QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Birch, Dawn P. and Burnett, Bruce M. (2008) Interactive Multimodal Technology-mediated Distance Education Courses: The Academic's Perspective. Japanese Journal of Educational Media Research 15(1):pp. 43-60.

© Copyright 2008 (please consult author)

研究ノート 教育メディア研究　Vol.１５，No.１，43−60

Interactive Multimodal Technology-mediated Distance Education Courses: The Academic’s Perspective

BIRCH,Dawn（UniversityofSouthernQueensland,Australia） BURNETT,Bruce（QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia）

AdvancesineducationaltechnologyandthecontinuedemergenceoftheInternetasamajorsourceofglobal

informationhaveencouragededucatorstotakeadvantageofthisgrowingarrayofresourcesandmovebeyond

traditional face-to-faceanddistanceeducationcorrespondencemodestowardarichtechnology-mediated

e-learningenvironment.Moreover,readyaccesstomultimediaatthedesk-tophasprovidedanopportunity

foreducatorstodevelopflexible,engagingand interactive learningresources, incorporatingmultimedia

andhypermedia.Thispaperpresentsthefindingsofastudythatinvestigatedindividualfactorsinfluencing

academics’adoptionandintegrationofeducationaltechnologyatanAustralianuniversity,forthepurposeof

developinginteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses.Thesedistanceeducation

coursesincludearangeofmultimodallearningobjectsandmultiplerepresentationsofcontentinordertocater

fordifferentlearningstylesandmodalpreferences,withtheaimsofprovidingamoreinclusivecurriculumthat

morecloselyreflectstheon-campuslearningexperienceandimprovedlearningoutcomes.Individualfactors

influencingacademics’developmentofthesecoursesincludedpragmatic,opportunisticandpersonalmotivations

andconcerns.Implicationsfordistanceeducationprovidersandindividualmarketingeducatorsarisingfrom

thesefactorsandsubsequentrecommendationsarepresented.

Keyword：distanceeducation,e-learning,educationalinnovation,marketingeducation

INTRODUCTION focusedontheexperienceofamajordistanceeducationande-learningproviderinAustralia,

Thefocusofthequalitativestudyreported where in2003,academicscommenced theinthispaperwasonacademics’ process of converting traditional print-developmentof interactivemultimodal technology- baseddistanceeducationmaterials toanmediateddistanceeducation courses.An interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediated e-learning format.This paper focuses oncourseusesmultimediaandinformationand individual factors, including pragmatic,communicationtechnology(ICT)todevelop opportunisticandpersonalmotivationsandengagingand interactivecourseresources concernsinfluencingacademics’developmentand usesmultiple presentationmodes of interactivemultimodal technology-to represent the content knowledge and mediateddistanceeducationcourses. Theappealtodifferentlearningstylesandmodal papercommenceswithanexplanationofpreferences(Birch&Sankey2008).Thestudy theinstitutionalcontextforthestudy.Next,

−43−

thetransformationofdistanceeducationandthedevelopmentof interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcoursewarefordistanceeducation students arediscussed. Then,individualfactorswhichinfluenceacademicstodevelopinteractivemultimodaltechnologymediateddistance education courses areaddressed.Finally, implicationsarediscussedandrecommendationsfordistanceeducationinstitutionsandindividualmarketingeducatorsareprovided.

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

Thestudyreportedinthispaperfocusedonfactorsinfluencingacademics’developmentof interactivemultimodal technology-mediateddistanceeducationcoursesatanAustralianuniversity.Theuniversity isamajorproviderofdistanceeducationande-learningcourses,andhasestablishedaninternationalreputationforexcellenceintheuseofeducationaltechnologyandthedeliveryofonlineeducation.Enrolmentsexceed26,000studentseachyearfromover120nationalitiesandapproximately20percentofenrolmentsare international students.Approximatelytwo-thirds of the university’s studentsstudyindistanceeducationmode,eitherasanexternalorwebstudent.Traditionally,distanceeducationcoursesattheuniversityhavebeendeliveredviastatic,print-basedpackages,typicallycomprisinganintroductorybook,astudyguideandabookofselectedreadings.Since2000,eachcoursehasbeensupplementedbyanonlinecoursehomepage.In2003,universitymanagementidentifiedanopportunitytoconverttheprint-baseddistanceeducationstudymaterials toatechnology-mediated format (CD/online), and thus

reducetheconsiderablecostsofprintinganddistributingprint-basedpackages.Marketingacademicsat theuniversityembracedthisopportunityand ledthewaybyconvertingtheentireundergraduatemarketingprogramtointeractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedformat.Despitetheuptakebythemajorityofmarketingacademics,bytheendof2007,lessthantenpercentofthe1000coursesonofferattheuniversity,acrossfivefaculties,hadbeenconvertedtotechnology-mediatedformat.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

A d v a n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l a n dcommunications technology have placedpressure on higher distance educationinstitutionstomovebeyondtraditionalface-to-faceanddistanceeducationcorrespondencemodes towardarich technology-mediatede-learningenvironment, inordertoremainviable inan increasinglycompetitiveglobaldistance educationmarket (Bates 2006).TheWorldWideWebanddesktopaccesstomultimediahascreatedopportunitiesforeducatorstodevelopinteractiveandengaginge-learningresourcesthatenhancethelearningenvironment (Gill2004).Technologicalandsocietal changesmean that traditionalapproaches todistanceeducationwillnotmeettheneedsofdistance learners inthefuture (Taylor2004).Forexample, today’syounger“techno-savvy”students(thedigitalgeneration)havegrownupinahighlyvisualinteractiveelectronicworld,whilemature-agestudents,manyofwhomareworkingfull-timewhilestudyingpart-time, requiremoreflexible,mobileandconvenientlearningoptions (Jafari,McGee&Carmean 2006;

