PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue indd

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION EDUCATORS’
PERCEPTIONS OF THE USE
OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN THEIR WORK
By

Elizabeth Chase Wells

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Agricultural and Extension Education

2009

ABSTRACT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION EDUCATORS’
PERCEPTIONS OF THE USE
OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN THEIR WORK
By

Elizabeth Chase Wells

This research study examined Michigan State University Extension educators’
perceptions of the use of digital technology in their work. It used a mixed method of
research which included a mailed survey and interviews of selected respondents. A
census survey using Dillman’s Total Design method was sent to 290 field staff of
Michigan State University Extension. Of these, 272 completed and returned the survey
instrument for a 94% rate of return. Semi structured interviews were conducted with 15
of the respondents to provide in-depth qualitative data to enrich the understanding of the
issues for the researcher. The mailed survey instrument was examined for validity by a
panel of experts and pilot tested on scale items to assess reliability. The mailed survey
included questions on access to technology both at work and at home, preparation for the
use of technology, actual use of technology, usefulness and ease of use, confidence and
comfort in use and general and technical support for the use of technology. Low,
medium and high total use respondent were compared and analyzed. Results show that
although Extension Educators consider themselves to be well prepared to use technology
and said it was highly useful to them in their work, most use of technology was limited to
e-mail, word processing, file attachments and cell phones. Only a small minority use web

technology, wikis or had published educational materials on a website or the MSUE

portal. Staff sometimes furnished their own digital technology tools if they thought they
were highly usefiIl. Barriers to use of newer technologies were sited as lack of access,
lack of support, lack of time to learn new technologies. Low users sometimes said they
would only use technology if it was required and they preferred one-on—one tutoring to
learn how to use technology. Low users recognized that they were themselves a barrier to
the use of technology. Medium users said clientele preferred face-to-face education and
would not use technology. They often viewed technology as “somebody else’s problem”.
High users were the only group to use web based digital technology and they were able to
integrate the three spheres of Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model of technology use;
expertise in technology, pedagogy and content. High users were more apt to be self
taught, client oriented and to have a grasp of the affordances of various technology
applications. They preferred advanced classes on web page design, as well as photo and
video editing and production. Recommendations were to provide local and regional
training which includes practical ways to use technology to enhance programming,
identify regional sources of support, integrate technology use into the MSUC culture and
encourage the use of technology by highlighting creative solutions to use and providing
opportunities for playful use. Better access must be provided and technology support
should be easily accessible. Further research recommendations include case studies of
individual counties, case studies of high users, research on difference by programming
area and the development of documented technology solution to programming needs

which could be accessed by educators looking for ideas.

This dissertation is dedicated to my father,
H. Charles Scott,
who knew I would pursue my doctorate
before I did but didn’t live to see it happen,
and my dear sister,
Alison,

who passed away the day before I defended.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of many people.
Most important, I am grateful to Dr. Eddie Moore, who stepped in and followed me
through to the end when I was without an advisor, and to Dr. Punya Mishra, who
challenged my ideas and kept me thinking creatively when I needed it most. Thank yOu
to Dr. Luke Reese, whose attention to detail is second to none, and to Dr. Patrick
Dickson, who demanded so much of our class that it helped me to understand what I
needed to research and why. Thank you to Dr. Dave Krueger, who was my first advisor
when I began my doctoral program and who bad faith in me every step of the way even
though his path took him in another direction.

Thank you for the assistance I received from the Graduate Secretary of CARRS,
Diane Davis, who always made me feel a part of the department even though I was so far
away, and to my assistant, Joan Biesecker, without whom I never could have taken the
time I needed. I am also grateful to MSUE Extension and Dr. Adam Kantrovich for their
support of me while I took time away tocomplete my dissertation, as well as Chuck
Pistis and Gerry Draheirn, who both supported me in my journey. I am also grateful for
the keen eyes and editing of Susan Miller.

I am deeply indebted to the many wonderful Extension educators who took the time
to contribute to my research and to answer my questions with such candor. Your words
gave life to my writing in a way numbers never could.

Thank you to my family and especially my dear husband, Michael, who gave up so
much without complaint. I owe a great deal to my mother-in-law, Shirley, and father-in-

law, Leonard, who have been supportive every step of the way. Thank you to my

brothers, David and Andrew, for your faith in me; my mother, Martha Mitchell; and my
good friends, Dr. Marilyn Johnson and Sandra Bergamo, who inspired me more than they
will ever know.

Thank you to all the 4-H leaders and members of the Ottawa County 4-H Council
who give so much and ask for so little. You are the best volunteers any program ever had
because you are so committed to our youth and their future.

- And finally, thank you to my faithful Samoyeds, Sammy Jo and Boston, for their

companionship on the lonely road to East Lansing for so many years.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................ x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 7
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 7
Research Objectives ...................................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Study ........................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ............................................................ 1]
Organizations and Information Technology ............................................................... 12
The Diffusion of Technology ...................................................................................... 17
Acceptance of Information Technology ..................................................................... 20
Information Technology in Education ........................................................................ 25
K-12 ..................................................................................................................... 25
Extension Educators’ Use of Technology ............................................................ 37
What Professional Educators Need to Know .............................................................. 45
Professional Development and Training of Adults ..................................................... 49
Summary of the Literature .......................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 52
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 52
The Study Population .................................................................................................. 53
Research DeSIgn .......................... 54
Development of the Instrument ................................................................................... 54
The Interview Protocol ................................................................................................ 58
Validity ........................................................................................................................ 61
Reliability .................................................................................................................... 63
DataCollection Procedures .......................................................................................... 64
Processing Procedures ................................................................................................. 67
DataAnalysis Procedures ............................................................................................ 67
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY .................................... 69
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 69
Demographic Characteristics of the Population .......................................................... 70
Access to Technology and Specific Hardware ........................................................... 73
Source of Technology ........................................................................................... 76

vii

Inequities in Access .............................................................................................. 77

Access in General ........................................................................................................ 78
Preparedness ................................................................................................................ 78
Source of Knowledge ........................................................................................... 79
Comfort and Confidence in Using Technology ................................................... 80
Actual Use of Technology .......................................................................................... 81
Differences Between What Was Provided and What Was Used ................................ 83
Tasks Performed Using Technology ........................................................................... 84
Usefulness and Base of Use of Technology ................................................................ 90
Barriers to the Use of Technology .............................................................................. 91
Lack of Time as a Barrier .................................................................................... 92
Attitudes and Beliefs as Barriers .......................................................................... 93
Clientele as a Barrier ............................................................................................ 95
Training as a Barrier ................................ '.' ........................................................... 95
General Support .......................................................................................................... 97
Technical Support ....................................................................................................... 98
Summary ................................................................................................................... 100
CHAPTER V

INTERVIEW RESULTS ................................................................................................ 102
Low-Use Participants ................................................................................................ 103
Types of Technology Used ................................................................................ 103
Usefulness and Base of Use ............................................................................... 105
Technology They Would Like to Use ................................................................ 106
The Choice to Use Technology .......................................................................... 106
How They Learn ................................................................................................ 107
Barriers to Use ................................................................................................... 107
Future of Technology and Their Work .............................................................. 108
Medium-Use Participants .......................................................................................... 109
Types of Technology Used ................................................................................ 109
Usefulness and Ease of Use ............................................................................... 110
Technology They Would Like to Use ................................................................ 111
The Choice to Use Technology .......................................................................... 111
How They Learn ................................................................................................ 112
Barriers to Use ................................................................................................... 113
Future of Technology and Their Work .............................................................. 115
High-Use Participants ............................................................................................... 115
Types of Technology Used ................................................................................ 115
Usefulness and Ease of Use ............................................................................... 117
Technology They Would Like to Use ................................................................ 118
The Choice to Use Technology .......................................................................... 119
How They Learn ................................................................................................ 120
Barriers to Use ................................................................................................... 121
Future of Technology and Their Work .............................................................. 123
Summary ................................................................................................................... 125

viii

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 131
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 127
Access to Technology ............................................................................................... 128
Preparedness to Use Technology ............................................................................. 130
Actual Use of Technology ........................................................................................ 132
Usefulness and Base of Use ...................................................................................... 136
General and Technical Support and Training ........................................................... 138
Summary ................................................................................................................... 142

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 144
Summary of the Study ............................................................................................... 144

Need for the Study .............................................................................................. 144
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 144
Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................... 145
Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................... 146
Summary of Major Conclusions ............................................................................... 146
General Recommendations ....................................................................................... 148
Recommendations for Training and Support ............................................................ 148
Recommendations for Support of Low-Use Educators ............................................ 149
Recommendations for Support of Medium-Use Educators ..................................... 149
Recommendations for Support of High-Use Educators ............................................ 150
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... I 72

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Educators by Region (4.1) ........................................................................ 70
Distribution of Educators by Program Area (4.2) ............................................................. 71
Distribution of Educators by Highest Degree Earned (4.3) .............................................. 71
Distribution of Educators by Age (4.4) ............................................................................. 72
Distribution of Educators by Years of Experience with MSUE (4.5) .............................. 73
Technologies Provided to Educators (4.6) ........................................................................ 75
Source of Preparation for the Use of Technology (4.7) .................................................... 80
Educators Degree of Comfort

and Confidence in Using Technology in Their Work (4.8) .............................................. 81
Educators’ Actual Use of Technology (4.9) ..................................................................... 82
Technology Provided but Not Always Used by Educators (410) ......... 83
Technology That Educators Use Most Ofien (4.11) ......................................................... 86
Technology That Educators Use Midrange (4.12) ............................................................ 88
Technology That Educators Used Least Often (4.13) ....................................................... 89
Educators’ Perception of Their General Support From MSUE (4.14) ............................. 97
Educators’ Perception of Their Technical Support (4.15) ................................................ 98
Summary of Interview Results (5.1) ............................................................................... 126
Returns of Survey Instruments (A-l) .............................................................................. 171

LIST OF FIGURES

Bell-Shaped Curve Showing Categories of Individual
Innovativeness and Percentages Within Each Category

as Depicted by Rogers (2003) (2.1) .................................................................................. 18
The Growth of Actual Use of a New Technology

Over Time as Described by Rogers (2003) (2.2) .............................................................. 19
Technology Acceptance Model by Davis (1989) (2.3) ..................................................... 23
TPACK Model Showing Interplay Among Content,

Pedagogical, and Technological Knowledge (Mishra and Koehler 2006) (2.4) ............... 46
Sample of Survey Instrument Questions on Access to Technology (3.1) ........................ 56
Sample of Survey Instrument Questions on Preparation

for the Use of Technology (3.2) ........................................................................................ 57
Sample of Survey Instrument Questions on the Actual Use of Technology (3.3) ............ 57

Radar Chart Depicting Actual Use of Three Groups
of Extension Educators Using Scale of 5 = Every Day,
4 = Twice a Week, 3 = Weekly, 2 = Once a Month or Less, 1 = Never (4.1) .................. 90

Scatter Plot of Correlation of Educators’ Actual

Use of Technology at Home and at Work Used to
Identify Individuals for Purposes of Interviews (5.1) ..................................................... 103

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

This study sought to understand the use of digital technologies by Michigan State
University Extension educators in their work. The section that follows provides a
historical context for this study and ends with a set of key issues that needed to be studied
and a chapter-by-chapter guide for the dissertation that follows.

EMMA

The COOperative Extension Service (CES) is a publicly firnded, nonformal
educational outreach system of the land-grant universities. The CBS had its beginning in
the late 19th century when the United States was an agricultural society. The agricultural
colleges (precursors of the land-grant universities) carried out their mission of bringing
education to the people in farming communities through demonstrations, as introduced by
Seaman Knapp. Knapp later drafted the bill that became the Hatch Act, which created
agricultural experiment stations. Within 2 decades the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 was
passed, formalizing the CES. The new CES mission as worded in the Smith-Lever Act
was to “aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical
information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics and to encourage the
application of the same” ("Smith Lever as Amended in 1962," 1914). Extension
educators (at that time called Extension agents) traveled to farms to teach farmers to use
new techniques, knowledge, and concepts of modern agriculture and research-based
science. Early Extension education was offered by agents during farm and home visits
and small-group meetings at which new techniques were demonstrated to farmers,

homemakers, and youths (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997). As the years

progressed, various technologies were introduced slowly to Extension programming, in
much the same way technology was used in public schools (Cuban, 1986). Telephone,
radio, and television were early technologies adopted to one degree or another, but the
mainstay of Extension continued to be farm and home visits and small-group
presentations.

Today the United States no longer is an agricultural society, but Extension is still a
major delivery system for the land-grant universities. In today’s world, changing life
styles have affected the way Extension does business and the content of their
programming, although the mission remains similar to the original. Almost a century
after the Smith-Lever Act was passed, the mission of Extension, as defined by the
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy in 1995, is “to enable people to
improve their lives and communities through learning partnerships that put knowledge to
wor ” (Anderson et al., 1995).

In 1999 a commission fimded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation was created by the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) to
help define the direction public universities should go in the future and to recommend an
action agenda to hasten the process of change. The commission was charged not only
with defining and bringing to public attention the kinds of changes occurring at land-
grant universities today, but also with analyzing necessary reforms and suggesting ways
to accomplish them and monitor the results. The commission adopted a concept of
lifelong learning that they defined as a “learning society.” This learning society calls
upon land-grant universities to help citizens extend their knowledge, understanding, and

skills through access to continuous learning, distance education, and asynchronous

education with the use of technology (W. K. Kellogg Commission, 1999). The
commission also called upon land-grant universities to invest in technology and
education for their faculty (which includes CES educators). Smith and Kelley (1997)
wrote that in a learning society the role of Extension educators is no longer one of
traveling to farms and homes to demonstrate new techniques, but rather, Extension
educators will produce educational products and work in an information-rich
marketplace. Therefore, they will need new skills and competencies to succeed.

Trying to respond to growing demands from clientele with a smaller workforce, and
needing to become a more flexible and responsive “learning society,” Extension
administrators in many states have made investments in information-technology
hardware and have looked for new ways to organize staff to facilitate communication and
the diffusion of research-based information. Extension administrators also have
struggled with ways to use information technology to help a restructured CES deal with
staff reduction and increased demand for education in a world where information is
exploding. Harriman and Daugherty (1992) explained that the computer had transformed
education as radically as the printing process once did. They said Extension publications
may become an archaic method of delivering information. They went on to promote the
benefits of satellite technology, which they said could bring national experts to local
communities at little cost, and suggested that telecommunication networks will be the
future of Extension. This prediction has proven to be close but not completely on target.
Over the past 20 years, in Michigan, major investments in technology hardware to
support the move toward becoming a learning society have been in satellite-dish

communications and later video desktop conferencing for county offices. Unfortunately,

the fate of these two technologies has been similar to that of similar technologies in the
classroom, as described by Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001). That is, they were used
far less than expected and eventually were replaced with newer information technologies
such as computers and websites.

In 1986, from a national perspective, Extension professionals held the first annual
conference dedicated to the use of information technology in Extension, which they
called the Extension Instructional Technology Conference. The conference was held in
Blacksburg, Virginia, at the Donald Brown Center for Continuing Education; 53
Extension professionals attended. This might be called the first attempt to acknowledge
information technology as a key component in Extension delivery systems. Then, in
September 2001 , the Extension Committee on Organizational Policy (ECOP) created a
regional taskforce that developed a workshop on an Extension vision for the southern
states. A year later, a national committee appointed by ECOP recommended a national
information technology network, which resulted in a draft of a plan they called
“eXtension.” In 2003, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES) sponsored regional meetings of Extension professionals working with
information technology, and the National Extension Directors and Administrators
endorsed the concept. Start-up funding was provided beginning in 2004, and Dan Cotton
was hired as the first eXtension director. (http://about.extension.org/about/history/) This
initiative began with the networking of the (ECOP), NASULGC, and CSREES to further
develop a prototype of this electronic concept of Extension, which they called eXtension.
The prototype is a website that demonstrates how content could be developed (Initiative,

2006) collaboratively and then, using metadata tagging, could be made easily searchable.

Then with branding elements provided by partner institutions, it could be localized and
personalized into a user-fiiendly portal instance.

In this prototype, the use of wikis (simple, collaborative websites) is combined with
the concept of communities of practice, which will be created and then will work to
develop the content. In addition, the eXtension system launched a Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) initiative to collect, sort, and publish questions and answers submitted
by Extension educators. As of December 2005, more than 1,000 individuals had
registered and more than 3,100 FAQs had been submitted (Initiative, 2006). Closer to
home, in 2005, Michigan CES launched a web portal that can be used to share files,
communicate via streaming video conferencing, and publish articles and other documents
such as slide shows. A portal system might offer many opportunities for growth of the
organization, but educators must be able to use it efficiently to maximize the return on the
investment (Reese, Straus, & Murray, 2005).

At both the federal level and in individual states, there are challenges, including
providing technical training and technical support and motivating educators to accept
new and innovative ways to use the systems to deliver or augment Extension
programming. These educators must perceive information technology as usefirl to their
work and find it easy to use such technology to accomplish their goals. Whereas,
historically, information technology was used in Extension to transmit knowledge, in the
future Extension must become a learning organization (Senge, 2000) in order to survive
and thrive. A learning organization is one in which people continually expand their
capacity to create the results they truly desire, new and expansive patterns of thinking are

nurtured, collective aspiration is set free, and people continuously learn how to learn

together. The disciplines of a learning organization include systems thinking, personal
mastery, mental models, shared-vision building, and team learning.

As Extension educators make the shift from transmitting knowledge to clientele to
being part of a learning organization, they will become facilitators of learning
communities (Wenger, White, Smith, & Rowe, 2005). Learning communities are
communities of practice in which groups of people have a shared interest in a particular
topic (i.e., dairy farmers in West Michigan), a passion for the topic (such as improving
herd health), a desire to deepen their knowledge and expertise on the subject, and
frequent interaction with each other on an ongoing basis.

The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CREES)
defines a community of practice as a virtual network of subj ect-matter—content providers
consisting of faculty, professional and paraprofessional staff, county educators, industry
experts, clientele, and government agency representatives who share knowledge or
competence in a specific content area and are willing to work and learn together over a
period of time to develop and share that knowledge in the forms of educational products
and programs. They list specific functions of a community of practice as including:

0 Helping meet the knowledge needs of their respective communities of interest or
clientele.

0 Stewardship of the available knowledge for their specific content area, including
revisions, updates, and maintenance.

0 Best-practice development of educational products and programs.

0 On-going engagement with their corresponding community of interest.

0 Innovation in content-area knowledge and delivery.

S_tatement of the Problem

 

Early technologies that were used by Extension educators often were easy to use
and therefore transparent to the educators. However, today’s new, more complex
information technologies are not as transparent and require a new and changing skill set
to use them effectively. Information technology has created a new workplace that
requires a skilled workforce that is not only technologically literate but also fluent. With
the explosion of information technology and especially the Internet and easy access to
information, CES faces increasing competition and must become a more customer-
driven, cost-effective, and flexible organization that is agile and responsive to consumers’
expectations. Information technology today offers the potential for distance learning
through asynchronous and synchronous interactions and publishing and document-
sharing options such as web publishing and file sharing. Today’s Extension educators
must not only be knowledgeable about content and learning theory, but they must also be
expert facilitators of learning through the use of information technologies. In order to use
information technology effectively, they will need support of the organization as well as
opportunities for professional development, which can best be provided if the CES
leadership understands beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and understanding of and about
information technology and how technology can be used to create a more effective

learning environment.

Purpose of the StudsI
The researcher’s purpose in undertaking this study was to understand Michigan
Extension educators’ perceptions of the usefulness of information technology in

accomplishing their goals as educators, as well as their perceptions of the ease of use of

the information technologies that they choose to use and are required to use. The
researcher also was interested in learning how these perceptions influenced their intention
to use information technology, their actual use of information technology, and their need
for support and training in the use of information technology.

Research Obiectives

To accomplish the study purpose, the specific research objectives were:

1. To describe the following demographic characteristics of Michigan State
University Extension (MSUE) educators: gender, age, years of work experience
with MSUE, major program assignment, position held in the organization,
geographic area of coverage of responsibilities, and highest level of education
attained.

2. To identify and describe perceptions of MSUE educators regarding:

a. the usefulness of information technology in their work.
b. the ease of use of information technology in their work.

3. To identify and describe the technologies that MSUE educators have available
for their work.

4. To identify and describe the perceptions of MSUE educators regarding:

a. their preparedness for using technology in their work.
b. their behavioral intention to use information technology in their work.
c. their actual use of information technology in their work.
5. To identify and describe the perceptions of MSUE educators regarding:
a. the general support of their use of technology for programming by

MSUE.

b. the technical support they receive.

6. To identify and describe the perceptions of MSUE educators regarding their
need for training and professional development in the use of information
technology in their work.

7. To analyze information obtained about MSUE educators in order to facilitate:

a. the design and planning of in-service training in information technology.

b. the support of Extension educators in their use of information technology.

Definition of Term
The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this

dissertation.

Moral intention: The intention to use a target information technology in the
future.

Communication technology: Digital information technology for communication,
including but not limited to cell phones, e-mail, and instant messaging.

Digital technologies: Information technologies that use digital coding to store,
transfer, or share large amounts of information, such as cell phones, computers, and the
Internet.

Extension educator: Academic board appointed field staff of MSUE, including

 

County Extension Directors, District Extension educators, and County Extension
educators.
Irrforngtion technology: The study, design, development, usage, implementation,

support, or management of digital-based information systems.

Internet technologigs: Digital information technology for websites, blogs, portals,

 

and wikis.

Perceived ease of use: The degree to which a user expects the targeted
information technology to be free of effort.

Perceived usefulness: A user’s subjective view of the probability that using a
Specific information technology will increase his or her job performance within an
organizational context.

Presentation technology: Digital information technology for making
presentations, including PowerPoint presentations.

Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into seven chapters. Chapter I included an
introduction to the problem under investigation, as well as an explanation of the research
objectives and definitions of key terms. A review of the applicable literature is the focus
of Chapter II. The research methodology and data-analysis methods are explained in
Chapter III. Results of the study are presented in Chapters IV and V, whereas discussion
of the results is presented in Chapter VI and conclusions drawn from the study findings

and recommendations for further study are set forth in Chapter VII.

10

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

This literature review is divided into five sections. It begins by examining
organizations and how new, digital information technologies have affected them. This
information will help explain the changes in organizations in today’s fast-paced,
information-driven global economy and how information technology is influencing them.
Here the researcher examines three specific types of information technologies that affect
learning organizations: synchronous learning, asynchronous learning, and publishing.
The next section covers theories of technology diffusion and its relationship to the
adoption and use of information technology in organizations. The third section is a
review of literature on human behavior, attitudes, and intentions relevant to the
acceptance of information technology, including the social science Theory of Reasoned
Action and the related Technology Acceptance Model. This is followed by an
examination of information technology specific to education, particularly the historical
use of information technology in education, how educators have used information
technology, and why educators use or do not use such technology. Included is a
discussion of research on the use of information technology by classroom teachers,
university professors, and Extension educators. This is followed by a review of the
research on who uses information technology and why they do so, as well as their
perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences related to that technology. In the final
section of Chapter II is an examination of literature on learning theory and professional-
development needs and how this relates to information-technology support in educational

organizations. The final section also examines the model of Technological Pedagogical

ll

and Content Knowledge (TPACK) and how this may help us understand more about the
needs of educators, as well as their understandings and beliefs about the usefulness of
information technology in their work.

Organizations and Infornyation Technology

Organizations today face fierce competition, unprecedented rates of change, and
new challenges to become more flexible and agile so that they can continue to thrive. Part
of that change is being driven by developments and improvements in the use of
information technology made possible through computers. In 1965, semi-conductor
pioneer Gordon Moore predicted that microchip density would double every 2 years,
resulting in a corresponding increase in the speed and power of computers (Gleick,
1999). The storage capacity of computers has been increasing at an even faster rate,
doubling every 13 months (Walter, 2005). Rapid and relentless change means that new
products, markets, and even companies appear, change, and sometimes disappear in
shorter and shorter periods of time. Much of this change is fueled by computer power
that is now linked with access to knowledge and information available through the
Internet, which was used by an estimated 1.5 billion people in 2008.

Knowledge has become the central focus of the new global economy. In this
competitive world, organizations are seeking new ways to redefine their structures and
incorporate information technology for the dissemination of knowledge. This is
especially important for knowledge organizations such as the CES, whose goal is to
provide education that can transform lives and whose product is research-based
information. High-performing organizations require that knowledge and information no

longer be limited to upper management or the top of a hierarchical structure. Knowledge

l2

must be available and spread widely across a flattened organizational structure that
allows for employees who are skilled in sharing, collaborating, and managing resources
and who have access to information they use for the purpose of carrying out the
organization’s mission.

Agile organizations aggressively embrace change and use technology to help them
be more responsive to their customers. “Agility is dependent on the initiative of people
and on their skills, knowledge and access to information” (Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss,
1995). In this information age, it is technology that enables people to access information
in new ways and more quickly than ever before so that organizations can become
proactive in meeting their customers’ needs.

Senge (2000) asserted that, in order for organizations to be competitive in the new
millennium, they must become learning organizations “where people continually expand
their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of
thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations are set free, and where people are
continually learning how to learn together” (Senge, 2000). In a learning organization,
information technology can be used to make learning more efficient and effective as
knowledge is shared effortlessly across the organization. This, in turn, can result in more
flexibility, agility, and responsiveness.

Information technologies in knowledge organizations can be divided into three
major components in terms of the types of learning activities they support (Wenger et al.,
2005). Extension services need to evaluate each of these in terms of their staff and
clientele needs, for technology will be used only if it is useful, cost effective, easy to use,

and widely available. Extension must examine these information technologies through

13

the lenses of social, cultural, and organizational issues in order to decide which
technologies are best for a given situation. Furthermore, Extension must understand the
affordances provided by technology in order to make the best use of it (McCrory, 2006).
Some of the affordances of technology are representation, information, transformation,
collaboration, and the ability to transcend time and space.

Synchronous educational interactions are those that occur in real time, much like
television or radio news broadcasts. Information technologies that are synchronous
include slide/video presentations, Whiteboards, podcasts, chats, and instant messages.
Publishing, which used to involve production of print media such as Extension bulletins
or manuals, now includes electronic file sharing, object management, document
repOsitory, newsletters, and static web pages. Asynchronous interactions are archived
and stored materials, including media such as CD-ROMs, web pages, emails, faxes,
videotapes, LISTSERVES, wikis, weblogs, RSS feeds, discussion boards, and
downloadable information (such as SparkNotes) for hand-held digital media players.

Synchronous interactions are similar to many methods that were used in the past,
but with enhanced technology. They can be useful in presenting complex technical
information, and the Internet can provide access to information that might not otherwise
be available to clientele with the use of hypertext links to additional sources of
information to expand and enhance a presentation. Information technology also allows
for excellent representation of such complex matters as the dissection of animals or
identification of plants and insects.

Publishing is another technology that Extension has long used. Information

technology, however, not only provides access to published information and the use of

14

search engines to sort, filter, and select such information. It also allows for quick and
easy publication via web pages and electronic portfolios of staff. A web presence can
enhance Extension educators’ credibility with local stakeholders and foster institution-
wide reflection, learning, and improvement. In this information-rich world, Extension
educators must be able to provide accurate, research-based data quickly and easily to
their clientele, who will go elsewhere if educators cannot deliver. Here the affordance is
information. By publishing to the web, Extension positions itself as authorities and
resources. New software for publishing fosters collaboration. For instance, using the
newest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader, a writer can convert his or her original
document into a pdf file and then send it to multiple people via e-mail, along with a way
for them to download the latest version of Adobe. This will enable them to open the
document and make comments right on the page, regardless of their operating system or
software. The document can be returned to the writer via e-mail, and all of the readers’ .
comments can be imported into one file for comparing and contrasting. This allows for
collaboration among many writers who have varying levels of technology available to
them.

