THE FACILITATING AND DETRACTING FACTORS RELATED TO THE ...

THE FACILITATING AND DETRACTING FACTORS RELATED TO THE
UTILIZATION OF THE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION
RESOURCE CENTER AND WRITING LAB BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND PHILOSOPHY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STOUT

By
Evan Charles Sveum

A Research Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the
Master of Science Degree in
Training and Development

Approved for Completion of 4 Semester Credits
198-750 Field Problem in Training and Development

_______________________________
Dr. Joseph Benkowski
Research Advisor

The Graduate College
University of Wisconsin-Stout

December 1998

ii

ABSTRACT
The Graduate College
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751
Writer: Sveum, Evan C.
Title: The Facilitating and Detracting Factors Related to the Utilization of the Technical
Communication Resource Center and Writing Lab by the Department of English and
Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Stout
Graduate Major: Training and Development
Research Adviser: Dr. Joseph A. Benkowski
Month/Year: December 1998
Number of Pages: 66
Style Manual Used in this Study: APA
The purpose of this study was to identify the facilitating and detracting factors
that affect the utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by the Department of English and
Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. The detracting and facilitating factors
were identified so as to provide information in the development of potential remedies
related to the low utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab.
The objectives of this study were as follows:
1. Identify the facilitating factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.
2. Identify the detracting factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to NOT USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.

iii

3. Identify interventions to improve utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by
Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff.
The TCRC and Writing Lab received new computers and accessory equipment

that made it one of the best computer labs at UW-Stout. Because of the concern over low
usage in the past, it was important to identify the factors that relate to usage. The
ultimate goal of this study was to recommend interventions that will lead to greater lab
usage by the faculty and staff in the Department of English and Philosophy.

For this subject, a descriptive study was used to determine the facilitating and
detracting factors related to the usage of the TCRC and Writing Lab. Interviewing and
surveying the faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy identified
these specific factors. Lab usage records were also used to identify the original problem
that eventually led to this study.

The facilitating factors that were identified as being the most significant reasons
for faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy to use the TCRC and
Writing Lab were as follows:
• Faculty and staff who taught technical and business writing courses.
• Faculty and staff who researched via the Internet.
• The planned Applied Communications degree program.
• Updating of the computer hardware and software in the TCRC and Writing Lab.

Detracting factors that related to a lack of proper computer equipment, lack of
proper training, and the lack of a clear purpose for using computers were the major
reasons that would discourage a Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff
member from using the TCRC and Writing Lab.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

Chapter 1 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVES 1

Introduction 1

Research Purpose Statement 1

Research Objectives 2

Significance of the Study 2

Study Limitations 2

Study Assumptions 3

Study Definitions 3

Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

Introduction 5

Computer Uses in Education 5

The Future Uses of Computer Technology in Education 8

The Demand of Computer Literate College Graduates 11

The Influence of Computer Anxiety on Educator's Use of

Computers 12

Adopting the Use of Computer Technology 15

Design Factors of Studies Reviewed 17

Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODS 21

Introduction 21

Research Design 21

v

Page

Population and Sample 22

Instrumentation 23

Data Validity and Reliability 24

Data Justification and Common Practices 25

Research Schedule 25

Chapter 4 RESULTS 27
Chapter 5
Introduction 27

Department of English and Philosophy Survey Results 29

Yes/Yes Grouping Survey Results 32

No/Yes Grouping Survey Results 35

No/No Grouping Survey Results 38

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41

Introduction 41

Summary 41

Conclusions 42

Department of English and Philosophy Faculty 43
Grouping

Yes/Yes Grouping 46

No/Yes Grouping 47

No/No Grouping 48

Recommendations 49

Recommendations Based on the Findings 49

Recommendations for Further Research 50

References vi
Appendix A INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM
Appendix B INTERVIEW WORKSHEET Page
Appendix C COVER OF SURVEY 52
Appendix D SURVEY 58
60
62
64