−44−

Oliver&Goerke2007).Inrecenttimes,static,print-baseddistanceeducationcoursesarebeing transformed through the adoptionand integrationofeducational technologyand thedevelopmentofmore interactiveblended,hybridormultimodal technology-mediatedcourses(McDonald&Mayes2005).Manydistanceeducationcoursesarenowbeingdeliveredfullyonlineand/orviaotherelectronicmeans,includingCDROMorDVD. Interactivemultimodal technology-mediateddistanceeducationcoursesinvolvetheuseofmultimediaand informationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)todevelopengagingandinteractivecourseresourcesandusemultiplepresentationmodestorepresentthecontentknowledgeandappealtodifferentlearningstylesandmodalpreferences(Birch&Sankey2008;Fleming2001). Interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcoursesfordistanceeducationat thecaseuniversitytypicallycompriseaprintedintroductorybookandaninteractiveCD,andaresupplemented,to varyingdegrees, by an online coursehomepage.TheinteractiveCDhousesmostofthecourseresourcesandincludesintroductoryinformation,studymodules,assessmentitems,readingsandotheruseful resources.Themultimediaenhancementsmayincludevideoandaudio introductions, recorded lecturepresentations, interactiveaudio-enhanceddiagramsandsimulations,interactivequizzesandcrosswords,videoandaudiocontentandgraphics.Technology-mediateddeliveryallowstheembeddingof links tousefulwebsitesandhyperlinkedexamples andactivities,includinglinkstothecoursetextbookwebsite,educationalwebsites, generic universityresourcesandonlinecoursehomepages. Material presented in a variety of

presentationmodes(multimodalpresentation)appealstodifferentsensorymodesandmaylead learners toperceive that it iseasierto learnand improveattentionrates, thusleadingto improved learningperformance,inparticular for lower-achievingstudents(Moreno&Mayer2007;Zywno2003).Previousresearchhasrevealedarangeofpedagogicalmotivationsforthedevelopmentofinteractivemultimodal technology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses includingcateringmoreeffectivelytothelearningneedsofdifferentstudentgroups,improvedlearningoutcomes,retentionandprogressionrates,challengingstudents tobecome learner-centred, self-directed, resourceful and independentlearners,replicatingaspectsoftheon-campusexperience,engagingstudentsinthelearningexperience,revitalisingandre-energisingthecurriculum,andprovidingariche-learningenvironment (Birch&Sankey2008;Sankey&StHill 2005).Given these pedagogicalmotivationsandbenefits forstudents,whyhavesomanyacademicsatthecaseuniversitybeenreluctant toconvert their traditionalprint-baseddistanceeducationcourses tointeractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedformat?Thisstudysought toaddress thisproblemand identify individualacademicfactors that influence thedevelopmentofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS INFLUENCING A C A D E M I C S ’A D O P T I O N A N D INTEGRATION OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

The development of an interactivemultimodal distance education course

−45−

requiresacademics toadoptand integrateeducationaltechnology.Theliteraturerevealsthatarangeof individual factors influenceacademics’ adoption and integration ofeducationaltechnology, includingpragmatic,opportunistic orpersonalmotivatorsandinhibitors.Academics’pragmaticmotivationsfortheadoptionandintegrationofeducationaltechnology include thedesire todevelopcoursesthatbettercatertostudentneedsforgreateraccess,flexibilityandconvenience(Maguire2005). Inparticular,meeting theuniqueneedsofdistanceeducationstudents,manyofwhoareworking full-timeand/orraisingafamily,andareunabletoaccessthetraditionalon-campusexperience(Wolcott&Betts1999).Theconvenienceofbeingabletocommunicateeffectivelywithstudentsviaelectronicmeans, independentof timeandplace, isperceivedbymanyacademics tobeagenuinepracticaladvantage(McCorkle,Alexander&Reardon2001).Otheracademicshaveadoptedand integratededucationaltechnologyas ameans of cateringmoreeffectively to the changingneeds of the

“digitalgeneration”(Oliver&Goerke2007).Pragmatic inhibitors to the adoption ofeducationaltechnologyincludelackoftimeandthesubsequentnegativeimpactonacademicworkloads (Moser 2007). Exacerbatingthe timeproblemmaybe the institution’sreluctanceor inabilitytoallowreleasetimeorteachingreliefforthispurpose(Chizmar&Williams2001).Academicshavealsoreactedto studentconcernsabout the shift fromprintedtoelectronically-delivereddistanceeducationmaterials (McPhail&Birch2004).Studentresistancehasarisenduetothecostsassociatedwithprintingmaterials fromtheweb,lackofaccesstotherequiredhardware

andsoftwareandlackofcomputingskills(Jones&Kelley2003). Some academics are excited by theopportunitytoaccessadvancedtechnologyandmultimediaasameansofenhancingtheirteachingprofile,beingseentobeinnovative,

“stateoftheart”andprogressive(Betts1998;Cowan,2006;Schifter2002).However,otheracademics perceive that embracingnewtechnologymayresultinpersonalandcareercosts,suchaslesstimetodevotetoresearchandotheractivitiesthatleadtopromotionandtenure(Maguire2005).However,studieshaveindicatedthatacademicsareundecidedastowhetheradoptingandintegratingeducationaltechnology intotheircourseswill facilitateorhinderpromotionandtenure(Wolcott&Betts1999).Manyacademicsfeelpersonallymotivated touse technology,enjoying theintellectualchallenge,andgainingpersonalsatisfactionandself-gratificationfromsodoing(Capobianco&Lehman2004).Theapplicationofeducational technologyhasappealed tosomeacademics, intermsoftheexcitementornoveltyofdoingsomethingnew,differentor innovative (Cowan2006;Weston2005).Theadoptionandintegrationofeducationaltechnologymay facilitate renewal andregeneration,withsomeacademicsreportingadesireto“energise”theirteaching (Jones&Kelley2003).However,theneedtoadaptone’steachingstyle, redesign theircourseandundertakemorerigorouscourseplanninghasdeterredsomeacademicsfromchangingfamiliarorentrenchedinstructionalpractices,toolsandpedagogies(Covington,Petherbridge&EganWarren2005). Resistance to change and a lack ofwillingness to take risks has also beenidentifiedasamajorimpedimenttotechnology