Asynchronous interactions such as weblogs (blogs), wikis, RSS feeds (really simple
syndication), discussion boards, and e-mail lists are perhaps the most powerful
technologies with the most affordances, but so far they are the least likely to be used by
Extension educators in their work. Weblogs or blogs are simple text-based web journals
that allow anyone to post articles, news, views, and photographs. These user-fi'iendly
platforms are one of the fastest growing segments of the web in terms of public

participation. Extension educators can use digital photographs and stories on blogs to

15

enhance their program delivery and make it easy to show a new product, field conditions,
or how to use a particular piece of equipment while also allowing clientele to add
comments, questions, and their own ideas and pictures. A wiki (the Hawaiian word for
quick) is a simple, collaborative website. Every page can be edited by anyone, allowing
for maximum flexibility. RSS allows users to syndicate news and the content of news-
like sites, including major news sites like Wired, news-oriented community sites like
Slashdot, and personal weblogs. Almost any web-published information that can be
broken down into discrete items can be syndicated via RSS (for instance, the "recent
changes" page of a wiki or even the revisionist history of a book or Extension bulletin).
Some affordances provided to Extension clientele and staff by asynchronous technologies
are the ability to learn in one’s choice of location at one’s own pace, quick and easy
filtering of information via syndication in a format designed for the learner (such as “hot
topics”), minutes of recent meetings available quickly afterwards, document check-
out/version control, reminders, community calendars, news that is up to date and
immediately available, and forums for discussion and reflection.

Because Extension educators of the future will be facilitators of learning who are
creating communities of practice, we must understand how information technologies can
support and enhance their activities. Extension educators will need information
technology that helps communities of practice with tasks of interacting, publishing, and
tending. Interacting entails discussing issues, brainstorming, and collaborating across
time and space. Publishing must be simple and easy, with multiple repositories for
pictures, text, and data. Tending means that community members need to be nourished

and supported personally by creating both a community and an individual presence that

16

can be seen and felt. It is the responsibility of Extension educators and the entire
organization to understand how information technology can enhance and support these

tasks in pursuit of the mission of Extension now and in the future.

The Diffu§ion of Technology

Research on the diffusion of technology into society and organizations is not
specific to information technology, but it serves as a useful model for purposes of
studying the diffusiOn of information technology. The early study of Ryan and Gross
(1943) in which they examined the adoption of hybrid seed corn by farmers in Iowa
served as the beginning of research on technology diffusion. Although innovation-
diffusion theory (Rogers, 2003) is used to illustrate how technology moves fiom
invention to widespread use or nonuse, the characteristics that affect diffusion also can be
used in examining acceptance or adoption of information technology within an
organization (Carr, 1999).

Fichman (1992) reviewed 18 empirical studies on the diffusion of information
technology. He found that five characteristics that affect diffusion are relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Relative advantage is the extent
to which a given information technology offers improvements over currently available
tools. Compatibility is how consistent the information technology is with users’ social
practices and norms. Complexity is case of use or learning the information technology.
Trialability is the chance to try out an innovative information technology before making a
commitment to its use. Observability is the extent to which a user can observe the
information technology’s outputs. In addition, according to innovation-diffusion theory,

those who adopt any new technology can be categorized into five groups according to

17

their rate of adoption or acceptance of the technology. These five groups are innovators,
early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. These groups may be plotted
over a normal distribution curve, with innovators representing 2.5% of the population,
early adopters 13.5%, early and late majority 68%, and laggards 16%, as shown in Figure

2.1.

 

 

worm-0129 EARLY ' EARLY LAN-z racemes
2.53 moms moan? moan? run
13 .53 34s 343

Figure 2.1 Bell-shaped curve showing categories of individual innovativeness and
percentages within each category as depicted by Rogers (2003).

Any adopter's willingness and ability to adopt an innovation will depend on his or
her awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Some of the characteristics of
each category of adopter as described by Rogers (2003) include:

- lnnovators—adventuresome, educated, use multiple sources of information,
greater propensity to take risk in general, younger

0 Early adopters—social leaders, popular, educated

0 Early maj ority—deliberate, traditional, many informal contacts

0 Late majority-skeptical, traditional, lower socioeconomic status

0 Laggards—neighbors and friends are main sources of information, fear of debt,

older

18

In studying adoption patterns of faculty, Jacobsen (1998) found that early adoption
of information technology was influenced by hands-on experimenting and trouble—
shooting, support fi'om other colleagues on campus, and informal networks of fiiends and
family who provide support. She suggested that the use of computers for one purpose
may encourage enthusiasm for further use. Furthermore, J acobsen discovered that those
who are limited adopters may be so because they lack support and training and that
colleague-supported training is a viable way to encourage diffusion of information
technologies.

An innovator or early adopter of a particular technology might not be an early
adopter of another technology. Innovations spread through society in an S-curve, as early
adopters select the technology first, followed by the majority, until use of a certain

technology or innovation is common. This was diagramed by Rogers (2003), as shown in

Figure 2.2.

Nunber
or /
Percentage
of
Adapters
Perbd of
Rapid Growth

_/

Figure 2.2 The growth of actual use of a new technology over time, as described by
Rogers (2003).

 

 

 

 

Tme——lh

The speed of adoption of technology is determined by the speed at which the

technology takes off and the speed of later growth of adoption. Some technologies

19

initially have a higher speed of adoption, whereas others might not be adopted early but
become more deeply entrenched in society and organizations over time. Less expensive
technologies might be adopted quickly but not last, whereas more expensive technologies
rrright be adopted at a slower rate of speed but persist longer, especially if they benefit
from being a networked technology. For example, computers with Internet access are
networked, and the more such computers exist, the more useful they become by virtue of
their connectivity. A disruptive technology (Christensen, 1997) is a new technological
innovation, product, or service that eventually replaces the existing dominant technology
in the market, despite the fact that the disruptive technology is both radically different
from the leading technology and often initially performs worse than the leading
technology according to existing measures of performance. For example, weblogs or
wikis might be disruptive technologies (Coates, 2004) for Extension, replacing traditional

websites, newsgroups, or other information technologies.

Acceptance of Information Technology

Information technology will be used only if it is accepted. Therefore, it is important
to understand how technology comes to be used and how and why employees of an
organization make decisions about how they will use information technology. To
comprehend their decisions and the underlying motivators, it is important to understand
attitude and behavior theory and how it relates to people’s beliefs, choices, intentions,
and actions.

During the late 19503 and 19603, much research was conducted on attitude theory
and behavior. Researchers Aj zen and Fishbein began measuring and attempting to

predict behavior in laboratory and applied settings, which resulted in their Theory of

20

Reasoned Action (Ajzen & F ishbein, 1975). According to this theory, a person’s
behaviors or actions are based on two factors, one being personal in nature and the other
reflecting social influence. The personal factor is one’s attitude toward the behavior,
which can be described as the person’s judgment about whether the behavior is good or
bad. The social-influence factor is the person’s perception of the social pressures to
perform the action. Because this is a perception, it is subjective. Attitude and social
influence combine to create intentions, which in turn result in behaviors. Beliefs are
defined as the “individual’s subjective probability that performance of a given behavior
will result in a given consequence” (Dillon & Morris, 1996). Ajzen and Fishbein asserted
that their model can be used to understand and predict most human behavior.

Sheppard, Hartvvick, and War-Shaw (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of research on
the Theory of Reasoned Action involving 87 studies on the intention-behavior
relationship and the relationship between attitudes and subjective norms. The researchers
found strong support fOr the overall utility of the theory for predicting goals and for
predicting activities involving an explicit choice among alternatives. Sheppard et al. also
found that the presence of choice among alternatives did not weaken the predictive utility
of the model. In fact, overall, the model performed better when applied to activities
involving choice. In addition, this meta-analysis indicated that measures of intention
performed well in predicting behavior, although they did not do as well in predicting
performance. The Theory of Reasoned Action has become a classic in social psychology
and is the basis of much research on relationships among beliefs, attitudes, norms,

intentions, and behavior (Stefl-Mabry, 1999).

21

Research on the acceptance of or resistance to information technology has been
conducted in the field of management information systems. Researchers have attempted
to predict how users will react to a new technology within an organizational context.
Dillon and Morris (1996) defined user acceptance as the willingness to employ
information technology in performing the tasks it is designed to support. Some
individuals resist using information technology even when it nright lead to enhanced
performance (Swanson, 1988).

Arguably the most important and widely cited study on the acceptance of
information technology is that of Fred Davis (1989), who developed the Technology
Acceptance Model. This model is specific to information technology and was designed
to be used to predict acceptance of information technology as determined by two factors:
perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU). The purpose of Davis’s
research was to deveIOp better measures for predicting and explaining the use of
information technologies. Davis focused on the two theoretical constructs of PU and
PEOU and then developed, pretested, and validated the constructs in two empirical
studies that have been replicated in many additional studies since that time.

Davis defined PU as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
‘ system would enhance his or her job performance” (p. 320). Usefirlness means that
something is capable of being used advantageously. Therefore, for an information-
technology system to be rated high in perceived usefulness, a user must believe there is a
positive use-performance relationship. Users will tend to use the system to the extent

they believe it will help them perform their job better.

22

Davis defined PEOU as the “degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system would be free of effort” (p. 320). Base was defined as that which is free
of difficulty or great effort. When all else is equal, that which is perceived to be easier to
use (than something of equal usability) is more likely to be accepted by users.

In the Technology Acceptance Model, external variables influence both PU and
PEOU. PU and PEOU influence the attitudes toward the information technology and then

the behavioral intention to use it. This influences actual use, as shown in Figure 2.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived
Ease of Use
Behavioral ——> Actual
Intention Use
/
Perceived
Usefulness

 

 

 

Figure 2.3: Technology Acceptance Model by Davis (1989).

Davis (1989) used the definitions of PU and PEOU to generate 14 items for each
construct and tested for semantic content. He then refined and streamlined the measures
of PU and PEOU; this resulted in two six-item scales with reliabilities of .98 for
usefulness and .94 for ease of use. Davis found that usefulness was more influential than
ease of use in predicting usage behavior and suggested that case of use may be an

antecedent to usefulness rather than a parallel, direct determinant of usage. Users may

23

overlook some lack of ease of use when there is perceived usefulness, but no matter how
easy information technology is to use, it will not be used if it is not useful.

The Technology Acceptance Model has been tested and validated in numerous studies
(Adams, Nelson, & Todd, 1992; Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003; Malhotra &
Galletta, 1999; Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, 2001; McFarland, 2001; McFarlane,
Hoffman, & Green, 1997; Szajna, 1996; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Wang & Bright,
2004) for more than 20 years. Although several variations of the model have been
proposed, the predictive value of the model has been consistent even when used to look at
use of the Internet and distance education through the updated Computer Attitude Survey
and Web-based Attitude Survey as applied by Wang (2003). However some researchers
have suggested that further study is needed to explain more fully how the model may be
integrated into a broader picture that includes variables related to human and
organizational culture and change processes, as well as to models of innovation diffusion
(Alavi & Joachimsthaler, 1992; Taylor & Todd, 1996).

According to the Theory of Planned Behavior, attitudes, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control determine intentions, which in turn influence behavior. The
influences of peers and superiors might be antecedents to the Subjective norm (Taylor &
Todd, 1996). The culture of an organization, as well as attitudes of administrators and
colleagues, can influence attitudes and behaviors of individuals and therefore can
influence acceptance and use ‘of information technology. In the Theory of Planned
Behavior, factors relevant to individual users’ acceptance of information technology are

cognitive style, personality, demographics (such as age, sex, and educational level), and

24

users’ situational variables, including training, experience, and involvement in

development (Alavi & Joachimsthaler, 1992).

Information Technolog)I in Education

Research in business and industry has been focused on the application of well-
developed predictive theoretical models of acceptance and diffusion, whereas research on
the use of information technology in education has used descriptive surveys and
correlation analyses, as well as ethnographic and qualitative case studies. Most studies
on the use of information technology in education have been specific to its use in formal
educational settings such as K-l2 school systems or university classrooms. Less research
has been conducted on the use of information technology by Extension staff. Thus it will
be helpful to understand better some of the issues identified through research if we first
examine what is known about how, when, and why teachers and professors choose to use

or not to use information technology in their classrooms.

K- 12 Education

The use of information technology in education has been documented by
researchers interested in how and why teacher educators use information technology and
how it has been integrated into K-12 school systems and classrooms, as well as into
higher and lifelong education. Early forms of information technology that were studied
were radio, followed by television and film. However, even though each of these early
forms of information technology was thought to hold great promise for education,
researchers found that the primary use of these information technologies (as reported by

teachers) was to give teachers a break from active teaching in the classroom. Elementary

25

teachers most often used these technologies in the afternoons, when they also reported
being tired (Cuban, 1986). Historically, the introduction of information technology in the
form of computers into schools was based on a widespread belief that if enough
computers were placed in classrooms, teachers would use them and that, the key to
increased computer use by teachers was the availability of computers. In the name of
educational reform and accountability, the new world of technology was embraced.
Programs aimed at putting computers into schools (starting with computer labs) began to
spring up everywhere.

Computers were introduced to Classroom education beginning in the early 19805. In '
1981 there was an average of one computer for every 125 students in public schools. A
decade later the average was one computer per 18 students, and in .2000 it was one
computer for every 5 students (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). But after observing
two schools in the Silicon Valley of California for 7 months in 1998 and 1999, Cuban et
al. found that although the numbers of computers in classrooms had risen dramatically in
response to calls for educational reform and the wishes of administrators, their actual use
was still very limited. These schools had high access to information technology, and
students attending the schools came from families for whom information technology was
a part of daily life. Cuban et al. found that although there was sufficient access to
information technology, teachers (for the most part) used it only sparingly in their
classrooms. Most teachers were classified as occasional users or nonusers, and when
they did use the computers they sustained rather than altered their existing patterns of
teaching. The researchers found that difliculty of use relating to lack of time and

breakdown of equipment were two of the biggest irnpediments to the use of information

26

technology, as reported by educators. Those educators who did use information
technology with some self-described success reported it involved many hours of
exhausting work beyond their normal preparation time. The same educators often
changed careers sooner than those who did not use information technology. Cuban et al.
concluded that until the problem of technology’s constantly breaking down and the issue
of time constraints are solved, technology will continue to be something that
administrators think educators should use but that educators seldom really do use.

. Frustration with the fact that computers were not being used as much as they could
be and a need to understand the use of computers in education from the perspective of
both administrators and teachers led the National Science Foundation to fund the
Teaching, Learning and Computing (TLC) national survey, which was conducted in
1998. Administrators, technology support staff, and more than 4,000 teachers in grades 4
through 12 were surveyed (Becker, 2001). In this large study it was found that students
were fiequently using computers in classrooms in four contexts: when taking a course in
computers, in pre-occupation or vocational training, in explorative exercises in
elementary school, and in word-processing papers. Whether teachers used computers
was influenced by their expertise, the number of computers in the classroom (ratio to
students), the subject matter being taught, the students’ ability, the socioeconomic status
(SES) of the school, teachers’ level of professionalism, their philosophy of teaching, and
block class schedules (resulting in longer classes). Of these influential factors, the four
most important were (in order) technical expertise, professional engagement, the ratio of
computers to students, and teachers’ philosophy (those having a constructional

philosophy were more apt to use computers).

27

 

Low-ability students in low-SES schools were apt to use computers for drill and
skill development, whereas students of high academic ability in high-SES schools were
more apt to use computers for analysis and cooperative learning (Becker, 2001). The
TLC study findings also indicated that the majority of students’ intensive computer
experience occurred outside of the classroom. Teachers who covered a small number of
subjects in depth were twice as apt to use computers in teaching than were teachers who
felt compelled to cover several topics in a year; teachers reported that they considered
learning to use the computers as too time consuming. And although teachers’ computer
expertise was not necessarily a determining factor in their computer use, for the most
part, teachers who used computers extensively themselves, especially for class
preparations such as slideshows, were more apt to have students use computers in a
variety of ways. It might be that these teachers recognized the usefulness of information
technology in a learning environment, and their experience with that technology made it
easier for them to use than was true for teachers with less experience.

In finther analysis of the TLC study, Becker and Riel (2000) classified teachers
according to four levels of professional engagement: teacher leaders (2%), teacher
professionals (10%), interactive teachers (29%), and private-practice teachers (58%).
These levels of professional engagement were based on teachers’ self-reported
conceptions of their roles as teachers in the classroom, school building, and community.
The teacher leaders as a whole were better educated (graduate degrees and graduated
from more selective colleges) and more professionally engaged than the other groups;
private-practice teachers were the least engaged and had less education. These groups

also differed in their philosophy of education, with teacher leaders being more apt to

28

view the role of teacher as facilitator of inquiry and private-practice teachers seeing it as
transmitting knowledge. In every instance, teacher leaders were more apt to use
computers for teaching and in ways that were more constructivist in orientation. Private-
practice teachers were the least likely to use computers to teach, and when they did so,
they used them to transmit information and knowledge. Teacher leaders were twice as
likely as private-practice teachers to have students use computers to communicate,
analyze data, and work collaboratively; the latter were more apt to use computers for
mastering computer skills, and other basic academic tasks. The findings supported the
hypothesis that teachers who are more professionally engaged (have better educations,
interact more in their school and community) will use computers more fiequently and in a
more constructivist manner in their teaching.

Since the beginning of the new millennium, researchers investigating how teachers
and administrators have integrated information technology into schools have begun to
conduct more case studies. They have studied exemplary technology users and school
systems in which information technology has been integrated successfully. In an
ethnographic study, Windschitl and Sahl (2002) followed three teachers for 2 full school
years and 3 months of a third school year at a small parochial school that had instituted a
laptop-computer program. These researchers examined the relationship between the use
of information technology in the classroom and teachers’ beliefs about the usefulness of
technology and their philosophies of education and practice. In this school, every student
was required to have a laptop computer, and each teacher was provided with one.
Teachers were selected for this study on the basis of their views about and experiences

with information technology in instruction. One teacher already was exploring the use of

29

technology for instruction, the second was convinced of the usefulness of computers for
administrative tasks but uncertain about their use in his math class, and the third had a
very conservative perspective and was more interested in meeting curriculum and state
standards than in using computers in the classroom. A constructivist classroom was used
as the standard for teaching, and five elements were used to define it as such:

(a) collaborative work by students, (b) teacher and student interests being a focus,

(c) emphasis on understanding complex ideas rather than learning facts, ((1) students’
assessment of their own understandings, and (e) the teacher’s willingness to learn in front
of students.

Windschitl and Sahl (2002) found that the influence of information technology on
the individual teachers’ instructional methods was mediated to a great extent by their
prior belief systems and support networks that had been established before the technology
was introduced. Furthermore, they found that the information technology itself was
neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to change a teacher from a transmission
perspective of learning to a constructivist perspective. The teacher who already had
shown acceptance of information technology had more firlly integrated its use into her
classroom by the end of the study, whereas the teacher who showed little acceptance did
not use the information technology to a great extent by the end of the study.

In Technology and Science Teaching: A New Kind of Knowledge, McCrory (2006)
claimed that science teachers in particular have long been innovators in the use of
information technology in classrooms but that the use of digital technologies has lagged
behind its potential due to a missing piece of knowledge about the potential usefulness of

information technology. She argued that teachers are missing knowledge about how

30

information technology can be used in classrooms, and they are lacking knowledge about
specific portfolios of resources and tools that they can use in their classrooms via
information technology. McCrory’s findings corroborate the research as reported by
Sandholtz and Reilly (2004) of the San Diego school system, which indicated that
teachers would use information technology more when the emphasis was shifted from
learning about the information technology to learning about ways to integrate it into a
claserom for instruction.

McCrory (2004) described four categories of affordances for learning that can be
provided by information technology: representation, information, transformation, and
collaboration. Representation is providing depictions of ideas and processes that are
difficult to represent without technology, such as geometric spatial problems or dissection
of animals. Information is afforded by use of the Internet, where there is access to data
that are not readily available in another form. Transformation changes the kinds of tasks
students may be able to perform for school projects, enabling them to do such things as
collecting data and experimenting. Collaboration is afforded by the communication
connection of the Internet and the web. Students may collaborate with experts in a
particular field or with students fiom another culture. McCrory also described
affordances for teachers; they include boundaries, stability, authority, pedagogical
context, and disciplinary context.

McCrory then posited that what teachers most need to learn about is what effective
uses look like in practice. These would be ways to use information technology to do
things that are either uniquely possible with or enhanced by technology, as well as uses of

technology that are integral to the curriculum. In addition, effective uses of information

31

technology should focus on content (not the technology) or subject matter in which the
information technology would be appropriate for the learning goal. In some cases, this
might mean using an older technology that nevertheless is more appropriate for a specific
task than a new technology. McCrory stated that teachers and students must accept that
the use of information technOlogy often entails hard work and in no way lessens the need
for teacher involvement in the learning process.

Sometimes the best and most powerful information technologies are difficult to use
and have a steep learning curve. These factors influence educators as they develop
portfolios of information technologies for their work. It is difficult and time consuming
to evaluate various information-technology options, and this may constitute teachers’
biggest struggle, but it is one of the most necessary if they are to begin to use information
technology effectively in their classrooms. Finally, McCrory argued that the needs of
teachers are unique and cannot be compared to the information-technology needs of other
professionals.

In an examination of the use of information technology by exemplary teachers who
had been awarded technology grants, Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) found that
. 11 factors affected the degree of success of the projects. These factors were
technological proficiency, compatibility between teacher beliefs and the technology,
social awareness, distance from school culture, distance from existing practice, distance
from technological resources, dependence on others, dependence on technological
resources, human infrastructure, technological infi'astructure, and social support. This
study was of a self-selected group of 118 teachers in Michigan, all of whom had applied

for an information-technology grant; the application required them to propose innovative

32

ways of using information technology in their classrooms. The researchers looked at six
characteristics of these teachers in relation to their proposed use of information
technology. The characteristics were past and current behavior, what they wanted to do
with technology, proficiency with technology, attitude toward technology, anxiety about
technology, and teaching philosophy (pedagogical practice). The findings from the
research project were not surprising. The teachers in this group were enthusiastic about
the use of information technology, were frequent users of such technology, had little or
no anxiety about using information technology, and were likely to be progressive in their
teaching style with student-centered activities and flexible classroom environments.
Zhao et al. viewed the attempt to characterize the population as a first step in
understanding what qualities teachers need in order to incorporate information
technology into their teaching practices.

Zhao (2001) concluded that innovations that were the furthest removed fiom
teachers' existing practices and school culture were less likely to succeed, as were
innovations that were more dependent on other people and resources. And although
many people think of information technology as having the potential to revolutionize
teaching, Zhao maintained that his findings indicated that teachers who take an
evolutionary approach will be more successful in using technology than others because
they will take smaller steps and experience less fi'ustration. This research suggests that
educators who are already competent in using information technology, who are less
dependent on technological support, and who use the simplest of methods and

technologies will have the most success.

33

In a longitudinal case study of the use of technology in a K-8 public school district
in San Diego, California, Sandholtz and Reilly (2004) used documents, surveys, teacher
journals, interviews, and observations as sources of data. These multiple data sources
allowed for triangulation as the researchers looked for disconfirrning and corroborating
evidence, patterns, and explanations. The researchers cited the Apple Classrooms of
Tomorrow project as finding five stages in teachers’ progression through the integration
of information technology, which is similar to the concept advanced by technology-
diffusion theories. The stages are entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and
invention. Entry-stage experiences are critical to teachers’ subsequent use of technology,
and many teachers historically have failed to integrate information technology into their
classrooms due to frustrations with technology early in their experience. This is because
the teachers focused on their lack of technical expertise rather than on how information
technology could be used (usefulness) in their classrooms. In the school system
Sandholtz and Reilly studied, an unusual computer design was used. Instead of giving
each child a laptop computer or furnishing classrooms with a number of desktop
computers, the school system created an intranet system with thin—client technology. A
thin client is a network computer without a hard disk drive; all application software, data,
and central processing unit (CPU) power reside on the network server. This system
provided many monitors for each classroom (a ratio of two students per thin client) but
no disc space or memory. Almost all technical support, therefore, was provided by a
central information technology office that maintained the system for the teachers. As a

result, there were fewer technical glitches for teachers to deal with, and they had more

34

time for using the system. Teachers focused on instruction rather than on the information

technology itself.

Sandholtz and Reilly (2004) identified five factors that facilitated teachers’ focus

on instruction rather than technology. They were:

A school-district-owned network with fiber-optic links within the schools
and both cable and wireless connections for homes and in many local
facilities, with low-cost access available to almost all families with
students at the school.

A centralized server-based network. All hardware was located at the
district office, where skilled technicians could oversee it constantly,
resulting in quick responses to problems encountered by teachers.

The use of thin-client hardware, which is less expensive and easier to
maintain than personal computers because it has no hard drive or floppy
discs. In addition, the thin-client hardware is much smaller, so it is easer to
work around within the confines of a classroom.

Superior technical support available for teachers around the clock, with
four full-time technicians.

A highly developed and comprehensive teacher development program that
focused on teaching rather than on technical aspects and included
classroom visits, hands-on training, group discussions, and participant

collaboration.

Sandholtz and Reilly (2004) concluded that most schools have failed in their

attempts to integrate information technology into classrooms because they have focused

35

more on teaching teachers about the technology itself than on how to teach with the
technology. The researchers believed that if other school systems were to adopt a similar
approach and were given a similar type of support, more teachers would movequickly
through the five stages of development and would begin to use information technology
more frequently and in more innovative ways.

This conclusion supports the contention of other researchers (Casey & Harris, 2004;
Earle, 2002) who asserted that educational organizations need to focus on integrating
information technology into the culture of the organization and spend less time on
purchasing the newest and greatest technologies. Technology must be pedagogically
sound; it must go beyond information retrieval to problem solving and must deepen
understanding, allowing for new instructional and learning experiences that are not
possible without it. Integrating information technology may not be about the technology
but about usefulness, content, and effective instructional practices. Earle (2002) found
that constraints and barriers to integrating information technology are access to hardware
and software, time for planning and personal exploration, technical support, training and
expertise, resistance, passivity, culture, vision, and leadership and support for integration
into instruction. These barriers are both extrinsic to teachers (access, time support,
resources, training) and intrinsic to teachers (beliefs, attitudes, practices, and resistance).

The literature on teachers’ use of information technology indicates that when the
focus has been on how to use computers, technology training has failed. What teachers
might need most is knowledge of how to teach content more effectively through using
information technology by learning how to integrate the use of information technology in

curriculums in appropriate ways. Most educational programs focus on teaching educators

36

how to use information technology, not how to solve educational problems by using the
technology. The focus on technology has overshadowed the learning fiom the past,
which is that there is no one best medium; rather, the medium is the means and not the
end. Teachers need opportunities to observe models of integrated use of information
technology, to reflect on and discuss their evolving ideas with mentors and peers, and to
collaborate with others on meaningful projects as they try out their own new ideas about

teaching.

Extenaion Educators’ Use of Technology

Over the last decade, most of the research on Extension educators’ use of
technology has centered on self-reports of how these educators feel about participating in
educational programs using information technology. These reports have included their
own in-service professional development, as well as their levels of anxiety in using
information technology for work in relation to their preferred learning styles or
communication styles. There also have been a few research reports on Extension
educators’ views of their clientele’s preferences for types of educational delivery
systems, including those using information technologies.

Extension educators become users of information technology when they participate
in satellite or web-based professional development. In 1998 and 1999, Internet in-service
training sessions were offered to county Extension educators in the southeastern United
States. Staff who participated in these sessions were surveyed, and their previous
computer and Internet experience as well as acceptance of using the Internet to learn was
assessed (Lippert, Plank, & Radhakrishna, 2000). A subject-matter in-service program

on soil acidity and liming was offered to 150 county Extension educators from six states.

37

The objective was to determine whether the Internet could be used successfully for
distance instruction. Extension educators were given pre- and posttests to assess their
knowledge gain as a result of participation; results clearly indicated that they did gain
knowledge. A LISTSERV also was used for discussion, but only 31 agents participated;
some sent only one e-mail, for a total of 168 e-mails. At the end of the training,
participants were asked whether they thought “the use of the Internet can provide a
leaning experience as effective as a face-to-face class”; 55% agreed or strongly agreed.
The researchers proposed future testing to incorporate questions on learning style to
determine whether there is a correlation between participants’ personal learning style and
their ability to use and attitude toward the use of the Internet for learning.

