extremely likely to be offered via Internet and others never likely to be offered. For example, you cannot effectively and ethically teach human skills such as counselling, intervention, clinical evaluation etc. without interpersonal contact.

This is confirmed by the high standard deviation on this item (1.13).

The questions relating to collaboration in the development of materials (Q1.20) and offering of courses (Q.19) raised some interesting issues in relation to the current culture of universities. Moran (1995) acknowledges the importance of collaboration between universities. Yet the respondents in the current project did not consider this very likely to occur when it came to developing or offering courses using computerised communication and the media. The most likely reason for this, identified by respondents in their comments, relates to the level of competition among the universities for access to students and resources. Herein lies a dilemma for Australian higher education. Cost effective use of computer-mediated communication and other forms of technology aided teaching will require collaboration among universities in the production of material, rationalisation of courses, and sharing of physical space, equipment and expertise. However, the current system of Government funding, based on a short cycle and dependent on competition for student numbers, does not encourage such collaboration. If collaboration is to be achieved, funding structures will need to reinforce such collaboration. Currently, the financial incentives reinforce a form of competition that may not provide opportunities for the effective use of technology in teaching. Comments on this issue were polarised with a number in agreement with competition preventing collaboration and others strongly indicating that collaboration was necessary for survival in the face of competition from overseas universities.

The dominant theme emerging from the responses, and our interpretation of them, is that familiarity with a particular form of technology increases the perception of its possible use in future. If academic staff are to be persuaded of the value of using computer-mediated communication in their teaching, they will need to have first-hand experience of how it functions and what specific contribution it makes to the teaching context. This theme is one that is picked up again in the section dealing with barriers.

Three specific recommendations arise out of this section:

Recommendation 1:

• If university staff are to see the likely benefits and possibilities of technology and CMC in teaching, they will need more first hand and greater experience in its creative use. Penetration will need to involve more than exposure to specific case examples, but rather actively involve each staff member in using relevant technologies or teaching. The advantages of greater depth of involvement also lie in increasing the skill level of academic staff and their perceived efficacy in the use of technology for teaching.

Recommendation 2:

• The current recurrent funding system in universities works against special initiatives aimed at increasing collaboration. Effective collaboration will require more than special grants to encourage it; it will need to be built into the fabric of mainstream university funding.

Recommendation 3:

• Mechanisms must be found to encourage cross institutional development of Australian oriented core teaching materials for large first year classes.

Outcomes of Computer-mediated Communications

In this section, respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with various statements describing outcomes over a 3 to 5 year time frame of the use of technology and computer-mediated communication in teaching. Results are given in Table 6.

Table 6: Outcomes of Computer-mediated Communication

Overall the results in this section indicate that the participants in this study do see the value of using new technologies. The high ranking given to improved interaction between students and staff and among students arising from computer-mediated communication demonstrates a recognition by staff of the major advantage arising from communications technology. There were those however, who questioned this ranking on the grounds that it was a poor substitute for personal interaction. One respondent had the following to say about the high rating given to the statement that computer-mediated communication would facilitate greater interaction between students and staff:

I think this is a myth-perception with which we delude ourselves. It is time-efficient for clarifications and short queries. I think it actually distances you from students and decreases interaction. It's like the difference between responding to a questionnaire and being interviewed by a skilled interviewer­the real-time, face to face interaction is qualitatively vastly different and often quantitatively different since discussing one topic leads to a clarification which leads to another topic. You are more likely, face to face, to find that the student is not asking the 'right' question (in terms of getting at what it is they need to know, because they don't know what it is they don't know) whereas, if they email, you lack the non-verbal cues and can only respond to what you see on the screen.

While few would disagree with this point of view, off-campus students and students in very large classes rarely have access to meaningful face-to-face interaction with their teachers. This tends to indicate the importance of carefully evaluating the use of technologies in relation to the particular teaching context.

In earlier discussions with experts, and in focus group meetings, the suggestion was raised that undergraduate students would continue to want to experience 'campus life' rather than increasing the amount of study undertaken at a distance. Among postgraduates, however, it was felt that lifestyle issues, such as family and jobs would make the possibility of off-campus study attractive because of the time and inconvenience saved in travel. Thus the prediction was that computer-mediated communication would be more readily adopted by off-campus and postgraduate students. Interestingly, however, the respondents as a whole felt that information technology would not be restricted to any particular student group (e.g. postgraduates, or those off-campus) as illustrated by the comparatively low rankings given to questions 2.1 and 2.2.