−46−

adoptionandintegration(McGee&Diaz2007).Someacademicshaveexpressedanxietyand fear that theywill loseautonomyorcontroloverthecurriculumiftheyembraceorganisationalinitiativesregardingtechnology(Weston2005).Moreover,thefearofnegativeimpacts on student evaluations, if thetechnologydoesnotworkorisnotacceptedbystudents,hasbeen foundtobeamajordeterrent for someacademics (McCorkle,Alexander&Reardon2001).Lackofrewardsand recognition frommanagement andpeershavebeenfoundtoinhibitacademics’willingnesstoadoptandintegrateeducationaltechnology(Chizmar&Williams2001;Maguire2005;Moser2007).Thepersonalcharacteristicsof the academicmay also influence theadoption and integration of educationaltechnology. Innovatorsandearlyadoptersof educational technologymay bemoreadventurous,lessriskaverse,comfortablewithchangeandliketotrynewandnovel ideas(Moser2007;Rogers1995).Theneedtoacquire

“cutting-edge”status anddissatisfactionwiththestatusquohavebeenmajordrivingforces for some academics in adoptingeducationaltechnology(McCorkle,Alexander&Reardon2001).Moreover,anacademic’sattitudestowardtechnology,intermsoftheirperceptionsof its relativeadvantageovercurrentmethods,compatibilitywithcurrentpractices,usefulnessandeaseofuse, areprimarydeterminantsofwhetheratechnologywillbeadopted(Davis,Bagozzi&Warshaw1989).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Anexploratorycasestudywasusedtoinvestigatethefactorsinfluencingacademics’

adoption and integration of educationaltechnology for thepurposeofdevelopinginteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistanceeducationcoursesatanAustralianuniversity(Yin2003).Theprimarysourceofinformationtoaddresstheresearchquestionwasgatheredfromin-depth,semi-structuredinterviews.Fourteenacademics (includingfourpioneers,sixearlyadopters,andfournon-adopters)andthree instructionaldesignerswereinterviewedforthestudy.Theacademicscamefromvariousdisciplinesacrossthreedifferentfaculties,andincluded,amongothers,academicsteachinginthefieldsofmarketing,publicrelationsandmasscommunications.Theanalysisof the interviewstranscriptswasconductedwiththeassistanceofNVivosoftware,whichallowedtheresearcher toidentifykey themesand issues from theinterviewdata.Thethemesandissueswereclusteredintothreemajorareasrepresentingindividual,institutionalandpedagogicalfactors.Thispaperreports themain findingsandimplicationsrelatedtoindividualfactors.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Anumberofindividualfactorsinfluencingacademics’ development of interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourseswereraisedduringthe interviews. Issueswerecategorisedasbeingprimarilypragmatic,opportunistic or personal in nature. Asummaryoftheindividualfactorsispresentedin table1, and theneach factor isbrieflyaddressed.

−47−

Table 1Interviewsubjects(N=17)bycategory,faculty,disciplineandgender

Category Faculty Discipline Gender

Pioneer Arts Masscommunications FemalePioneer Business Projectmanagement MalePioneer Business Economics Male

Pioneer Business Humanresource Malemanagement

EarlyAdopter Arts Masscommunications FemaleEarlyAdopter Arts Publicrelations FemaleEarlyAdopter Arts Publicrelations MaleEarlyAdopter Business Marketing MaleEarlyAdopter Business Accounting MaleEarlyAdopter Education Earlychildhood FemaleNon-Adopter Arts Publicrelations MaleNon-Adopter Arts Masscommunication FemaleNon-Adopter Business Accounting Female

Non-Adopter Business Humanresource Malemanagement

Instructional Business FemaleDesigner

Instructional Education/Business FemaleDesigner

Instructional Arts/Business MaleDesigner

Pragmatic factors. Pioneers and earlyadopters expressed a desire to provideflexible,convenientandmobilestudyoptionsfordistanceeducationstudents, inparticularfor studentswhoare studyingpart-timeandworkingtosupporta family (Maguire2005).Forexample, interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcoursescanbeviewedonacomputer laptopwhile thestudent isusingpublic transportor listenedtowhiledriving.Intervieweesperceivedtechnology-mediatedcoursesallowstudents,acrosstheglobe,fasterandeasieraccesstotheirdistance

educationmaterialsandamoreconvenientmeansofcommunicatingindependentoftimeandplace(McCorkle,Alexander&Reardon2001).OnepioneerprovidedtheexampleofastudentstudyingatastationinAntarctica,whowith theenablementof technology isabletocommunicateandsubmitassignmentselectronically and gain timely feedback.Pioneersandearlyadoptersperceivedthattoday’sstudentsaretechnologyliterate,havehigherexpectations,andaremorediscerningandsophisticated in“thewaytheytake inanduseinformation”(Oliver&Goerke2007;

−48−

Table 2 Individual factors influencingacademics’developmentof interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses

Factor Issues raisedPragmatic • providingflexibleandconvenientstudyoptions

• cateringfornew-ageandgenerationYstudents• concernaboutequitablestudentaccess• lackoftimeandincreasedacademicworkloads

Opportunistic • exploringnewwaysofdeliveringdistanceeducationcourses• beingseentobeprogressive• impactonresearchoutput• impactonacademicpromotion