In another study, the campus Extension staff of Pennsylvania State University were
interested in Extension educators’ perceptions of distance learning because they believed
it might be a more cost-effective way to deliver in-service education (Kelsey &
Mincemoyer, 2001). A survey was mailed to all full-time county Extension staff in
Pennsylvania (N = 269); with no follow-up reminder, there was an 85% response rate.
This high response rate indicates a strong interest in the subject, although that interest
might not necessarily be a positive one. Staff reported Spending an average of 8.9 days
on in-service education per year. They preferred regional face-to-face in-service over
both going to campus and having locally offered distance education (satellite) delivery.
One complaint about distance education via satellite was that it made it difficult to get to
know other staff. However, the majority of respondents indicated that they were willing
to attend a limited number of satellite education in-service offerings if it saved them

driving time. As a result of this survey, Penn State began a pilot program of quarterly

38

satellite in-services, and in 3 years 11 broadcasts had been made, with a total audience of
535 county Extension staff.

Several studies of the usefulness of the web and e-conferencing as learning tools for
Extension in-services have been conducted since 2001 (Edwards, McLucas, Briers, &
Rohs, 2004; F utris, Adler-Baeder, & Dean, 2004; Muske, Goetting, & Vukonich, 2001;
Twidwell, 2004). The subject matter ranged from couple relationships to forage crops.
One study concerned a graduate-level class for Extension educators who wished to
specialize in a given field of study (Twidwell, 2004). It used compressed video broadcast
from the campus combined with group projects in which the students had to research
information via the Internet to analyze a forage-based production problem. At the end of
the course, when asked what type of in-service they preferred, 80% of respondents chose
traditional face-to-face in-service; however, 68% said they would take additional courses
taught via distance education even though they preferred other (low technology) methods.

Another study concerned an e-conference for Family Life agents (Futris et al.,
2004) White papers from experts in the field were posted on-line and were available 2
weeks before the e-conference. Then participants logged on to use a bulletin board to
converse via the computer. Most participants read the postings, but only 44% posted
comments and questions. Following the conference, 30 agents completed an on-line
evaluation in which 90% said they would use e-conferencing again. However, many
agents said they would need to set aside more time for e-conferencing the next time they
participated because they found it difficult to participate and balance work and home

obligations at the same time.

39

Using the web as a training tool and resource for Extension educators was the focus
of a study on the use of a family resource management website (Muske et al., 2001).
Existing written Extension materials were modified to be incorporated into a web-based
interactive and self-paced learner-directed experience. The design was to be used not
only for learning the subject matter but also as a resource once the course was completed.
Two different curriculums were provided on the website. One was on how to use a
website for those with little or no experience in web navigation, and the other was more
specific to the program, with a tour through existing family resource management
websites as developed by Extension, government agencies, nonprofits, and commercial
businesses. The initial training in the use of the site was done at a central location in a
computer lab. A total of 55 Extension educators attended the training sessions, and 16
(29%) completed an on-line evaluation form. The Extension educators indicated their
use of the web as a resource; 76% said they used it daily, and the rest said they used it
two or three times a week.

After the initial training, the site was maintained, but campus staff reported that it
was time consuming and complicated to do so because web links had to be updated and
new resources found and added. Such a site, however, does give Extension the ability not
only to be a resource but to screen links to help direct clientele (and staff) toward reliable
research-based information that is similar to the kind of information or educational
technology that is promised by a web portal presence.

In a paper presented at the F arnilies, Technology and Education Conference in
Chicago Illinois, in 1997, Swanson, Mead, and Haugan (1997) reported on a New York

State Cornell CES project intended to support development of computer literacy among

40

staff and program participants through a 5-year project. The researchers conducted -
baseline and follow-up studies on Internet use. They reported large gains in the use of
the web for program support and increased project communication. They believed that,
in order to continue to be successful in the project, the participants needed ongoing
training, more computers, and local Extension contacts for problem solving. Challenges
Swanson et al. identified were a need for ongoing technical support and assistance, as
well as a need to market and promote the use of computers and technology. They found
that many staff did not use resources available to them because they simply did not know
those resources existed.

Technology-training needs of Texas CES educators were the focus of a doctoral
dissertation by Albright (2000). This is perhaps the most extensive research on the use of
technology by Extension staff that has been reported to date. Albright compared and
contrasted CES educators who used technology frequently and those who were nonusers
or seldom users. She then tried to identify training that might help nonusers and seldom
users become more proficient and frequent users of technology in their work. Albright
found that, overwhelmingly, Extension educators reported not having taken an in-service
class on technology in the past 2 years; in fact, they had taken few, if any, such classes
during their careers due to lack of timeiand access. Training had been offered by
Extension, but apparently it was not the kind of training these educators perceived they
needed or wanted.

Albright (2000) also found a relationship between age and technology use; younger
agents reported that they used technology more and had better skills than did older

agents. When asked what kind of training they would prefer, educators indicated a

41

preference for web-based training. All Extension educators in the study ranked video and
distance learning as their lowest preference for skills training. Albright believed that, on
the basis of adult learning theory, the biggest impediment to learning technology was
actually that Extension educators did not see a need for it. She believed that if they really
wanted to learn about and use information technology, they would make the effort to find
the time and to access the courses offered. Therefore, motivating Extension educators .
and showing them the potential of information technology may be an important factor in
their future use of such technology.

Extension educators need to be familiar and comfortable with information
technology if they are going to use it in their teaching and work. Hence, results of
research ion the use of technology for in-service training of Extension educators might
provide important indicators of their willingness and ability to use information
technology in their work. Discovering what interest Extension educators might have in
‘ learning at a distance is important for understanding their attitudes toward information
technology. In their 2004 study, Edwards et al. investigated what Extension educators
would like to pursue (and how) in the way of continuing education. They surveyed all
Extension educators in Georgia (N = 365) to determine their level of interest in distance
educational programming for their own professional development. Of those who replied,
74.8% reported a general interest in pursuing additional education at a distance;

58.8% were interested in earning a graduate degree at a distance, 43.7% in taking a
certificate program, and 66% in taking a specific course. These findings indicated
Extension professionals’ high degree of interest in distance learning. When the same

educators were asked to share their perceptions of their own competence with computers,

42

a correlation was found between these educators’ perceived competence and their interest
in distance education. As the Extension educators’ perceptions of their own competence
increased, so did their interest in pursuing a graduate degree through distance education.
Interestingly, this correlation contrasts with findings from a study indicating that
Extension staff members believed that their clientele preferred different means of
learning than they themselves did (Rodewald, 2001). In 2001, surveys were sent to 100
Extension agents and district specialists and 59 Ohio Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) staff members to ascertain their perceptions of six delivery methods for
educational materials. They were asked to rank their preferences and the perceived
preferences Of their clientele. The delivery methods were printed fact sheets, printed
bulletins or manuals, on-line information, conferences and workshops, seminars, and
video presentations. County Extension agents and DNR professionals preferred printed
fact sheets first, followed by on-line information. Least desired were seminars and video
presentations. However, when responding about their clienteles’ desires, they ranked
printed fact sheets first, followed by manuals, newsletters, and on-line information, in
that order. Seminars and video presentations were least preferred. Rodewald speculated
that an explanation for these choices might be that Extension educators are expected to
know about awide variety of subjects and have up-to-date information. Because
information changes rapidly, the fact sheets can be modified and updated and mailed or
handed out to clientele with minimum expense or effort. This contrasts with the
perceived high degree of difficulty and amount of time involved in workshops and

distance education.

43

It might be that Extension educators actually experience or have more anxiety about
information technology (and computers) than is commonly believed. Two doctoral
candidates examined computer anxiety in Extension educators and concluded that these
educators did, indeed, feel anxious. Martin, Stewart, and Hillison (2001) reported that, in
her doctoral research, Martin (1998) found that more than 44% of Virginia CES
personnel responding said they felt very anxious, anxious, or mildly anxious. It was
secretaries, not Extension educators, who reported the least amormt of anxiety. There
also was a correlation between age and anxiety, with older Extension educators feeling
more anxious than younger ones.

In another doctoral study, Emmons (2003) examined the personal attributes and
other factors that might influence the attitudes and expressed communication preferences
of all county-based Extension educators in North Carolina. Emmons specifically
investigated the relationship of personal attributes (age, gender, level of formal education,
work experience, ethnicity, personality type, job responsibility, and computer experience)
to computer anxiety, thoughts about computers, and communication preferences.
Emmons found that computer anxiety did exist and was influenced by gender, age, level
of education, computer experience, and job responsibility. Emmons recommended
' further study of the issues of anxiety and computer and technology fuse and cautioned that
further research should be done using a noncomputer method for collecting data so as to
reduce bias caused by respondents’ being somewhat self-selected.

Owen (1999) examined and described the relationship of personal attributes and
social-system factors to the adoption and use of the Internet by Extension field staff in

North Carolina. Gender, age, level of formal education, tenure, experience, ease of

44

access, Jungian personality type, learning approach, and computer support were

significantly related to participants’ use of the Internet, whereas job responsibility,

supervisory support, and a reward system were not. Owen also discovered that ease of

access and previous computer experience were the strongest predictors of use of the

Internet by field staff members. Personality type also was a predictor but not as strong.
What Professional Educators Need to Know

The literature on teachers and technology that was discussed in the preceding
section points to the need for educators to understand ways of using information
technology in their role as educators, as well as ways to integrate that technology into
their educational plans. However, until recently, much of the research on educators’ use
of information technology has lacked a theoretical framework. Mishra and Koehler
(2006) wrote that “in a complex, multi-faceted and ill structured domain such as
integration of technology in education there is no single framework that tells the
‘complete story,’ no single fiamework that can provide all the answers” (p. 1020).
However, their model depicting the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge begins to form a fiarnework that is useful in understanding the issues
involved.

In their conceptual model of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK), Mishra and Koehler (2003) described the kind of knowledge required by
educators when specifically addressing the need for integrating information technology
into education. This model is based on the work of Lee Shulman (1986), who wrote
extensively on the professional development of educators and who described pedagogical

content knowledge. TPACK adds the component of information technology to Shulman’s

45

model, and although the model was developed to describe the work of teachers, it is
useful in understanding the integration of information technology into the work of
Extension educators. In the TPACK model as shown in Figure 2.4, there is interplay
among three types of knowledge essential to educators. They are content knowledge,

technological knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge.

f“-

     
      
 

/ \
/
/ / Technological \ \
\
/ \
/ 7553.?”“93' ”9833339 \
Knoxglggge \
I (TPK) )
Pedagogical /
\ Knowledge
\ (PK)
\
\_
\
\

Figure 2.4: TPACK model showing interplay among content, pedagogical, and
technological knowledge.

Content is the subject matter to be taught. Nutrition, herd health, integrated pest
management, soil science, canning, pruning, and government policy are all examples of
content knowledge that Extension educators might be called upon to teach or facilitate as
a learning topic for clientele. Technology includes modern information technologies
such as computers, the Internet, and digital video, as well as more common tools such as

overhead projectors and Extension bulletins. Pedagogy refers to the practices, strategies,

46

or methods of teaching and learning. Pedagogy often is thought of as teaching and
learning involving yOuths, although in Extension some say that the focus should be on
andragogy, which is the science of adult learning. But for the purposes of this discussion,
we will assume that the pedagogy portion of the model also represents andragogical
knowledge. Knowles (1984) said that andragogy is not antithetical to pedagogy; it
incorporates it into its system.

Information-technology integration necessitates understanding and negotiating the
relationships among these three components of knowledge. Applying this model to
Extension means that an Extension educator who is capable of negotiating these
relationships has a form of expertise that is different from, and greater than, the
knowledge of a disciplinary expert (say a dairy specialist), a technology expert, or an
experienced educator. Effective information-technology integration for Extension would
require developing an understanding of the dynamic relationship among all three
components. This means that being fluent in the use of information technology for
education requires more than expertise with the latest tools such as computers and
software. Also needed is a keen understanding of how the information technology best
interplays with the subject and learning needs. The TPACK model includes context as an
important component, and this is represented by the learning environment, which in
Extension would be the local county program.

Kelly (2008) described the types of technologies that educators use as
communication technologies (cell phones, e-mail, and word processing), presentation
technologies (PowerPoint), digital image technologies (used to create multi-media), and

Internet and web technologies (web pages, blogs, search engines), which can be used to

47

gather information or to create and share information when data and knowledge are
manipulated. These new digital information technologies, according to Mishra and
Koehler (2008), are protean (may be used in many different ways), fimctionally opaque
(their inner workings are hidden from those who use them), and unstable. The knowledge
needed to use them is never fixed because they constantly change. A particular
technology may be used on several levels, starting with mechanical use (the most basic
and common) and progressing to integrated use and innovative or generative use (least
common and most complex). Using technology in integrated or irmovative ways requires
a fluency of technology use in which users understand the affordances and constraints of
a technology and can manipulate it to meet their needs within the context of the problem.
Those achieving the highest form of information and communication technology literacy
were described as “firll spectrum frequency” users by Ching, Basham, and Jang (2005).
These individuals have a high degree of use across the spectrum of technology types;
communication, construction, and entertainment. If educators are full-spectrum-
frequency users, innovative and generative in their use of technology for their work, and
have a deep understanding of their programming content as well as learning theory, they

can integrate the three spheres of Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) Venn diagram TPACK.

Professional Development and Training of Adults
Many current writings support the work of Malcolm Knowles (Knowles, Holton, &
Swanson, 2000) and his andragogical approach to adult learning. Andragogy is based on
the following assumptions:
1. Adult learners bring life experiences to the learning process that should be

acknowledged.

48

2. Adults need to know why they need to learn something, and how it is relevant to
their lives.

3. Experiential, hands-on learning is effective with adult learners.

4. Adults approach learning as problem solving.

5. Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value to them in their lives.

According to Cookson (1998), Knowles said that a difference between pedagogy
and andragogy is that the basic design of a pedagogical model is a content plan, whereas
the format of the andragogical model is a process design plan that consists of seven

elements. The seven elements of the design process are:

1. Create a climate conducive to learning. This has two essential components:
physical and psychological.

2. Involve learners in mutual planning.

3. Involve participants in diagnosing their own needs for learning.

4. Involve learners in formulating their learning objectives.

5. Involve learners in designing learning plans.

6. Help learners carry out their learning plans.

7. Involve learners in evaluating their learning.

The notion of andragogy as incorporating a design plan that is a joint effort by both
learner and planner supports Houle’s (1972) assumption that learning is a shared
enterprise between the learner and the educator, as well as Nadler’s (1982) Critical
Events Model for professional training programs. This upholds the theory that the

perceived needs of the learner are one of the most important elements in the design of any

49

professional—deveIOpment plan, including those supporting the concepts related to the
integration of information technology in education. Therefore, one of the first steps in
any design plan for professional development is to determine the training needs as
perceived by the learner. Types of needs that have been described are felt needs and
normative needs. Felt needs are the needs expressed by the individual and can be divided

into two types: deficiency needs and growth needs (Sork, 1987).

_S_u_m_m_ary of the Literafle

In this chapter, the researcher examined literature pertaining to organizations in the
age of information technology and ways that specific types of information technologies
can support and enhance the new learning organizations to make them more competitive,
flexible, responsive, and agile. Rates of adoption of innovation and technology were
studied early on using Cooperative Extension’s work with farmers. Later researchers
concentrated on the adoption of digital and information technology. In addition, the
researcher looked at studies in the social sciences related to human behavior and attitudes
and how this research can illuminate understanding of workers’ intentions to use
information technologies. This notion has been supported by considerable research in the
business world through information-systems departments that have tested the validity of
the Technology Acceptance Model, which was first introduced by Davis (1989). The
literature review also covered research on the use of information technology by educators
ranging fi'om elementary school teachers to Extension educators and university faculty.
Although considerable research has been conducted on educators’ use of information
technology, there is no good working model that could be validated through replication of

research. In fact, most of the research on the use of information technology by Extension

50

educators has used either Jungian personality types or computer anxiety as the variable,
neither of which fits with what is known about the acceptance of technology or with the
recently developed TPACK concept model. The unique needs of adult learners also have
been examined and are applicable to any professional development program. There is a
need to understand Extension educators’ perceptions regarding the usefirlness, ease of
use, and intention to use information technology, as well as their perceptions of their own

needs for support and training in the use of information technology.

51

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY
Introduction

To be able to describe how Extension educators perceive the usefulness and ease of
use of information technology and their needs for training in the use of information
technology, it was imperative to follow proper research protocol in the design and
execution of this study. This study was exploratory in nature and was undertaken to
understand and describe how Extension educators in Michigan perceive the use of
technology in their work. A mixed-method research design was used, which included a
census survey of the population as well as interviews with 15 participants using an open-
ended, semi-structured interview protocol. A mixed-method approach combines the
strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research methods and has become
increasingly popular.

Emmons (2003) suggested that future research on the use of technology by
Extension educators should include interviews to gain a deeper understanding of
respondents’ answers. A census survey was used in the quantitative portion of the
research. This tool enabled the researcher to measure respondents’ perceptions and
prepare aggregate statistics concerning what technologies the respondents used, how
often they used them, and how prepared they were to use them. The qualitative portion
of the research had two components. The first was comments from the survey
instrument. The second component was interviews that were designed to clarify and

augment the survey answers and to provide an in-depth look at the issues involved.

52

A copy of the methodology section of the research proposal, along with copies of
the survey instrument, all applicable letters of introduction and explanation that were sent
to the population, and the interview protocol were submitted to the Michigan State
University Social Science, Behavioral and Education Institutional Review Board. The
study population, research design, instrument development, interview protocol, validity,
reliability, data-collection procedures, processing procedures, and data-analysis

procedures are discussed in the following pages.

The Study Populam

The study population comprised all 296 MSU Extension educators; they included
75 Cormty Extension Directors, 41 District Extension educators, and 180 County
Extension educators. These Extension educators represented all MSUE programming
areas: Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4-H, Children Youth and Families, Community
and Economic Development, and Sea Grant. They were all based in the field and were
geographically dispersed throughout Michigan’s 83 counties. The entire population was
selected for study because the size of the population was not prohibitive in terms of cost
or effort.

All Extension educators employed by MSU on September 1, 2007, were included in
the study, provided they had not retired, resigned, died, or taken an extended leave of
absence before the initial survey packet was mailed, on October 24, 2007. The study
population was verified using a directory module for the MSUE portal, and cross-
tabulating it with lists provided by Regional Directors. The regional offices of MSUE
notified the researcher of Extension educators who needed to be removed from the

population due to resignation, retirement, or extended leave of absence. In some cases,

53

the county office gave the researcher the same information. The final count of 296
subjects comprised the research population. Microsoft Access was used to develop and
manage the database and was merged with Microsoft Word for the purpose of

personalizing letters and addressing envelopes.

Research Desi gr_r

A mixed-method research design using both surveys and interviews was selected
because it is the most effective and efficient means of gathering data with available
resources. At the same time, it allows the researcher to gain an in-depth understanding of
- the phenomenon under investigation. The use of surveys is customary in researching
individual respondents’ attitudes and perceptions. A mailed instrument was used in this
study because it has been formd to yield a higher response rate than web-based srn'veys
(Dillman, 2000) and because those members of the population who did not use
technology might be less inclined to answer an on-line questionnaire, which could lead to
nonresponse error. Interviews help the researcher understand the responses to the survey

and can provide rich, thick descriptors of the issues involved.

Development of the Instrument
In developing the instrument, the researcher followed specific research protocol as
described and tested by Dillrnan (2000) in Mail and Internet Surveys; The Tailored
Design Method The instrument was designed using Microsoft Word. The front cover
included the title of the survey: Perceptions of MSUE County Extension Directors and
Extension Educators of the Use of Information Technology in their Work. An MSUE

logo was included as identification of the sponsoring organization. A note that the

54

 

questionnaire included questions about respondents’ use of technology in both their
professional life (work) and their personal life (at home) was on the float cover. Plenty
of white space was included on both the fiont and back covers. On the back cover there
was a request for respondents to provide additional feedback and comments on the topic.
Also on the back cover, the researcher thanked the respondents and gave them an
opportunity to participate in the interview part of the research by writing their name and
phone number. They could also check a box indicating that they did not wish to be
contacted for an interview. A copy of the instrument is included in the Appendix.

The researcher developed the survey items from the literature review, technology
coursework, and experience as an Extension educator, along with input from a panel of
experts relative to the face and content validity of the instrument. The instrument
included a brief description of the survey, instructions for Completing the survey, and
explanations of how to answer questions as needed. A total of 157 questions were asked;
92 about technology use at work, 59 about technology use at home, and 7 pertaining to
demographic data. Questions were arranged by topic and centered on (a) types of
technology hardware provided for respondents’ use, (b) types of technology hardware
actually used, (c) preparation for the use of technology, ((1) actual use of technologies for
work, (e) usefulness and ease of use, (I) confidence and comfort using technology, (g)
general support for the use of technology, and (h) technical suppOrt. In addition, there
were questions about respondents’ access to technology for personal use, actual use,
fiequency of use, and technical support. Demographic data including respondents’ sex,
region, highest degree earned, major, program area of responsibility, years of experience,

and age were collected.

55

 

The section on access to technology included a list of 16 technology hardwares and
asked if each was provided for use and if actually used. This section provided general
information on what technologies Extension educators have to work with and what
technologies are not provided but which they find important enough to provide for
themselves. A sample is shown in Figure 3.1. There was also ample space to list
additional technologies that the respondents might have access to.

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY FOR YOUR WORK
Directions: Considering your county where you spend most of your time, what technologies are
provided for your use in your role as an Extension Educator or CED? And what technologies
do you use (provided by either your office or by yourself)

Provided for you? Do you use?
'PDA (personal digital assistant) Yes No Yes No
Desk top computer Yes No Yes No
‘ High speed intemet access (cable or wireless) Yes No Yes No
IPod or other digital music device Yes No Yes No

Figure 3.1 Sample of survey instrument questions on access to technology.

Questions about the respondent’s preparation for the use of technology asked them
where their skills came fi'om and gave them six choices to rate. A sample of the section

on preparedness is included in Figure 3.2

PREPARATION FOR THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Directions: Tell us about your preparation Not at all To a To a To a

for the use of technology. Where did your small moderate great Entirely
skills come from? extent extent extent

As part of your college education 1 1 2 3 4 5
(undergraduate or graduate)

In-service courses/workshops offered 1 2 3 4 5
by MSUE

Figure 3.2 Sample of survey instrument questions on preparation for use of technology

56

 

 

Actual use of technology was measured by asking the respondents to identify how
often they performed 23 different tasks using technology with choices of never, once a
month, once a week, more than once a week or every day. The tasks included simple
communication technologies like using a cell phone to more complex tasks such as using
web publishing software. A partial section from the actual use portion of the instrument

is shown in figure 3.3.

USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN YOUR WORK

Directions: Consider now your personal use of More

technology in your work. Please answer the than

questions below as they relate to your position as Once once per

an Extension Educator or County Extension Once a per week Every
Director. These questions pertain to your actual Never month week Day

use of various technologies. (Do not count tinres
yougiveanessistentinstmctions todoitforyou)

, Go on line to research a subject related to 1 2 3 4 5
work?
Use a search engine? (e.g. Google, Ask) 1 2 3 4 5
1 Send e-mails to groups of people within 1 2 3 4 5
MSUE?

Figure 3.3 Partial section of the actual use of technology portion of the instrument

The sections of the instrument that followed were on usefulness and ease of use,
confidence and comfort, general support, and technical support. These sections all used
Likert type scales measuring agreement with statements fiom 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly
disagree to 5 being strongly agree. The instrument had 6 questions on usefulness and
ease of use, 9 on confidence and comfort in the use of technology, 7 on general support
for the use of technology and 6 on technical support for the use of technology. They
were. also asked what was the main source of technical support; local county, campus

based or_other. The section on general support defined general support as “how people

57

and administration support you in your use of technology, it does not refer to technical
help that you may need when technology breaks down or when you cannot solve a
problem related to technology”. The technical support section gave instructions to
answer about “who you go to when you have technical issues and need support or
assistance with your technology”.
The Interview Protocol

Fifteen participants who responded to the survey and indicated that they were
willing to be interviewed were selected for personal interviews. Purposeful operational
construct sampling was used. Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest (1966) referred to
studying a number of such examples as multiple operationalism. Sum totals were created _
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0, which
represented actual reported use of 20 technologies at work and 20 technologies at home.
A scatter diagram of the correlation between the two scores was created to be used in
selecting participants to be interviewed. Using that scatter diagram, the respondent-
identification numbers were highlighted in three sections. Cases were taken from those
low in use, normal in use, and high in use. Five cases were from the lower-left section
showing low use of technology both at home and at work, five were identified from the
section showing high use at home and work, and five were taken hour the middle section.
The researcher then looked at these individuals’ surveys to see if they were willing to be
interviewed and continued until there were enough to meet the established number of
each type of respondent. This approach of dividing the interview participants into three
levels of use was used because it was important to identify differences in their needs and

a random sample might have missed this critical variation.

58

The study employed semi-structured interviews because they are widely used in
social science research and afford greater potential for participants to express their-
viewpoints than do formal structured interviews. The interviews focused on the
participants’ use of and experience with technology in their work, and their perceptions
of technology’s usefulness and ease of use. Participants were intervieWed until the data
exhibited signs of saturation and sufficiency. Saturation and sufficiency occur when
enough participants have been represented to provide what the researcher believes is a
well-portrayed picture of the phenomenon of interest.

An interview protocol, was written by the researcher in conjunction with the a
member of the dissertation committee, and used in conducting the interviews. A sample
of the interview protocol can be found in the Appendix. It included a place to record the
number of the interview, the respondent survey number, date and time of the interview,
and a check box to indicate if the respondent had returned a signed consent form before
the digital recording device was turned on. The interview protocol form had seven
questions, some with multiple parts. Below each question the researcher included notes
on what to look for and probes to assist the researcher with follow-up. The question
topics included:

1. Review of technologies used by the interviewee and how they were used
along with the interviewee’s perception of which was the most useful and the
easiest to use.

2. The interviewee’s thoughts about what other technologies they might use if
they could and how they might include those technologies in the work.

3. How the interviewee decided to use technology and how they learned to use it.

59

4. Identification of major barriers to the use of technology.

5. How the interviewee could best be helped to learn to use a new technology.

6. How the interviewee thought technology might be integrated into their work
in the future.

7. Anything else the interviewee thought might be important about technology
that had not been covered in the interview.

A sample of one question on the interview protocol form is shown in Figure 3.4.

1. a) First of all please tell me about what technologies you use in your work and
how you use them.

Look for any technologies beyond e-mail, word processing, search engine or cell
phone such as intemet technologies and make note and probe for how they use it
Then ask can you think of any others? Look for creative or unusual ways of using
technologies and ask them to expand if found

b) Of the technologies you have talked about which one do you think is the most
useful and why?

c) Of these technologies which is the easiest to use? Why?

Figure 3.4 Sample question from interview protocol.

The researcher conducted the interviews by telephone to minimize distractions and
maximize privacy. Before the interviews, the researcher informed participants of their
rights and asked them to sign an informed-consent statement and return it. The
researcher recorded the interviews on a digital voice recorder and later reviewed and
transcribed the responses. As soon as possible after the interview, the researcher wrote

up notes based on the themes that seemed to emerge in the interview. They were then

60

stored on the researcher’s password protected computer for later transcription and
analysis.

To maintain their anonymity, participants were assigned pseudonyms in all
transcripts and field notes. All transcripts, field notes, write ups of discussions, and
partial analyses were cataloged and archived in a three-ring notebook to provide an audit
trail.

Researcher bias is a concern in any qualitative study, so the research used
reflexivity or self-conscious analysis as a check-and-balance system. She examined her
analysis for bias. In addition, she reviewed the data for alternative answers to questions
that might disconfirm expectations and explanations (Johnson & Christensen, 2000).
Yam—in:

With any research it is important to consider both internal and external threats to
validity. Validity may be defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it
claims to measure. Because educational research instruments are designed to measure
hypothetical constructs, care must be taken when operationalizing the constructs. In
addition the researcher must consider threats to validity within the design of the research.