vii

LIST OF TABLES Page
Table 27
1 Survey Response Key 28
2 Decision-Rule 29
3 Cross-Tabulation Analysis Results 30
4 Department of English and Philosophy / Facilitating Factors Ranking 31
5 Department of English and Philosophy / Detracting Factors Ranking 32
6 Yes/Yes Grouping / Facilitating Factors Ranking 34
7 Yes/Yes Grouping / Detracting Factors Ranking 35
8 No/Yes Grouping / Facilitating Factors Ranking 37
9 No/Yes Grouping / Detracting Factors Ranking 38
10 No/No Grouping / Facilitating Factors Ranking 39
11 No/No Grouping / Detracting Factors Ranking

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the fall of 1994, I was working in a dead-end, fast food job. I didn't have my
undergraduate degree and I did not have the faintest idea what graduate school was all
about. Besides my lack of education, I was a newly divorced father of two little girls. I
really did not know which way to go and I certainly did not feel very good about myself.
So instead of just being one of many people who complain about their jobs and live a life
of quiet desperation, I decided to go back to college and finish my undergraduate degree.
It was a big step for me. I had not been in school for five years. During my initial six
years in school, my only concern was keeping my GPA high enough to stay eligible for
football. Now, I wanted to finish my degree because I held out hope that there may be a
more meaningful existence for me if I was educated.
Four years have past since I decided to go back to school. Amazingly enough, I
am writing this acknowledgment section for my research paper. I am soon to receive my
Master of Science Degree in Training and Development. Wow! What a turn of events!
Needless to say, I have some thank yous' to give out.
Mary Mero, my undergraduate degree advisor. It was scary to come back to the
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Mary helped me to organize my degree plan,
listened to me when I had personal issues, and generally was my friend. She believed in
me and helped me to believe in myself. Thank you Mary! I hope I can help others as
you have helped me.
Dr. Joseph Benkowski, my degree and research paper advisor. I appreciate your
commitment to me as a student. Honestly, I have not seen many teachers who put forth
the effort that you do. Also, it is refreshing to have a teacher that is both an expert in

ix

their field and personable all at the same time. Thanks Joe!
To Dr. Susanne Johnston, who proofread this research paper. Thank you

Susanne. I appreciate the time you took to help me make this paper as good as it could
be.

To all of the people I have encountered in the Training & Development Program.
You people are the cream-of-the-crop. It is so refreshing to be around you people. I have
probably learned as much from you folks as I have learned from my instructors. Thank
you!

My family and friends outside of my degree program. You people held me up
and encouraged me at times when I just wanted to throw it all away. You know what I
have gone through to get to this milestone. Thanks for sticking with me and encouraging
me.

My mother and father, Charles and Robin Sveum, who helped me out in many
ways as I continued with my education and got back on my feet after my divorce. Thank
you!

My little girls, Ashley and Samantha. What else can I say? I love both of you
very much. I chose the path toward higher education because I want the best for you.
You both awe me and inspire me. You are both so unique and special in your own ways.
I love you Ashley! I love you Samantha!

Most of all, I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You know how far
I fell. Yet, here I am. Thank you for second chances. I am looking forward to the rest of
the journey.

1

CHAPTER I
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVES

Introduction
The Technical Communication Resource Center (TCRC) and Writing Lab is a
facility that enables students to use word processing equipment in writing and revising
their compositions in freshman English. The TCRC and Writing Lab is also a resource
for advanced courses that deal with technical writing and multi-media authoring.
Unlike other general access labs on campus, Department of English and
Philosophy faculty and staff have first priority in the use of the lab. Open hours are
available to students, but only after the faculty and staff's computer lab needs have been
met.
During the 1997-98 school year, the lab supervisor observed that scheduled use of
the TCRC and Writing Lab for courses in the Department of English and Philosophy had
declined. By the end of the spring semester 1998, only six members of the department
had used the lab. This small number of users persisted even after a substantial
modification of the lab had been approved. The new computer equipment is scheduled to
be ready for use by the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. The question is, "Why isn't
the TCRC and Writing Lab used by more of the faculty and staff of the Department of
English and Philosophy?"