Personal • sattitudetowardteachingtheacademic’• arenewedandre-energizedapproachtoteaching• self-improvementandpersonalchallenge• theacademic’spersonalcharacteristics• theacademic’sattitudetowardchangeandtechnology• lackofrewardsandrecognitionfrommanagementandpeers• intrinsicrewardsandrecognitionfromstudents

Sankey,2005).Anumberofthoseinterviewed intervieweestobeamoreviableandinclusiveobserved thatgenerationYstudentsare option.not accustomed to extensive reading; Lack of t ime and the subsequentrather, they“aremore into seeing things negativeimpactonacademicworkloadsweredone inananimatedmultimediarichway”. identifiedbyintervieweesasmajorinhibitorsHence,accordingtooneearlyadopter, ifthe foracademics’developmentof interactiveuniversity“wantstostayviableandbeseenas multimodal technology-mediateddistanceinnovativeandleadersineducation’,academics ; Quinn&educationcourses (Moser2007 O’should‘bewillingtochangetheproduct in Corry2002).Earlyadoptersandnon-adoptersorder tosuitourstudents”,andmeet the expressedconcernsaboutthe lackof time

“requirementsoftoday’snew-agestudents”. tothink,research,strategise,conceptualise,However,someintervieweesperceivedthat plan,train,develop,edit,updateandmaintaindeliveringcoursespurelyonlinemayleadto (Franklinetal. 2001).Thedevelopmentofinequities,duetolimitedandcostlyaccessto multimediaelementsinvolvestrialanderror,theInternetandslowdial-inforsomestudents and“takesquiteabitofamindsetleap,and(Eastman&OwensSwift2001;Jones&Kelley thatneedstime”.Pioneerscommentedonthe2003).Hence,untilequitableaccess forall timeittakestoupdateand“ensurecurrency”studentscanbeassured,CDorDVD,rather oftechnology-mediatedcourses(Weston2005).thanpureonlinedelivery,wasperceivedby Less technologically-competentacademics

−49−

mayrequireevenmoretimetolearnhowtousetechnology.Moreover,institutionsmaybereluctantorfinanciallyunabletoofferreleasetimetodevelopandupdatecoursematerials(Chizmar&Williams2001). Intervieweesagreedthatunlessworkloadisallocatedforthispurpose,wide-scaledevelopmentofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourses,aswellas therealisationof the fullpotentialof theuseofmultimediaand informationtechnologywithin thesecourses,maynot

eventuate.Theneedtoallowadequatetimeforthedevelopmentofaninteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourseand to takeastaged-approachtodevelopmentwasidentified.Anumberofthoseinterviewedadvisedagainstincluding“time-sensitive”information, thusreducingtheneedfor“constantupdating”.Onepioneeremphasisedthevalueofdevelopingre-usablelearningobjects,inparticular,whenteachinganundergraduateandpostgraduatecourseinasimilararea.

Academics’pragmaticmotivators forandinhibitorstoadoptingandintegratingeducational

technology

Table 3

•Pragmatic motivators

studentdemandsandneedforgreater •Pragmatic inhibitors

lackoftimeandacademicworkloadsaccess,flexibilityandconvenience • timeandcostoftrainingand

• convenienceofcommunicatingvia developmentelectronicmeans • studentresistanceduetoprintingcosts,

• responsetoorganisationaldirectivesand accessissuesandtechnologicalabilityconcernforthecommercialviabilityof • concernsaboutsecurityissues,includingtheorganisation copyrightandintellectualproperty

Opportunist ic factors. Pioneers andearlyadoptersperceived thatdevelopinginteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedlearningmaterialsprovided themwithanexcitingopportunity toexplorenewwaysof deliveringdistance education coursesand“reviewthewaytheypresentedtheirmaterials” (Earle2002).Oneearlyadopterhad“waited fora long time tobeable toexplorenewthings ineducationpractice”.Pioneersandearlyadoptersweremotivatedby“usingnewtechnology,beinginnovative,keepingupwithwhat’soutthere,andusingleading-edge technology or new things”

(McCorkle,Alexander&Reardon2001).Someintervieweesperceived theopportunity toimproveandchallengethemself (Capobianco&Lehman2004;Jones&Kelley2003).Someofthoseinterviewedagreedthatreducedtimeforundertakingdiscipline-basedresearchisaninhibitor(Smith2001).However,anumberofthoseinterviewedhadtakentheopportunityto conduct education-based research onthedevelopmentof interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediated courses,with onepioneerreportingsevenpublishedresearchoutputs.Some intervieweesperceivedthatdevelopmentofan interactivemultimodal

−50−

technology-mediatedwouldhaveanegativeorneutral impactonpromotionalopportunities;however,anumberofpioneersandearlyadoptersperceived ithadenhanced theirpromotionalprospects(Maguire2005;Wolcott

&Betts1999).Forexample,anearlyadopterreportedthatherinvolvementhadfavourablyinfluencedthepromotionpanel,because itdemonstratedshewas“willingtolookatnewideas”.

Table 4Academics’opportunisticmotivatorsforandinhibitorstoadoptingandintegratingeducational

technology

Opportunistic motivators Opportunistic inhibitors • access to advanced technologyand • afocusonresearchratherthanteaching

multimedia • afocusonactivitiesthataremorelikely• beseentobeinnovative,“stateofthe toleadtopromotionandtenure

art”andprogressiveandthusenhancetheirteachingprofile

Personal factors.Intervieweesrevealedthatthedevelopmentof interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediated distance educationcoursesmaydependupon the importanceacademics place on teaching relative tootheracademicpursuits, suchasresearch.One instructionaldesignerobserved thatacademicswho“are intrinsicallymotivatedtogive themost for the students”,have

“a loveof teaching”,are“dedicatedto thelearningoutcomesoftheirstudents”appeartobemore likelytodevelopan interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourse.Alackofunderstandingof,orconcernfor,pedagogymaypresentabarriertothedevelopmentofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourses,withonepioneerproposing that