External validity refers to the generalizability or representativeness of the research
findings. Smith and Glass (1987) identified three types of external validity: population
validity, ecological validity, and external validity of operations. Population validity
involves identifying the population to which the results are generalizable. It is related to
the way the subjects are selected for a study, using appropriate sampling procedures. As
this was a census survey, sampling issues did not apply and there was no need to

generalize fi'om a sample to a population.

61

Ecological validity is concerned with generalizing the research results to other
situations. In doing so, the environment in which the research was carried out must be
considered. The results of this study will apply only to MSU Extension educators and are
not to be generalized to Extension educators in other states since Extension staffing
patterns and technology support systems vary considerably by state. In some states,
technology hardware, software, training, and technical support is supplied to Extension
educators by the state office and not by local counties as it is in Michigan. Staffing
patterns also differ by state. In many state Extension systems, all Extension educators
have at least a master’s degree, whereas, in Michigan many Educators have only a
bachelor’s degree. These two factors alone may make a critical difference in the use of
technology by Educators in other states. However, the study can be easily adapted to and
replicated in other states. The information technology used in other states might be
different from but also might have many similarities to that used in Michigan. Therefore,
if the study is replicated, the results of the studies could be compared, and the present
study might help increase the credibility of additional studies.

Research studies are designed with specific operational definitions for the
independent and dependent variables and specific procedures that are followed.
Differences in results can be expected when researchers use different operational
definitions and varying measurement procedures, resulting in a threat to the external
validity of operations. How explicitly the independent and dependent variables have
been defined and how well they operationalize the theoretical constructs are paramount to
the external validity of operations. A panel of experts evaluated the instrument for both

face and content validity. Validity is “the extent to which an instrument measures what it

62

is supposed to measure” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). The panel comprised of four
experts with specialties in research, evaluation, Extension, education, and the use of
technology in higher education from the College of Community, Agriculture, Recreation
and Resource Studies, Communication and Technology Services, and the College of
Education’s Department of Educational Psychology. Their recommendations were
incorporated into the pilot questionnaire.

The researcher field tested the design of the instrument by having an Extension
program assistant fill it out in her presence so that she could note any problems with the
design and ask the respondent to comment on parts or questions that seemed ambiguous
or confirsing. This enabled the researcher to determine the ease of answering the

questionnaire and how long it took to complete.

Reliability

To test reliability of the instrument, the researcher identified 30 Extension program
assistants and asked them to serve in a pilot-test group to complete and return the
questionnaire. A copy of the cover letter requesting the pilot group’s assistance may be
found in the Appendix. Pilot-testing procedures followed the same protocol as that used
for the actual target population, including a cover letter, a $1 token incentive, both a
premailing and a follow-up mailing, and a return-addressed stamped envelope for the
completed instrument.

Reliability is the extent to which an instrument yields consistent results (Ary,
Jacobs & Razovich, 2002) Reliability of the instrument was established using coefficient
alpha, an intemal- consistency measure of reliability. This procedure measures the inter-

item consistency or homogeneity of the items. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is one of the

63

most useful measures for attitude scales. No item had a coefficiency rating below .70 .
When the researcher conducted the validity and reliability tests, she did not ask
current Extension educators to serve on the panel of experts or to participate in the pilot
testing. In addition, the researcher asked those who participated in pilot testing for
validity or reliability not to share any thoughts or comments about the instrument with

current Extension educators.

Data-Collection Procedures

In conducting this survey, the researcher made every effort to follow proper
research protocol. Essential elements of the research protocol are data-collection
procedures, data-processing procedures, and procedures to ensure confidentiality and
protection of the respondents. Data-collection procedures followed recommendations by
Dillman (2000) and included a six-contact system with the components of introductory
letter, e-mail support, initial mailing of the questionnaire, first follow-up thank-you post
card, second follow-up questionnaire packet, final follow-up special mailing
questionnaire packet, and processing procedures.

On Monday, October 15, 2007, a week before the first questionnaire packet was
mailed, the researcher sent an introductory letter to the study population (see Appendix).
The letter was introductory in nature, informing the study population of the purpose of
the study and requesting their assistance. It alerted them to look for the questionnaire in
the mail the following week. The researcher signed the letter and affixed a unique first-
class postage stamp to the envelope.

The researcher sent potential respondents two e-mail messages expressing support

and requesting their cooperation. The first e-mail was a message of support from the

64

Assistant Director of Extension, and it was timed to arrive shortly after the initial letter of
introduction. The researcher then sent a second e-mail that was timed to arrive about the
same time as the initial mailing of the questionnaire.

On Monday, October 22, 2007, exactly one week after the introductory letter was
mailed, the researcher sent the initial questionnaire to the study population with a cover
letter, a retum-addressed stamped envelope, and a $1.00 incentive (fi-om the researchers
personal funds) as a small token of appreciation. Unique first-class stamps were affixed
to both the packet and the return-addressed stamped envelope. Code numbers were hand
written on both the questionnaires and the return envelopes to facilitate follow-up
procedures and increase the rate of return. The cover letter explained the purpose of the
study, requested respondents’ assistance and cooperation, and ensured confidentiality
(see Appendix). The letter expressly stated that participation was voluntary and that
questions about the research could be addressed either to the researcher or to the
University Review Board department at MSU. The letter expressed appreciation in
advance for participation was personally signed.

On Monday, October 29, 2007, exactly one week after the initial
questionnaire packets were mailed, the researcher sent a follow-up post card reminder to
all of the potentialrespondents. This post card reminded them of the importance of the
research and the fact that they had been sent a questionnaire, and thanked them for
participating if they had already completed the survey. Unique postage stamps again
were used. A copy of the post card is included in the Appendix.

On Monday, November 19, 2007, exactly four weeks after the initial questionnaire

was mailed, a second questionnaire packet was sent to those who had not responded,

65

along with another cover letter and return-addressed stamped envelope. Code numbers
again were used on the questionnaires and envelopes to facilitate follow-up procedures
for a higher return rate. The letter accompanying this replacement questionnaire
reiterated the importance of the research and asked for assistance. In addition, the
researcher asked participants not to respond a second time if they had already returned
their questionnaires. A copy of the follow-up letter is included in the Appendix.

On Monday, January 7, 2008, exactly 11 weeks after the initial questionnaire packet
was mailed, the researcher sent a third and final follow-up letter and questionnaire packet
to those who had not responded. This time the researcher used a Special mailing
procedure and Priority Mail status. This special mailing included a copy of the
questionnaire, a return-addressed stamped envelope, and a final letter requesting
assistance and cooperation. A copy of this third and final cover letter may be found in

the Appendix.

Process'mg Procedures

The questionnaire design followed Dillman’s (2000) preferred booklet format. The
surveys were mailed in 10” x 12” envelopes so that the questionnaire, cover letter, and
return envelope could easily be inserted along with the token incentive of $1.00. First-
class postage was used for the questionnaire packet as well as for the return envelope.

The researcher rented a post office box in Grand Haven, Michigan, for official
survey business. This enabled the researcher to keep the survey mailing separate from
personal mail and helped maintain the respondents’ anonymity. Using the codes on the

questionnaires, the researcher marked respondents’ names off the database as they were

66'

received, then shredded the envelopes and kept the questionnaires in a locked file drawer.
A running tabulation of the number of responses each day was recorded in an Access file

and can be found in the Appendix.

Data-Analysis Procedures

SPSS version 16.0 was used to analyze the quantitative data from the survey.
Questionnaire responses were entered into the database once all the completed
questionnaires were received. Code numbers assigned to the questionnaires before the
initial mailing were used to identify the individual respondents. After the data from each
questionnaire were entered into the database, they were reviewed for accuracy. If more
than one response was given to an item, the researcher did not include the answers to that
item in the database.

Individuals who had not returned their questionnaires by the time data analysis
began were deemed nonrespondents. Early and late respondents were compared to see
whether the two groups differed on key variables. No significant differences were found, -
meaning that the findings could be generalized to the entire population. A t—test was used
for scaled data and a Pearson chi-square for nominal data.

All comments fiom the back of the survey were retyped into a Word document.
Each comment was tagged with the identification number fiom the instrument for
demographic purposes and to indicate whether it came from a low, medium, or high user
of technology, as identified using the scatter gram of correlation between home and work
use. Comments were analyzed by coding the data to mark identifying concepts and

themes and then using constant comparison until saturation was reached.

67

Questions for the interviews were developed fiom the research objectives and were _
used to probe further into why the respondents used the technologies they did and to
better understand their reasons for using or not using various technologies. Data fi'om
interviews were organized and analyzed as a series of individual case studies. Chapter V
contains three combined case studies, one each of low, medium, and high users of
technology. Compiling the case studies enabled the researcher to focus on individual
experiences with using technology while still recognizing the importance of the
organization and their similar roles within it. The case-study approach is useful in
studying contemporary issues that exist in real-life situations. Using information from
multiple sources (quantitative survey data, comments, and interviews) and using constant
comparison between sources allowed for triangulation of data, which helped to increase

validity.

68

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

Introduction

Of the 296 Extension educators on the original mailing list, six were removed from
the study due to extended illness, retirement, or separation of service to MSU Extension.
Of the remaining 290 educators, 272 returned their questionnaires. The 18 who did not
return their instruments were declared nonrespondents, giving the survey a 94% rate of
return. A

When survey responses were received, they were logged into a Microsoft Access
database and assigned a number for purposes of tracking. Once the sirrvey was closed,
quantitative data from the questionnaires were entered into SPSS 16.0 for analysis. All
comments from the questionnaires were typed into a Word document, and at the end of
each comment the assigned questionnaire number was noted. All identifying information
was removed from the questionnaires and kept separate in a locked office to protect the
identities of the human subjects.

Both quantitative and qualitative data obtained from the questionnaires have been
combined in this chapter to help the reader understand better the human subjects behind
the numbers. Results are reported regarding the demographic characteristics of the .
respondents, their access to technology, how prepared they were to use technology, their
actual reported use of technology, the usefulness and ease of use of the technology,

barriers to use, general support, and technical support.

69

Demographic Characteristics of the Population

Of those responding to the survey, 173 (63.6%) were female and 99 (36.4%) were
male. MSU Extension is divided into five geographic regions, which are, from north to
south, the Upper Peninsula, the northern Lower Peninsula, the central region, and the
south west and south east regions. Michigan is more densely populated in the Lower
Peninsula and particularly in the southern half, which is represented by the central, south
west, and south east regions. These regions are staffed somewhat in proportion to their
populations, as shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1

Distribution of Educators by Region (N = 272)

 

 

 

MSU Extension Region Number in Region Percent
South west 69 25-4
South east 65 23.9
Central 65 23.9
North 44 16.2
Upper Peninsula 29 10-7
Total 272 100.0

 

All MSU Extension program areas were represented, including 76 (27.9%) County
Extension Directors; 60 (22.1%) Children, Youth and Family educators; 58 (21.3%)
Agriculture and Natural Resources educators; 56 (20.6%) 4-H Youth educators, 12
(4.4%) Community and Economic Development educators; and 5 (1.8%) Sea Grant
educators. Five respondents (1.8%) indicated they were some other type of Extension

educator. (See Table 4.2.)

70

Table 4.2

Distribution of Educators by Program Area (N = 272)

 

 

 

Program Area Number of Educators Percent
County Extension Director 76 279
Children, Youth and Families 60 22.1
Agriculture and Natural Resources 58 21.3
4-H Youth 56 20.6
Community and Economic Development 12 44
Sea Grant 5 1.8
Other 5 1.8
Total 272 100.0

 

Although new hires into MSU Extension now must have a master’s degree, before
2007 many Extension educators were hired who had only a bachelor’s degree.
Educational levels of the respondents ranged fiom a bachelor’s degree as the highest
degree to a doctorate. Of the respondents, 105 (38.6%) had only a bachelor’s degree, 149
(54.8%) had a master’s degree, and 18 (6.6%) had an earned doctorate. (See Table 4.3.)

Table 4.3

DistribUtion of Educators by Highest Degree Earned (N = 272)

 

 

 

Highest Degree Earned Number of Educators Percent
Bachelor’s degree 105 38.6
Master’s degree 149 543
Doctorate degree 13 6.6
Total ' 272 100.0

 

7l

As shown in Table 4.4, ages of the educators ranged fiom 25 years and under (n =
4) to 56 and over (n = 71). The largest number of educators (n = 92) was in the 46—55

age group, representing 33.8% of the respondents. Almost 60% of the educators were

 

 

 

age 46 and older.
Table 4.4
Distribution of Educators by Age (N = 272)
Age Number of Educators Percent
25 or younger 4 1.5%
26-35 56 20.6%
36-45 49 18.0%
46-55 92 33.8%
56 or older 71 26.1%
Total 272 100.0%

 

With 60% of the educators age 46 and over, one might expect that a large number
of them would have had considerable experience with Extension. However, 50% (n =
136) of the educators had been with the organization 10 or fewer years. Further, as seen

in Table 4.5, 22.7% (n = 62) had 210r more years of experience with MSU Extension.

72

Table 4.5

Distribution of Educators by Years of Experience with MSUE (N = 272)

 

 

 

Years Of Experience With MSUE Number of Educators Percent
1-5 years 64 23.5%
6'10 Years 72 26.5%
11-15 years 39 14.3%
16-20 years 35 12.9%
21-25 years 26 9.6%
More than 25 years 36 13.2%
Total 272 100.0%

 

Access to Technology_and Specific—Hardwg

Participants were asked what technologies, in terms of actual hardware, they were
provided with and what technologies they actually used. Because previous researchers
(Davis, 1989) had found that people use those technologies that they perceive to be
useful, it was important to determine whether there were technologies that were not
provided but nevertheless were used by the respondents, and also whether technologies
were provided but then not used.

Sixteen technologies were listed on the questionnaire. Respondents were asked
whether each technology was provided for them and whether they used it. The
technologies were personal digital assistant (such as Palm Pilot), desktop computer, high-
speed Internet, portable DVD player, notebook computer, cell phone, color printer, IPod
or MP3 player, global positioning system, scanner, CD-ROM burner, DVD burner,

webcam, digital camera, USB flash drive, and digital video recorder.

73

The technology most often provided was high-speed Internet; 261 (96%) of the
respondents said it was provided and used. The next most commonly provided item was
a color printer (n = 237, 87%), followed by a CD-ROM burner (n = 235, 86.5%) and
notebook computer (n = 282, 84%). Next were digital cameras (n = 217, 79.8%) and
USB flash drives (n = 214, 78.7%). Desktop computers were provided to and used by
204 (75%) of the respondents. Some educators had both a desktop computer and a
notebook computer available to them. Also, in many cases, although a specific hardware
was available to these educators, it rrright have been shared with other educators and
hence not available on a daily basis or without scheduling its use.

One of the technologies least often provided for staff was a personal digital assistant
or some sort of hand-held digital device used to integrate calendars, files, contacts. Only
44 (16.3%) of the educators reported having access to them. “I’d like to see what a PDA
could do, but I haven’t even held one in my han ” one respondent commented. Another
said she had very limited access to technology and specifically PDAs, “Our ‘high speed’
is very slow, computers/projector old and out of date, website poorly maintained. We
have no ability to use our laptops online/networked in our office, no access to PDAS or
other technology outside of basic computers.”

Respondents also were given space to indicate any technologies they used that were
not listed on the questionnaire. Thirty-nine (1.4%) respondents noted “Other.” The
technologies noted as “Other” and itemized by respondents as used but not on the list
given included LCD projectors (n = 23, .8%) and digital video cameras (n = 7, .02%).

Other technologies specified by three or fewer participants included portable public

74

address systems, zip drives, fax, microscope, Turning Point, external hard drives, weather
station, and satellite dish.
Table 4.6

Technologies Provided to Educators (N = 272)

 

 

Number of Educators Percent of Educators
Technology who had the technology who had the technology
provided for them provided for them
High Speed Internet Access 261 96.0%
Color Printer 233 87.5%
CD Rom Burner 219 86.5%
Notebook Computer 231 84.9%
Digital Camera 2 1 7 79.8%
USB Flash Drive 214 78.7%
Desktop Computer 206 75.7%
Scanner 170 62.5%
Webcam 165 60.7%
DVD Burner 142 522%
Cell Phone 120 44.1%
Portable DVD Player 73 26.8%
Personal Digital Assistant 44 16.3%
Global Positioning System 36 132%
Digital Video Recorder 8 29%
lpod or MP3 Player 5 1.3%

 

75

Source of Techmlogy

An issue to which numerous respondents alluded was the source of technological
equipment. For the most part, the counties are expected to provide technological
hardware for MSU Extension educators. As one respondent pointed out, “Funding for
hardware is sometimes an issue, as the county feels MSU should provide it and vice-
versa. One County Extension Director called the researcher within a few days of
receiving the questionnaire and commented that the question concerning “provided for
you” was difficult for her to answer because, although her county ultimately paid for the
technology, it happened only because she fought so hard for it. She noted {on her
questionnaire: “1‘” question—‘provided for you’ -I had to find funding sources for the
various technologies that we have at the office.”

In comments they made on the back of the questionnaire, educators also pointed out
that although an item of technological hardware was provided, it might have been shared
with other staff members and not readily available for use. “We also only have one
laptop computer and one digital camera for a m large staff. I never use the laptop
because it is hard to get, and I use my own digital camera for picture taking. We are
definitely encouraged to use [technology] but access does not always equal out.”

Some staff provided the technology for themselves, which sometimes resulted in
the perception that technolOgy was underfunded. “Extension under-funds technology and
depends on my self-funding much of my computer needs, which is a strong signal that
technology is not important to Extension administration! It is common to not have funds
available for replacements of basic tools like computers even if it is used and needed to

provide daily Extension programs.” Some educators said they found firnding to pay for

76

the technologies they wanted to use. “I’m entrepreneurial in obtaining funds to purchase
technology for use in my job—If I “waited” for it to be furnished by MSUE or county
gov’t, it probably would never be available. I think you’ll find this with most all
employees who have and use technologies.” Private donations were noted as a way to
pay for technologies: “Although officially purchased by my county, some of the funds
have come from private business donations.” Another respondent said he provided what
they be needed for himself personally. “I consider cell phone, laptop, projector, flash
drive, and digital camera to be essential tools but are all of personal purchase and
maintenance. I made it a personal priority to obtain.” Another respondent said the same
thing: “I often use my personal technology for business reasons because I do not have

adequate funding to purchase business technology.”

Ineguities in Access

Some respondents described access to technology or the lack thereof as varying
among counties. “It would be nice if all Extension offices had the same availability and
access to technology. For example, it sometimes makes it difficult when one office has a
laptop that is brand new and another has an old laptop from 1998. Also, it makes people
feel like it’s personal when they are in the office that is out of date, and others are able to
use new Software that is associated with the most current technology and they are stuck
with equipment that is not compatible with current technology.”

Several comments evidenced a perception that some counties had more access to
technology than did other counties. “The staff use of technology completely depends on
the amount of money a county can spend on technical tools. Big counties have more,

small counties have less. This will always create a gap until it is addressed.” Another

77

said, “The biggest problem that I see facing us on this technology issue is making sure
that everyone who needs or desires to learn in this format has adequate access to it.” And
one educator said she had access to all the technology she needed but noted, “There
seems to be a real disparity among some relative to technology. Some educators seem to
get a new computer every couple of years. Others limp along with an outdated computer
until it crashes so routinely that the computer is just not reliable; then they scrape
together dollars from three or four sources just to update. This issue needs to be
addressed by the organization.” One respondent even suggested that this situation could
lead to inequities in performance assessments: “Use of technology is not consistent due
to variability between county Extension offices. Extension values technology, but
remains dependent on county resources. Potential exists for inequity in performance

evaluation due to the discrepancy.”

Access in General

Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement “I have sufficient
access to technology for my work.” They were to respond using a 5-point Likert-type
scale, with l = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly
agree. The mean was 3.55, with a standard deviation of .916. A majority of respondents

(n = 176, 65.2%) agreed or strongly agreed they had sufficient access to technology.

Preparedness
Two sections of the questionnaire were designed to learn about how prepared
the respondents were to use technology. They were asked to rate their preparation from

six possible sources: college, MSU Extension in-services, independent learning,

78

interactions with other staff in their office, people outside of Extension, and courses
outside of Extension. Respondents also were asked how prepared they felt to use
technology in their work, as well as a series of questions about their comfort and
confidence in using technology. In general, when asked whether they felt adequately
prepared to use technology in their educational programming, respondents scored a mean
of 3.59 with a standard deviation of .75. Almost half (n = 126, 46.5%) thought they were
prepared to a small or a moderate extent. Only 29 (10.7%) reported that they were

entirely prepared to use technology in their educational programming.

Source of Knowledga

The most common source of respondents’ knowledge about the use of technology
was independent learning, followed by interactions with other staff. The third most
common source was fiiends and family outside of MSU Extension. The sources fiom
which they were least likely to get their knowledge about technology were any types of
classes, whether offered by MSU Extension, organizations other than MSU Extension, or

as part of their formal education in college. (See Table 4.7)

79

Table 4.7

Source of Preparation for the Use of Technology

 

 

Source of Technology Preparation Mean Standard

Deviation
Independent learning 3.45 0.90
Interactions with other staff 2.99 1.04
Friends and relatives outside MSU Extension 2.61 1.05
In-service, or courses offered by MSU Extension 2.43 0.97
As part of college education | 2.16 1.16
Courses offered by organizations outside MSU 2.03 0.98
Extension

 

Means were calculated on‘ the basis of the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 2
= to a small extent, 3 = to a moderate extent, 4 = to a great extent, 5 = entirely
Comfort and Confidence With Usirgg Technolgy

Most educators (n = 219, 80%) in the study agreed or strongly agreed that
technology enhanced their ability to teach their clientele. As shown in Table 4.8, they
also were confident in their ability to use technology to teach, learn new technologies,
and use technology effectively in their work. However, half (n=l 36) of the educators
were neutral or did not think they had adequate training in the use of technology and only
5.5% (n = 15) strongly agreed they had adequate training. The majority (n = 209, 77.4%)
of educators said they were neutral or did not have enough time to learn new technology
Skill, whereas only five individuals (1.9%) strongly agreed they had enough time to learn

new technological skills.

80

Table 4.8

Educators’ Degree of Comfort and Confidence in Using

 

 

Technology in Their Work
Statement Mean Standard Deviation
Technology enhances my abrlrty to teach my 4.09 .76
clrentele
I am comfortable usrng technology to 3.96 .78
educate others
I am comfortable wrth learmng to use new 3.96 .79
technologies
I am comfortable with computer technology 393 . 83
I use technology effectively in my work 390 .74
I like to experiment with using technology in
. . 3.67 .98
new ways to enhance my work wrth clrentele
I am developing expertise in the use of
. . 3.59 .83
technology In educatron
I’ve had adequate training in the use of
3.29 .94
technology
I have adequate time to learn new technology 2.60 . 98

skills

 

Means were calculated on the basis of the following 5-point Likert scale:
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

Actual Use of Technology
Respondents’ actual use of technology was measured in two separate sections of the
questionnaire. The first section addressed the actual use of the hardware to which
educators had access. They were asked to answer “yes or no” to whether they used the

technology. The respondents’ actual use of specific technologies is shown in Table 4.9.

81

Table 4.9

Educators’ Actual Use of Technology

 

Technology Number of Educators Percent of Educators
used the technology who used the technology

 

High-speed Internet access 263 96.7%
Color printer 252 92.6%
Notebook computer 244 397%
USB flash drive 244 39.7%
Cell phone 234 86.0%
Digital camera 234 86.0%
Desktop computer 209 76.8%
CD-ROM burner 204 75.0%
Scanner 1 57 57.7%
DVD burner 128 47.1%
Portable DVD player 100 36.8%
Personal digital assistant 66 24.3%
Webcam 61 22.4%
Global positioning system 59 21.0%
lpod or MP3 player 47 173%
Digital video recorder 23 3. 5%

82

Differences Between MMProvided and WhatWas Used

Four technologies were not always used, even if educators had access to or were
provided with them. The technologies were CD-ROM burners, scanners, webcams, and
DVD burners. The largest difference between access/provided and used was with regard

to webcams; 165 (60.7%) of the respondents had access to them but only 61 (22.4%) had

 

 

used them.
Table 4.10
Technologies Provided but Not Always Used by Educators
Technology Number Percent who Number Percent who Difference
who had had access who used it
access used it
CD-ROM 219 86.5% 204 75.0% 15
Burner
Scanner 170 62.5% 157 57.7% 13
Webcam 165 60.7% 61 22.4% 104
DVD burner 142 52.2% 128 47.1% 14

Over the past 2 decades, MSU Extension has made investments in technology that
educators sometimes have viewed as not being what they needed. Some respondents
mentioned this in the Comments section of the questionnaire. As one respondent pointed

OUII

MSUE has made a few major investments in technology that were never
effectively utilized and even were considered somewhat burdensome in
some instances (satellite dish/download satellite broadcast programming;
desktop video conferencing that never worked, yet was expensed to
county budgets). It is sometimes difficult to implement campus-based
technologies in remote/rural areas with limited access to technology
infrastructure and less access to technology support through the county.

83

This was echoed by another respondent who said
Extension should be sure that all offices embrace a certain technology
before spending money on it. For example, in the mid-1990s, every office
received a satellite for digital conferencing. This was used only a few
times by most offices. Other groups got more use from the dish than
Extension. A big waste of money.

Another said, “Much of the technology provided to counties (satellite dishes,
desktop video conferencing, Portal) has been done without county input as to what they
need. This top-down approach does not work well in MSUE.”

The technology with the biggest difference between provision and use was cell
phones; the technology was not provided, but it was used. Only 119 (44%) of the
educators had cell phones provided for them, but 234 (86%) or almost twice as many
used cell phones in their work. This number could be even higher because a number of
respondents noted that they would use a cell phone if they could, but that there was very

little cell phone coverage where they worked. This was primarily the Upper Peninsula of

Michigan but included some of the counties in the northern Lower Peninsula, as well.

Ia_s_ks Performed Usiajg Tacanolgy

To determine how often the educators in this study used technology and, more
specifically, how they used technology, they were asked to rate how often they used 23
Specific technologies (1 = never, 2 = once per month, 3 = weekly, 4 = more than once per
week, 5 = every day). These questions were related to ways in which they might use the
technological hardware to which they had access. Respondents also were given space to
write in additional technologies. Only one respondent added a technology, and that was

social networking sites, i.e., Facebook. The technologies for which educators were asked

84

to rate their use ranged from common ones such as cell phones and e-mail to web
applications, including blogging and creating web pages. The instructions specified that
respondents were to report only their own use of the technology, not how often they gave
instructions to an assistant to use the technology for them. For instance, some staff
members might write an article and then give it to an assistant to place on the MSU
Extension pOrtal rather than doing it themselves. In this case they were not to include
that technology.

For purposes of discussion, the 23 technologies were divided into three groups: (a)
the seven most often used technologies, (b) the nine technologies with medium reported
use, and (c) the seven least used technologies. The seven most commonly used
technologies, in order of use from most often used to least often used, were word
processing, using search engines such as Google, using cell phones, sending attachments
with an e-mail, doing online research, sending emails to groups of people within MSU
Extension, and using spreadsheets such as Excel. They are listed with their means and
standard deviations in Table 4.10. The only technology that was used by all of the
respondents was going online to research something for work; however, three educators
reported never having used a search engine such as Google. Of the seven most
commonly used technologies, the one that the most educators had never used was
spreadsheet software such as Excel and Access. Thirty (11.1%) educators reported never
having used spreadsheet software, and another 63 (23.2%) reported using spreadsheets
once a month or less often. The second technology that numerous educators had never
used in their work was a cell phone. Nineteen (7%) respondents reported never having

used a cell phone for work, and another 13 (4.5%) used a cell phone once a month or less

85

often. Word processing to create a document was the technology the respondents used
the most often, and even though 4 (1 .5%) educators reported never using word processing
to create a document, 188 (69.6%) used word processing to create documents every day.
This was followed by using a search engine such as Google (M = 4.35) and using a cell
phone (M = 4.27) as the second and third most commonly used technologies.