Research Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to identify the facilitating and detracting factors that
affect the utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by the faculty and staff of the
Department of English and Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. The

2

detracting and facilitating factors will then be analyzed. Recommendations, based on the
analysis will then be made to increase the utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab.

Research Objectives
The objectives of this study are as follows:
1. Identify the facilitating factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.
2. Identify the detracting factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to NOT USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.
3. Identify interventions to improve utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by
Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff.

Significance of the Study
The TCRC Writing Lab is getting new computers and accessory equipment that
will make it one of the best computer labs at UW-Stout. Because of the concern over low
usage in the past, it is important to identify the factors that relate to usage. The ultimate
goal of this study is to recommend interventions that will lead to greater lab usage by the
Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff.

Study Limitations
The following are the limitations of this study:
1. The sample population is very specific and may not relate to other academic
departments at the University of Wisconsin-Stout.
2. This study is time specific. The results for this study will likely only be beneficial for
the 1998-1999 school year.

3

3. One limitation of this study is the author's knowledge of the TCRC and Writing Lab
and the Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff who use it. Great
care was taken to insure that this circumstance would not unduly influence the
responses of the faculty and staff members. However, there is still the possibility that
a bias has occurred because the author of this study and the lab supervisor are the
same person.
Study Assumptions
It is a fact that the TCRC and Writing Lab is going to have some of the newest

and technologically advanced computer hardware and software available at the
University of Wisconsin–Stout. However, the best use of this equipment is not entirely
clear. If the current departmental policy and methods of managing and coordinating the
use of the lab stay as they have been, it is likely that the TCRC and Writing Lab will not
be used to its full capacity. It is also likely that the number of Department of English and
Philosophy faculty and staff using the lab will remain low.

Study Definitions
TCRC and Writing Lab

The Technical Communications Resource Center and Writing Lab is located in
Harvey Hall, room 205, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Stout. The lab is
managed and used by the Department of English and Philosophy. The TCRC and
Writing Lab is a facility that enables students to use word processing equipment in
writing and revising their compositions in freshman English. The lab is also used for
advanced writing courses, web page design, and online research activities. The TCRC
and Writing Lab is also available to the student population when the schedule permits.

4

Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff have priority in scheduling the
use of the lab.
Detracting Factors

These are the factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy faculty
and staff member to choose to NOT USE the TCRC and Writing Lab. The detracting
factors will be identified via the study results.
Facilitating Factors

These are the factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy faculty
and staff member to choose to USE the TCRC and Writing Lab. The facilitating factors
will be identified via the study results.
Department of English and Philosophy Faculty and Staff Members

Department of English and Philosophy instructors who have primary access
privileges to the TCRC and Writing Lab.
Lab Supervisor

The TCRC Writing Lab is managed by a department funded graduate
assistantship. It is this person’s responsibility to manage the student lab assistants and a
variety of other duties that support the lab.
Student Lab Assistants

These are students who work in the lab while attending classes at the University
of Wisconsin–Stout. Their primary duties lie in the day-to-day operation of the lab.
Faculty Utilization

This is how the faculty and staff in the Department of English and Philosophy
choose to use the TCRC and Writing Lab.

5

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction
This review of literature will look at computer uses in education, future uses of
computer technology in education, demand for computer literate college graduates, the
influence of computer anxiety on educator's use of computers, adopting the use of
computer technology and design factors of studies reviewed.

