Editor’s Note: This study could be generalized to many institutions of higher learning throughout the world. Adoption of technology is improving the process, but this is a work in progress. Instructors use computer technologies to prepare materials for classroom instruction, but the dominant use is for group presentations. Adoption is more complete for younger faculty and there is growing use of communication technologies to enhance teaching and learning. 

Technical University Faculty’s Use of Technology and Perceptions Regarding Instructional Impact

Dylan Sung and Shih-Che Huang

Taiwan

Abstract

Digital instructional technology has made a strong impact on how students learn and how instructors teach at colleges and universities. This study had three primary purposes. The first purpose was to investigate Taiwanese technical university faculty members’ use of technology tools in the classroom and in lesson preparation. The second was to examine the factors that promote or inhibit the use of technology tools. The third was to explore the perceived instructional impact resulting from faculty members’ use of technology. The population of the research was comprised of 354 faculty members from a selected technical university in Taiwan. A total of 197 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 53.9%. A 50-item survey was developed and used for data collection. Descriptive analyses and inferential analyses including t test and one-way ANOVAs were performed to answer the research questions. Results showed that workload, educational resources, and administration inhibit the use of technology. It was indicated that enhancing student learning was the reason that faculty used technology in the teaching process. It is concluded that classes that applied technologies were more effective than traditional lectures from the perspectives of the faculty. A more digitalized learning environment can be considered advantageous for technical universities.

Keywords: Instructional technology; Educational technology; Instructional design; Information technology; Impact of technology; Technology education; Computer technology; Technological literacy; Faculty development; Higher education

Introduction

The beginning of the new millennium is an exceptional time in human history; global and western societies have been massively affected by computers, networking, and communication technologies (McCain & Jukes, 2001). Digital technology has played a major role in how education is taught and the media in which the education is delivered. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (1992), essential skills for the workplace include organizing, using, interpreting, and communicating information effectively. In order to achieve success, it is pertinent to use technology to process information and to work with and apply a variety of technologies. Schools must accommodate these upgraded expectations and train teachers to raise their students to new technological standards that social changes demand (Privateer, 1999). Information literacy is not a new idea, but in the Digital Age it has became more important than ever and has expanded types of literacy (Smith, 2002). Honey and Talley (1999) pointed out four essential types of digital literacy, which must be explicitly taught, learned, and assessed by teachers and students in order to be prepared for the knowledge society: technological literacy, information literacy, communication literacy, and media literacy.

Many college and university administrators and faculty members believe that technology use in the classroom enhances teaching and learning and increases access to new populations of students to reduce cost (Twigg, 2003).  Several studies have shown that educational technology precisely sways students’ attitudes and performance, and promotes an elevated level of thinking skills (O’Donnell, 1996; Schacter, 1999). Therefore, it is very important for faculty to choose the appropriate pedagogies and technologies, ensuring all students have the necessary skills and knowledge to become fully participating members of the digital age (Schlechty, 1990).

Films, slides, and overhead projectors have been replaced by the World Wide Web, email, digital photographs, digital video, and other digital technologies (Hueth, 1998).  With digital technology, course information can be accessed from a distance through web pages, email, chat rooms, and electronic bulletin boards to extend discussion, to coach, to add practice exercises, and to provide more timely and individualized feedback (Deden & Carter, 1996). Many faculty members use digital technology in a traditional classroom setting in order to improve teaching strategies. However, some do not agree on the numerous benefits of classroom technology because they are still concerned whether the technology is simple and reliable enough to use for sophisticated learning projects (Newman & Scurry, 2001). Some faculty have thought that lack of time, expertise, resources, and support are serious obstacles in implementing technology in the classroom and that the reward structure in higher education has provided no incentive for faculty to engage in it to improve the quality of teaching (Cummings, 1996; Parker, 1997; Topp, Mortenson, & Grandgenett, 1995).

Since the 1950s, the Taiwanese government administration has focused on education and technology development (Chow, 2002), Taiwan transformed their economy from an agricultural industry to an export-oriented industry (Tang, 1981).  During this shift from a labor-intensive industrial country to a skill-and-capital-intensive country, technology-minded college students have played a very important role in reaching this achievement (Tsao, 2001). In order to overcome the more difficult challenges of global competition and to supply enough manpower with specific expertise for the high-tech industry, the Taiwanese Ministry of Education (MOE) has successfully upgraded 54 junior colleges to the Institute of Technology level in the period from 1996 to 2000 (Taiwanese Ministry of Education, 2001). The next step for the Taiwanese education administration is to determine how to increase the quality of higher education. Digital technology implementation in technology education could be the path to reach the goal.