“80percentofthepeople intheFacultyofBusinessprobablywouldn’tevenknowwhatpedagogywas, letalonebeconcernedaboutit”.Moreover,anacademic’swillingnesstoreflectontheirteachingpracticeandembrace

modern learningandteachingphilosophiesmayalsobean influencingor“triggering”factor.Forexample,oneinstructionaldesignerobservedthat“theinnovatorsthataredoingthehybridmultimodalthingsareconstantlyreflectingontheirpractices”.Anumberofpioneersandadoptersperceivedthattheirinvolvementinthedevelopmentofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourseshadallowedthemtore-energiseandrenewtheirinterestin,andapproachto,teaching(Jones&Kelley2003).Onepioneerexplainedthatprint-baseddistanceeducationmaterialsarea“tiredformat”and itwas“morefundoingthingsonlineorelectronically”.Developinginteractivemultimodal technology-mediated courseshad“revitalised”their interest inteaching,

“renewed”theirenthusiasmandchallengedthemtoteachinamoreeffectivemanner. The personal characteristics of theacademicmay influence theadoptionandintegrationofeducationaltechnology(McGee

−51−

&Diaz2007;Rogers1995).Oneinstructionaldesignerexplainedthatsomeacademicsaremore“risk-averse”andpreferto“wait forotherstotakethefirststep”.Forexample,oneearlyadopterexplainedthatwhilehedoesnotperceivehimselftoberisk-averse,hedoesnot“rushoverboardintothefirstgimmick”;ratherhewaitsforthetechnology“tosettledownjustalittle”beforeembracingit(Moser2007).Willingnesstochange,moveon,trynewthingsandreceptivitytonewtechnologiesalsoappearstoinfluenceacademics’developmentofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses(Weston2005).Forexample,onepioneerexplained,“Icertainlydon’ .tremainweddedtoentrenchedviews”Conversely,thelackofadoptionbyacademicsmaybepartially attributed to“constantchange” in technologiesbeing introduced,withonepioneerstating“we’vehadsomanychangestohowweteach,butwe’veneverbeengivenverymuchtimetolearnthosenewsystems”.Accordingtoonenon-adopter,whenitcomestonewtechnologiesbeingintroduced,

“there’sbeena lotofresistancetochangegenerally”.Forexample,one instructionaldesigneremphasisedthe“unfortunatetiming”ofthe“hybriddelivery”initiative,whichhadcoincidedwitha“whole lotofangstaboutWebCT”. Aninterestin,andlikingfor,technologyappears to influence thedevelopment ofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourses,butit isnotnecessarilyapredictor(Davis,Bagozzi&Warshaw1989).Notallof theacademics interviewed fittedneatlyintotheirpredictedcategory,withsomeofthepioneersandearlyadoptersperceivingthemselvestobesomewhatrisk-aversewithrespecttotechnologyandsomeofthenon-

adoptersconsideringthemselvestobeearlyadoptersoftechnology.Forexample,onenon-adopterdeclared“I lovetechnology, it justmakeslifesomucheasierandIthinkprovidesalotmoreopportunities”.Conversely,oneofthepioneerswasdifficulttopersuadewhenit

comestotryingnewtechnologies,becausehedoesnot“liketechnologyfortechnologysake”,andneeds to“seethebenefit it’s likely toproduceforstudents”.Moreover,someofthepioneersandearlyadoptersdidnotconsiderthemselvestobeparticularlytechnologicallycapable;while, someof thenon-adoptersindicatedthat theyareboth interested in,andvery capablewith, technology. Oneearlyadopterdescribedsomeacademicsas

“techno-phobic”,whileothersdonotconsiderusingtechnologytobe“partofanacademic’srole”.Forexample,onenon-adoptersawhisroleas“facilitatinglearning” “distributingandknowledge”,ratherthanbeing“aspecialistindevelopment likethis”.Indeed,accordingtooneearlyadopter,forwide-scaleadoptionofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcoursestooccur,someacademicswillneedto“bedraggedto theirkeyboardskicking

andscreaming”, inparticular, someolderacademics.Forexample,oneoldernon-adopter,havingreceivednegativereportsfromoneofthepioneerswhohadbecomefrustratedandexperiencedset-backswiththetechnology,hadbeendissuadedfromevenattemptingtoadopteducationaltechnology,stating“itwillruinmylife”(Moser2007).Thisnon-adopterconfessedhehadbeenavoidingtechnology,whichheperceivedtobe“threatening”andexplained“perhapsmyageisshowingandmygenerationisshowinghere,myculturewasacultureofprint”.Oneearlyadoptersuggestedsomeacademicsmaybe‘hostiletoitorare

−52−

resistanttoit,becausetheydon’tseehowitmightimprovewhatthey’ .Hence,oneredoing’ofthenon-adoptersadvisedagainstsimply

“imposing”newtechnologiesoneducatorsandsuggestedtheneedtodiscusswitheducatorshowthenewtechnologycouldbeusedandtheimplicationsforimplementation. A lack of extrinsic rewards inhibitsacademics’development of interactivemultimodal technology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses (Moser2007).Oneearlyadopterperceived“there’sreallynorewardsystems,nocompensationforyoudoingit”,whileanotherobserved“fromtheFacultypoint of view it’ swhat you’s,well, that’

reemployedtodo”.Earlyadoptersarguedthatifacademicswereencouragedandsawa“rewardmechanismorsomethinginitforthemselves”,suchasa“reducedmarkingload”or“someteachingrelief”,thentheywouldbemorelikelytoget involved.Duetothelackofextrinsicrewards,oneoftheinstructionaldesignersbelieved“a lotofacademicswillmakethecallthattheirtimeisbetterspenton research thandevoting themselves toteaching”.Lackofrecognitionbymanagementandpeers forthetimeandeffort involvedin adopting and integrating educationaltechnologyalsoappearstobeamajorbarrier(Maguire2005). Forexample,whenaskedif