Table 4.11

Technologies the Educators Used Most Often

 

 

Technology Used Mean Standard
Deviation
Use word processing to create a document 4.54 .82
Use a search engine such as Google 4.34 .88
Use a cell phone 4.27 1.21
Send a file as an e-mail attachment 4.19 .95
Go online to research a subject related to work 4.02 .93
Send e-mails to groups of people within MSUE 3.97 1.20
Use spreadsheets such as Excel or Access 3.20 1.29

 

Means were calculated on the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 = never, 2 = once a month
or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = more than once a week, 5 = every day

The nine technologies in the medium-use group, from most often used to least often
used, were using a fax machine, getting directions online or using mapping sites, looking
up a phone munber or address online, creating with or using presentation software (such
as PowerPoint), registering for a conference online, using a database (e.g., Blue Ribbon
database for 4-H), converting a document to a pdf file, using desktop publishing (such as
Publisher), and updating an online calendar (e.g., Google calendar). The means and

standard deviations for the use of these technologies are shown in Table 4.12.

86

At least some of the educators had never used every one of the technologies in the

medium-use category. The majority (n = 150, 55.4%) had never updated an online

calendar. Many others had never used either databases (n = 114, 41.9%) or desktop

publishing (n = 89, 32.7%).

Technology that Educators Used Midrange

Table 4.12

 

 

Technology Mean Standard
Deviation
Use a fax machine 3.16 .93
Get directions online or use mapping sites 3.05 .98
Look up phone number or address on line 2.95 1.24
Create with or use presentation software 2.64 .98
Register for a conference online 2.29 .78
Create or use a database 2.23 1.39
Convert to pdf using Adobe 2.10 1.17
Use desktop publishing such as Publisher 2.03 1.02
Update online calendar 1.97 1.34

 

Means were calculated on the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 = never, 2 = once a month

or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = more than once a week, 5 = every day

The seven technologies that respondents used least often were, in order from most

often used to least used, were managing a LISTSERV, publishing on a web page or blog,

publishing on the MSU Extension portal, using web publishing software (such as

Dreamweaver or Frontline), using graphic software (such as Corel), instant messaging,

and updating or changing a wiki. Their means and standard deviations are listed in Table

4.13. The vast majority of respondents had never done these things or did them once a

87

month or less Often. Several respondents did not know what a wiki was, and one wrote in
the space next to it “a what?”; another wrote, “I don’t even know what this is.” Almost
all of the respondents (n = 264, 97%) reported never having edited a wiki. Similarly, 242
(89%) had never used instant messaging, 236 (86.7%) had never used web publishing
software, 229 (84.8%) had never used graphic editing software, 205 (75.6%) had never
published anything on the MSUE portal (by themselves), and 198 (73%) had never
published anything on either a web page or a blog. Furthermore, those who had used
these technologies employed them less often than other technologies. MSU Extension’s
main online presence is their portal, yet only 9 (2.3%) of the educators published
something themselves on the portal once per week or more often. The other 57 (21%)

educators who did publish on the portal did so once a month or less often.

88

Table 4.13

Technologies That Educators Used Least Often

 

 

Technology Used Mean Standard
Deviation
Set up or manage a listserve 1.54 .93
Publish on a website or a blog 1.38 .75
Publish something on the MSU Extension portal 1.29 .59
Use web publishing software 1.25 .75
Use a graphics editing program 1.24 .67
Exchange instant messages 1.20 .69
Edit a wiki 1.04 .29

 

Means were calculated on the basis of the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 = never, 2 =
once a month or less, 3 = once per week, 4 = more than once per week,
5 = every day

The respondents were divided into three equal groups by total scale of use and the
mean of their reported actual use was plotted on a radar chart for the sake of visualization

of the differences. See figure 4.1

89

word processing

wik' ‘ earch en ine

5 “~ . ,_ cell p one

graphics editi V‘ email attachment
ss \

ts

  

  
 
 

_\
\§\\\%' online research
\

   
 

\~.\\\ |
portal i:€:\\\\\\\_\ email groups
.«s‘wsw
ublish on web or blog ' Q‘RNV » .spreadsheets
P x ., : «\‘9'
online calendar ' '7'“ 1 ~ fax
desktop publishing ookup online
convert to . , reseptation software
- IS er on me

Figure 4.1 Radar chart depicting actual use of three groups of Extension educators using

scale of 5 = eve da , 4 = twice a week, 3 = weekly, 2 = once a month or less, 1 = never
Lowest third = S Middle third = Highest third = -

 

Usefulness and Base of Use of Technolo

 

When asked the general question about the usefulness of technology at work, a
large majority of the respondents said they agreed or strongly agreed that technology was
useful in their work (M = 4.80, SD = .41). However, it should be noted that this response
referred to technology in general and included respondents’ perceptions of using word

processing, e-mail, and cell phones, which were their most commonly used technologies.

90

The educators were not as positive about the ease of use of technology at work (M =
3.91 , SD = .83). One technology that respondents specifically mentioned in comments as
being difficult to use was the MSU Extension portal. One respondent said, “The portal is
so cumbersome that I gave up on it long ago. The designers tried to blend the goals of
providing easy access to information to the public with sophisticated intra—organizational
communications; it doesn’t work.” Another also cited the portal as being difficult to use:
“I think we have made technology (especially the portal and EIS) needlessly difficult and
fi'ustrating to use. We do not have a good search engine on our portal, which makes it
difficult for us or the public to find information.” One respondent wanted to use the web
and the MSUE portal but found it difficult: “I would like to be able to use the web and
MSUE portal to communicate with clientele and distribute information more effectively,

but the portal technology is cumbersome enough that I only use it minimally.”

B_arriers to the Use of Technolgy

The questionnaire did not specifically ask respondents to identify barriers to using
technology. Individuals selected for interviews were asked to specify what they saw as
major barriers to their use of technology, and their answers are discussed in Chapter 5.
However, analysis of the comments section of the questionnaire did reveal several
barriers to the use of technology; these include time to learn, individual negative attitudes
toward technology, and a perception that clientele would not use technology. There were
also numerous comments on the lack of training and lack of technical support, which
respondents considered barriers to their use of technology. The first four barriers are
discussed in the following paragraphs; lack of technical support will be discussed in the

last section of this chapter.

91

Lack of Time as a Barrier

In the comments section of the instrument, numerous respondents cited time or lack
thereof as being a major barrier to their ability to use technology. One said, “Time is the
big issue. Takes time to learn, and I feel we don’t have a lot of extra time in Extension to
learn new techy [sic] things.” Several educators cited not only time but specifically time
to travel to training, “Preparation—More training would be great, but not if you need to
drive 2.5 hours to get there. Not enough time.” This sentiment was echoed by another
respondent who said, “I would like to see more opportunities for technology training that
did not require long traveling (more than 2 hours round trip)” Others said that they had
little time and found a gap between the time they learned (presumably at a remote
location) and when they returned to the office. “I find that trainings are helpful but I lose
something when I return to my county office.” Another respondent was aware of
technology workshops available through MSU and MSU Extension but said, “The
problem lies with having the time to practice or there are just too many things that occur
between the opportrmity to use what you learned and when you learned it.”

Several cited a leam-as-you-need-to-know approach, apparently due to lack of time.
One said, “I find the most difficult aspect of use of technology is having and taking the
time to try to keep up with new changes and advancements. I usually learn as I ‘need to
know’ to use the technology.” Another said, “My tech training has largely been learn as
you go. When I have had assistance, I have been able to glean enough information to .
keep going and progressing. We are so busy doing our jobs, there is little time to take for

adequate training, so it’s been do and learn.”

92

Sometimes it appeared that the educators genuinely wished they had more time to
learn but felt overloaded with programming responsibilities. One said, “Regarding
confidence and comfort in tech use: I wish I had more time to experiment and learn!”
Another expressed the desire to learn but found that other responsibilities took over.
“Basically, I wish I had more time to get advanced technology training. However, my
program work load demands 70% to 80% of my time monthly in hands-on program

delivery. The other 20% to 30% of my time is in program administration.”

Attitudes and Beliefs a_s Barriers
Some respondents referred to their age or to how long they had been working in the
comments section. It seemed they used their age as a reason for not using technology
more. For instance, one educator explained, “I did not start using any of the technologies
listed until I was in my 408 or 50S, so it’s all been new learning for me.” Another said, “I
was in college in the 60s, so I didn’t have any computer training. I learned as needed in
my job. I’m a retired teacher and am having to learn technology that I haven’t had to use
when teaching (reporting systems, etc.).” This comment seems to imply that younger
workers might have had more training through their schooling. Another respondent
seemed to be looking forward to retiring and not using technology: “When I retire in
several years, technology for me will only be a line phone, no computer/no cell phone.”
Other educators appeared to recognize that their attitude was more of a barrier than
their age. One respondent noted she was like her grandmother:
‘My grandmother did not drive. . . she didn’t want to learn. As a youngster, I
thought it was so odd and un-adventuresome not to want to learn to drive (the

technology of the early 19003)! Now, although I use technology at work as
needed, I realize that I don’t think “that way” and have no inclination/interest in

93

“hacking” to figure it out like some of my co-workers. I think perhaps I have a bit
of my grandmother in me!!!

Another admitted to a lack of interest in using technology.
I truly believe technology is important in my job—however, I do not have an
interest in sitting at a computer for hours to learn new things (this is why I have a
competent secretary to assist me). I am in awe at what is out there in the market
and what we can do on a computer, but again I have no desire to be a “high tech”
person. I am one who “gets the job done” and have help with computer needs
such as flyers, info, etc.

Some respondents either said they thought technology was a mixed blessing or
simply preferred a more personal experience and believed they lost that in using
technology. “I still like the personal phone contact or face to face,” said one. Another
said be appreciated that MSUE values personal interaction:

I consider technology a mixed blessing. Person-to-person communication seems
to decline as technology use increases. Often the technology gets in the way of
meaningful communication, teaching and learning. I appreciate the fact that
while MSUE promotes use of technology in communication, teaching and
learning, we still value personal (real, live, non-digital) interaction.

That attitudes influenced use of technology even was noted by one respondent who
pointed to others as not using it: “My office has incredible access to technology and
technical support from our county, but my CED and over half my office refuse to use it
and make it difficult to integrate new technology into our office lives.” Another also
talked about other people: “People are leery about using new teaching techniques for fear

of failure or looking incompetent.”

94

Clientele a_sa Barrier
Clientele’s being poor, rural, or old were some of the barriers to use of technology
cited by a number of respondents. “I find that in some cases technology is not effective
with some of my older clients, while the younger ones expect it,” stated one educator.
Another noted, “Farmers don’t utilize the computer as much as other populations. This
affects my ability to communicate with them using some media platforms. I expect that to
change as older farmers retire or pass away and the rising generations take their place.”
Low-income clients were mentioned as a barrier by several respondents. One said,
“I primarily do home visits, so I can’t use PowerPoint in low-income homes. I recently
began to take out a portable DVD player.” Another respondent echoed this sentiment:
“We work with low-income audiences. We are observing that PowerPoint presentations
are not as effective as they once were. Clients seem to look upon them as “just another
screen” and are not attentive much of the time. I can hold their attention better by just
talking to them.” Clients just were not very receptive to changes, according to one
educator:
I thought I would use technology (particularly presentation software and digital
projector) more often than I have. I live and work in a rural community, and while
a majority of our customers (4-H leaders and members) do have intemet access, a
number of our key leaders (volunteers) are not very receptive to such changes. My

impression is that PowerPoints annoy them, quite frankly, even when they’re
done well (concise bullet points, not read word for word, etc).

Trarmng as a Barrier

When asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with the statement that the
training they needed in technology was available to them, 178 respondents (65%) were

either neutral, or disagreed or strongly disagreed. Only nine respondents (3.3%) strongly

95

 

int

01‘

In
prc

b6!
5

de

ma)

agreed that such training was available to them. A number of respondents noted in the
comments section that lack of readily available training was a problem for them. One
believed that underuse of technology was directly connected to lack of training: “I think
that technology, especially web meetings and such, is terribly underused. We need to
increase the training available so we can use these things and help to reduce the amount
of time and 35 used on travel.”

One respondent cited lack of training on use of the portal (even though portal
training had been offered). “The portal was a good idea, but no training has been
provided to staff on its use (other than those that manage it for the Office). I have jas_t
begun to explore it on my own.” The respondent went on to say, “Most of my
technological use has been trial and error or learning it from my secretary.”

Another educator said that almost no technological training was available:
“Technology training offered through MSUE is essentially nonexistent. Best ways to
offer training would be through fall conference or regionally.” Being able to get into
training sessions was also a barrier to some respondents. “MSU libraries’ tech support is
great. Their class offerings look great, but notice of them comes out without enough lead
time to fit into an already full schedule, and campus people get the notice one to three
days earlier, so sessions are full the day we get the class listings.”

Some respondents listed specific needs for training. One said, “I would like to see
training offered in information management—how to organize and retrieve the information
overload we seem to accumulate.” Another said she needed “to learn more about
designing and maintaining web pages. I also need to gain a better understanding of

managing and using digital images.” Yet another asked for “support on advanced-level

96

programs” and went on to say that Extension needed to offer advanced training for
techniques in Photoshop, Publisher, and Direct Publishing software to “facilitate the

development of fact sheets, bulletins, etc.”

General Support

Questions about general support for technOlogy in the educators’ work focused on
their perceptions of MSU Extension’s support of their use of technOlogy. Specifically,
questions concerned the educators’ perceptions of support from MSU Extension
administrators, whether they were actively encouraged by MSU Extension to use
technology to enhance programming, whether the training they needed was available to
them, and whether they were encouraged to find new and innovative ways to use
technology to enhance their educational programming. Respondents were asked to rate
their level of agreement or disagreement with several statements on a 5-point scale...
Means and standard deviations for these statements are shown in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14

Educators’ Perceptions of Their General Support From MSUE

 

 

General Support from MSU Extension Mean [83:22:31,]
MSUE actively encourages the use of technology to 3.80 .84
enhance programming efforts

MSUE administration supports the use of technology 3.74 .92

in Extension

I am encouraged to find new and innovative ways to use 3.32 .85
technology to enhance my educational programming '

The training I need to improve my technology skills is 3.01 .95

available to me

 

Means were calculated on the basis of the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 2
= to a small extent, 3 = to a moderate extent, 4 = to a great extent, 5 = entirely

97

Technical Support

According to 195 (71.7%) of the respondents, technical support was provided by
local county support persons. Another 15 (5.6%) mentioned campus-based support, and
58 (21.3%) of the Extension educators chose “Other.” Those indicating “Other” on the
questionnaire were asked to elaborate, and the most common listings were fiiend, family
member, and local computer store staff.

Educators’ perceptions of the support they received were measured with six
statements. Respondents used the same 5-point scale to indicate their agreement with

each statement. Means and standard deviations for the statements are shown in Table

 

 

4.15.
Table 4.15
Educators’ Perceptions of Their Technical Support
Statement Mean Standard
Deviation
I have adequate support for problems that arise 3.49 .99
I have adequate access to technical support 3.37 1.06
I might use technology more if I had better support 3.21 1.09
My technology support person responds 3.1 1 1.08
immediately to my request for assistance
I rarely need to seek technical support 3.00 .99
My support person shows me techniques for how to 2.46 1.07

integrate technology into my programming

 

Means were calculated on the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

98

Technical support for Extension educators is necessary to enable them to reach their
best potential in programming. Not all of the respondents believed they needed technical
support, but some did. One educator stated simply, “I need lots of help with technology.”

The majority of respondents used local county technical support and reported that,
in most cases, it was adequate for their needs. As one educator expressed it, having good
professional support was essential: “Problem solving halts all progress. Need a way to
deal w/tech problems on an immediate or at least timely basis. These problems usually
are not common and aren’t in ‘average everyday’ computer work. These problems
usually take ‘professional’ tech support to handle.” Another educator expressed
appreciation for local support by saying, “Our office houses the county Technology
Coordinator and works hard to keep our staff cm'rent w/programs and equipment. He also
teaches Word, Word Perfect, Access, PowerPoint, and many other classes. I feel
fortunate to be able to use him for questions.” In contrast, another person stated, “I am
able to use technology well in_spfie_of county ‘assistance.”’

Other educators indicated that getting technical support for small counties was a
problem: “Lack of technical support is a major issue for small counties, in particular. No
technical support is provided by the county governmental office, and the MSUE county
office budget is too small to allow contracting with a tech support person.” Another
educator said she had no support locally but called campus when she needed it:
“Regarding tech support: I don’t very often need it, but when I do there is no one to call
on. Occasionally I still call Luke Reese, even though this is no longer his role.”

Sometimes technical support was not in line with the educator’s actual need. One

put it this way: “I’ve had difficulty getting support folks to help me do what I want to do.

99

At times it’s ‘Let’s change this, turn that upside down.’ I need simple, to-the-point
support, and campus support needs to understand that County Extension offices don’t

always have the newest and fastest equipment or the S to upgrade.”

Summm

Analysis of the data indicated that although most educators believed technology
was usefirl to them in their jobs, their actual use of technology primarily was restricted to
the use of cell phones and computers fOr word processing and e-mail, and presentation
software such as PowerPoint, which was used for face-to-face presentations. The use of
Internet technology, especially web pages, blogs, the MSUE portal, and Wikis was very
low with only one fourth of educators using these technologies at all. Those that did use
them usually did so once per month or less often. Access to technology hardware was
provided by local counties and almost all educators had access to the basics of either a
desktop computer or a laptop computer and high speed access to the Internet, however
access to peripherals varied considerably. In many cases, Extension educators provided
technology for themselves if they want to use it and it isn’t available. There is a belief
that an inequity exists between counties with smaller counties having less technology
than larger counties which might lead to a disadvantage for those educators working in
smaller counties. Perceived barriers to using technology were; lack of time, attitudes
about themselves and technology, beliefs about clientele and lack of training. Preparation
to use technology came most often from independent learning, followed by interactions
with other staff, and fiiend and family. In-service classes offered by MSUE were the 4‘”

most common source of preparation for using technology, followed by their college

100

education and lastly classes offered by organizations outside or MSUE. In general
educators believe that MSUE supports the use of technology, but many believe that some
technology investments have been a poor vision and not very useful to educators. The
MSUE portal is described as being difficult to use and not particularly useful. The most
common source of technical support is the local county with a little over 70% of
educators indicating the local county was their main source of technical support. A small
number (about 5%) indicated their technical support came from campus. The rest looked
to outside sources for their technical support and often turned to farmly or fiiends. The
technical support that is given is sometimes sufficient, but not always with some
educators indicating that they needed better support and most saying they would use
technology more if they had better technical support. Results of the interviews with low-,
medium- and high-technology-use educators are discussed in the next chapter. This
discussion provides a deeper and richer understanding of the issues involved in

educators’ use of technology.

101

CHAPTER V
INTERVIEW RESULTS

This chapter contains the results of the interview portion of the study. Each
interview consisted of eight questions, with follow-up probes to help understand the
answers when necessary (see Appendix). Due to time limitations, just 15 of the 272
survey participants were interviewed. Interviewees were chosen on the basis of their
survey results of responses concerning the level of technology use, as well as other
factors such as gender, programming responsibility, educational level, age, and
geographic location. The interviews were conducted by telephone and recorded digitally.
Responses were later transcribed to aid in the analysis.

There were 15 interview participants, nine females and six males representing all
program areas of MSU Extension. Two were County Extension Directors. Educational
levels ranged from 1 participant with a doctorate, 3 with a bachelor’s degree, and 11 with
master’s degrees. One was under 25 years old, three were 26 to 35, four were 36 to 45,
five were 46 to 55 and two were over 55 years old. Two were from the Upper Peninsula,
two from the Central region, three from the North region, and four each fiom the South
East and South West regions of MSU Extension. The interview participants’ use of
technology at work and at home ranged fi'om low use to high use, with five in the bottom
third, five in the middle third, and five in the upper third. The levels of use were
arbitrarily divided into three even groups by thirds. This selection provided a sample that
was approximately representative of the 272 survey participants. A scatter plot diagram

was used to identify individual cases and selection was based on demographic criteria.

102

As shown in Figure 5.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

O o
8000 o
o q> o
E 00
.2 o o 8 O
0 0O
0
a o o
36000- o o 80 00° 0
B 8008 oo 0000 o
'3 oo o be 0000 o
o o oo o o
E O 88 O
o t) C
3 o O 96 00
a 0 03° 006830 000 0
040 - O O O
r- 00 800 0 80C 00 0
oooofie o
o o o o
o
o one
000
o 088ng0 <
oo o o o
000 o o
2000- 00
l I f I
4000 5000 8000 10000

Total technology use work

Figure 5.1 Scatter plot of correlation of educator’s actual use of technology at home and
at work used to identify individuals for purposes of interviews.
Low-Use Participants

Tyms of Technology Used

All of the low-use interview participants used word processing to create documents
such as letters and brochures. They also used e-mail, although they were not always able
to describe their e-mail system very well. All of them talked about using e-mail to
communicate with other staff and clientele. One person with a dual county assignment

said there were challenges with using two different e-mail systems. She explained that

103

both of her e—mail accounts were “filtered through MSU” but that they were different to
use. This individual described going out of one system into another. “If you ask me what
that is, I know one is Outlook and, um, all I know is push these keys and so forth to get
into the other one” (Case 234).

The interview participants reported some familiarity with desktop publishing, e.g.,
Publisher, and presentation software such as PowerPoint. However, only one of them
had actually prepared their own PowerPoint; all of the others had only presented
PowerPoints that had been created by other staff. These were premade PowerPoints from
another source, such as campus, or in some cases the interviewees had given the
information they wanbd on PowerPoint to an assistant, who had then created it for them.
One had difiiculty remembering what it was called and said,

I don’t even know what the terminology is, where I can flash it on the wall like an
old overhead. PowerPoint? That is a useful tool for bigger crowds that I have, but

then again that is . . . those are already packaged. Rarely do I use one that I
created. I may use one where a page or two I created that is specific to my county.

And I don’t create them, my secretary does, and I just tell her what it needs to say
and she does that for me.” (Case 234)
Another interviewee said that although she had had some training in PowerPoint,
She had not done more than play with it a little bit. However, she went on to say that she
did know how to set up the projector and play someone else’s PowerPoint (Case 201 ).
Other technologies that this group of interviewees specifically described using were
scanners, digital cameras, conference calls, the Internet for finding information, and the
MSUE portal or county websites. One individual had never used a digital camera,
although he had scanned images. Scanned images typically were used in brochures and
newsletters, although one individual had used scanned and digital images in PowerPoint

presentations. The Internet was mentioned as a source of information, but one

104

interviewee said he tried to stay away fiom the Internet. “It’s one of those deals where if I
am using it and I’m on it, I’ll use it for two hours, so I am careful with the Internet” (Case
40).

None of the low-use interview participants had ever placed an article, picture, or
link on the MSUE portal, a local county website, or any other Internet page. When asked
about the MSUE portal, one said he had a very minor presence there, and it was used
mostly as a way for people to find him when they needed information. In all cases, any
document that was placed on the MSUE portal had been put there by an assistant. One
interviewee talked about a calendar of events that her secretary placed on the county

website.

Usefulness and Basic of Use

Answers to the question about what was the most useful technology for work were
equally divided between e-mail and some sort of word-processing or presentation
software. Two interviewees said e-mail was the most useful but that they really used
word processing (either Word or Publisher) the most for their work. With regard to what
technology was the easiest to use, two said e—mail, one said PowerPoint (referring to
making presentations with it), and the other said correspondence through either e-mail or
writing letters using Microsoft Word. One participant did not specify but said, “What I
use is easy to use, nothing complicated,” meaning that she would use it only if it was easy

to use (Case 234).

105

Technologies They Would Like to Use

In response to the question about what other technology the participants had
thought of using but had not used, one said, “Nothing, not really, maybe a laptop but no,
not really” (Case 40). Two said they had participated in Adobe Connect but had not used
it themselves and did not think they were knowledgeable enough to do it themselves.
Another participant said she had not used PowerPoint and remarked, “I know that is
something I really should use and I need to work on that, learn how to use it” (Case 201).
The same participant also expressed interest in learning to use Excel. She had attended
an evaluation workshop where there was demonstrated “a particular software [SPSS]
where you can input your data and create graphs and like that.” She said she thought it
would be very helpful if she could get that software and use it. A participant who was a
4-H educator expressed interest in being able to put 4-H forms on a website so that

people could submit them online.

The Choice to Use Technology

For the most part, the interviewees in the low-use group had decided to use
technology because they needed to. They specifically said, “If I have to” or said it was a
requirement of their work. One said he would decide to use a technology because it
would be imperative to what he was going to do that week. “It is usually because I need it
that week, and therefore there is great inspiration to finally figure it out. I rarely ever put
a schedule ahead of me, like next month I’m going to learn this; it is something comes
along that forces it on me” (Case 58). Another said that she would decide to use

something because she saw a need for it to improve her work.

106

How They, Lean

One participant said that if he was required to use a technology he would go to a
class on how to use it. Another said he needed to learn hands—on. “I stumble through it
with a little help, but I probably therefore never learn the whole thing efficiently, but if I
can get it done the next time, that’s all right with me” (Case 58). He went on to say that
he preferred printed manuals but wasn’t always able to use them. Another participant
related how she had bartered for one-on-one tutoring by bringing in an educator from
another county for a day. That educator then talked her through some technology issues.
In exchange, the interviewee taught the other educator how to do Extension Information
System reports and how to quilt. Finding one-on-one tutoring was popular because
classes did not seem to help once individuals were back at the office computer. “I prefer
somebody to walk me through it. I am a visual person, so I like it written down step by
step. But walk me through it first and talk me through it and then give me the written and

let me try it. And then it is trial and error until I get it” (Case 234).

Barriers to Use

When asked about barriers to their use of technology, all of the participants
mentioned time constraints, but they also went on to describe how they themselves often
were the barrier.

It might be that I am so overwhelmed with what I have, what I’m doing now, that
I might not need it. Using it [technology] would make things more complicated. I
don’t know, it tends to be overrated, depending on the effectiveness of one’s

work, because some people might not need technology to do their work. (Case 40)

Two interviewees said they were too old, even though they were younger than

many high users. “I think I’m just far enough behind that I would consider myself the

107

previous generation, and it is a matter of fi'ustration and time with working with it. Time
is most important because I have so many other things to do” (Case 58). Another talked
about time but also financial resources to be able to purchase some technologies even
though she had a new computer. She said:

And there is the natural resistance to trying something new, kind of the fear factor

coming from an older generation where we didn’t have this kind of stuff.

Sometimes it seems a little overwhelming, but once I’ve learned how to use it, it’s

. . . I love it, it’s fun and I enjoy it. (Case 201)
Another interviewee echoed the time factor but went on to say that figuring out the
logistics would be a challenge and also talked about losing the personal touch. “My gut
feeling says no; . . . you lose that interaction that you get when everyone is in the same
room, and you lose that personal touch” (Case 234).
Future of Technology_and Their Work

One interviewee did not see himself using technology any more in the future than

he currently did. He did say he thought the Internet might be used for web conferences in
the future but that he did not have time to figure out how he could implement technology
in his programming, “not with the job responsibilities that I have” (Case 40). Another
said he thought he would use more e-mail communication and have more information
available on either a county website or the MSUE portal, but he did not see himself as the
person who would put it there. He saw his role as “providing information mainly. I’m
hoping I can figure out how to get office staff to get it there. I don’t want to put it there,
but I’d be happy to generate stuff” (Case 58). Another interviewee said she expected
MSU Extension to continue to adopt new technologies. “One thing we are using a lot

more now is conference calls. I know I’ve been on two this week, and my boss on one

today. With the increasing cost of gas, I see us using that whenever possible” (Case 201).