The e-learning environment of Taiwan is growing rapidly. In 2003, the personal computer ownership rate of Taiwan reached 58.72%, and 48.23 % of all families’ PCs were connected to the Internet. The connection rate was nearly 100% for government offices, public institutions, schools, and research institutes (Directorate General-Budget and Statistics’ Executive Yuan, R.O.C, 2004).

Under new technologies and pedagogies, education tends to shift from teacher-focused to student-centered (Johnson, 1995). On the other hand, Taiwan has been influenced deeply by Chinese educational philosophy, in which the teacher is the center of learning and the authority of knowledge. Under such a conflicting situation, the Taiwanese Institute of Technology faculty members’ use of digital technology and perceptions of its impact on instruction are worth investigating. 

This study had three primary purposes. The first purpose was to investigate Taiwanese technical university faculty members’ use of technology tools in the classroom and in lesson preparation. The second was to examine the factors that promote or inhibit the use of technology tools. The third was to explore the perceived instructional impact resulting from faculty members’ use of technology. The findings of this study may show technical university administrators the contributions of technology as they develop their IT agenda. The study may also assist administrators and faculty members in creating new strategies for deploying teaching methods that are consistent with contemporary technologies.

Methodology

This section contains the methodology and procedures of the study. It includes the research questions, population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.

The following seven research questions guided this study:

1. What types of technology tools do faculty use in the classroom and in lesson preparation?

2. How frequently do faculty use technology tools in the classroom and in lesson preparation?

3. What types of technology or media do faculty use to communicate with students?

4. What factors promote or inhibit the use of technology in the classroom?

5. What differences exist in faculty perceptions regarding factors that promote or inhibit the use of technology based on demographic characteristics?

6. What are the reasons that faculty use technology?

7. To what degree do faculty perceive instructional impact resulting from their use of technology?

Population

The technical university selected for this study provides mainly a four-year program along with two- and three-year undergraduate programs, and a masters-level program. The population for this study consisted of all full-time faculty members of the selected technical university in Taiwan. According to an announcement of the personnel office of this selected technical university, there were 354 faculty members in the academic year of 2004-2005.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument was developed by the researcher to accomplish the purposes of the study. The content of the survey was designed to answer the research questions. This survey instrument consists of six sections: Section A – demographics, Section B – types of technology use in classroom and lesson preparation, Section C – areas that promote and/or inhibit technology, Section D – reasons for using technology, Section E – perceptions of instructional impact, and Section F – perceptions of student learning.

A multiple choice format was used for section A in order to collect respondents’ demographic characteristics, and also for section B to obtain the types and frequency of faculty use of technology in classroom and lesson preparation. Five-point Likert scales were used for section C, section D, and section E. In section C – areas that promote and/or inhibit technology, the scales range as follows: 1 represented strongly inhibit, 2 represented inhibit, 3 represented neither inhibit nor promote, 4 represented promote, and 5 represented strongly promote. In section D – reasons for using technology, section E – perceptions of instructional impact, and section F – perceptions of student learning, the scales range as follows: 1 represented strongly disagree, 2 represented disagree, 3 represented uncertain, 4 represented agree, and 5 represented strongly agree.

The survey instrument was developed in English; however, in order to elicit the most accurate responses, it was translated into Chinese, which is the official language of Taiwan. Three Taiwanese instructors with English proficiency were asked to review the Chinese version of the survey instrument, and then a member of the foreign language department of the selected institution was asked to translate the Chinese version back into English. Any discrepancies between these two language versions were reconciled.

The survey instrument was given to a panel of experts in the subject area to examine its content validity. The panel of three experts examined the questionnaire to determine whether it contained items that would measure the variables identified in the research questions. A critique sheet was used to collect information regarding ambiguity, relevance, missing items, verbiage, and to review the instruments to ensure that answers to each item provided useful information for answering the research questions of the study. The information gathered by the critique was used in refining the final survey instrument. In this manner, content validity of the survey was ensured for this study. 

Data Collection

Print copies of the survey instruments were distributed by the assistant of the personnel office at the selected technical university to each department chair. The survey instruments were redistributed from the departments in mailboxes. An introduction letter was included with the survey instrument to introduce the purposes of the study. A statement also was included in the letter indicating that participation in the study was voluntary and respondents could withdraw at any time. Return of the survey instrument implied consent of the participants. Participants were also assured that the results would be reported for group analysis; no individuals would be identified. Respondents were asked to return the survey instruments to the assistant of the department office. 