Computer Uses in Education
Computers have a wide variety of administrative uses in education. The
following is a list of several uses:
1. Student census information (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
2. Student health information (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
3. Attendance records (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
4. Extracurricular activity participation records (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
5. Honor roll information (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
6. Student discipline information (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
7. Student-at-risk information (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
8. Mailing labels and form letters (Mulder & Francis, 1993).
9. Payroll (Kazlauskas & Picus, 1990).
10. Scheduling (Kazlauskas & Picus, 1990).
11. Budgeting (Kazlauskas & Picus, 1990).
12. Management of student support services (Kazlauskas & Picus, 1990).
13. Routing and dispatching of school buses (Kazlauskas & Picus, 1990).

6

14. Aid for school administrators in decision making process (Kazlauskas & Picus,
1990).

15. Creation, storage and analysis of student portfolios (Askov, 1994).
16. Record and save student grades (Askov, 1994).
17. Individualized student assessments and customized interventions (Askov, 1994).

Other than administrative uses, there are also a wide variety of uses of computers
by instructors. The following are examples of how instructors can use computers:
1. Using e-mail for academic purposes (Falba, Zehm, Bean, Markos, Dixon &

McKinney, 1997).
2. Exploring the World Wide Web for information related to topics being discussed in

class (Falba, et al, 1997).
3. Using multimedia skills to develop electronic presentations (Falba, et al, 1997).
4. Creating and implementing of distance education courses (Gilbert, 1995).
5. Creating rough drafts (Hope, 1997).
6. Storing and retrieving class materials (Hope, 1997).
7. Creating exams (Hope, 1997).
8. Creating worksheets (Hope, 1997).
9. Maintaining students grades (Hope, 1997).
10. Writing lesson plans (Hope, 1997).
11. Using class discussion lists (Davies, 1995, as cited in Claget, 1995).
12. Designing software that simplifies certain functions of the instructor (ie. test creation

software) (Gibbs & Lario-Gibbs, 1995).

7

The variety of uses of computers by instructors is beneficial. The following is a
collection of quotes from instructors who use computers:

"It makes my job a little easier." "The more I use it my professionalism
increases." "It saves time." "It is a quicker and easier way of doing grades and
lesson plans." "I've gained more knowledge and my production has improved."
"Great, it is a time saver." "At first I was afraid, thinking it would interfere with
other things." "It has made things so much more convenient." "I feel better about
myself." "It is indispensable." "It is better than the traditional way." (Hope,
1995, as cited in Hope, 1997, p. 109)
Along with instructors and administrators, there are many uses for computers by
students. The following is a list of computer uses by students:
1. Sending and receiving e-mail (Arnzen, 1995)
2. Subscribing to online discussion groups (Arnzen, 1995).
3. Surfing the Internet (Arnzen, 1995).
4. Finding information on students and faculty at the school students attend (Arnzen,
1995).
5. Word processing research papers and other assignments (Arnzen, 1995).
6. Creating graphics (Arnzen, 1995).
7. Subscribing to on-campus or off-campus e-mail mailing lists (Arnzen, 1995).
8. Using online chat rooms (Arnzen, 1995).
9. Storing and retrieving documents and other data (Arnzen, 1995).
10. Creating a resume or portfolio (Arnzen, 1995).
11. Subscribing to a wide variety of online magazines (Arnzen, 1995).

8

12. Downloading textbooks versus purchasing them (Arnzen, 1995).
13. Conducting library research (Lance, 1996).
14. Enrolling in classes (Lance, 1996).
15. Taking admissions tests (Lance, 1996).
16. Using computers with assistive technologies that make them accessible by persons

with disabilities (Lance, 1996).
17. Downloading software from sources on the Internet (Harris & Ludwig, 1997).
18. Printing paper copies of documents (Harris & Ludwig, 1997).
19. Creating computer software (Ayersman & Others, 1996).
20. Using spreadsheet programs (Ayersman & Others, 1996).
21. Using database programs (Ayersman & Others, 1996).
22. Creating electronic presentations (Ayersman & Others, 1996).
23. Using desktop publishing (Ayersman & Others, 1996).
24. Translating file formats (Ayersman & Others, 1996).
25. Using and creating digital and analog video (Ayersman & Others, 1996).
26. Using and creating digital and analog sound (Ayersman & Others, 1996).