Table 5 Academics’personalmotivatorsforandinhibitorstoadoptingandintegratingeducationaltechnology

andpersonalcharacteristicsofadoptersofeducationaltechnology

Personal motivators Personal inhibitors • personalmotivationtousetechnology • entrenchedinstructionalpractices• enjoymentintheintellectualchallenge • resistancetochange• - persona l sa t i s f ac t i on and se l f • fearoflossofautonomyorcontrolover

gratification thecurriculum• developmentofnewideas–novelty • lackofincentives

acquisitionofcutting-edgestatusand s teachingstyle,dissatisfactionwiththestatusquo developnewskillsandredesigncourse

• • aneedtoadaptone’

• attitudeandapproachtoteaching content• a need formore rigorous course

planning•

• regenerationandenergisingofteaching

deviationfromentrenchedinstructionalpractices

Personal characteristics of adopters of educational technology • innovative • conservative• willingtotakerisks • risk-averse• • negativeattitudetowardtechnologypositiveattitudetowardtechnology • • limitedtechnologicalability–adequatetechnologicalability– “techno-savvy” “techno-phobic”

• lackofperceivedself-efficacy

−53−

hefelthehadbeenrewardedorrecognizedforhisefforts indevelopinghis interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcourse,onepioneerresponded“apartfromthefactthatyou’resittingheretalkingtomenow,Idon’tthinkanyoneelseinthefacultycouldgiveadamnabout it”.Oneof thenon-adopterscrypticallyobserved“youcangotoa lotofworkforapackage,andit’snotvalued,andthere’ .snoonelooksatit,exceptthestudents”Hence,oneofthenon-adoptersconsideredthislackofrecognitionwasagoodreason“nottoengageinit,becausewhybother”.However,oneearlyadopterperceivedthat,asaseniorlecturer, itwas“incumbent”onhim“todosomethingwithouthavingtoexpectanotherreward”.Moreover,someofthepioneersandearlyadoptersindicatedthattheyhadfoundtheexperiencetobeintrinsicallymotivatingand rewardingandexpresseda sense of

“self-satisfaction”,“achievement”and“self-gratification”(Capobianco&Lehman2004).Thedevelopmentof interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcoursesappearstohavebeenanenjoyable,excitingandsatisfyingexperience for theacademics involved. Inadditiontointrinsicrewards,recognitionfromstudentswasalsoidentifiedasavaluedreward.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Interactivemultimodal technologymediateddistanceeducationcoursesprovideflexible,convenientandmobilestudyoptions,fasterandeasieraccesstomaterialsandtheconvenienceofcommunicatingeffectively,independentoftimeandplace.Hence,inorderfordistanceeducationproviderstoremainviable inan increasingcompetitiveglobalmarket,academicsneedtobeencouraged,

supportedandrewardedtodevelope-learningenvironmentsthatmorecloselymatchtherequirementsoftoday’sdigitalgeneration,andasameansofrevitalisingthecurriculumandimprovingcoursedelivery.While, intrinsicrewardsandrecognitionfromstudentsmaymotivateandencouragepioneersandearlieradopters, later adoptersmayneed to bemotivatedbyextrinsicrewards, suchasareducedmarkingloadorteachingrelief,aswellasrecognitionfrommanagementandpeers.Moreover,academicsshouldbeencouragedtoconductresearchon their learningandteachingpractices,includinghowtheydesignanddelivertheirdistanceeducationcourses.Promotionalpoliciesandpanelsalsoneedtoplacegreatervalueoneffectiveteachingpractice and the design and delivery ofinnovativedistanceeducationresources. Given the time it takes to developandmaintain an interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediated course,wide-scaleadoptionandintegrationwillonlyeventuateifworkloadallocationsaremade.Moreover,duetothetimerequiredtodevelop,maintainandupdate interactivemultimodal technology-mediatedcourses,itisimportanttoencouragecost-effectiveandsustainabledevelopment.Thus,academicsshouldbeencouraged totakeastagedapproachtodevelopment,avoidincluding informationthat istime-sensitive,andwherepossible,developre-usablelearningobjects.Theamountandpaceofchange intechnologiesmaycreateresistanceamongstsomeacademics,andinparticularolderand

“techno-phobic”academics.Hence,distanceeducationprovidersneed toconsider theimpactoftechnologicalchangeandthewayinwhichtechnologiesare implementedonacademics’willingness to embrace those

−54−

technologies and integrate them intotheir teachingpractice.Moreover, a lackof understanding or appreciation of howeducational technologycanbeeffectivelyusedtoassiststudentsto learnmayinhibitacademics’developmentofthesecourses, inparticular,thosewithentrenchedtraditionalteaching practices. Hence, academics’preconceptionsandtraditionalmethodologiesshould be chal lenged, and academicsneed to understand the nexus betweentechnology and pedagogy. Institutionsshouldencourageacademicstobereflectiveabout their teachingpracticeandexplorehoweducationaltechnologycanbeusedtoimprovestudent learningoutcomes.Personalfactors influencingacademics’adoptionandintegrationof educational technologyarevaried;hence,institutionsshouldrecognisethedifferentneedsofdifferentadoptergroupsand tailor supportand training initiativesaccordingly.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Thispaperaddressedindividual factorsthat influenceacademics’development ofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses.ThiscasestudywasconfinedtooneAustralianuniversity,whichwhilebeingamajorprovider,isonlyoneofmanyprovidersofdistanceeducationacrosstheglobe.Duetocontextualissues,individualfactorsthatinfluenceacademics’adoptionandintegrationofeducationaltechnologyforthepurposeofdevelopinginteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediated distance educationcoursesatthecaseuniversitymaydifferfromotherdistanceeducationproviders.Hence,otherdistanceeducationproviderswhoare