The survey was conducted during May 2005. Follow-up emails with the survey instrument attached were sent to all faculty on May 31 that provided a second chance to collect data from those who did not return the original survey instrument. Data collection lasted for six weeks.

Data Analysis

The survey responses collected from the respondents were coded and entered into a computer data file for analysis by the SPSS 11.0 statistical package. Survey data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistical methods to answer the research questions. Descriptive analyses including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations were used. Inferential statistics including an independent sample t test, analyses of variance (ANOVAs), and Tukey’s HSD tests were performed for data analysis. The .05 level of significance was used for inferential statistics.

Research questions one, regarding the types of technology tools faculty use in classroom and in lesson preparation, two, regarding the frequency of faculty use of types of technology tools in the classroom and in lesson preparation, and three, regarding the types of technology or media faculty use to communicate with students, were answered by computing frequencies and percentages. Research question four, regarding the factors that promote or inhibit the use of technology in the classroom, was answered by calculating means and deviations. Research question five, regarding differences existing in faculty perceptions regarding factors that promote or inhibit the use of technology based on demographic characteristics, was answered using t tests and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs). A t test for independent means was used to compare perceptions by gender. All other differences were determined using one-way ANOVAs. All significant ANOVAs were followed by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test to determine which groups differ from the others. The .05 level was used for all t tests, ANOVAs, and Tukey’s HSD tests. Research question six, regarding faculty’s reasons for technology use, and research question seven, regarding faculty’ perceived instructional impact resulting from faculty technology use, were answered by computing means and standard deviations. 

Findings

In this section, the results of the data analysis that emerged from the study are presented. The results are given for each of the seven research questions that guided the investigation.

Response Rate

The survey was distributed to all 354 full-time faculty members at a selected technical university in Taiwan. One hundred and ninety-seven surveys were returned, for a response rate of 55.6%; six surveys were not usable because of missing responses so the usable return rate was 53.9%.

Demographic Data

Respondents’ demographic information including gender, age group, academic rank, and discipline area are presented in Table 1. The majority of the participants were male (142, 74.3%), leaving 49 females (25.7%). There were 29 (15.2%) participants in the 35 years old or under age group, 116 (60.7%) in the 35 to 50 years old age group, and 46 (24.1%) in the 51 years old or above age group. Sixty-four (33.5%) were professors or associate professors, 36 (18.6%) were assistant professors, and 91 (47.6%) were instructors. The largest number of useable surveys was from the Engineering School (66, 34.6%); the smallest number of useable surveys was from the Physical Education Office (11, 5.8%).

Table 1

Respondents’ Characteristics

Data regarding faculty’s experience of technology use and daily computer use are presented in Table 2. Ninety-three (48.7%) faculty members have been using technology in teaching for more than three years; only 12 (6.3%) never used technology in teaching. The majority of faculty members (117, 61.2%) used computers more than three hours daily.

Table 2

Experience of Technology Use and Daily Computer Use

Use of Technology Tools

Data regarding types of technology use in classroom and in lesson preparation are presented in Table 3. In lesson preparation, 82.7% of faculty used search tools, 80.2% of faculty used data processing tools, 72.8% of faculty used process tools, 95.3% of faculty used computers, and only 13.1% of faculty used digital cameras and scanners. In classroom teaching, 89.5% of responding faculty used process tools, 74.9% used data processing tools, and 82.7% of faculty used computers.

Table 3

Types of Technology Use in Classroom and in Lesson Preparation

Frequency of Technology Tool Use

Data regarding frequency of technology use in lesson preparation and in classroom are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. In lesson preparation, 24.1% of faculty used search tools, 30.9% used word processing tools, and 69.6% used computers more than 67.0% of the semester. In class teaching, 23.6% used word processing tools, 26.7% used data processing tools, and 33.0% used computers more than 67% of the semester.

Table 4

Frequency of Technology Use in Lesson Preparation

Table 5

Frequency of Technology Use in Classroom

Communication with Students

Data regarding media and communication type are presented in Table 6. There were 91 faculty (47.6%) who prefer students to hand in their assignments/projects in paper form, 59 (29.3%) prefer students to use email, and only 20 (10.5%) prefer students to hand in their assignments through the Internet. Regarding type of communication, 177 (92.7%) faculty members used dialogue to communicate with students and 170 (89.5%) faculty members used email to communicate with students. Only 16 (8.4%) used discussion boards to communicate with students.