Clearly these earlier predictions were not reinforced by the responses from the questionnaire. The overall mean ratings indicate that adoption of computer-mediated communication would be similar for both on- and off-campus and undergraduate and postgraduate students. One explanation for this is that there is a growing recognition that students do communicate in different ways and that computer-mediated communication can offer viable alternatives for on-campus undergraduate students faced with increasing class sizes and a reduction in tutorial and practical contact hours. Also, the notion of the importance of the 'campus experience' for students may not be valid in our changing society. These issues need further investigation from both a student and staff perspective before any reliable conclusions can be drawn.

Three research related recommendations arise out of this section:

Recommendation 4:

• Carefully controlled research is needed to determine the conditions under which computer-mediated communication increases or decreases student staff communication, and what influence it has on the quality of the communication.

Recommendation 5:

• Market research is needed to establish preferences among different categories of students for on-campus, off-campus and mixed mode study.

Recommendation 6:

• Research is needed to identify which particular teaching contexts are suited to and enhanced by the various applications of technology.

Barriers to Implementing Computer-mediated Communication

In the barriers section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the identified issue in each statement was likely to create resistance to the implementation of computer-mediated communication in the next five years. Responses are grouped in Table 7 according to the strength of the perceived barrier (strong, moderate and mild), and rank ordered within each grouping.

The barriers included in the questionnaire were originally identified by those staff we interviewed and by the focus group during discussion. No barriers were given low ratings which indicates that the larger expert group of respondents agreed with the earlier group we consulted that the items identified are all valid barriers. Three additional barriers were included in phase 2 and respondents were asked where these fitted.

1. The possibility of a growing sense of community concern that we may be dehumanising ourselves in using technology in the most basic of relationships (e.g. teacher/student).
2. The mobility of teaching and technical staff means that it is difficult to build teams.
3. Inertia is a powerful barrierwe all tend to teach as we have been taught.

Table 7: Resistance to the Implementation of Computer-mediated Communication

A total of 75 respondents replied to the second phase of the research. From the 43 respondents who reported their position on the first barrier, 21 (48.84%) thought of the first barrier as a mild one, 19 (44.19%) thought of it as a moderate barrier, and 3 (6.98%) considered it a strong barrier. From the 40 respondents who reported their position on the second barrier, 31 (77.5%) thought it was a mild one, 5 (12.5%) considered it as a moderate barrier, and the remaining 4 (10%) thought of it as a strong barrier. From the 38 who responded to the third barrier, 11 (28.95%) considered it mild, 7 (18.42%) thought it was a moderate barrier, and 20 (52.63%) considered it a strong barrier.

Several interesting points arise from Table 7. Although many may consider that academics oppose the introduction of technology into teaching because of a perceived threat to job security, such an interpretation is clearly false. The 'threat to job security' (Q3.10) had the lowest rank overall. Rather, staff perceive that lack of technical skills and technical support, costs, time and workload arising from new technology are important barriers. They also expressed concern that an increased attention to technology and teaching would not be rewarded adequately within a university system where research is often the major yardstick for promotion.

Over the past eight years university staff have experienced unprecedented increases in student numbers with no commensurate increase in staff. One senses in the responses to the questions about barriers a weariness that yet again more work would be expected of academics already stretched to and beyond capacity.

The issue of adequate skills is a major barrier identified in focus group discussions, interviews questionnaire ratings and again in the comments. There is widespread concern about the underestimation of the range of skills required and the time needed to acquire these to be able to take advantage of technology generally, not only in teaching. The necessary skills required of students and staff covered generic computing skills, setting up modems and communication software on- and off-campus, designing and producing new materials for the multimedia and electronic environment, and rethinking teaching philosophies and methods.