developingor intendtodevelop interactivemultimodal technology-mediateddistanceeducationcoursesmayneed toconductasimilarstudytodetermineifthefactorsthatimpactonacademicsatthecaseuniversitydiffer,inanyway,fromtheirinstitution.Indeed,giventhecaseuniversity’sextensiveexperienceandexpertiseindistanceeducation,andmorerecentlyine-learning,otherinstitutionswithlessexperienceindistanceeducationmaynothaveestablishedthesamelevelofexpertiseandinfrastructuresupport,andthusmayfaceevengreaterchallenges.Conversely,tertiaryinstitutionswhoarereceivinghigherlevelsofgovernmentfundingthanthecaseuniversitymaynotbeexperiencingthesameresourceconstraints,andthusmaybeabletoprovidehigherlevelsofsupporttoacademics.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study revealedthat a number of individual factors of apragmatic, opportunistic and personalnature influenceacademicsdevelopmentofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistance education courses. Pragmaticmotivators includedtheperceivedneedtoprovideflexibleandconvenientstudyoptionsandcater for“new-age”andgenerationYstudents.However, pragmatic inhibitorsincludedconcernsaboutequitablestudentInternetaccessandslowdownloadtimes,aswellas lackoftimeandincreasedacademicworkloads. Strategies formitigating timeandworkload problems include allowingadequate time fordevelopment, takingastagedapproachtodevelopment,developingre-usable learningobjectsandavoidingtime-sensitive content.Opportunistic factors

−55−

included theopportunity foracademics toexplorenewways ofdeliveringdistanceeducationcourses,beseentobeprogressiveor“state of the art”, and improve theirteachingorchallengethemself.Developmentof an interactivemultimodal technology-mediated coursemay lead to education-basedresearchandmaypositively impactonpromotionalprospects.Personal factorsinfluencing academics’ development ofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistance education courses included theacademic’sattitude towardandapproachtoteachingand, insomecases,theirdesireforarenewedandreenergized interest inandapproach to teaching.Moreover, theacademic’spersonalcharacteristicsandtheirattitude toward change and technology,and in particular their understanding ofhow technology canbe used to improvelearning outcomes, appear to influencetheir propensity to develop technology-mediatedcourses.Whiletheapparentlackofrecognitionandrewardsfrommanagementandpeersmay inhibit thedevelopmentofinteractivemultimodaltechnology-mediatedcoursesbylateradopters,pioneersandearlyadoptersperceivedthatintrinsicrewardsandrecognitionfromstudentsmotivatedthem.

REFERENCES

Bates,Tony(2006),Technology,e-Learningand

distanceeducationNewYork:Abingdon.

Betts, Kristen (1998),“An institutionaloverview:Factors influencing facultyparticipation in distance educationin theUnitedStates:An institutionalstudy”OnlineJournalofDistanceLearning

Administration Vol.1 (3)Fall.RetrievedAugust30,2005fromhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html

Birch,DawnandSankey,Michael (2008),“Driversforandobstaclestoacademics’developmentof interactivemultimodaltechnology-mediateddistanceeducationcourses”InternationalJournalofEducation

andDevelopmentusingICTVol.4(1)

Capobianco,Brenda,andLehman,James(2004),“UsingTechnologytoPromoteInquiryinElementaryScienceTeacherEducation:ACaseStudyofOneTeacherEducator’sInitiatives”SocietyforInformationTechnology

and Teacher Education International

Conference 2004Vol. 1 pp. 4625-4630.RetrievedMarch4,2005fromhttp://p3t3.education.purdue.edu/SITE_2004_Capobianco.pdf

Chizmar, JohnandWilliams,David (2001),“What do facultywant?”Educause

Quarterly,Vol.1Springpp.18-24

Covington,David, Petherbridge, DonnaandEganWarren,Sarah (2005),“Bestpractices: A triangulated supportapproach in transitioning academicto online teaching”Online Journal of

DistanceLearningAdministrationVol.8(1)Spring.RetrievedApril16, 2005 fromhttp://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring81/covington81.htm

Cowan,John(2006),Onbecominganinnovative

university teacher . NewYork:OpenUniversityPress.

−56−

Davis,Fred,Bagozzi,RichardandWarshaw,Paul(1989),“Useracceptanceofcomputertechnology: A comparison of twotheoreticalmodels”ManagementScience

Vol.35(8)pp.982-1003.

Earle,Rodney (2002),“The integration ofinstructional technology into publiceducation: promises and challenges”EducationalTechnologyMagazineVol.42(1)pp.5-13.

Eastman, Jacqueline andOwens Swift,Cathy(2001),“NewHorizonsindistanceeducation:Theonline learner-centredmarketing class”Journal ofMarketing

EducationVol.23(1)Aprilpp.25-34.

Fleming,Neil(2001)“VARK:Aguidetolearning

styles”RetrievedNovember30,4fromhttp://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire

Franklin,Teresa,Turner,Sandra,Kariuki,MumbiandDuran,Mesat(2001),“Mentoringovercomes barriers to technologyintegration”JournalofComputinginTeacher

EducationVol.18(1)pp26-30.

Gill,T.Grandon (2004),“Distance learningstrategies thatmake sense:Amicroanalysis”eLearnMagazineVol.3(2)March.RetrievedNovember28,2004fromhttp://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1080000/1070942/p2-gill.html

Jafari,Ali,McGee,PatriciaandCarmean,Colleen (2006),“Managing courses,defininglearning:Whatfaculty,students,andadministrationwant”EDUCAUSE

July-August2006pp.50-70.