108

The other low-use participants both talked about the future use of conferences done
online (to save money), but said they did not know how to do those or whether they
would be used more by MSU Extension in the future. They did not indicate any specific

technology that they would like to use themselves in the future.

Medium-Use Participants
Types of Tegnology Used

All of the medium-use interview participants reported using computers for word
processing, e—mail, Publisher for brochures and newsletters, PowerPoint for
presentations, and the Internet to research information using search engines. They also
mentioned using Excel and web seminars such as Adobe Connect and placing items on a
website that was either a county site or the MSUE portal. Three said they posted on the
web for clientele use. However, when asked to provide more details, they said they gave
directions to an assistant or secretary to do it for them, so they did not actually do it
themselves. One explained, “I personally don’t use any web-related software; someone
else does that” (Case 9).

Two interviewees described previously or currently using personal digital
assistants. One of them used a BlackBerry and had a calendar on it that was synced with
a computer. Another reported that she used to have a Palm Pilot but found it was not as
useful as she had hoped. “You can open a monthly planner and see a month at one time
and you can find a meeting easily, but trying to find it on the Palm was too difficult.
There were features about it that I really liked, so if they ever fixed that I would go back

to it” (Case 259). She had returned to using a regular cell phone instead.

109

One of the participants said she was using web technology to do on-line training of
volunteers. This consisted of a PowerPoint training module that had been placed on the
MSU Extension portal. Along with it was a Word document designed to quiz the learner
before and after using the training module. She hoped to make the training more
interactive but said she needed assistance from someone on campus to make that happen;

she did not know how to do it herself.

Usefulness and Base of Use

Two participants said that Microsoft Word was the most useful technology to them,
followed by e-mail. Both said they had to write letters and do their own correspondence
and relied heavily on Word to get their work done, citing lack of secretarial support.
Another said e-mail was the most useful technology because of the ability to
communicate by sending messages to both clientele and colleagues at times when they
would not be available to talk. However, one participant did not want to be pinned down
on just one technology and said the most useful technology was the computer and all that
it encompassed, meaning “all of the word processing, POwerPoint, and the databases, as
well as the Internet and online technology for communications, teaching, and research”
(Case 259).

‘ The easiest technology to use was either e-mail or some other type of word
processing, such Word or Publisher. One interviewee mentioned Microsoft Publisher as
something she was just beginning to explore. “Now that I’m getting the hang of
Publisher, I’m finding I use that a lot more. It is easier to manipulate, so I’m starting to
use Publisher much more frequently” (Case 9). Another participant said she thought e-

mail was easy: “You know, PowerPoint requires some knowledge, and maybe because

110

you are forced to use e-mail every day you get good at it, whether you want to or not”

(Case 252).

Technologies They Would Li_ke_to Use

Having an online presence, teaching online, or conducting web seminars using
Adobe Connect were of interest to all of the medium-use interview participants. One had
taken a class in using Adobe Connect. “I went to an Adobe Connect workshop, but I
don’t feel I am expert enough in it to be an actual presenter. I would like to learn more so
I can be the one doing the presentation” (Case 182). Another was familiar enough with
Adobe Connect to mention it by name and said she hoped it would be enough of an
improvement over previous types of web conference technolOgies that it would be worth
the trouble to learn. She talked in detail about previous versions of web conferencing
from the mid-1990s and how they were too expensive and did not work well enough to be
useful. Another interviewee did not specify the method but said she would like to try
teaching online. She said, “I really haven’t taught anything that way myself. I think it
would be a really cool way to share some of the programming I do” (Case 252). The
same participant was specific in naming another technology she wanted to use, which
was Outlook Exchange to share calendars. “I know on campus they have Outlook
Exchange and I would really love to be able to use that to share with my office staff so

people know what is coming up and what I am doing.”

The Choice to Use Technology
Participants sometimes decided to learn to use a new technology because there was

no choice, and in other cases because they simply wanted to learn it or to use something

111

to which they had been exposed. Several mentioned having seen a technology
demonstrated or hearing about it at a meeting and then thinking about trying it. One said
she saw Adobe Connect demonstrated at a regional meeting and knew someOne who was
having a workshop on it in another county, so she became interested even though she did
not feel comfortable using it on her own (Case 182). Another said her use of new
technologies was motivated “partly because I enjoy it. I like seeing what the new
technology can do, and I am interested in seeing what it can do and how I can apply it.
Part of it, though, is someone tells me I have to do some of these things.” Some
participants were not sure whether what they had seen might be of use to them but said
maybe in the future they might use a certain technology. “Blogs and all that jazz are
completely brand new to me. I can see where the people that are on our advisory
committees, such as the crew that you have to talk with constantly I can see down the

road where that could be beneficial” (Case 9).

How They 15%

Most of the medium users of technology liked a combination of classroom training
and one-on-one help to learn how to use a new technology. All of them said they needed
to try out the technology and learn as they did so, rather than just using a manual or
learning in a classroom. None of the members of this group of interviewees said they
were self-leamers. “I learn better with someone helping me. I don’t do as well if I have
to learn it totally on my own. Classroom training certainly helps, but it doesn’t help me
as much as sitting down with someone” (Case 259). Another said it needed to be a
combination, with the ability to actually try out what was being taught and then having

support later on. Trainings without support later on can make it difficult to learn; as one

112

person said, “I find that trainings are helpful, but I lose something when I return to my
county office” (Case 44).

One participant described how she had learned both Publisher and Excel using a
combination of classroom learning and assistance from others in the office or the county
information services staff:

Publisher, I had an office staff person show me what they knew. I had to do it

hands on, and I had to practice it for myself and have them right there. I have also
had our county information support guys help answer some questions. For me,
just going to a training doesn’t work, because it’s usually part of a textbook or
whatever, and people show you something on the screen but you don’t get to do it
yourself. I need to do it myself. With Excel I did go to the county training for

Excel, and you get back and you pull up something you really want to use or
dabble with, and I could hardly remember a blasted thing, so I called and had a

tutorial. I had the IS guys come out to me, and I said, “This is what I want to do,
teach me how to do this.” That works great. (Case 9)
Barriers to Use

Time was the first barrier mentioned by every interviewee in this group. Additional
barriers to using technology were lack of technical support or access, lack of training and
not knowing how to do something, and not enough money to purchase equipment or
software. Some also pointed to clientele as a barrier because they perceived them as not
being ready to use technology or not having access to it. One participant just did not
want to use some of the newer technologies.

Sometimes even if there was enough time, there was no support. “Technical
support is needed, too, because if I get into something and I’m not having success or it
isn’t working, there is nobody. I can’t run and get the IT guy to help me because there is
none” (Case 182). Two other participants specifically mentioned going to their sons

(who did not work for MSU Extension) for help because they had no one else to turn to.

113

One had her son install a wireless network in the county office. “Why should I have to
call my son? Why isn’t there someone I can call? It frustrates me to no en ”(Case 252).
Another expressed frustration that the county was blocking access to some technologies.
In some cases, even registration systems that MSU Extension had in place were blocked
by the local county network. Gainng access required going to the County Extension
Director, who then went to the county department to ask them to allow access.

One participant seemed to know it would take a lot of time to learn to use the
technology but acknowledged that using technology might. save time in the long run.

I know it would take a lot of time to set it up and to input data. I bet initial set-up
would be very difficult for me to find the time to do it, even though it might save
me time later. Also, lack of having the skills and not really knowing if there is
software to do it, and how to use it and that type of thing. There would be a
learning curve there. (Case 252)

All but one person in this group also said that even if they had the time and
knowledge to use technology, they would face either resistance from clientele or would
not be able serve clientele as well because of their lack of desire to use technology or
access to it.

If you take your programming to the people, you have to adapt to where the
people are. A large percentage of the people we work with are not the forward
people of the world. They do not have access to the technology, and they are
not interested. They are interested in where their next meal is coming fi'om.
(Case 44)
One interviewee put it this way: “We’re still a real face-to-face county” (Case 182).
Another said, “We still have a huge clientele here that are not all using computers and the
Internet. That is still an issue” (Case 9).

When asked about using web pages or a web presence, one participant echoed some

of the low users by saying she really did not have the interest. “In our county we need to

114

have someone that would be available to work on the web site and so forth, but me . . . I

don’t have time and I personally don’t want to do it” (Case 252).

Future of TecMMd Their WOrk

Most of the interviewees in this group said they envisioned more use of technology
by MSU Extension in the future for staff conferences and to share information with staff.
But their outlook on the future use of technology for themselves in their work was more
mixed. One participant wanted to see a countywide system for communication that used
some sort of social networking site or educational application. “Google Education is the
one I’ve seen that has the most features and is free and is fairly user fiiendly. You could
set up a webSite and sign up all the 4-H members and volunteers in the 4-H program with
password access and use that for communication and other applications” (Case 259).
However, she said she hoped such a communication system would not replace face-to-
face meetings.

Other participants said they envisioned some conferences being done online, but
they also expected technology would not replace much of their work with clientele.
“Many of our people don’t have Internet access in their homes, so as far as doing
meetings, that would be great if I could do it, but I can’t see it. It’s hard for me to

envision that actually happening” (Case 182).

Hi -Use Partici ts
Types of Technology Used
This group of interview participants listed quite a number of technologies that they

used and were able to do so quickly. All of them used word processing and e-mail, but

115

they also used chatting (1M), online calendars, various databases, and equipment and
software for creating online content such as educational videos, podcasts, and websites.
Some used the MSUE portal as their main web presence, but more often they used either
a county website or an alternative MSU site.

Equipment used included laptop computers, desktop compUters, digital cameras and
digital video cameras, scanners, LCD projectors, and personal digital assistants such as
Palm Pilot. Specific software and web systems these participants mentioned were
Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, Publisher and Microsoft Outlook synced
with a Palm Pilot, Zope (an open-source application server), Propaganda (for creating and
editing audio files and podcasting), Core] (to edit digital images and prepare web
broadcasts), Word Perfect, and Web Expressions and FrontPage (two web design
softwares). One also subscribed to the Nexis system and multiple LISTSERVS to assist
' with finding court cases and summaries. Not all in this group currently used a cell phone,
but those who did not, expressed interest in owning some sort of phone that was also a
digital assistant to use for retrieving information from the Internet. One participant had
tried to use Adobe Connect once with some success but did not think it was particularly
user friendly. This individual said he would prefer to use MSU Global instead.

All of the interviewees in the high-use group described online teaching and
learning, although in a variety of ways. One had taught using PowerPoint and had taken
class members online to complete a food-safety tutorial as part of a workshop presented
in a church. All of the others described using technology to create online learning
modules or educational broadcasts that were either interactive websites or podcasts of

audio and video lessons they had created. One had worked at another land-grant

116

university five years ago, where the use of IP video was common. He said although he
would like to use that type of technology, MSU Extension was not as advanced as the
other university, so he was not able to do so. He had, however, taught web design and e-

commerce classes to clientele.

Usefulness and Base of Use

One participant said that Outlook was the most useful because it was the “most
multi- functional” of the technological tools she used (Case 172). She also said it was the
easiest to use. Another interviewee said she could not figure out what to do without her
Palm Pilot, but went on to say that when people (clientele) called she needed the Internet,
so actually the Internet was the most useful (Case 14). She went on to say that the tools
were all easy to use and just had different nuances. Another high-use participant said that
because all the technologies he used were integrated, it was difficult to say which was the
most useful because everything he did came back to using the computer in general. “I
can’t use the scanner without the laptop, and virtually everything I use that for goes into
the computer to use later on either a PowerPoint or a web site” (Case 196). Nor did this
individual know which tool was easiest to use because he was self-taught, so he used
what he had learned to use.

One participant said he could only say what he hoped would be the most useful.
That was the videos he was producing, because they would be on the Internet where
“people can access them 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and they are on a variety of
subjects” (Case 90). He said he was leaning more toward the types of things that people
could access at their convenience. His said his focus was on what was easiest for

clientele and not himself.

117

Another participant answered quickly: “Without my computer I’d be dead” (Case
239). He said he relied on the Internet to access every university bulletin library and
publication system, which he needed to be able to give his clientele up-to-date (fewer
than three years old), research-based information. “So when I’m looking for something it
has to be very relevant and relatively concise, and then I can attach it to an e-mail and
they can get it right away, so without the Internet I wouldn’t have access.” He reported
having a fair amount of “facility” with everything he used and could only talk about what
he had trouble with. He went on to say that he tried to “muddle around” with Access and
Expressions Web, and as a result he could make them work but could not explain to
someone else how to use them. This indicated to him that he needed more training on

those tools.

Technologies TheyWoulMe to Use

Technologies the high-use interviewees said they would like to use were varied.
One said she recently had downloaded Google Earth and was beginning to think about
ways she could use it, but she did not yet have a specific plan for its use. “I found it
interesting and thought I would check it out, so I am exploring it on my own” (Case 172).
Another said she would like to do more online training but did not think she could do it
personally; she said, “I would like to see MSU do more of that” (Case 14). Another
participant said he had been avoiding getting a cell phone because he did not want to be
available “24/7,” but now he was very interested in being ableto use a cell phone that
would access the Internet, such as the iPhone. When he had better cellular service in his

area, this was something he would purchase.

118

High-use participants expressed interest in having more of an online presence and
the ability to work with technologies that could make that happen. One described his 30-
year career with Extension and said, “I used to teach a class that got up to being 30 hours
long. Well, I can’t do that every year, so if I can putthat type of information in some
type of form that people will use, then I don’t have to teach it every year. They can just
go online and take a look” (Case 90). Another interviewee wanted to be better at using
Expressions Web and Cascading Style Sheets for web design. He would also like to be
able to put his own material on the county website, rather than having to go through
someone else since it seemed less efficient to ask someone else to do it. “I’ve never been
given access to the MSUE portal so I could [have the ability to] put it up, but I am not
allowed to” (Case 239). “I can sit down and put it up on the website in maybe an hour,
but to give it to someone else it would take an hour to write it up and then an hour to
explain it, and it would . . . it’s really not worth my time.”

The Choice to Use Tech_nology .

For the most part, this group used technology simply because they wanted to try it,
such as the participant who said she had just downloaded Google Earth because she
found it interesting, even though she did not know how or whether she would use it in
future programming (Case 172). Another said she found 98% of her own information
frOm the Internet. She described teaching her daughter to research a question about what
she found in their backyard pond, so it was natural for her to use technology in her work
(Case 14). Another participant was specific in describing his decision to use technology:
“Deciding is, do I need it? The more I need it, the more I want to learn it. If it really

saves me time that qualifies as need, or if it saves us staff time. If we were using it on a

119

regular basis as an organization, then I would definitely learn it and actively want to use

it [a given technology]” (Case239).

How They Learn

High-use participants were almost entirely self-taught, although they did like
professional-improvement classes and workshops when they could get to them. They
also went online to find answers or teach themselves how to use technologies.

One interviewee said she liked professional-development classes and frequently
used reference manuals as well as the “web,” but she acknowledged she was mostly self-
taught (Case 172). Another interviewee gave a similar answer: “Classroom would be my
first option. It’s a close second in terms of self-taught” (Case 196). He went on to say he
would like to attend some of the classes offered by the MSU Library but that notices of
such classes came out so late that they usually were full before he could sign up. “I’d still
like to be better at constructing a database, but because I have never been able to do that
[sign up], I can’t.”

One interviewee said she had never taken any class on the use of technology:

I teach myself. I just try to figure it out. I’ve never taken a class on anything. If I
can’t figure it out, I use the Help section, or if I still can’t figure it out there, I go
online and go to, like, Microsoft online, and if I still can’t figure it out, then I’ll
ask someone here. I try to figure it out because that works better than if I ask
someone. I think I remember it better if I figure it out on my own. If I go through
those channels . . . it’s just my weird brain. (Case 14)

Another described learning to produce educational videos and audio files:
Basically, what I did was I would watch television and notice how they were
doing things, and I would look at other educational videos and how they did
things because we have had a video library for years and a loaning library in our

office for probably 15 years now. I would look at the videos and I would copy
what they did. As far as the software is concerned, I went out to one source, found

120

software packages, and came home and started using it, so [I’m] pretty much self-
taught. (Case 90)

Another participant described blocking out a month on his calendar to teach himself
a new software program or to practice with web design. He said he learned by playing
around with technology, although he added that he barely had time to get his work done,
let alone playtime. “Basically, I’m pretty well self-taught, but I’ve taken classes. A lot of
those classes, it isn’t that I learned a lot, it is mostly that I learn a few new tricks” (Case
239). He said he preferred classes to be incorporated into other meetings, “Like when
there is a class, say two hours on Photoshop during annual conference. It doesn’t have to

be complete; sometimes just a primer is all I need.”

Barriers to Use

Time and money as well as support to do what they wanted to do were the barriers
to the use of technology that high-use participants cited most commonly. Some described
support in general terms, whereas others were more specific, especially about the notion
of “turf” [his word] or being told they could not do something. One participant cited
conductivity and lack of storage space for large amounts of data as barriers.

When this group of interviewees said time was a barrier, it did not necessarily mean
that they lacked the time to use technology as much as that the technologies they were
using were more time intensive than some others. For instance, one participant described
in detail creating online videos. “Trying to do this yourself is tough. What I have
learned is that when I’m doing a video, if I want to be efficient then it is best for me to
write a script. I may not always follow it exactly, but it helps to lay out your thoughts”

(Case 90). He went on to describe the lengthy process of shooting close-ups, adding

121

scene changes, lighting and sound, at which he said he was not professional. “It is what it
is right now. Yes, time, because I’m pretty good at picking up on technology.”

One interviewee said, “I think [a barrier is] lack of support amongst leadership and
staff that don’t feel comfortable using it [technology]. I might feel fine exploring a new
technology, but I think there is a lot of resistance on the part of other folks.” She went on
to say that the leadership needed to come fiom MSU Extension both locally and
statewide and that her county was further along than MSU Extension. She said the
platform on which to place educational technologies “doesn’t support a lot of that easily”
She went on to specify, “Leadership for doing anything outside the existing system is
lacking” and said she would be told she could not use any other platform (Case 172).
Another participant described turf (his word) issues as being a “huge” barrier, with
money as a secondary barrier. He went on to cite not being allowed to place items on the
MSUE portal as being a big issue for him but said that after fighting the battle for five
years he really did not care anymore (Case 239).

Several interviewees said that money was not available for creating online
educational content and that they also had to purchase some equipment personally. One
explained,

Cost is probably the biggest barrier. I’d like to have the biggest and the fastest,
and obviously that is limited. I would like to have an integrated Palm Pilot phone,
but that is pretty costly, and I pay for my own Palm Pilot so that is a personal cost
for me. I guess money would be the biggest barrier to taking some of the next
Egfltpschnology. I don’t think it is a knowledge issue. I think I could learn it.

Another individual gave a similar response: “I want a BlackBerry with a wireless printer”

(Case 239).

122

Future of Technolrgyand Their Wogr

This group of participants talked a lot about taking MSU Extension online to
learners of the future by creating a web presence or utilizing technology to access
information, thereby providing a quality experience for clientele. In some cases they
simply hoped to take their current educational programs and make them more easily
accessible and web based (Case 172), and in others they described in detail how they saw
themselves providing answers and problem solving for clientele.

One interviewee said she had a vision of an online presence in a type of blog or chat
where she could answer clientele’s questions in real time via chat or by taking them to
various Internet links. “I think we need to because this is how folks are learning.” She
went on to say, “I’d like to see MSU take a greater stand on what is research based and
providing that information in our program areas, like really good web links.” She said
she did not necessarily mean that is where MSU Extension was going to go but where she
thought it should go. “I think we are doing the best we can. We invest so much Of our
money into our people, and my county has to pay for it [technology]. The county budget
is shrinking and it is hard to take this next step without an investment fi'om the
university” (Case 14). Another said, “Obviously, the technology for teaching and
learning is going to be on demand. It may be that might require us to charge something
for it.” He described seeing an educational module online at another university “where
you can watch a lecture on your screen and you see the speaker and the PowerPoint and
you go through it just like you were there. You see the speaker off to the side, and you
see the main stuff. The good ones have an outline at the bottom of what’s gone by and

what’s coming up, and you can skip ahead” (Case 90). He said there are professional

123

companies that will produce that type of material but that “Extension is playing around
with the rudimentary-type stuff like that, but it’s just not advanced enough for what I call
prime time.” A third participant also saw web-based learning modules as a future
direction for Extension, but “I say that with reluctance. I say that because I’ve now done
that enough times that I am extremely aware of how much more work it is to put
something on the web. It is a much bigger investment of time and effort. I think society
is moving in that direction whether we want to or not. The web based is four times the
amount of commitment than producing the same content face to face” (Case 196).
Envisioning the future, one participant said that although he grew up in a generation
that read books, his children’s generation are more likely to get their information from
the Internet and to do so without being in any specific spot.
So I can see if people remain in gardening and they are out there and see
something on their tomatoes, they want to know what it is now. They are not
going to wait for someone who is going to be in the office Monday through
Friday from eight to five, but if they can go to the Internet and look at a page
where they can see the insect and say “that is my problem” and click it and they
get a video or download some written information, or even a little audio clip that
says “you have this, this is how you deal with it.” (Case 90)

Participants described being able to get a lot of information to many people as a
need. One said e-mail made it a lot easier and faster than trying to send hard copies out
via regular mail. “We get a lot of information fiom around the world, and there is a
tremendous amount of information. It is like an hourglass and we are the middle section,
so it is like a bottleneck. We need to find a way to widen that part, and probably the
Internet is the most reasonable way to do that” (Case 90). Another interviewee described

a future in which he would be able to access publications with a wireless device to give

clientele what they need. “I want to be able to pull up the publications that I want, and I

124

can see working out in a truck with a wireless printer that plugs into an ac adapter or the
lighter and just going to town. That’s the way to do it” (Case 239). He also noted that he
wanted to go beyond working online and provide a more individualized experience for
his clientele: “1 think that the nature of our work is that it needs to be high touch, so using
the technology to create a high-touch experience that’s incredibly rich in knowledge is

9,

key.

Summa_ry

MSU Extension field staff’s responses fi'om the interview portion of this study were
presented in this chapter. The participants (n = 15) represented all program areas and
regions of the state. The participants were divided into three groups on the basis of their
reported level of actual use of technology. Each group was asked the same questions,
and their responses were summarized in this chapter, starting with the low users, then
middle users, and finally high users. The participants’ voices fiequently were reflected in
direct quotations to convey their perceptions and experiences with technology in their
work with MSU Extension. These perceptions and experiences varied greatly by level of
use and provided insights into the individual participants’ abilities, attitudes, and beliefs

regarding technology. Table 5.1 gives a summary of the interview results.

125

Table 5.1

Summary of Interview Results (N =1 5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Use Medium Use High Use
Participants Participants Participants
Actual Use Word processing, e- Word processing, e- Word processing, e-mail, IM,
of mail, limited use of mail, Publisher, on line calendars, data bases,
Technology Power Point and Power Point, intemet digital camera, digital video,
Publisher (can’t search, Excel, Adobe Palm Pilot, Zope, Proganda,
always create their Connect Corel, WP, Web Expressions,
own PP slides) Frontline
Usefulness Word Processing Word processing and All aspects of computers, and
and Ease of and e-mail were e-mail as well as internet access for
Use most useful and PowerPoint. online teaching and learning
easiest
Technology None or possibly Adobe Connect Phones that are integrated into
they would more of the same Outlook Exchange for their computers, wireless
like to use calendars printers, high and equipment
Possibly online
learning
Choice Because they have See someone else Sometimes try new
to use to mostly using it or hear about technologies for fun and then
technology it figure out how to use them.
Will it save them time? Be
more efficient?
How they One-on-one tutoring Class with follow up Mostly self taught, read
learn or hands on class assistance one on one, manuals, go on line to find the
learn by doing but answer, play with the software,
need someone to Like professional development
guide them classes combined with
’ conferences.
Barriers to Their attitude, lack Think clientele prefer Money, time for production,
Use of confidence, face to face, lack of lack of support for going out of
thinking they are the skills, lack of desire, the box, lack of platforms to
old generation somebody else’s put work on
problem
Future of Maybe no change or Web conferences via Wireless conductivity, on line
technology possibly some web Adobe Connect or learning modules that can be
and their conferences to save possible SNS for 4-H, accessed from any location (on
work money possible learning on an iPhone etc)

 

 

line, but no specific
vision

 

High touch enhanced with high
tech that is rich in knowledge
Learner oriented

 

126

 

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

Introduction

In the previous two chapters, the researcher described the results of the study survey
and interviews in both quantitative and qualitative terms. The demographics of the
MSUE educators as well as their access to technology and actual use of technology for
their work were discussed in Chapter IV. Also described were their perceptions of
usefulness and ease of use and of their preparedness to use technology, as well as
perceptions of support from both MSUE and local sources. The results of the interviews
conducted with 15 of the educators were reported in Chapter V, providing a more
detailed description of how educators used technology, and their perceptions of
usefulness and ease of use. The issues were discussed in detail, using the educators’ own
voices to describe how they decided to use technology, how they learned to use it, and
what they saw as barriers to using technology. Ideas educators had about the future of
technology in their work also were shared. This chapter contains an examination of the
results described in Chapters IV and V in light of the literature discussed in Chapter II
and what is known about today’s knowledge organizations, the adoption of information
technology, acceptance of information technology, use of information technology by
educators, and what we know about professional development and training of adults.
This literature was used to analyze findings from this study concerning MSU Extension
educators’ access to technology, preparedness to use technology, actual use of

technology, perceptions of usefulness and ease of use, and support and training.

127

Access to Technology

A review of the literature as discussed in Chapter 11 revealed that access to
technology has been found to affect how much and in what way educators use it.
Previous research on the use of technology by school teachers (Becker, 2001; Cuban et
al., 2001; Zhao & Frank, 2003) indicated that although providing technology for teachers
did not guarantee they would use it, those teachers who had to share technology
scheduled its use with some central source (such as a computer laboratory); further, those
who were not in close proximity to technology were less apt to integrate it into their
classrooms. In 1999, Owen found that in North Carolina Extension, ease of access to
technology was a predictor of actual use by educators.

In Michigan, providing technology for individual Extension educators traditionally
has been the responsibility of the local county. MSUE has invested in technology for the
organization as a whole through purchases of systemwide technologies. These include
satellite dishes purchased for every county in the 1990s and more recently, in 2005, the
MSUE portal, which provides shared workspaces, and web publishing of any type of file,
including text documents, PowerPoint slide shows, and video and audio files. However,
the counties where the educators worked were expected to provide personal computers,
Internet access, and digital technology peripherals such as cell phones, personal digital
assistants, printers, scanners, and software. Access to the MSUE portal as a publishing
platform was controlled by local county policies.

The results reported in Chapters IV and V indicated that, at the most rudimentary
level, MSU Extension educators had adequate access to technology hardware and the

Internet for most of their needs. All (100%) had a computer (either a desktop or

128

notebook and in some cases both), and 96% had high-speed access to the Internet in their
offices. However, these were not always provided for them by the county, as would be
expected. It was not unusual for educators personally to purchase technology or generate
funds through writing grants in order to meet their needs for access. Furthermore,
educators reported that computers and other peripheral technologies often were outdated
and sometimes shared with other educators, making availability of these tools sometimes
problematic if they had to make arrangements for use or if the tools were too outdated to
be dependable and efficient. That educators ofien purchased equipment for themselves or
were entrepreneurial in obtaining funds through writing technology acquisitions into
grant applications showed that the counties did not provide them adequate access to
technology. In fact, “if you want it badly enough, buy it yom'self or find someone to pay
for it” seemed to be normal operating procedure for Extension educators when it came to
technology. All but four technologies (CD-ROM burners, webcams, scanners, and DVD
burners) were used more often than they were provided because educators purchased the
technology themselves or went out of their way to find a fimding resource themselves.
Although the majority (65%) of the educators agreed their access to technology was
adequate, access to technology was tmeven. Some educators in larger and presumably
more urban counties reported having more access than those in smaller, more rural
counties. This created a sort of digital divide among educators, with some reporting that
they thought their counterparts in bigger counties had better access to technology.
Access to hardware was not the only issue that was uncovered in the research. In certain
instances, local county IT staff placed limits on access to some Internet sites, and some

educators had no ability to place items on the MSUE portal personally because local

129

policies controlled access . Such limitations to access caused fi'ustration among some

educators, which could lead to less use of technology.

