Review by: Schönwald, Ingrid (2004-10-05)

In this article Hagner explores the question, which kind of support faculty need to adopt technology-supported teaching.

Based on Roger’s innovation research Hagner differentiates different kinds of faculty due to their innovation behaviour. He states that the first stage of transformation is marked by the self-starters – the “first-wave” adopters of “entrepreneurs” – who are eager to explore the potentials of technology to incorporate technology into their own learning environments. In the next stage the “second-wave” faculty – those who have strong commitments to quality learning but who accept technology only with retention – adopt the innovation. Hagner points up that the second wave faculty are the most crucial group to take into account for allocation decisions as their adoption of technology presents the turning point in the organisational transformation process.

Hagner conducted a survey among thirty “first wave” instructors at American universities to explore the source of resources, incentives and rewards for their innovative behaviour. The results of this survey revealed that their motivation was internally, incentives were mostly not existent, and they did not receive substantial return from their institutions.

Regarding the second-wave faculty Hagner identified fears of the unknown and lack of institutional support as the main barriers which prevent them from incorporating new learning technologies. He also addresses the influence of the organisation’s culture on the appropriate faculty engagement approach and proposes different approaches depending on the degree of trust and openness within the respective university.

Based on the analysis of the needs and motivations of first- and second-wave faculty Hagner identifies five areas that affect levels of faculty engagement: training, grants and start-up resources, technical support, assessment, and communication. He presents a list of best practices in these five areas from 46 US-Universities. However he emphasises that those “best practices” are context-specific and that each institution has to make a serious self-assessment regarding transformation and identification of needs to produce an integrated “best system”.

Thus this article provides an interesting overview of the influencing factors to consider when designing faculty support and engagement approaches. While the statements about first wave faculty are empirically based, other insights in the article seem to have a more suggestive and explorative nature.