Student and Faculty Perceptions of Technology’s Usefulness in Community College General Education Courses

Educational institutions of all levels invest large amounts of time and resources into instructional technology, with the goal of enhancing the educational effectiveness of the learning environment. The decisions made by instructors and institutions regarding the implementation of technology are guided by perceptions of usefulness held by those who are in control. The primary objective of this mixed methods study was to examine the student and faculty perceptions of technology being used in general education courses at a community college. This study builds upon and challenges the assertions of writers such as Prensky (2001a, 2001b) and Tapscott (1998) who claim that a vast difference in technology perception exists between generational groups, resulting in a diminished usefulness of technology in instruction. In this study, data were gathered through student surveys and interviews, and through faculty surveys and interviews. Analysis of the data used Kendall’s Tau test for correlation between various student and faculty variables in various groupings, and also typological analysis of the transcribed interview data. The analysis of the quantitative data revealed no relationship between age and perception of technology’s usefulness. A positive relationship was found to exist between the perception of the frequency of technology use and the perception of technology’s effectiveness, suggesting that both faculty members and students believed that the more technology is used, the more useful it is in instruction. The analysis of the qualitative data revealed that both faculty and students perceive technology to be useful, and that the most significant barriers to technology’s usefulness include faulty hardware and software systems,lack of user support, and lack of training for faculty. The results of the study suggest that the differences in perception of technology between generations that are proposed by Prensky may not exist when comparing adults from the younger generation with adults from the older generation. Further, the study suggests that institutions continue to invest in instructional technology, with a focus on high levels of support and training for faculty, and more universal availability of specific technologies, including web access, in class video, and presentation software. Adviser: Ronald Joekel

Showing that Early Childhood Education Works: Lessons from Italy, China, and the USA

Lessons from around the world; What does it matter about early childhood education? Why the controversy about public support for early childhood education? What process or system should be used to determine what works in early education? Can the same process be used to improve services? What is the role of government? Alternatives: 1. Consumers should determine… (What happens when private choices drive the market for early childhood services?) Observed quality of care in four Midwestern states; Parent data: “All things considered, how would you grade the quality of the care your child is receiving from his/her current caregiver?” Role of government What is a Quality Rating System? Ten states have implemented statewide systems (e.g. Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, North Carolina) Findings 2. Objective science should determine… Firm findings from empirical research 3. Something else is needed: Some differences between Italian and American models. Teacher action research (and documentation) from a Reggio-inspired preschool in South Korea by Misuk Kim. Teacher Action Research at the Ruth Staples CDL. Can we now answer our opening questions? What process or system should be used to determine what is best for young children? Can the same process be used to improve the quality of services? Conclusions: The free market does not work well to determine quality in early education and care; Licensing, accreditation, and quality rating systems can help improve the market; Empirical research is useful for measuring what works; Teacher action research (reflective practice) is necessary for fostering continuous quality improvement. The tower of quality.