The Future Uses of Computer Technology in Education
Just a decade ago, the idea of travelling to places around the world via the Internet
was known to only a select group of computer users. Today the Internet has become as
commonplace as using the telephone or renting a video. As for education and computers,
it is likely that the developments of tomorrow are the seemingly impossible ideas of
today. The following is a list of future computer uses in education. Along with this list

9

will be items which may not seem to have a direct connection to education today, but
may very well have a considerable influence in the future.
1. Improved power, speed and storage capability of the personal computer (Vogt, 1993,

as cited in Locksley & Others, 1993).
2. Improved and increased use of digital video (Vogt, 1993, as cited in Locksley &

Others, 1993).
3. Increased bandwidth on networks (Vogt, 1993, as cited in Locksley & Others, 1993).
4. Expansion of fiber optic networks (Vogt, 1993, as cited in Locksley & Others, 1993).
5. Use of microwave technology (Vogt, 1993, as cited in Locksley & Others, 1993).
6. Improved access to a wide variety of information (Vogt, 1993, as cited in Locksley &

Others, 1993).
7. Improved accessibility to computer technology and networks (Vogt, 1993, as cited in

Locksley & Others, 1993).
8. Increased use of distance education courses (Vogt, 1993, as cited in Locksley &

Others, 1993).
9. Movement from teacher-focused learning to learner-centered (Vogt, 1993, as cited in

Locksley & Others, 1993).
10. Use of high definition television, laser discs and interactive video (Waddell, 1993, as

cited in Locksley & Others, 1993).
11. Increased use of computers in private homes (Balajthy, 1995).
12. Use of computer assisted instructional software. In other words, the computer as a

tutor (Balajthy, 1995).
13. Increased use of telecommunications applications (Balajthy, 1995).

10

14. Use of electronic, interactive books (Balajthy, 1995).
15. Use of voice recognition technology (Balajthy, 1995).
16. Use of "edutainment" software. Learning and entertainment multimedia combined

(Balajthy, 1995).
17. Use of telecomputers. A computer and telephone combined (Connections, 1993).
18. Use of language translators (Connections, 1993).
19. Use of wireless network connections (Connections, 1993).
20. Use of network connections utilizing virtual reality technology (Connections, 1993).
21. Use of personal digital assistants intelligence agents (Connections, 1993).
22. Use of three-dimensional graphics (Connections, 1993).
23. Use of advanced scanning abilities (Connections, 1993).
24. Increased use of hand held computers (Connections, 1993).
25. Use of individualized, computer generated instructors that meet the individual

learning needs for each student (Connections, 1993).
26. Use of ultra small data storage devices with tremendous amounts of storage capacity

(Connections, 1993).
As noticed from the variety of uses listed, the computer is indeed a part of the

administrator's, instructor’s and student's life. However, the computer is not used
exclusively in the educational setting. There is a demand for the benefits computers can
provide in business and industry. In other words, there is a demand in business and
industry for computer literate individuals. The next section will examine the demand for
computer literate college graduates.

11

The Demand for Computer Literate College Graduates
No longer is business conducted exclusively within the boundaries of the USA.
The term "Global Economy" is the paradigm that has traditional businesses scrambling to
find an advantage or to simply survive. The report on Skill Needs and Training
Strategies in the Wisconsin Printing Industry describes this phenomenon.
... firms of all types are facing increased competition, rapid technological change,
and more sophisticated customer demands are creating pressures to change the
organization of work and production. New skills are required of workers to meet
these competitive pressures. (1992, p.8)
The report, Workforce Literacy: An Economic Challenge for Canada also shows
how business in our world is changing and relates it to computers and general
technology.
Technology, like international competition and the emergence of an integrated
world economy, is changing the way [people] ... work. Computers are familiar
pieces of equipment in offices and factories, and [people] ... working on the shop
floor and in the boardroom are having to learn new tasks. The new workplace
skills require more education, more training, better communication, [and] higher
levels of literacy. Skilled minds are taking over from the skilled hands of
yesteryear. (1990, p.6)
Focusing more on the demand for computer literate graduates in business and
industry, Lindquist states:
It should be noted that employers value the ability to use the personal computer
for analysis and other functions. The demand for this competency continues to