Jones,KirbyandKelley,Craig(2003),“Teachingmarketing via the Internet: Lessonslearned and challenges to bemet”MarketingEducationReviewVol.13 (1)Springpp.81-89.

Maguire,Loreal (2005),“Literaturereview:Facultyparticipation inonlinedistanceeducation:Barriersandmotivators”Online

JournalofDistanceLearningAdministration

Vol.8(1)Spring.RetrievedApril4,2005fromhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/maguire81.htm

McCorkle,DennyAlexander,JoeandReardon,Janice (2001),“Integrating businesstechnologyandmarketingeducation:Enhancingthediffusionprocessthroughtechnologychampions”JournalofMarketing

EducationVol.23(1)Aprilpp.16-24.

McDonald,JacquelinandMayes,Terry(2005).Pedagogicallychallenged:AframeworkforthesupportofcoursedesignersinanAustraliandistance learninguniversity.Proceedingsof theCentre forResearch in

LifelongLearningInternationalConference,

June24-26,2005,Stirling,Scotland.

McGee,PatriciaandDiaz,Veronica (2007),“Wikisandpodcastsandblogs!On,my!What isa facultymembersupposedtodo?”EDUCAUSESeptember-October2007pp.28-40.

McPhail, Janelle andBirch,Dawn (2004),“Students’attitudestowardstechnology-

−57−

enhanced learn ing resources foran introductorymarketing course”ProceedingsofAustraliaandNewZealand

MarketingEducatorsConference,November

29–December1,Wellington,NewZealand.

Moreno,RoxanaandMayer,Richard (2007),“Interact ive mult imodal learningenvironments”EducationalPsychological

ReviewVol.19,pp.309-326.

Moser,Franziska(2007),“Facultyadoptionofeducationaltechnology”EducauseQuarterly

1pp.66-69.

Oliver,BeverleyandGoerke,Veronica(2007),“Australian undergraduates’use andownership of emerging technologies:Implicationsandopportunitiesforcreatingengaging learningexperiences for theNetGeneration”Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology Vol. 23 (2)pp.171-186.

O'Quinn, Lisa andCorry,Michael (2002),“Factors that deter faculty fromparticipatingindistanceeducation”Online

JournalofDistanceLearningAdministrationVol. 5 (4)Winter pp. 1-18.RetrievedMarch24,2005fromhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/Quinn54.htm

Rogers,Everett (1995),Diffusionof innovations4theditionNewYork:FreePress.

Sankey,Michael (2005),“Multimodaldesignandtheneomilleniallearner”ProceedingsofOLT2005:BeyondDeliveryConference,

September27,2005,QueenslandUniversityof

Technology,Brisbanepp.251-259.

Sankey,Michael and StHill, Rod (2005),“Multimodaldesignforhybrid learningmaterials inasecond leveleconomicscourse”Proceedingsof11thAustralasian

TeachingEconomicsConference: Innovation

forStudentEngagement inEconomicsJuly

11-12,2005,UniversityofSydney,Australiapp.98-106.

Schifter, Catherine (2002),“Perceptiondifferencesaboutparticipatingindistanceeducation”Online Journal of Distance

LearningAdministrationVol.5 (1)Spring.RetrievedJanuary12,2005,fromhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/schifter51.html

Smith,Lois (2001),“Contentanddelivery:AcomparisonandcontrastofelectronicandtraditionalMBAmarketingplanningcourses”Journal ofMarketingEducation

Vol.23(1)Aprilpp35-44.

Taylor,Jim(2004),“Willuniversitiesbecomeextinct in the networked world?”Proceedingsof ICDEWorldConferenceon

OpenandDistanceLearning,HongKong,2004.

Weston,Timothy(2005),“Whyfacultydid-ordidnot- integrateinstructionalsoftwarein their undergraduate classrooms”InnovativeHigherEducationVol.30(2)pp.99-115.

Wolcott, Linda andBetts,Kristen (1999),“What’sinitforme?Incentivesforfacultyparticipationindistanceeducation”JournalofDistanceEducationVol.14(2)pp.34-49.

−58−

Yin,Robert(2003),Casestudyresearch:Design

andmethods3rdeditionThousandOaks:Sage.

Zywno,Margarita (2003),“Hypermediainstructionand learningoutcomesatdifferent levels ofBloom’s taxonomyof cognitivedomain”Global Journal of

EngineeringEducationVo1.7(1)pp.59-70

−59−

双方向的マルチモーダル技術を介在した遠隔教育の授業― 大学教育の視点から ―

ダウン・バーチ（南クイーンズランド大学、オーストラリア） ブルース・バーネット（クイーンズランド工科大学、オーストラリア）

教育工学の進歩とグローバルな情報の供給源としてのインターネットの出現は，教育者に豊富な資源を利用するこ

とを促し，伝統的な対面教育や遠隔教育に変化をもたらし，豊富な技術が介在するeラーニング環境を実現した。

さらに，マルチメディアの利用が容易になり，教育者に，柔軟性があり魅力的で双方向的な学習資源を開発する機

会を提供した。本研究は，双方向的マルチモーダル技術を介在した遠隔教育の授業を開発するために，オースト

ラリアの大学において，教育工学の採用と統合に影響を与える要因を明らかにすることを目的とする。こうした遠

隔教育の授業は，大学内での学習経験と学習成果を反映する，より包括的なカリキュラムを提供する目的を持ちつ

つ，様々な学習スタイルや方法の選択を提供するために，マルチモーダルな学習目的と学習内容の多様な提示形式

を含んでいる。こうした遠隔教育の授業を大学が開発するときに影響を及ぼす要因は，実用的，日和見主義的，か

つ，個人的な動機と関心であった。そして，これらの要因に基づく示唆，および提言が，遠隔教育の提供者とマー

ケディング教育者に対して示された。

キーワード：遠隔教育，大学教育，eラーニング，教育工学，マーケティング教育

−60−