In light of the extent to which the skill level of staff and students will act as a barrier, technical support staff become important; yet here too there is a perceived barrier because of inadequate numbers to ensure that the technology works. There is no incentive to use technology if its reliability cannot be guaranteed, as one respondent illustrates:

Academics don't want to take risks and look a fool. An overhead projector will work (99% time) but others have a much greater chance of failure and poorly funded tertiary institutions tend to not put enough into technology which increases the likelihood of failure. It needs to be funded more and given a real strategic priority (not just words but real action). My feeling is that there is a perception that this will be a major cause of resistance. We have had some IT equipment here for eight years but it is relatively unused because of support issues.

The capital cost of ensuring an adequate technological infrastructure to facilitate computer-mediated communication and other forms of technology in teaching was also rated strongly as a barrier. Perhaps this is why those whom we interviewed early in the project pointed to the need to consider outsourcing some services (for example, off-campus Internet access) as a way of overcoming some of the capital costs.

The group of barriers perceived to be moderately important are also worth noting. Issues associated with age will be addressed when examining the relationship between age and the results we obtained.

Ranked at the top of the moderate barrier is 'The lack of awareness of the potential information technology has for teaching' (Q3.4). This raises several important issues. Teachers have traditionally taught as they themselves have been taught, often without questioning the efficacy of their approach. With the new technologies and their associated cost, more teachers are questioning the appropriateness and effectiveness of computer-mediated communication. The respondents, for example, feel moderately strongly about the notion that information technology cannot 'capture the essence of teaching and scholarship' (Q 3.4). From a teaching perspective there is the conviction that teaching is about maintaining a relationship with students and helping them to interact with, analyse, question and reflect on different concepts, ideas and teaching materials. Doubt is expressed as to whether technology can help to achieve this, which is indicated by the 'mild barrier' ranking of concern that computer-mediated communication will replace face to face teaching (Q3.22). It could be argued that we should also be looking at our traditional modes of teaching which are usually accepted without the same level of scrutiny.

The outcome is that without a clear philosophy of how computer-mediated communication and technology in general will enhance teaching and learning, barriers will exist to its adoption. There is a clear need for research, pedagogical advice, staff development and support for staff in making appropriate and effective choices about the use of technology in teaching and learning.

In the mild barriers section, one respondent was surprised at the ranking of the item concerning access and equity for students (Question 1.16):

Access and equity for students should be a prime concern. It is no good our developing CMC teaching methods unless our students all have access. I would think that concern about access and equity should be a strong barrier in the development of CMC teaching. That it is not placed in the 'strong' category makes me wonder if enough people are thinking about this issue properly.

The above comment is interesting because, while access and equity concerns are readily expressed by policy makers, in reality they are not seen as either major barriers or forces for change. Access and equity issues were placed towards the bottom of the rankings of items in Forces for Change (Table 8). Of interest also, is that women tend to be more concerned about access and equity issues than men (Table 10). Perhaps some respondents see the potential for information technology to improve access and equity.

In summary, the three major barriers as perceived by our respondents can be expressed in terms of:

• time;
• skill levels required; and
• cost.

It is these three factors that will no doubt slow the introduction and integration of information technology into Australian higher education. They are, of course, related. Costs cover not only the technological infrastructure, but also the skill infrastructure of both academic and support staff, and achieving this infrastructure requires both time and money.

Unless these issues are addressed, academic staff will continue to be sceptical about the adoption of information technology into teaching, and one can only hope that the major educational game does not move offshore or into the hands of media barons in the interim. It is the threat of developments such as this that form the focus of the next section dealing with the forces for change.

Recommendations arising from this section include:

Recommendation 7:

• The focus of strategic planning needs to be at a discipline level to ensure that:

a) all staff become aware of the potential of information technology;

b) each area of study is examined to determine whether new technologies could enhance teaching;

c) a rotational basis is used to ensure that staff are given time and resources to introduce information technology into their teaching. For example, for staff in particular need of technical updating, such skill acquisition could be made a required component of sabbatical leave; and

d) that staff are rewarded for innovations in information technology and teaching.

Recommendation 8:

• University level strategic plans should aim to provide infrastructure to support and reinforce discipline level plans in order to translate strategy into workable local solutions.

Recommendation 9:

• DEETYA should provide every encouragement to universities and, through the university to the local disciplines, by providing helpful frameworks for planning, and incentives and finance to enable the implementation of plans.

Recommendation 10:

• Additional research is needed into staff attitudes toward CMC in teaching.