Data regarding faulty response to emails are presented in Table 7. For class issues, 33.0% of faculty replied to emails the same day and 51.5% of faculty replied within a week. For personal issues. 25.1% of faculty replied to emails the same day and 46.1% of faculty replied to emails within a week.

Table 6

Media and Communication Type

Table 7

Faculty Response to Emails

Perceptions Regarding Factors that Promote or Inhibit Technology Use

Data regarding perceived factors that promote or inhibit technology use are presented in Table 8. The means and standard deviations were calculated for the six factors. A five-point Likert scale was used where a mean response of 3.50 or above indicated the factor promoted technology use and 2.50 or below indicated the factor inhibited technology use. It was indicated that faculty workload (M = 2.36, SD = .865), educational resources (M = 2.15, SD = .894), and administration (M = 2.34, SD = .948) had mean values below 2.50, indicating some level of inhibiting the use of technology in teaching. None were perceived as promoting the use of technology in teaching.

Table 8

Perceived Factors That Promote or Inhibit Technology Use

Perceptions Regarding Factors that Promote or Inhibit Technology Use
Based on Demographics

Data regarding differences in perceptions based on gender are presented in Table 9. A series of t tests were conducted using gender as the independent variable and the means of each of the six factors as dependent variables. Statistical analysis revealed faculty workload was a significantly more inhibiting factor for females (M = 1.90, SD = .797) to use technology than males (M = 2.52, SD = .831), t (189) = 4.572, p = .000. There was no significant difference between males and females regarding educational resources, finances, faculty development, administration, or institutional culture.

Table 9

Differences in Perceptions Based on Gender

* Denotes significant difference at .05.

Data regarding differences in perceptions based on age are presented in Table 10. Ages were grouped into under 35, 35 to 50, and over 51 categories. ANOVAs were conducted using age as the independent variable and the means of each of the six factors as dependent variables. There were significant differences between age groups regarding educational resources F (2,190) = 12.53, p = .000, and faculty development F (2,190) = 4.214, p = .001. The other four factors showed no significant difference.

The Tukey post-hoc test was conducted on educational resources and the results indicated that the 35 to 50 and over 51 groups were significantly more inhibited by issues related to educational resources than the under 35 age group; also, the over 51 group was significantly more inhibited by issues related to faculty development than the other two age groups.

Data regarding differences in perceptions based on academic rank are presented in Table 11. There were three categories of academic rank: full or associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor. There was a significant difference in educational resources based in academic rank, F (2,190) = 3.287, p = .04. The Tukey post-hoc test, however, was not able to identify which groups were significantly different.

Table 10

Differences in Perceptions Based on Age

* Denotes significant difference at .05.

Table 11

Differences in Perceptions Based on Academic Rank

* Denotes significant difference at .05.

Data regarding differences in perceptions based on academic discipline are presented in Table 12. The disciplines used in this study included the Business School, Engineering School, Design and Space, Liberal Arts, General Educational Center, and Physical Education Office. ANOVAs were performed using discipline areas as the independent variables and the means of each of the six factors as dependent variables. There were significant differences among discipline areas regarding faculty workload F (2,190) = 3.324, p = .007 and faculty development F (2,190) = 5.136, p = .000. The other four factors showed no significant difference. The Tukey post-hoc test was performed for faculty development. The results indicated that Liberal Arts faculty were significantly more inhibited than Business School’s faculty by issues related to faculty workload. The Design and Space School’s faculty were significantly less inhibited by issues related to faculty development than both the Liberal Arts School’s and General Education Center’s faculty; and the Engineering School’s faculty were significantly less inhibited by issues related to faculty development than the General Education Center’s faculty.

Table 12-1

Differences in Perceptions Based on Academic Discipline

               * Denotes significant difference at .05.

Table 12-2

Differences in Perceptions Based on Academic Discipline

                   * Denotes significant difference at .05.

Table 13

Reasons for Technology Use

Reasons for Technology Use

A five-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree was used to measure participant responses for research question six regarding reasons for using technology. A response mean at or above 3.50 indicated some level of agreement with the reason, while a mean at or below 2.50 indicated some level of disagreement with the reason. Data regarding reasons for technology use are presented in Table 13. Faculty indicated that enhancing student learning (M = 3.70, SD = .85) was the most important reason that they used technology. Faculty indicated that saving time on class preparation (M =2.41, SD = 1.01) was not a reason for using technology.