12

grow faster than anyone has projected. It is a skill that will be utilized throughout
one's professional career. (1991,p.21)
Simply put, uses for computers and competent computer users are in high
demand. This brings about a variety of responses from people who use or have used
computers. Computer Anxiety is one of those responses that a portion of the population
experiences. It is a very real phenomenon that acts as a roadblock for persons who would
otherwise benefit from the use of a computer. The next section covers the influence of
computer anxiety on educator's use of computers.

The Influence of Computer Anxiety on Educator's Use of Computers
In the literature, different terms were used to relate to computer anxiety. The
following definition seems to best fit the purpose of this study.
Computer anxiety has been defined as the fear, apprehension, and hope people
feel when considering use or actually using computer technology (Cambre &
Cook, 1985; Rohner & Simonson, 1981, as cited in Rockwell & Scott, 1997, p.
45), and as a fear of impending interaction with a computer that is
disproportionate to the actual threat presented by the computer. (Howard, Murphy
& Thomas, 1986, as cited in Rockwell & Scott, 1997, p. 45).
It is important to note that computer anxiety is not a terminal condition. Cambre
and Cook, (1987, as cited in Pina & Harris, 1993) state "that computer anxiety is viewed
best as a temporary anxiety state, rather than a permanent anxiety trait and, as such, it
should be susceptible to change" (p. 3).
Academic major plays a part in computer anxiety. Individuals who were in
mathematics and science majors tended to exhibit less computer anxiety than those

13

persons who were in humanities and social science majors do (Raub, 1982). Studies
(Liu, Reed, & Phillips, 1990; Rosen, Sears, & Weil, 1987, as cited in Hadfield, Love &
Maddux, 1997) state that "social science, education, and humanities students have more
computer anxiety and less positive attitudes than mathematics, science, and business
students" (p.15).

With any useable skill, the type of experiences a person has had in the past affects
what they will learn in the future. Regarding computer usage, "past computer experience
has been shown to be inversely related to computer aversion" [anxiety] (Dyck & Smither,
1994; Igbaria & Chakrabarti, 1990; Kernan & Howard, 1990; Maurer, 1994; Reed &
Overbaugh, 1993, as cited in Hadfield, Love & Maddux, 1997, p.14). One survey that
relates to prior computer experience with teachers reported

Only 25% of teachers had taken an undergraduate computer course, and 51%
stated that the major factor that would influence them to increase the use of
computer technology in their classrooms would be to receive more and better
training. ("Instructor Survey," 1991, as cited in Hadfield, Love & Maddux, 1997,
p. 14)
A gender-biased idea that has been popular in the past is that the use of computers
is a man's job. This idea was discounted by a study (Busch, 1995) that found being a
male or female did not determine whether or not an individual would be more or less
likely to exhibit computer anxiety. Another study concluded "the differences in computer
aversion [anxiety] between sexes were neither strong nor consistent" (Rosen & Maguire,
1990, as cited in Hadfield, Love, & Maddux, 1997, p.16).

14

It has been commonly implied that the older generation would most often be the
population who would exhibit computer anxiety. Several studies, however, have shown
that the relationship between age and computer anxiety is not clear (Hunt & Bohlin,
1991; Igbaria & Chakrabarti, 1990). A study by Carter (1997) showed that there is not a
relationship between a person's propensity to use a computer and their age.