Forces for Change

Table 8 provides the results from a series of questions where respondents were asked to nominate the extent to which the issue described in each statement would be a force for change in the next five years. The particular issues seen as potential forces for change were identified in the earlier interviews and in the focus group discussions.

Additional forces for change were included in the Phase 2 questionnaire, and second round participants were asked whether each was a mild, moderate or strong force:

1. the effect of successful ventures in this area, providing incentive for others to adopt new methods; and

2. to avoid being flooded by inferior quality overseas software created largely in response to marketing pressures.

Table 8: Potential Forces for Change

From the 36 respondents who rated the first force, 6 (16.67%) thought it was a mild force, 16 (44.44%) considered it a moderate force, and the remaining 15 (41.67%) thought it was a strong force. From the 31 who considered the second force, 2 (6.45%) didn't know, 20 (64.52%) considered it a mild force, 6 (19.35%) considered it a moderate force, and 3 (9.68%) thought it was a strong force.

From Table 8 it can be seen that student demand for flexible delivery to fit in with life-style requirements and competition among the universities in attracting students and maintaining a competitive edge provide the major forces for change. Although the potential value of CMC for disadvantaged students was identified, the major force for change arises from a market perspective of attracting the greatest number of students. Under the current funding arrangements, this is an understandable response from the participants. The earlier low rating given to development of a common core curriculum (Question 2.4) reinforces the competitive nature of the higher education system.

A common core curriculum across Australia would require considerable cooperation among the universities, yet reluctance for such collaboration was also evident in answers to questions 1.19, 1.20 and 3.23. We do not wish to imply that a common core curriculum is desirable, yet this is already occurring at the lowest levels. Common text books with aids such as CD ROMS, accompanying workbooks and lab programs do provide a force toward a common curriculum, mostly with an American flavour. The expense associated with the development of information technology based materials requires collaboration, particularly if such curriculum resources are to be cost effective and have an Australian orientation.

Although there is recognition of the importance of maintaining a competitive edge in the Australian education sector, the relative low ranking of Q4.8 (the threat to Australian universities from overseas degrees marketed in Australia), indicates that the respondents are not taking a global view of higher education nor taking seriously the threat of overseas universities encroaching on the Australian education market. With information technology, distances and time are insignificant and there are few obstacles to delivering courses across national boundaries. A comment from one respondent recognised this threat:

I think 4.8 is undervalued. I recently heard a quote from the VC of Open University saying that they have more students enrolled than all the remaining UK universities and run at a fraction of the cost.

Similarly the possibility of industry and professional bodies providing their own accredited degrees (Q4.10) was not taken seriously, being ranked bottom on the forces for change. One respondent summarised this lack of concern as follows:

......... If it does prove to be a force for change, it will be best explained as a convenient excuse to justify what we wanted in the first place. No sector of education­primary, secondary or tertiary­has taken notice of what business has been saying for years­they always prioritise things like communication, initiative, ability to get on in a team, problem solving, attitude to work and so on­they are most worried about personal attributes­and willing to train them in the particular technical skills they need. It is relatively easy to train someone in skills and relatively difficult to 'educate' them, or change their attitudes/values. We have roundly ignored business' priorities.

It is of some concern that the competitive ethos of universities is narrowly focussed within the Australian education sector. Information technology has the potential to transform the lucrative education market into a global industry. Australian universities will no longer have a mandate as sole deliverers of education in Australia-if they don't measure up, potential students will take their business to other providers on- or off-shore. This was recognised by focus and interview groups but not strongly endorsed by the questionnaire respondents.

The recommendations arising from this section include:

Recommendation 11:

• Information about the forces for change identified as important in the research can be used to alert universities and their staff to the importance of considering information technology in teaching and of developing appropriate plans. This will be more successful following detailed market survey research about student demand for different combinations of courses (see earlier recommendation).

Recommendation 12:

• Globalisation of the education market was not viewed as a particularly strong force for change. Nevertheless, we recommend that this be monitored carefully to determine whether the current complacency about this among the participants is justified. The potential that overseas universities, private institutions and professional bodies have to deliver courses and encroach on market share of the traditional university domain must be investigated.