Instructional Impact of Technology

Data regarding faculty’s perceptions of instructional impact of technology are presented in Table 14. Faculty members perceived that technology is more effective than traditional lectures, except for creating situational experience in a safe setting (M = 3.45, SD = .87). Faculty perceived the other five aspects of technology to be more effective than traditional lecture.

Table 14

Perceptions of Instructional Impact of Technology

Data regarding faculty’s perceptions of impact on student learning are presented in Table 15. Faculty agreed with the notion that technology can enhance students’ understanding of course content (M = 3.78, SD = .855) and real-life application of the course content
(M = 3.72, SD = .791).

Table 15

Perceptions of Impact on Student Learning

Discussion

Results of this study indicate that the majority of faculty frequently use process tools, such as word processing and spreadsheets in the classroom teaching process, which is consistent with a previous study by Groves and Zemel (2000). Faculty feel comfortable using those types of technology tools to help them organize course content because this incorporation of technology does not require them to change their teaching style.

The physical library is not the dominant educational resources; faculty can use the Internet to obtain a variety of resources in lesson preparation. Most faculty who used computers daily for more than three hours indicate that the personal computer has become standard operating equipment in higher education. This study also found that faculty would like to communicate with students by dialogue and email. This would indicate that faculty use technology for electronic communication. However, the use of email cannot replace dialogue with the students. Email should be considered another communication channel between faculty and students. This study also found that faculty preferred students to hand in assignments/projects in paper form. However, a quarter of the faculty liked students to submit the assignment via email or to post them on a website. Following an increase in team projects and diversity of data formats, students will be forced to digitalize assignments and projects in order to share with and present to other students.

This study found that faculty perceived workload, educational resources, and administration inhibit their use of technology. This finding was supported by a study conducted by Schifter (2000). He found that lack of time was a barrier. In reality, faculty need time to learn new technologies (Moskal, Martin, & Foshee, 1997). They also need time to incorporate technology into the teaching process (Cardenas, 1998). This study found responding to students’ emails add to the faculty’s workload as faculty are expected to answer students’ questions within a short time.

Compared to the pre-digital age, faculty can now use more educational resources; today, faculty can use tools to organize and present their understanding in interesting ways and can use tools for locating, accessing, and manipulating resources (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). However, this study found that faculty perceived educational resources inhibit the use of technology. Because too many different forms of resources existed and that faculty worry about whether or not they use the proper resources.

This study indicated that enhancing students’ learning is the reason that faculty used technology. Enhancing students’ learning is always the first concern of the teacher.

Learning technologies have the potential to improve the relationship between the teacher and the student.  This may also place more control over the acquisition of knowledge to the learner. This study found that faculty believe using technology is more effective than traditional lectures. Aworuwa (1994) reported that professors used computers for a variety of purposes related to their profession, and perceived that the use of these tools in instruction had positive results on both teaching and learning. In this study, faculty agreed that technology can enhance students’ understanding of course content, applying course content to real life, and enable students to learn faster. These findings were consistent with the arguments by Newman and Scurry (2001).

Conclusions

The following conclusions emerged from the findings of the study. First, it was found that most Taiwanese technical university faculty incorporate a wide variety of technological tools into their lesson preparation and classroom teaching.  Despite this, most Taiwanese technical university faculty do not use that technology for interactive instruction and communication; rather the findings show that they use it only in their own presentation of classroom material to enhance student learning.

This research also found that Taiwanese technical university faculty find using technology in the classroom to be more effective than simply giving a traditional lecture.  Despite this use of technology, this research found that Taiwanese technical university faculty believe that faculty workload, educational resources, and administration all inhibit the use of technology to a slight degree. Finally, this study showed that there are no significant divergent perceptions among the demographic of Taiwanese technical university faculty sampled in regards to technology use.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of this study, the authors offer the following recommendations for institutions. First, institutions should unify their software and hardware systems in order to provide a more cohesive digital learning environment. Second, the institution should encourage faculty to use technology in teaching by offering appropriate rewards and reducing the faculty workload.

This faculty development program regarding instructional technology should be designed for different discipline areas. Additionally, a redesign of curriculum and standards may be necessary in order to increase students’ digital literacy and prepare students with the required skills and competencies in the digital age. Finally, institutions should create a new position, the technical teaching assistant, who can assist faculty to overcome the challenges of adopting new technology by training students and teachers to use technology effectively.