The relationship between computer anxiety and ethnic background has been given
only minimal attention. Rosen, Sears & Weil (1987) found that "non-whites had less
computer anxiety, but whites had more positive attitudes with respect to personal use of
computers" (p.167). Results from a study by McInerney, Valentina, and Others (1990)
stated, "a main effect for student ethnicity approached significance ... with Anglo
students expressing less anxiety than ethnic students ... " (p. 4).

Attitude and computer anxiety is very closely related. Generally, those who have
good attitudes about computers exhibit less anxiety. Dupagne & Krendl (1992) stated,
"The literature reviewed ... demonstrates that teachers' attitudes toward computers are
generally positive. [The computer medium is viewed] as having great potential for
classroom instruction" (p. 420-429). On the other hand, there is a group of educators that
has a negative attitude toward computers. Conversely, computer anxiety is more
prevalent in this group. Pina & Savenye, (1992, as cited by Pina & Harris, 1993) stated,
"Many teachers feel that they need to be proficient at programming in order to use
computers, while others are afraid of looking foolish, getting lost, or pressing the wrong
button and damaging the computer" (p. 3). The best and most commonly mentioned
intervention to remedy negative attitudes and computer anxiety is proper training. In a

15

study that examined the introduction of computer technology to a group of in-service
chemistry teachers, Dori and Barnea stated

... we conducted in-service training for chemistry teachers, in which they were
exposed to CAI [Computer Aided Instruction] through active participation in
using a CAI module on polymers and designing their own mini courseware. To
verify the effectiveness of this training, we examined the attitude change of the
trainees. This change, if found, is a first step towards eliminating computer
anxiety and fostering the introduction of new technologies to the educational
system. (1994, p.16) [The changes that were found] showed that the training
strengthened the confidence of the experimental group in using computers in their
classrooms. (1994, p.12)

Adopting the Use of Computer Technology
Integration is based on the assumption that computers should be an integral part
of the learning process at all levels (Lockard, Abrams & Many, 1994, as cited by
Morton, 1996), that is, the tool should service curriculum needs first and then be
an object for study. However, the integration of computers into everyday
classroom activity has proved to be more slow and difficult than many may have
expected it to be (Collis, 1988, as cited by Morton, 1996), giving rise to the notion
that there are incentives and barriers at work enhancing the adoption of
[computer] technology in some schools while effectively blocking wider
acceptance in others. (Morton, 1996, p. 2)
The previous quote, as cited by Morton, shows a problem that prohibits the
effective use of computers in organizations; education included. The problem is the

16

possible barriers that prevent the effective adoption of new computer technology. Some
of these barriers include poor access to appropriate computer hardware and software, lack
of proper training and the idea that use of electronic technologies somehow negates the
serious pursuit of knowledge (Payne, 1997).

On the other hand, there are the incentives for effective adoption of computer
technologies. What factor(s) in adoption of new computer technologies bring about these
positive incentives? According to Pisapia

Effective implementation of the new [computer] technologies requires effective
planning and action on the part of ... [colleges] ... to insure equity of access to
resources, coordination of resources, and developing infrastructures that allow
information sharing and alleviate disparities. (1994, p. 2)
Planning is key to the successful adoption of computer technology (Pisapia,
1994). Payne (1997) identified the necessary conditions needed for a successful
integration [plan] of computers:
1. Access. If the hardware and the software aren't readily available to faculty, no
amount of proselytizing for their advantages will help.
2. Know-how. Opportunities for training and familiarization must exist, as well as on-
going, easily accessible support.
3. Positive ideology. Faculty must believe that information technology can enhance
learning, and… that it will not impair their teaching effectiveness. (p. 3)
Another model, as cited in Pisapia (1994), shows the components found in the
Appleton, Wisconsin School District Plan:
1. Mission

17

2. Applicable law/regulations
3. Goals
4. Coordinator of Instructional Computing
5. Curriculum integration
6. Staff development
7. Computer equipment [requirements]
8. Program/Courseware/Software
9. Facilities development
10. ... [department] standards for hardware and software
11. Mobile carts
12. Lab
13. Fixed location
14. Secondary lab
15. Implementation [of plan] sequence. (p. 6)

The plan an organization has to adopt new computer technology can have as
many different components as is necessary as long as proper consideration is given to
students, faculty, equipment, and curriculum (Payne, 1997).