Age and Sex

In this sample age and sex are related. The female respondents were older (mean age = 47 years) than males (mean age = 43 years). The pattern of relationships between the responses and sex and age are similar; older females tended to be more conservative with respect to information technology and teaching. It is difficult to determine whether this is primarily due to age or sex, but more significant relationships were obtained for sex than for age.

Sex Differences

Apart from questions relating to barriers, there were almost no sex differences in responses. With respect to questions relating to barriers, women rated the potential barriers more strongly across all items, and significantly so on 11 of the 25 items.

Specifically, females rated the items in Table 9 as significantly more likely to be barriers than did males. Items where the differences were not statistically significant are not included in the table.

The items women endorse more strongly as barriers have as a theme the demands that the technology will place on academics and the skill level required. These items may relate to levels of self confidence in the use of equipment. Significant differences did not emerge on the items related to university wide barriers (e.g. Q3.5 and Q3.6).

Table 9: Sex Differences in Recognising Potential Barriers

This particular gender pattern in responding may have implications for EEO as computer-based technologies become an increasingly significant component of higher education. Women's lower self-efficacy for computers and technology needs to be addressed through targeted training.

Only one force for change evidenced sex differences, and this related to more equitable access to education for some disadvantaged groups. Females perceived the positive aspects of access to a greater extent than did males.

All of these differences between males and females remained comparatively stable when controlling for age.

Age

Although there was a general tendency for older respondents to see information technology applications as less likely, significant correlations were only obtained on a few items. The items that older respondents were less likely to endorse are given in Table 10.

Table 10: Age Correlations Relating to Information Technology Applications

The relationships with age in other sections of the questionnaire were not strong and tended to reduce in magnitude when controlling for sex.

Although sex differences and the relationship with age were not strong, it should be noted that the particular group of respondents are 'experts'. If relationships emerge among a group familiar with and interested in technology, differences may be magnified in the wider university community. Clearly this is an issue warranting increased research, although we would recommend that the focus shift from the direct use of demographic variables to the important intervening variables such as confidence in capacity to acquire the skills and level of interest in the use of information technology. If specific interventions are required, action will need to be through mediating variables rather than being targeted directly at particular demographic groups. There is already a large literature on issues associated with training and information technology exploring possible reasons for age and sex differences, that could form the basis for future research and policy.

The major recommendation arising from this section of the report is:

Recommendation 13:

• That EEO issues will need to be considered and monitored as the push for computer-mediated communication in teaching increases. Special training will be required to accommodate the needs of traditional EEO groups.

Differences Due to Perspective

The pilot study identified the need to ask respondents in relation to each block of questions to identify the perspective they had taken: a local (department/school/ faculty) perspective or a wider university level perspective. Of the respondents 101 claimed to have taken a university wide perspective in responding to the questions concerning the extent to which computer-mediated applications in teaching and learning were occurring in their institutions, while 83 claimed to respond from a department/school or faculty perspective.

On average those who responded from a university wide perspective gave a stronger endorsement to the likelihood of technology having an impact on teaching than did those who responded from a departmental perspective. Significant differences were obtained on 11 of the 26 items. Even where the differences were not significant, the direction suggested that those with a university perspective saw implementation as more likely than did those with a local perspective. Items with significant differences are given in Table 11.

Two reasons may exist for the differences between those with a local and a university wide perspective. First, those responding from a department perspective are more likely to be actual academics who would bear the brunt of implementing the new technology in teaching and know the difficulties involved. This might account for their greater conservatism. An alternative view is that those responding from a university wide perspective, namely administrators or staff functioning in teaching development units, have had greater exposure to new technology and hence can see its implications for teaching. Which of these interpretations is most likely can be clarified by examining differences between the two perspectives in relation to barriers and forces for change.

Table 11: Differences between University and Department Perspective in Terms of Use of Information Technology

With respect to their attitudes toward the outcomes of technology and teaching, the respondents answering from a university wide perspective (N=115) only differed from those answering from a local departmental perspective (N=66) on two of the ten items. Specifically, those with a departmental group agree more strongly with the statements in Q2.3 and 2.4 (in Table 12) than did those responding from a university perspective.