Preparedness to Use Technology

Having technology expertise, being more educated, being professional engaged, and
being adequately prepared to integrate technology into educational programming have
been shown in previous research to be strong predictors of actual use of technology. This
has been evidenced in studies of teachers’ use of technology in education, as well as in
research on Extension educators’ use of technology. In fact, in the National Science
Foundation’s Teaching, Learning and Computing survey, technical expertise was the
most influential factor in teachers’ successful use of technology (Becker, 1998). Becker
also discovered that teacher leaders who were better educated (had graduate degrees) and
more professionally engaged (interacted more in their schools and communities) were
more prepared to use technology. Even exemplary teachers who were awarded
technology grants were more apt to be successful when they were well prepared (Zhao et
al., 2002). In previous research on Extension educators’ use of technology (Albright,
2000; Edwards, 2004; Emmons, 2002; Gregg, 2002), relationship was found between
being prepared to use technology and Extension educators’ use of technology.

According to their own online portal (http://www.msue.msu.edu/portal) MSU
Extension considers preparedness to use educational and information technology one of
ten core competencies for exemplary Extension educators. MSU Extension’s core-
competency initiative was launched in 1993-94. In 2001, MSU Extension conducted a
comprehensive review of educators’ professional development needs with the goal of

creating an integrated, organization-wide system to serve the needs of educators. A self-

130

assessment component was added in 2006. Each core competency includes indicators of
competency, a list of learning activities for developing the competency, and a list of key
written resources. It is up to the educators to use self-assessment and create their own
professional improvement plans each year with support from their supervising County
Extension Directors or regional supervisors.

Almost half (46%) of the educators who participated in this study thought they were
prepared to a small or a moderate extent to use technology in their educational
programming. Only 10% reported they were entirely prepared to use technology in their
programming. The most common source of knowledge about the use of technology was
independent learning, followed by interactions with other staff. The third most common
source of knowledge was fi'iends and family outside of MSU Extension. The sources
from which respondents were least likely to obtain their knowledge about technology
were any types of classes, whether offered by MSU Extension, organizations outside of
MSU Extension, or as part of their formal education. None of the educators described
using the materials provided through the MSUE professional development library to
increase their preparedness, although they were not specifically asked about this resource.

It is not a surprise that the educators did not learn to use technology as part of their
college education because the majority graduated fiom college before digital technology
was integrated into college curricula. This is evidenced by the fact that 78% of the
educators were 36 or older, and 50% had more than 10 years of experience with MSUE.
Having an advanced degree has been found to be an indicator of being prepared to use
technology, with teachers who have master’s degrees being more inclined to use

technology than those who do not have advanced degrees. And although in most states a

131

master’s degree is a minimum requirement for employment as an Extension educator,
until recently this has not been the case in Michigan. At the time of this study, only 62%
of MSU Extension’s educators had a master’s or doctorate degree.

Half of the educators were neutral or did not think they had adequate training in the
use of technology; only 6% strongly agreed that they had adequate training in the use of
technology. Lack of training often was linked with lack of time to attend training,
especially because most training involved a lengthy drive to a distant location. There was
also a lack of time to play with and figure out new technologies. This was a factor the
majority (77%) of educators said was an issue. Certainly the role of Extension educator
is time consuming and complex, similar to that of teachers. Cuban (2001) said that the
two major barriers to teachers’ use of technology was lack of time and lack of technical
support and that until these issues were resolved, technology would be something
administrators think educators should use but that they seldom really would use. Casey
and Harris (2004) advised that organizations need to focus more on integrating
technology into the cultm'e of the organization and less on pm'chasing the latest and
greatest technology. They believed it was an organizational problem that led to a lack of
time for planning and personal exploration of technology, as well as to other barriers such
as lack of training and expertise of educators, and called for a change in organizational

culture, vision, and leadership regarding technology integration.

Actual Use of Technology
Research on the diffusion of technology into society and organizations served as a
useful framework for studying the diffusion of information technology in Extension.

However it should be noted that the rate of change of technology has increased

132

exponentially in the last decade and some of the previous research on technology
adoption may need to be reevaluated. Interestingly, it was the early research of Ryan and
Gross (1943) in which they examined Extension’s role in the adoption of hybrid seed
corn by farmers in Iowa that was the inception of research on technology diffusion.
Although innovation—diffusion theory (Rogers, 2003) is used to illustrate how technology
moves from invention to widespread use or nonuse, the characteristics that influence
diffusion also can be used in examining acceptance or adoption of information
technology in an organization (Carr, 1999). Rogers (2003) claimed that Extension has
been reported to be one of the world’s most successful change agencies and said, “the
agriculture extension model is an integrated system for the innovation-development
process” (p. 165). It follows, then, that if Extension educators are in the business of
encouraging change and adoption of new practices among clientele, they themselves
would be early adopters and innovators on Rogers’s bell- shaped curve of technology
adoption.

Similar rates of adoption of technology were found in the Apple Classrooms of
Tomorrow project (Sandhotz & Reilly, 2004), in which researchers identified five stages
in teachers’ progression through the integration of information technology, which were
similar to the concept advanced by technology—diffusion theories. The five stages are
entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention.

Actual use of technology by Extension educators can be analyzed by examining the
types of technologies the educators used and how often they used them, as well as by
examining the ways the educators used technology. Types of technolOgies that educators

used included communication technologies (cell phones, e-mail, and word processing),

133

presentation technologies (PowerPoint), digital-image technologies (used to create
multimedia products), and Internet and web technologies (web pages, blogs, search
engines), which can be used to gather information or to create and share information
when data and knowledge are manipulated. All of the Extension educators in this study
used the communication technologies on a weekly or even daily basis, showing that they
were at the adoption phase for these technologies. Presentation technologies were used
by most of the educators, but many were still in the entry stage, in which they were just
learning to use the technologies. This was evidenced by the fact that they knew how to
set up 'a PowerPoint presentation and use one created by someone else, but were not yet
at the stage where they could create such presentations.

The actual use of digital image editing and web and Internet technologies, however,
showed very different results. Michigan Extension educators had adopted Internet search
engines as a method of finding information for their work. Most used search engines or
went online to look for information, either daily or more than once a week However,
some low users still had not adopted Internet technology, as evidenced by the educator
who said he tried to stay away from the Internet. “It’s one of those deals where if I am
using it and I’m on it, I’ll use it for two hours, so I am careful with the Internet.” He
went on to explain that he had a difficult time locating what he needed and found this
frustrating. Frustration might have been preventing this educator from moving through
the stages of adoption. Emmy-stage experiences were found to be critical to subsequent
use of technology, and many teachers historically have failed to integrate information
"technology into their classrooms due to frustrations with technology early in their

experience. This is because the teachers focused on their lack of technical expertise

134

rather than on how information technology could be used (Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004).
Jacobsen (1998) said that those who are limited adopters may be so because they lack
support and training.

When it came to the publishing or creating processes afforded by the Internet, most
Extension educators were not even at the entry level of adoption. A majority of them
never had carried out most web-publishing tasks; 97% never had edited a wiki, 89%
never had exchanged instant messages, 85% never had used graphics editing, 76% never
had published anything on a website or blog, and 73% never had published anything on
the MSUE portal. Most of those who had published on a website or the MSUE portal did
so once a month or less often, suggesting they were early in the entry or adoption phase.
This group had a tendency to expect someone else to put material on a website (either the
MSUE portal or a county website). Koehler and Mishra (2008) referred to the practice of
expecting someone else to do the technical part as an SEP or “somebody else’s problem”
notion of technology. They viewed the job as an Extension educator in a county versus
one as a program leader on campus or a specialist in technology as being in different
domains, each with its own specialty.

A small minority of Extension educators in the study used all of the communication
technologies employed by the other educators, but they also used instant messaging,
online calendars, and personal digital assistants, and were engaged in creating online
content consisting of web pages, audio files, and multimedia presentations. These
educators had moved past the adoption phase and were skilled in adaptation,
appropriation, and invention with technology. They were the innovators and early

adopters on Rogers’s (2003) curve.

135

These educators were using technology in integrated or innovative ways, which
requires a fluency of technology use in which the user understands the affordances and
constraints of a technology and can manipulate it to meet their needs within the context
of the problem. Ching, Basharn, and Jang (2005) described such educators as “full
spectrum frequency” users, who had a high degree of use across the spectrum of
technology types. If educators are firll-spectrum—frequency users and innovative and
generative in their use of technology for their work, and they have a deep understanding
of their programming content as well as learning theory, they can integrate the three

spheres of Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) Venn diagram TPACK.

Usefulness Mase of Use of Temlggy

Many researchers investigating the use of technology have determined that
usefulness and ease of use of any individual technology are predictors of its acceptance.
(Davis, 1989; Legris et al., 2003; Mathieson et al., 2001; Szajna, 1996; Wang & Bright,
2004) Research on the acceptance of or resistance to information technology has been
conducted in an attempt to predict how users will react to a new technology within an
organizatiOnal context. Dillon and Morris (1996) defined user acceptance as the
willingness to use information technology in performing the tasks it is designed to
support. Some individuals resist using information technology even when it might lead to
enhanced performance (Swanson, 1988). Davis (1989) said that users will tend to
employ the technology to the extent they believe it will help them perform their jobs
better. This was a familiar-pattern in the comments and interviews in this study when
educators said they would use technology, “If I have to” or said technology was a

requirement of their work.

136

This research showed that almost all MSUE educators used and therefore had
accepted communications technologies such as word processing and e-mail and to a
lesser extent cell phones. Most also used presentation and publication technologies such
as PewerPoint and Publisher to prepare and present educational material to their clientele
with a reasonable amount of facility and fairly often. However, many low users reported
not being able to create or having little working knowledge of these technologies other
than how to set up their PowerPoint presentations or to direct an assistant to make
changes for them. Investigation of use of presentation technologies by Extension
educators indicated that they found those technologies useful in their work.

Most educators also used the Internet to search for information on a daily basis.
However, the majority did not use and never had used most Internet web technologies,
even though they had the basic equipment (computers and high-speed Internet access) to
do so. This lack of use of Internet technologies has been shown to be due to the
educators’ own lack of knowledge and preparedness, as well as a belief that the
technologies would not be used by their clientele and/or would be difficult to use. Many
believed this type of technology use in Extension, if it is used in the future, would be up
to “somebody else,” presumably one with knowledge of technology and desire to use it
than they have.

It is interesting that those educators whose use of technology was low or medium
compared to high-use educators often said that their clientele would not use or would
have limited access to technology, and they cited that as a reason not to use some
technologies. In contrast, educators with high technology use described technology as

being a useful tool to reach clientele and something that enabled them to provide more

137

customized educational material in new and innovative ways. Those high-use educators
viewed clientele as wanting to access the information in new ways and described their
jobs as almost requiring that they deliver information to clients with the speed,
customizing, and asynchronous affordances of the lntemet.

Educators referred to using only technology that was easy to use. A number of
educators said that one source of fi'ustration was that the MSUE portal was difficult to
use, and some high users even said they had “given up” on it. Davis’s (1989)
Technology Acceptance model demonstrated that both usefulness and ease of use were
important predictors of individuals’ intention to use and actual use of any particular

technology, which explains the relatively low use of the MSUE portal by most educators.

General and Technical Sumrt and Training

Previous researchers have reported that general support of technology by the
leadership of an organization and superior technical support and training are important
predictors of technology use (Albright, 2000; Becker, 2001; Emmons, 2003; Sandholtz &
Reilly, 2004; Zhao, 2003). Taylor and Todd (1996) said that the culture of an
organization, as well as attitudes of administrators and colleagues, can influence attitudes
and behaviors of individuals and therefore can influence acceptance and use of
information technology.

MSU Extension has demonstrated a commitment to the use of technology by
investing in systemwide technology (the portal) and by including education and
information technology as a core competency for educators. Educators indicated they
agreed that MSUE encouraged the use of technology to enhance educational

programming, and that MSUE administration supported the use of technology. However,

138

there also was evidence of frustration with both the portal and lack of access to
equipment, training, and technical support. MSUE’s policy whereby personal
technological equipment and software were provided by the cormties created a digital
divide between counties because local budgets and technical expertise varied
considerably. This was noted in both comments and interviews.

Goldman (1995) said that agile organizations aggressively embrace change and use
technology to help them be more responsive to their customers. This sentiment was
echoed by Senge (2000), who said information technology can be used to make learning
moreefficient and effective as knowledge is shared effortlessly across the organization.
This, in turn, can result in increased flexibility, agility, and responsiveness. The flattened
organizational structure of Extension in Michigan can serve to make it flexible and
responsive to local concerns. However, it is important that all educators have equal
access to technology, training, and support. In order for this to be possible, though, there
needs to be equal access to technical and training support for employees.

The study findings indicated that technical support usually (72%) was supplied to
educators by their local county office; another 5% of educators got their technical support
from campus. This left 23% or almost one fourth of all Extension educators who had to
seek technical support from other sources, which included friends, family members, local
private sources, or colleagues; such support usually was less than adequate. Previous
researchers have found that even when individuals were exemplary users of technology
(Zhao et al., 2002), technological proficiency, distance from technological resources, and
dependence on technological resources were predictors of success. Those closest to

support and with the most support had the greatest success in implementing new

139

technology into educational programs. In the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (Sandholtz
& Reilly, 2004) project, researchers found that having a centralized technical support
system that allowed teachers to concentrate on integrating the technology into their
education resulted in fewer technical glitches, thus giving teachers more time to work and
play with the system.

Quality technology support, according to Dexter, Anderson, and Ronnkvist (2002),
consists of access to one-on-one personal guidance, opportunity to participate in
technology-oriented professional support among peers, professional development content
focused on instruction, and access to resources. Educators in some counties within MSU
Extension were fortunate to have excellent local support that was available to assist them
in problem solving and learning new skills. However, many educators believed they
were lacking effective support and said they would use technology more if they had
better support as well as support people who better understood their programming needs.
This study has indicated that Extension educators believed they would use technology
more if they had better access to the training they thought they needed and often were
frustrated by not knowing how to do what they wanted to do. The organization of MSU
Extension has been shown to be supportive of educators.’ using technology, but some
educators perceived that Extension had misdirected their support by providing technology
that was difficult to use and not necessarily what the educators believed they needed. In
addition, although some counties appeared to be providing excellent technical support for
their educators, many others were unable to do so, leaving educators, especially those in
smaller counties, to struggle on their own or to seek out friends and family members to

assist them.

140

 

Training is essential to the proficient use of technology in education, as has been
demonstrated by previous researchers in both K-12 education and Extension. Adult
learning theory (Knowles et al., 2000) involves a process-design plan make a number of
assumptions about adults: Adults bring their own life experiences to the process that
need to be acknowledged, they need to know why they need to learn something and why
it is relevant to their lives, they prefer experiential hands-on learning, they approach
learning as problem solving, and they learn best when the topic is of immediate value in
their lives. In research on technology use by Extension educators in other states, Albright
(2000) found that the majority of these educators had not attended any in-service
workshop on technology in the previous several years, even when it was offered to them.
Albright concluded that although the educators were offered training, they did not see a
reason for it; thus, motivating might be an important factor in getting educators to attend
training. The educators in the present study indicated that they learned best in a hands—on
setting combined with access to one-on-one follow-up assistance. They said the training
they needed was not available, or if it was, they were unable to attend due to time
constraints or distance.

Extension educators have been offered training on use of the MSUE portal, even
though some educators said they were not allowed to attend or had no access to the
training. In addition, a self-assessment tool and books on information technologies are
available through the MSUE professional development library. However, because the
majority of Extension educators are not using Internet technologies or the portal, it is

clear that additional and alternate training needs to be provided to them.

141

Summa_ry

In this study, the researcher investigated the perceptions of MSUE educators
regarding the use of technology in their work. Educators’ access to technology, their
preparation to use it, and their actual use of technology have been described in
quantitative terms and in their own words. The researcher also examined Extension
educators’ perceptions of usability and ease of use of technology and their perceptions of
general and technical support and training that they had and needed. It was found that
although the educators had access to basic technology and were creative in obtaining
what they needed and wanted to use, many thought they needed better access to
technology. The majority of educators used communication technologies on a daily basis
and were comfortable with using them. All of the educators used presentation
technologies, but most did so at a mechanical level without integrating or being
generative in their use. Only a minority of educators used Internet and web technologies,
and 75% never had placed content on any kind of website themselves. Many educators
were frustrated by lack of training and thought using more advanced technologies was
somebody else’s problem and not something either they or their clientele were
comfortable with. However, some educators were creating multimedia content and
finding new and creative ways to integrate technology into their education and strongly
believed it could help them provide better and more easily accessible education for their
clientele. These educators need more training that would help them discover ways to
integrate technology into their educational programming. This training needs to be

combined with better technical support that is local and easy to access, to assist Extension

142

 

educators in reaching their goals. Recommendations for training and for future research

are presented in the next chapter.

143

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to review the objectives of the study and the method
of investigation, to summarize the major findings, and to present conclusions and
recommendations both for support of the use of technology by Michigan Extension and

for further research.

Mary of the Study,

Need for the Study

The Cooperative Extension Service is an organization reported to be one of the
world’s most successful change agencies. Its mission is to help people improve their
lives through an educational process that applies knowledge to critical needs, issues, and
opportunities. At the heart of Extension’s mission is its ability to be flexible, creative,
and innovative in finding ways to meet the needs of citizens through education.
Educators work within the context of local counties, where there are many constraints as
well as opportunities. Extension educators’ jobs are demanding and time consuming, and
these individuals work in local communities that vary considerably. The tools of a
successful educator have changed over time, and as the technology available to them has
become digital it has also become opaque, protean, and unstable. In today’s world, using

technology for education appropriately and effectively is becoming increasingly difficult.

Purpose of the Study
The researcher’s purpose in this study was to understand MSUE educators’

perceptions of the usefulness of technology in accomplishing their goals as educators, as

144

well as their perceptions of the ease of use of the technologies that they chose to use and

were required to use and how this influenced their intention to use information

technology, their actual use of information technology, and their needs for support and

training in the use of technology.

Obiectives of the Studj

Research objectives for the study were:

1.

To describe the following demographic characteristics of Michigan State
University Extension (MSUE) educators: gender, age, years of work experience
with MSUE, major program assignment, position held in the organization,
geographic area of coverage of responsibilities, and highest level of education
attained.
To identify and describe perceptions of MSUE educators regarding:

a. the usefulness of information technology in their work.

b. the ease of use of information technology in their work.
To identify and describe the technologies that MSUE educators have available
for their work.
To identify and describe the perceptions of MSUE educators regarding:

a. their preparedness for using technology in their work.

b. their behavioral intention to use information technology in their work.

c. their actual use of information technology in their work.
To identify and describe the perceptions of MSUE educators regarding:

a. the general support of their use of technology for programming by

MSUE.

145

b. the technical support they receive.

6. To identify and describe the perceptions of MSUE educators regarding their
need for training and professional development in the use of information
technology in their work.

7. To analyze information obtained about MSUE educators in order to facilitate:

a. the design and planning of in-service training in information technology.

b. the support of Extension educators in their use of information technology.

Limitations of the Study

This study was exploratory in nature. The findings were limited to the perceptions
of Michigan Extension educators, and it was assumed that the educators were truthful and
open in their responses to the survey and the interviews. There may be additional factors“
not considered by the researcher or not evident in the findings that might have affected

the outcome of the study.

S_mary of Mlior Conclugigg

The conclusions that follow are based on the findings from this study and the
review of literature and previous research;

Almost all (96%) Extension educators had access to the basic technologies of
computers and high-speed access to the lntemet. However, access to additional
peripheral technologies often was lacking, and many educators provided these for
themselves out of personal funds or through writing grants. Opportunities need to be
provided for Extension educators to have access to the technologies they need in order to

be more effective in their work.

146

Almost all educators had adopted communications technology, but most were still
at the entry stage in the adoption of Internet technologies, especially any kind of web
publishing technology. Educators sometimes explained their lack of use of Internet
technologies as being because they did not want to use technology, found it difficult to
use, or they believed their clientele preferred a face-to-face method of learning. Most
Extension educators believed Internet technology was something that somebody else
should take care of for them. This somebody else was their secretary, local county
support stafl‘, or MSUE technology staff.

Technical support for the use of technology usually was provided by the local
county. However, Extension educators’ perceptions of that support were mixed; some
were very satisfied, whereas others were frustrated by lack of adequate support. One
quarter of educators turned to family, friends, local private sources, and colleagues for
their technical support because it was not provided to them. Better technological support
is needed.

Many Extension educators had experienced fi'ustration in working with technology,
and especially with working with the MSUE portal. Previous research has indicated that
' once people experience unresolved fi'ustration with a technology, it is difficult to get
them to try to use the technology again. Because the MSUE portal was designed to be
the primary platform for Internet applications for Extension in Michigan, it follows that
this fi'ustration might have caused some educators not to use Internet technologies as
much as they might have otherwise.

A small number of the Extension educators in this study were creative, innovative,

and generative in how they used technology in their work. These educators might serve

147

 

as an excellent resource for low- or medium-use educators if given an opportunity to
share their expertise and might be able to demonstrate specific successful experiences

that can serve as a basis for future training and support.

General Recommendation

1. Considering that MSUE has moved away fiom campus areas of expertise to a
model of creating areas of expertise throughout its personnel system, a priority
of MSUE in'the future should be to ensure that all board-appointed personnel
are competent in the use of digital and Internet technologies in order to remain
technically competent and make sure that clientele have the most up-to-date
information.

2. In order for MSUE to be more effective and responsive in the future and to
have the potential for maximizing its efforts, a high priority should be given to

making technology a part of MSUE culture.

Recommendations for Training and Sumrt
1. Provide additional training to support the use of technology by Extension
educators in Michigan. This training needs to emphasize the integration of
technology, content, and learning strategies and must help educators recognize
the many affordances cf Internet technology for their work.
2. Develop a resource guide giving practical ways to use technology to enhance
educational programming in Extension, with links to available resources that

are free or inexpensive.

148

. Incorporate technology, as appropriate, into all Extension conferences, where
educators will see it demonstrated and can assess the affordances of the
technology.
. Identify one Extension educator fi'om each region and program area who is
successfully integrating technology into programming and employ their
assistance as mentors and trainers for other staff. Create an area-of—expertise
technology team with these staff members and assist them with implementing
educational programs and technical assistance for local counties.
. . Work with County Extension Directors to identify local technological support
and training needs and assist them in securing needed technical assistance and
training. ’

Recommendations for Support of Low-Use Edume
. Emphasize ways technology can meet educators’ needs and the needs of their
clientele.
. Demonstrate easy, inexpensive (fi'ee) ways to use technology to enhance
programming so they can be successful.
. Identify technology mentors to assist with both technology support and

training to reduce frustration.

Recommendations for Smpnofl of Medium-Use Educators
. Develop better local and regional technology support so educators are willing
to take more risks.

. Provide more complete access to technology and more regional training.

149

3. Emphasize usability of technology for local programming and benefits to

clientele

Recommendations for Sumrt of High-Use Educators
1. Be sure all high-use educators have access to the MSUE portal or an alternate

form of website development.

2. Provide in-depth classes on web page design, image editing, and video and
audio editing while integrating content and learning theory.

3. Emphasize design, creativity, and innovation in technology integration.

4. Give educators who integrate technology into their programming recognition

for their accomplishments.

Recommendations for Further Resear_Lh

This study was exploratory in nature and has provided a description of how MSUE
educators use technology in their work, their access to technology, perceptions of its
usefulness, and their needs for support and training. This study adds to the literature
regarding the use of technology by Extension educators, but it was not a comprehensive
investigation of the subject and was limited to the perceptions of Extension educators in
one state. There are many opportunities for further research that would add to the body
of knowledge and provide more information about ways in which educators can use
technology more effectively in their work, as well as how support and training might
encourage and enable educators to move from limited mechanical use of technology to a

more generative and innovative level of use. Suggestions for further research are:

150

. Case studies of individual counties that might serve as models for support of
technology use. This approach has been used successfully in research on the
use of technology by teachers in a school setting and could be adapted to
Extension.

. Research on technology use by programming area, using focus groups of
individuals to gather data on challenges of using technology within the
constraints of a particular programming effort.

. Case studies of high-technology-use individuals to provide models for how
educators develop their ability and skills in using technology effectively and
creatively.

. A longitudinal study of Extension educators’ use of technology before and
after an appropriate in-service training that integrates technology into
educational programming to examine the effect of the in-service.

. Research on technology use in multiple states to examine how organizational

structure or support of technology use can affect the actual use.

151

 

 

APPENDICES

152

 

E-Mail Supporting Research .L

Subject: Support for Technology Study

Greetings

This week you should receive a survey packet in the mail entitled “Perceptions of MSUE
County Extension Directors and Extension Educators of the use of Technology in their
Wor ”. This study consists of two parts. The first is a census survey, meaning that all
County Extension Directors and Extension Educators on staff as of February 1, 2007 are
being surveyed. The second part of the study will involve interviews of selected staff.

Elizabeth Wells, Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education in the
Department of CARRS at Michigan State University is conducting the research in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for her Ph.D.

The survey is designed to take an in depth look at the technology staff have available and
how they use it as well as their thoughts about the usefulness and ease of use of
technology in their work. Data gathered from this study will be used to further plan and
guide our organizations use of technology in the future.

Completing the survey will take just 20 minutes of your time. It can be returned in the
self addressed stamped envelope provided for your use. A high rate of return will help
insure that this study is reflective of our staff’s perceptions of technology.

Please take the time to complete the survey and return it. Your assistance will be greatly
appreciated.

Thank you for your support of this important research project.

Sincerely,

Dr. Steven Lovejoy
Assistant Director MSUE

153

October 2007

(First Name, Last Name
Street Address
City, State, Zip)

Dear (First Name),

On behalf of MSU Extension and in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of PhD. in
the Agriculture and Extension Education in CARRS I am conducting a survey of all MSU
Extension Educators and County Extension Directors.

The purpose of the survey is to assess and analyze perceptions of Extension Agents regarding the
use of technology in Extension. The survey will also assess personal use of technology, including
ease of use, usefulness and actual use.

If would be very helpful to me if you would complete and return the enclosed questionnaire. I
anticipate it will take about 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Your participation is
voluntary and at any time during completion of the questionnaire you may decline to respond to
any given item. If you choose not to participate in this study or only partially participate, it will
result in no harm or adverse effect for you.

Some selected respondents will be invited to be interviewed so that I may gain a more in depth
understanding of the topic. Ifyou are willing to be included in the group of participants who may
be interviewed, you may write your name on the back of the questionnaire in the space provided
or you may call or e-mail me. If you are interviewed the interview will be taped and later
transcribed. The results will be written up using no descriptions that would identify you and an
alias will be used. All recordings and transcripts of the interview will be kept in a locked private
office.

Your responses are confidential. The return envelope and questionnaire have an identification
number that enables your name to be checked off the mailing list when the questionnaire is
returned. The envelope will then be discarded and your name will never be place onto the
completed questionnaire. The confidentiality of your response will be maintained to the ,
maximum extent permissible by law. All returned questionnaires will be kept in a locked private
office accessible only by myself and will be destroyed five years after the research is completed.
Filling out the questionnaire and return it indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in
this study

If you have questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached
at my office phone of 616-846-8250 or e-mail at wellselz@msu.edu. If you have any questions

about your rights as a participant, you can direct your questions to the Director of the University
Social Science, Behavioral and Education Institutional Review Board (SIRN) Dr. Peter Vasilenk,
Ph.D. at 517-355-2180.

I appreciate your help with this study. Thank you in advance. Enclosed you will find $1. as a
small token of my appreciation for your time and effort. I would appreciate your completing and

returning the questionnaire in the self address stamped envelope by November 1, 2007

Sincerely, Elizabeth Wells

154

 

Postcard Follow Up

Dear (Name)

Last week a questionnaire seeking your input about the use of technology in your work
was mailed to you. As a County Extension Director or Extension Educator your opinions
on this topic are important and can impact our organization for the future.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, thank you! In not, please
take the time to complete it today or as soon as possible. Your assistance with this study
will be greatly appreciated.