Based on the findings of this study, the authors present two recommendations for faculty. First, faculty should always focus on course content first. Faculty use of technology should come afterwards, based on teaching and learning theory, in order to enhance student learning. Second, faculty should attend workshops to enforce their technology skills and knowledge. This should allow them to use technology more effectively in classroom preparation and instruction.

The findings of this study warrant several issues for further study. First, further studies should explore students’ perceptions regarding faculty use of technology in teaching. Additionally, further studies could be undertaken that compare faculty members’ perceptions and students’ perceptions regarding use of technology in teaching and learning. Finally, because this study sampled only from one institution, further studies should compare the perceptions of students and faculty among multiple Taiwanese institutions.

References

Aworuwa, B. O. (1994). A qualitative study of faculty perceptions of computer use for teaching and the impact on teaching and learning. (doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55-07, AA19431210.

Cardenas, K. H. (1998). Technology in today’s classroom: It slices and it dices, but does it serve us well? Academe, 84(3), 27-29.

Chow, C. Y. (2002). Taiwan in the global economy: From an agrarian economy to an exporter of high-tech products. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Cummings, L. E. (1996). Educational technology—A faculty resistance view. Part 2: Incentives and understanding. Educational Technology Review, 5, 18-20.

Deden, A., & Carter, V. K. (1996). Using technology to enhance student’s skills. New Directions for Higher Education, 96(8), 1-92.

Directorate General-Budget Accounting and Statistic Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (2004). 2003 Computer applied in Taiwan. Taiwan: Taiwan Government printing Office.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57-65.

Honey, B., & Talley, M. (1999, Winter). Digital literacy. Center for Children and Technology Online Magazine. Retrieved October 19, 2004 from http://www.2.edc.org/ CCT /ctweb/feature/index.html

Hueth, A. C. (1998). Adoption, diffusion, and optimal uses of computer technologies for instruction in higher education: A case study of Midwest College. (Doctoral dissertation The University of Dayton, 1998).

Johnson, G. R. (1995). First steps to excellence in college teaching (3rd ed.) Madison, WI: Magna Publication Inc.

Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 693-719. New York: Macmillan.Press.

McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2001). Windows on the future: Education in the age of technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Moskal, P., Martin, B., & Foshee. N. (1997). Educational technology and distance education in central Florida: An assessment of capabilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 6-22.

Newman, F., & Scurry, J. (2001). Online technology pushes pedagogy to the forefront. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved December 22, 2004 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i44/44b00701.htm

O’Donnell, F. (1996). Integrating computers into the classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Parker, D. (1997). Increasing faculty use of technology in teaching and teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2/3), 105-115.

Privateer, P. M. (1999). Academic technology and the future of higher education: strategic paths taken and not taken. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 60-79.

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from http://www.milkenechange.org

Schifter, C. C. (2000, Mar/Apr). Faculty motivators and inhibitors for participation in distance education. Educational-Technology, 40(2), 43-46.

Schlechty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperatives for educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Smith, D. (2002). Directory of online resources for information literacy: Definitions of information literacy and related terms. Retrieved January 21, 2005 from http://www.cas.usf.edu/lis/il/definitions.html

Tang, C. (1981, march). The development and improvement of technical and vocation in the Republic of China, paper presented at the conference on technical and vocational education and training in southern Africa. 

Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (2001). Taiwan MOE communicate, 318, June 2001, 45-49.

Topp, N. W., Mortenson, R., & Grandgenett, N. (1995). Goal: Technology-using teachers; Key: Technology-using education faculty. Technology and Teacher Education Annual-1995, 804-843.

Tsao, F. F. (2001). Teach English from elementary in an Asian context: A language-planning perspective. Retrieved March 2, 2005 from http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/01/jun/tsao.html

Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving quality and reducing cost: Designs for effective learning. Change, 35(4), 22-29.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1992). What business requires of school. A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 054)

About the Authors:

Dylan Sung is an assistant professor of applied linguistics at Chung Yuan Christian University in Taiwan. His research interests include computer assisted language learning (CALL) and intercultural communication.

Email: dsung@cycu.edu.tw

Shih-Che Huang is an associate professor of information management at Chienkuo Technology University in Taiwan. His research interests include instructional technology and program language.

Email: jfhuang@cc.ctu.edu.tw