Table 12: Differences between University and Department Perspective in
Terms of Attitudes toward the Outcomes of Technology and Teaching

One of these items (Q2.3 above) may well have been interpreted as leading to a breach of copyright which is why those most closely related to the material may have endorsed it more strongly. The other item (Q2.4) related to the emergence of a common core curriculum for first year units. Those answering from a department/school perspective were probably able to see how this could occur. With large numbers of first year students covering broad basic concepts, it becomes financially viable to produce expensive resource materials such as CD-ROMS.

There were no differences in the extent to which items were perceived as barriers by those responding from a departmental (N=63) or university wide (N=106) perspective. However, those answering from the university perspective (N=105) endorsed four of the ten forces for change to a greater extent than did those answering from a departmental perspective (N=60). On all other items describing possible forces for change, the direction of the difference was also such that those with a university perspective endorsed the particular momentum for change more than did those with a departmental perspective. The items where differences were significant are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Differences between University and Department Perspective in Terms of Forces for Change

Although both groups agree on the barriers, it is clear that the respondents with a broader, university wide perspective see greater forces for change. This pattern of data together with more conservative estimates of the timing of information technology introduction among those with a 'local' perspective, present a picture of potential resistance from among those most directly involved in the front line of teaching. These data point to the enormity of the change required among academic staff if information technology is to be implemented in university education.

The recommendation arising from this section is:

Recommendation 14:

• There is a danger that the enthusiasm arising from some administrators and from staff in teaching development units will provide a false sense of the ease of implementing information technology in teaching. The perceived difficulties and resistances are considerable among those actually responsible for the delivery of teaching. These difficulties have been identified by a strongly committed group in the present study; resistance will be even greater among the large majority of academics. Any policy will need to take account of and be sympathetic to the reasons for this resistance.

Strategic Planning

Responses to this section related to the extent to which each university had a plan to deal with strategic issues associated with the role of information technology and computer-mediated communication in the next 35 years. The scale ranged from: 1-no plan, 4-planning underway, 7-plan being implemented. Two general questions related to overall planning for information technology and for teaching and technology; these are presented below:

On average, plans are further ahead with respect to information technology generally than they are for information technology in teaching.

Table 14 places the remaining items into three groups in terms of the perceived extent to which planning is underway for the issue in the question.

Table 14: Perceived Extent to which Planning is Underway for the Issues in Question

Universities do have plans for upgrading technical facilities - bandwidth and computing facilities. The issues here are clear, with the importance of upgrades being indicated in two comments received during the study:

Until the bandwidth on university networks is enlarged and modems run faster, off site activities will not advance as fast as in laboratory/library activities. The tedium of waiting for a down-load will be a significant factor.

Organisations will move to dedicated ISDN links for one-to-many and one-to-one video conference sessions because the bandwidth available on the Internet will never be able to support this live video environment. We are seeing this trend in the USA where the cost of ISDN has dropped from $300/month to $30/month in a very short time scale. The Web environment will still play a key role in the distribution of material/information.

Other policy and planning issues are not as easily solved, cutting across politically sensitive issues such as access and equity, personnel and work practices. Political issues may account for having placed Q5.9 covering restructuring roles and Q5.16 concerned with charging students in the less likely group. Unexpectedly, respondents did not think that planning was underway for student ownership of computers (Q5.3), for outsourcing or the use of private providers (Q5.4). These were issues that were stressed strongly in the early discussions with interview and the focus groups. There are several possible reasons for the low level of planning in relation to these items. First, it is possible that the respondents identified equity concerns where additional costs were placed on students. A second reason may relate to the perceived negative reaction from students who faced the possibility of additional costs and charges. A third is the dilemma of whether or not Internet access should be considered an essential part of coursework and provided free of charge, similar to library services.

Finally, notions of outsourcing are only starting to develop within universities in relation to areas such as maintenance, security, and printing, and have traditionally not been applied to thinking in relation to computing services. We suspect that responses to these items will change over the next few years.

Technical Resources

Responses to the question about technical limitations revealed that many universities are working in a very uncertain environment with resources already stretched to breaking point. In general, responses to the questionnaire conveyed frustration because the possibilities of CMC far outstripped the resources available; this applies equally to issues internal to the universities in terms of technical support and modem connections, and externally in terms of bandwidth. Responses indicated strong agreement (mean=5.84) that modem connectivity requirements would exceed supply.