If you did not receive the questionnaire or it was misplaced, please call me at 616-846-
8250 or e-mail me at wellselz@msu.edu. Another packet will be mailed to you
immediately.

Again, thank you for your assistance for this important study.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Wells
Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education

155

November 24, 2007

Xxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear xxxxx,

About four weeks ago I wrote to you seeking your assistance with my study on the perceptions of
the use of technology in your work as an MSUE County Extension Director or Extension
Educator. As of today, I have not received your completed questionnaire.

The purpose of the survey is to assess and analyze perceptions of Extension Agents regarding the
use of technology in Extension. The survey will also assess personal use of technology, including
ease of use, usefulness and actual use. Your response is important since it will help us to chart
future directions for the use of technology in our organization.

If would be very helpful to me if you would complete and return the questionnaire. I anticipate it
will take about 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Your participation is voluntary and at
any time during completion of the questionnaire you may decline to respond to any given item. If
you choose not to participate in this study or only partially participate, it will result in no harm or
adverse effect for you.

In the event that your questionnaire ahs been misplaced, I have enclosed a replacement. If you
have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks and do
not respond a second time.

Be assured your responses are confidential. The return envelope and questionnaire have an
identification number that enables your name to be checked off the mailing list when the
questionnaire is returned. The envelope will then be discarded and your name will never be place
onto the completed questionnaire. The confidentiality of your response will be maintained to the
maximum extent permissible by law. All returned questionnaires will be kept in a locked private
office accessible only by myself and will be destroyed five years after the research is completed.
Filling out the questionnaire and return it indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in
this study

If you have questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached
at my office phone of 616-846-8250 or e-mail at wellselz@msu.edu. If you have any questions
about your rights as a participant, you can direct your questions to the Director of the University

Social Science, Behavioral and Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) Dr. Peter Vasilenk,
Ph.D. at 517—355-2180.

I appreciate your help with this study. Thank you for your assistance!
Sincerely,

Elizabeth Wells
Graduate Student in Agriculture and Extension Education

156

 

PERCEPTIONS OF MSUE
COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS AND EXTENSION EDUCATORS
OF THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THEIR WORK

Note: Some of the questions in this survey refer to your use of
technology in your professional life (at work) and
some of the questions refer to your use of technology
in your personal life (at home or elsewhere).

Please return survey to
Elizabeth Wells
Box XXX
Grand Haven, MI 49417

157

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY FOR YOUR WORK

Directions: Considering your county where you spend most of your time, what technologies are provided
for your use in your role as an Extension Educator or CED? And what technologies do you use (provided
by either your office or by yourself)

 

 

Provided for Do you use?

you?
PDA (personal digital assistant) ‘ Yes No Yes No
Desk top computer Yes No Yes No
High speed intemet access (cable or wireless) Yes No Yes No
[Pod or other digital music device Yes No Yes No
Portable DVD player Yes No Yes No
Lap top computer Yes No Yes No
Digital camera Yes No Yes No
Cell Phone Yes No Yes No
Color printer Yes No Yes No
GPS (hand held or auto) global positioning Yes No Yes No
system
Flatbed scanner Yes No Yes No
CD ROM burner Yes No Yes No
DVD burner Yes No Yes No
Webcam 7 Yes No Yes No
USB Flashdrive Yes No Yes No
DVR (digital video recorder such as TiVo) Yes No Yes No
Other (describe) Yes No Yes No
1.

Yes No Yes No
2.

Yes No Yes No
3.

 

PREPARATION FOR THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Directions: Tell us about your preparation for the use of Not at To a To a To a
technology. Where did your skills come from? all small moderat great Entirely
extent e extent extent

I As part of your college education (undergraduate or 1 2 3 ' 4 5
graduate)
In-service courses/workshops offered by MSUE l 2 3 4 5
Independent learning (e.g. online, tutorials, books, 1 2 3 4 5
on your own )
Interactions with other staff in your local office 1 2 3 4 5
From fiiends, relatives and acquaintances outside 1 2 3 4 5
of Extension
Classes offered by organizations other than MSUE l 2 3 4 5

Consider now how prepared you are for the use of technology in your work:

I feel adequately prepared for the use of technology in my 1 2 3 4 5
educational programming.

158

USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN YOUR WORK

Directions: Consider now your personal use of technology in
your work. Please answer the questions below as they relate
to your position as an Extension Educator or County
Extension Dimctor. These questions pertain to your actual
use of various technologies. (Do not count times you give an
assistant instructions to do it for you)

Go on line to research a subject related to work?

Use a search engine? (e.g. Google, Ask)

Send e-mails to groups of people within MSUE?

Get directions on line or use mapping sites before
traveling?

Use a cell phone?

Register for a conference, workshop or meeting on
line?

Use a fax machine?

Publish an article on a web site or blog (other than the
Portal)?

Update an online calendar?

Publish an article on the MSUE Portal?

Look up phone numbers, addresses etc on line

Use word processing software to create documents?
Use spreadsheets (e.g. Excel, Lotus)

Create or use databases (eg. Access,
Filemaker,0utlook)

Create or use presentation sofiware? (e.g. PowerPoint)
Use web publishing programs (e.g. Dreamweaver) to
update/create a website

Use graphics programs (e.g.) Freehand, Illustrator,
Fireworks)

Use desktop publishing programs (Publisher, Printshop)
Convert a document to Adobe? '
Send a file as an attachment to a colleague?

Set up or manage a list serve (discussion group) for
others/clientele

Exchange 1M (instant messages) w/ colleagues or
clientele?

Make changes or updates to a Wiki?

Other (specify)

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

159

a
Never month

—H‘~

Once Once

NNNN N MN NNNNNN N N NNNN

N

week

w wwww

WW

93 DJ wwwwww

wwuw

iiiii

b-lk bk h-B-b-fi-

AA-hvbA-b

##1##- -h dbl-b

A

Every

U1 LAMUIMIJIM MU} Ur MMLIIl/I

LII

MMMUI

USEFULLNESS AND EASE OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Directions: Please read the following statements
and circle the one response that best reflects your
level of agreement. Work includes all professional Strongly Strongly
activities and home includes all personal activities. Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
Technology is useful to me in my work.
Technology is useful to me at home.
Technology enriches my work life.
Technology enriches my home life.

Technology at wgrk is easy to use.

u—a r—I — u—I —s —e
N N N ‘ N N
w w w w w w
h A A A A
LII U! (It (I! M UI

Technology at home is easy to use.

CONFIDENCE AND COMFORT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Directions: Pbasemadheblbwingshtementsmddrdemeommspomemmstmfleasyourlevelof
agreement.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
I have had adequate training in the use 1 2 3 ' 4 5
of technology
I use technology effectively in my work 1 2 3 4 5
in Extension
Technology enhances my ability to 1 2 3 4 5
teach my clientele
I am comfortable using technology to l 2 3 4 5
educate others
I am comfortable with computer 1 2 3 4 5
technology -
I am developing expertise in the use of 1 2 3 4 5
technology in education
Incorporating multi-media enhances 1 2 3 4 5
educational programming ,
I am comfortable with learning to use 1 2 3 4 5
new technologies
I like to experiment with using 1 2 3 4 5
technology in new ways to enhance my
work with clientele

160

GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY AT WORK

Directions: Please read the following items and circle the one response that best represents your level of
agreement. General support refers to how people and admlnletraflon support you In your use of
technology, it does not refer to technical help that you may need when technology breaks down or when
you cannot solve a problem related to technology.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
I have adequate time to learn new technology I 2 3 4 5
skills.
I have sufficient access to technology for my 1 2 3 4 5
work.
I receive a sufficient level of technology support 1 2 3 4 5
in my county office.
MSUE Administration supports the use of 1 2 3 4 5
technology in Extension.
MSUE Administration actively encourages the l 2 3 4 5
use of technology to enhance programming '
efforts.
The training I need to improve my technology 1 2 3 4 5

skills is available to me.
I am encouraged to find new and innovative ways
to use technology to enhance my educational l 2 3 4 5
programming.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR WORK RELATED TECHNOLOGY USE

Directions: Tell us about who you go to when you have technical Issues and need support or assistance
with your technology in your role as an Extension Educator or CED. Answer the questions below as they relate
to your main source of technical support.

Who is your main source of technical support?
(Select one) D Local county technical support 1] Campus based technical support
D Other (please specify)

 

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
I have adequate support for problems that 1 2 3 4 5
arise.
My technical support person responds I 2 3 4 5
immediately to my request for assistance
I have adequate access to technical support 1 2 3 4 5
My support person(s) shows me techniques 1 2 3 4 5
for how to integrate technology into my
programming
I rarely need to seek technical support 1 2 3 4 5
I might use technology more if I had better 1 2 3 4 5
support

161

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE

Directions: Consider the technologies that you own or have available to you in your personal life. Do you own
or have_access to any of the followingjor personal use? (circle one) If you do have access or own these
items. do you use them? .

 

 

Do you have Do you use?

access?
PDA (personal digital assistant such as Blackberry or Yes No Yes No
Palm)
Desk top computer Yes No Yes No
High speed intemet access (cable or wireless) Yes No Yes No
IPod or other digital music device Yes No Yes No
Portable DVD player Yes No Yes No
Lap top computer Yes No Yes No
Digital camera Yes No Yes No
Cell phone Yes No Yes No
Color printer Yes No Yes No
GPS (hand held or auto) global positioning device Yes No Yes No
Flatbed scanner Yes No Yes No
CD ROM burner Yes No Yes No
DVD burner Yes No Yes No
Webcam Yes No Yes No
USB flashdrive Yes No Yes No
DVR (digital video recorder such as TiVo) Yes No Yes No

Other (specify) 1. Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No
2.
— Yes No Yes No
3.

 

162

 

PERSONAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY

More
than
Once Once once
per per per Every
Never month week week Day
Directions: Please consider your use of the following technologies for personal use at home or while traveling
and circle the number that describes your level of use

 

 

Use a cell phone? 1 2 3 ' 4 5
Go on line to research an item of interest 1 2 3 4 5
Purchase an item on line? 1 2 3 4 5
Send pictures to someone via e-mail or post pictures on 1 2 3 4 5
line?

Post messages to a discussion group involving a hobby I 2 3 4 5
or interest?

Send or receive group e-mails among friends or family? 1 2 3 4 5
Manage bank accounts or money on line? 1 2 3 4 5
Post to a personal web space or blog? 1 2 3 4 5
Use the internet to make travel arrangements? 1 2 3 4 5
Scan 3 document or picture? 1 2 3 4 5
Use e—mail to keep up to date with friends or family? 1 2 i 3 4 5
Use [M (instant messaging) or chat rooms? 1 2 3 4 5
Watch video clips of news or other items on line? 1 2 3 4 5
Download music or movies fiom the intemet? 1 2 3 4 5
Play games ? l 2 3 4 5
Use the intemet to find or buy movie tickets or other 1 2 3 4 5
entertainment?

Watch movies or television on a portable device (DVD) 1 2 4

Access contact information for friends and family on a 1 2 3 4 5
computer or other digital device?

Send animated greeting cards? 1 2 3 4

Use a USB Flashdrive to save or move data 1 2 3 4

Record or playback television programs or use a DVR 1 2 3 4 5
(digital video recording such as TiVo)

Other (Specify) 1 2 3 4 5
1.

2. l 2 3 4 ’5
3. 1 _ 2 3 4 5

 

163

TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY USE

Directions: Tell us about who you go to when you have technical issues and need support or
assistance with your technology for your personal use. Answer the questions below as they relate
to your main source of technical support

Who is your main source of technical support?

El friend or family member ['1 computer store or vendor F] paid computer consultant/service

 

CI other (specify)
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agme Strongly
Disagree Agree
I have adequate support for problems that arise. 1 2 3 4 5
My technical support person responds I 2 3 4 5
immediately to my request for assistance
I have adequate access to technical support 1 2 3 4 5
My support person(s) shows me techniques for 1 2 3 4 5
how to integrate technology into my life
I rarely need to seek technical support 1 2 3 4 5
I might use technology more if I had better 1 2 3 4 5
support

PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF

Gender: Cl Male E] Female
Region: E] Upper Peninsula D North I] Central E] South West El South East

Highest degree earned: D Bachelors [1 Masters [1 Doctorate

D Other (please specify) Major for highest degree

 

Program Area/Responsibility : (check all that apply)

El County Extension Director [1 Community and Economic
Development
El Agriculture and Natural Resources [3 Sea Grant
Cl Children, Youth and Families [J 4-H Youth Educator
D Other (please specify)

 

Total years experience in Extension:
[1 1-5years D6-10yearlel-15years D l6-20years D21-25years DOver25
years

Yourcurrent age: [1 under 25 D 26 to 35 C] 36 to 45 D 46 to 55 D 55
and above

164

Please tell us anything you would like to add or share about your use of technology or
about technology and Extension.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your assistance is greatly
appreciated.

A limited number of respondents will be selected to be interviewed about their
perceptions and experience with technology and Extension. All responses will be kept
confidential. If you are willing to be interviewed please indicate below and provide your
contact information or you may contact the researcher directly at wellselz@msu.edu or
by calling Elizabeth Wells at 616-846-8250.

[:I Yes I am willing to be interviewed about my experience and perceptions about
technology and Extension. Contact me at:

 

(name and phone)

[:1 No, do not contact me for an interview

165

Informed Consent

Perceptions of MSUE
County Extension Directors and Extension Educators
Of the use of Information Technology in Their Work
a research project
by Elizabeth Wells

Your participation in this research is voluntary. The process will consist of a telephone
interview that will last about 15 minutes.

The purpose of the interview is to learn about the perceptions of MSUE CEDs and
Extension Educators of the use of information technology in their work. You will be
sharing your personal and professional experiences in using technology. This interview
will be recorded and later transcribed. The results will be written up using no descriptions
that would identify you and an alias will be used. All recordings, transcripts, notes and
drafts of the interview will be kept in a locked private office.

There is minimal risk to granting this interview but it is not possible to know all the risks
in advance. You are flee to stop the interview at any time or to choose to not answer any
particular question. There will be no penalty for doing so. Your privacy will be protected
to the full extent of the law.

You may call or write Elizabeth Wells if you have any questions of concerns about this
research project. She can be reached at 616-844-4217 or by mail at 14506 Lincoln Street,
Grand Haven, MI 49417. You may also call or contact the Director of the University
Social Science, Behavioral and Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB), Dr. Peter
Vasilenko at 517-355-2180 by e-mail at irbchair@ores.msu.edu or by mail at 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

Printed Name

 

 

Signature Date

166

MSUE CED and Extension Educator Interview Protocol

 

 

 

 

By Elizabeth Wells
Interview Number Survey Number
Date: Location:
El Hello , Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions today. I

 

anticipate this will take less than half an hour. I’m going to record the answers right onto
my computer. Is that o.k.? El Yes [I No

Informed Consent — signature D Yes D No
[3 Test Recording Function
D Begin Record

I have several questions to ask you, and will follow that up with additional questions to
help me clarify my understanding. When we are done I would like you to share any
additional thoughts you have about technology and Extension that we have not covered
but which you drink are important.

1. a) First of all please tell me about what technologies you use in your work and
how you use them.

Look for any technologies beyond e-mail, word processing, search engine or cell
phone such as intemet technologies and make note and probe for how they use it
Then ask can you think of any others?

Look for creative or unusual ways of using technologies and ask them to expand if
found

b) Of the technologies you have talked about which one do you think is the most
useful and why?

c) Of these technologies which is the easiest to use? Why?

2. What ways do you think some of the new technologies available today might be
able to be integrated into your work in Extension that you have not been able to
do so far? Do you have any idea of how you might be able to do so if you could

change things?
If they can ’t think of any, suggest some technologies that they may have heard of

and ask if any of those come to mind. 1.15. On line learning and teaching, web sites
and internet presence

167

3. Thinking back to a time when you started using a new technology can you tell me
how you decided to use it? and how you learned to use it?

Was it usefulness or ease of use? How do they learn and is it the preferred way of
learning for them? If they can ’t think of one, suggest one from their list in
question 1. Look for their thought process in making a decision to use.

4. What do you see as major barriers to your using technology in your work? What
things prevent you from using new technologies that come along?

If answers are time and/or access to technology, probe to find if they had time
what would they do, or if access to technology what kind would it be and how

would it help them? How would they use it?

Web based applications are available to them, do they know that, can they use,
how would they use?

5. How could someone help you with learning to use a new technology that you
have heard about or seen? Can you describe how you learned about one in
particular and what was helpful about how you learned it? ‘

Are they self taught? If so what motivated them to learn something new? What
needs to they have in terms of learning to use technology in their work?

6. So thinking about integrating technology into your work. . .how do you think you
might use it in the future? Any ideas of how this will be accomplished?

If no idea, ask them to consider web sites, on line learning etc.

7. Is there anything else I haven’t asked you about that you think might be important
or that you would want to share about technology and your work in Extension?

Thank you . What you have shared has been very helpful. I may
need to get back with you to clarify some things after I have a chance to review the
transcript of what we talked about today. Is that o.k.?

Again thank you for your help with this. I’ve learned a lot today.

168

Table A.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Returns of Survey Instrument

Number Total Returned Cum Percent Date I
. 2 2 .01 10/24/2007 ;
Z— 12 14 .04 10/25/2007;

I 21 35 .1 1 10/26/2007
41 76 .25 10/27/2007 ’
31 107 .36 10/29/2007;
i 4 1 1 1 .38 _ 10/30/200Lj
f 13 124 - .42 10/31/2007__;
r 22 146 .49 f 11/1/2007_‘l

I 14 160 .54 1 1/2/3007

i 14 174 .59 1 1/3/2007

1 13 187 .63 1 1/5/2007
5 192 _ .65 11/6/2007 j:

10 202 .68 1 1/7/2007

4 206 .70 11/8/2007
5 211 .71 11/9/2007 -

l 10 221 .75 11/10/2007
|' 2 223 g .76 11/13/2007 1.
l 2 _ 225 .76 ”/14/200L
T 1 ,, 226 .76 11/15/2007 J
1T 1 227 .77 11/23/2007 4-
1 228 .77 1 1727/2007;
5 2 230 .78 11/28/2007 .:
4 234 .79 1 1/29/200L
T 8 #242 “.82 11/30/2007 I
i 3 245 f H .83 12/3/2007 #
i l 246 .83 ,12/4/2007 .
i 2 248 .84 12/5/2007_;I
5 253 .86 12/7/2007 4
1 254- .86 ,12/1 1/2007 _.
g l 255 .86 12/13/2007;
i 3 258 .87 1272672007 J
T—l 259, .88 1/4/2008 Q
1 260 .89 1/9/2001!
2 262 .90 1/10/2008 J

1 3 265 .90 l/14/2008
[ 1 266 .91 1/15/2008 ,4.
2 268 .92 1/16/2008 1
3 271 .93 . 1/18/2008 :1

1 272 .94 1/19/2008

 

 

 

169

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

170

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use,
and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227-
247.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Alavi, M., & Joachimsthaler, E. (1992). Revisiting DSS implementation research: A
meta-analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers. MIS Quarterly,
16(1), 95-116.

Albright, B. B. (2000). Cooperative Extension and the information technology era: An
assessment of current competencies and fixture training needs of County
Extension agents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Anderson, C.L., Bloome, P., Bottum, J., Lee, 1., Moore, L., Obrien, S., Shimel, B., &
Stone, T. (1995). Framing the future - Strategic fiamework for a system of
partnerships. Washington: Extension Committee on Organization and Policy and
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Becker, H. J. (April, 2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction. paper
presented at American Education Research Association, Irvine California

Becker, H. J ., & Riel, M. M. (2000, December). Teacher Professional Engagement and
constructivist-compatible computer use. CRITO(Report 7).

Carr Jr., V. H. (1999). Technology adoption and diflusion. Retrieved March 9, 2006,
from http://www.au.afmiVau/awc/awcgate/innovation/ adoptiondiffusionhtm

Casey, H., & Harris, J. L. (2004, June 20-23). Why change? Addressing teacher concerns
toward technology. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Ching, C., Basham, J. D., & Jang, E. (2005). The legacy of the digital divide: Gender,
socioeconomic status, and exposure as predictors of full-spectrum technology use
among young adults. Urban Education, 40(4), 394 - 411.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.

171

Coates, D. (2004). Weblogs as a disruptive technology for Extension. Journal of
Extension, 42(3).

Cookson, P. S. (Ed.). (1998). Program planning for the training and continuing
education of adults. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies

in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Education
Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.

DaVis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R E., & Ronnkvist, A. M. (2002). Quality Technology Support:
What is it? Who has it? and What difference does it make? Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 265-285.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys; The tailored design method (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dillon, A., & Morris, M. G. (1996). User acceptance of information technology: Theories
and models. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 31, 3-32.

lEarle, R. S. (2002, January-February). The integration of instructional technology into
public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology Magazine,
42, 5-13.

Edwards, M. C., McLucas, 13., Briers, G. 13., & Rohs, F. R (2004). Educational interests

of Extension agents: Implications for the delivery of educational programming at
a distance. Journal of Extension, 42(1).

Emmons, B. A. (2003). Computer anxiety, communication preferences and personality
type in the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy and Experiment Station Committee on
Organization and Policy. Analysis of The National Research Council Report on
Colleges of Agriculture and the Land Grant Universities. Washington DC:
National Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges, October
1996.

Fichman, R. G. (1992). Information technology drfi‘usion: A review of empirical research.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Technology.

172

F utris, T. G., Adler-Baeder, F., & Dean, K. J. (2004). Using technology to link
researchers and educators: Evaluation of electronic conferencing. Journal of
Extension, 42(1).

Gleick, J. (1999). Faster: The acceleration of just about everything. New York: Vintage
Books.

Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual
organizations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Gregg, J. A. (2002). Use of Information Technology by County Extension Agents of the
Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Unpublished Masters, University of
Florida.

Harriman, L. C., & Daugherty, R. A. (1992). Staffing Extension for the 21st century.
Journal of Extension, 30(4).

Houle, C. O. (1972). The design of education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Initiative, C. E. s. E. (2006). Return on Investment. Washington DC.

Jacobsen, D. M. (1998, June 20—25). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer
technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Paper presented at the
ED Media and Ed Telecom 98: World Conference on Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications,
Freiburg, Germany.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational Research: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kelly, M. A. (2003). Bridging digital and cultural divides TPCK for equity of access to
technology. In A. C. o. I. a. Technology (Ed.), Handbook of Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators (pp. 31 - 58). New York:
Routledge.

Kelsey, T. W., & Mincemoyer, C. C. (2001). Exploring the potential of in-service
training through distance education. Journal of Extension, 39(2).

KnOwles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.

Krlowles, M., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. H. (2000). The adult learner: The definitive

classic in adult education and human resource development. Houston, TX: Gulf
Professional Publishing.

173

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In A. C. o. I. a. Technology
(Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators
(pp. 3 - 29). New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Legris, P., Ingham, J ., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information
technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information
and Management, 40, 191-204.

Lippert, R. M., Plank, O., & Radhakrishna, R. (2000). Beyond Perception: A Protest and
Posttest Evaluation of a Regional Internet Extension Inservice. Journal of
Extension, 38(2).

Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999, January 5-8). Extending the Technology
Acceptance Model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and
empirical validation Paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Maui.

Martin, B. L. (1998). Computer Anxiety Levels of Virginia Cooperative Extension field
personnel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University. -

Martin, B. L., Stewart, D. L., & Hillison, J. (2001). Computer anxiety levels of Virginia
Extension personnel. Journal of Extension, 29(1).

Mathieson, K, Peacock, E., & Chin, W. (2001). Extending the Technology Acceptance
Model: The influence of perceived user resomces. The DA TA BASE for Advances
in Information Systems, 32(3), 85-112.

McCrory Wallace, R. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the lntemet.
American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2), 447-488.

McCrory, R. (2006). Technology and science teaching: A new kind of knowledge. In E.
Ashburn & R. Floden (Eds), Meaningful learning using technology: What
educators need to know and do. New York: Teachers College Press, 141-160.

McFarland, D. J. (2001, October 23-27). The role of age and efficacy on technology
acceptance: Implications for e-learning. Paper presented at the WebNet 2001:
World Conference on the WW and Internet, Orlando, FL.

McFarlane, T. A., Hoffman, E. R., & Green, K. E. (1997, March). Teachers' attitudes

toward technology: Psychometric evaluation of the Technology Attitude Survey.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

174

 

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2003). Not "what" but "how": Becoming design-wise about
educational technology. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), What should teachers know about
technology? Perspectives and practices (pp. 45-51). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6, 101 7 - 1054).

Muske, G., Goetting, M., & Vukonich, M. (2001). The world wide web: A training tool
for family resource management educators. Journal of Extension, 39(4).

Nadler, L. (1982). Designing training programs: The Critical Events Model. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Owen, M. B. (1999). Factors related to the use of Internet by North Carolina
Cooperative Extension field faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Reese, L., Straus, C., & Murray, J. (2005). Michigan State University Extension Portal
Planning and (Implementation. Journal of Agriculture and Food Information, 6(4),
53 - 61.

Rodewald, A. (2001). Delivery Systems - Is the "Latest" Technology the Greatest?
Journal of Extension, 39(4).

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Difiilsion of Innovations (Fifth ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa
Communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15 - 24.

Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, Not Technicians: Rethinking Technical
Expectations for Teachers. Teachers College Record I 06(3), 487-512.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J ., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education Through
Cooperative Extension: Delmar Publishers.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1).

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J ., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned
Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for
Modifications and Future Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325-
343.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teachers.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

175

Smith, A. F., & Kelly, T. (1997). Human Capital in the Digital Economy. In T. D.
Foundation (Ed.), The Organization of the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1987). Research and Evaluation in Education and the
Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sork, T. J. (1987). Needs Assessment as Part of Program Planning. In Q. H. Gessner
(Ed.), Handbook of Continuing Higher Education (pp. 125-142). New York:
Macmillan.

Stefl-Mabry, J. (1999). Professional Staff Development: Lessons Learned fi'om Current
Usability Studies. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 1(2), 81-104.

Swanson, E. B. (1988). Information System Implementation: Bridging the Gap Between
Design and Utilization. Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D Irwin Inc.

Swanson, J. A., Mead, J. P., & Haugan, H. L. (1997). Using Internet Resources to
Strengthen Community Programs and Collaborations for Children, Youth and
Families at Risk. Paper presented at the Families, Technology and Education
Conference, Chicago Illinois.

Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model.
Management Science, 42(1), 85-92.

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1996). Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Evidence. In A.
Dillon & M. G. Morris (Eds. ), Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology.

Twidwell, E. K. V., Bradley C. (2004). Teaching a Forage Crops Course To Extension
Agents via Distance Education. Journal of Extension, 42(4).

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186-204.

Walter, C. (2005). Kryder's Law. Scientific American, 15(8).

Wang, T.-S. (2003). Adult cyber learning receptivity factors. University of South Dakota.

Wang, T.-S., & Bright, L. K. (2004). Assessing the Pace of Cyberchange with TAM.
Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference (SITE) 2004, Atlanta Georgia.

Webb, B. J ., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest. (1966). Unobstrusive

Measures - Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally
and Co.

176

Wenger, E., White, N., Smith, J. D., & Rowe, K. (2005). Technology for communities.
Retrieved October 10, 2005, 2005, from http://technologyforcommunities.com/
CEFRIO_Book_Chapter_v_5.2.pdf

Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop

computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and
institutional culture. American Education Research Journal, 39(1), 165-206.

W. K. Kellogg Commission. (1999). Third report. Returning to our roots. The engaged
institution.

Zhao, Y. (2001). What do they know: A comprehensive portrait of exemplary technology
using teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, I 7(2), 24-36.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.

Zhao, Y. (2003). What should teachers know about technology? Perspectives and
practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An
Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.

177