Connectivity

In this section we asked for estimates of the extent to which staff and students had access to computing facilities, both on- and off-campus. As distributions were somewhat skewed, we have reported results using the median. The median percentage estimate of staff with an account on a server was 90 per cent now, 100 per cent in three years, 100 per cent in five years and for students the figures were 40 per cent now, 80 per cent in three years and 100 per cent in five years.

Although connectivity on-campus is high, access off-campus is less promising. Access from off-campus via campus modem connections was 10 per cent now, 50 per cent in three years, and 70 per cent in five years for staff. For students the equivalent median percentage was 5 per cent now, 30 per cent in three years and 50 per cent in 5 years.

Respondents were asked whether the low level of off-campus connectivity at present acts as a severe impediment to any major uptake of technology in teaching. From the 75 people who responded to this phase of the project, 22 didn't answer; from the remaining, 42 (79.2%) said yes and 11 (20%) said no. Any planned increase in off-campus connectivity will have a major impact on resources, which respondents did identify as a major problem. For example, there was strong endorsement of the high costs associated with implementing information technology (mean 5.4). We think this could present a major crisis for universities.

Private Providers

In preliminary interviews several universities had suggested access to university services via off-campus private providers. This idea was not widespread among the answers to various relevant questions. For example, the median percentage of staff accessing university from off-campus via private providers was 0 per cent now, 5 per cent in three years and 5 per cent in five years. For students the figures were 1 per cent now, 20 per cent in three years and 25 per cent in five years.

These responses suggest that at present universities do not see private providers as a way of dealing with the crisis. Bearing in mind that individual values with respect to private enterprise and access and equity probably influence answers, participants were asked what they saw as the advantages and disadvantages of increased use of private providers. In accordance with our interpretation the most common concern among respondents was the access and equity issue. Another problem concerned control over standards and the special needs of a university environment, as one respondent put it:

As a director of the on-campus supplier organisation (which is under funded for the purpose) I see outside organisations as taking the heat off me. However, by supplying internally, we can maintain standards of security and functionality.

The main advantages mentioned were that universities would not have to fund maintenance and service connections, and that students would be able to select the type of service they require. One respondent thought that private providers would be more accountable due to market forces:

Private providers can be more accountable in terms of providing a real service or they lose the contract. It gives universities a greater flexibility. And because of competition the prices should go down. I feel more students will buy their own anyway.

One respondent thought that the use of private providers would occur sooner than this research suggests, and preferred not to think in terms of advantages and disadvantages:

.......I see it as a natural process. Phones are not provided by the universities so why should data access, which should become part of the private house access system in the near future. The cost will drive universities to provide access via private providers for student use. There is likely to be concentration in providing access to postgraduates and staff via university provided systems.

Desktop/Laptop Computers

Median responses to student access of accounts from desktop or lab computers in three years was 75 per cent and five years was 72.5 per cent. Access via portables in three years was 20 per cent and five years was 50 per cent.

The median percentage of lecture theatres and tutorial rooms with state of the art connectivity was 5 per cent now, 20 per cent in three years and 30 per cent in five years. In the second phase respondents were asked if this fitted with their university. The data indicated that from the 44 who answered, 25 (56.8%) said yes and 19 (43.2%) said no.

Other Resourcing Issues

Previous reports have suggested that newer universities are better resourced with respect to information technology. In light of this we grouped the universities into three categories:

• traditional;
• intermediate; and
• non-traditional.

Traditional universities were the older, first established institutions. Non-traditional institutions were more recently established and were also more likely to have a special interest in distance education. Other institutions were placed in an intermediate category. On most items in section 7 there was a trend for non-traditional universities to be better resourced compared to their traditional and intermediate counterparts, but these differences didn't approach significance.

We find it difficult to make any specific recommendations in relation to the resources section of the study, probably reflecting the same difficulty that universities are facing making resource related information technology decisions in an uncertain and changing climate. Early interview and focus group discussions saw a role for private providers, particularly in providing off-campus connectivity. This was not endorsed by the wider group. Nevertheless, we suggest that:

Consideration should be given to the cost effectiveness of using private providers and other forms of outsourcing to facilitate student and staff connectivity for educational purposes.