Design Factors of Studies Reviewed
Of all the resources used in this literature review, twelve of the resources were
research studies previously completed. The studies reviewed ranged from very general to
very specific. The following section will examine formatting of studies, data collection
methods, populations sampled and rationale, and presentation of results. Examples will
be given of cited studies used in this study.

18

The formats of the studies reviewed were basically very similar. The differences
came in the focus. For example, the study by Hadfield, Maddux & Love (1997) had a
format that included a literature review, study purpose, study method, results, discussion
and recommendations. This study had a specific population, which was a sample of 248
preservice teachers enrolled in a computer literacy course. On the other hand, a number
of the surveys did not have a specific population at all. Instead, the study consisted of a
review of literature. The most notable example was the study by Dupagne & Krendl
(1992). This study consisted of an extensive review of literature relating to teacher's
attitudes toward computers.

Aside from collecting data exclusively from a review of literature, there were a
number of studies that used canned data collection instruments and some studies that
created their own data collection instruments. For example, in the study by Scott &
Rockwell (1997), communication apprehension was measured with a form of
McCroskey's 10-item personal report of communication apprehension (PRCA)
(McCroskey, 1970, as cited in Scott & Rockwell, 1997). Writing apprehension was
assessed with Daly and Miller's (1975) 20-item measure (As cited by Scott & Rockwell,
1997). Finally, computer anxiety was evaluated with Raub's (1981) 10-item measure (As
cited in Scott & Rockwell, 1997). An example of a data collection instrument that was
customized specifically for the study comes from Lance's (1996) study titled, Computer
Access in Higher Education: A National Survey of Service Providers for Students with
Disabilities. Lance (1996) stated, "Each participant was mailed a cover letter, a four-
page survey, and a return-addressed, stamped envelope. Items of the survey were based

19

on a comprehensive review of the literature addressing issues in access to computers in
higher education" (p. 280).

The populations sampled in the studies that were reviewed came in one of the
following two forms:
1. Random sample focused on the general population at large.
2. Stratified random sample or a sample that focused on a very specific population.

An example of a random sample study comes from the study by Hadfield,
Maddux & Love (1997). The purpose of their study was to "investigate several of the ...
potential predictor variables and their relationship to computer aversion among preservice
teachers" (p.16). The sample population came from a group of 248 preservice teachers
enrolled at a large state university in the western United States. Obviously, the findings
of this study are for the benefit of all preservice teachers. Therefore, Hafield, Maddux &
Love's (1997) study is an example of a random sample focused on the general population
at large. An example of a stratified random sample or a sample that focused on a very
specific population comes from the study conducted by Carter (1997). The focus of this
study was to examine the factors influencing the use of email by elementary,
middle/junior high, and high school principals in central Appalachia. Central Appalachia
included the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The survey
instrument in this study was sent out only to principals in this specific area. Therefore,
this study is an example of a stratified random sample or a sample that focused on a very
specific population.

20

Generally speaking, all of the studies reviewed used a combination of tables and
text in the presentation of results. As far as specific methods of presenting the results, the
following were methods used:
1. Correlation analysis (Scott & Rockwell, 1997).
2. Regression analysis (Scott & Rockwell, 1997).
3. Ranking items by high (low) mean scores (Scott & Rockwell, 1997).
4. Scoring via use of canned instrument specifications (Scott & Rockwell, 1997)

(Hadfield, Maddux & Love, 1997) (Morton, 1996).
5. Use of Likert Scale (Lance, 1996).
6. Comparison between two or more sets of collected data (Hadfield, Maddux & Love,

1997).
7. Use of standard deviation to analyze the results (Carter, 1997).
8. ANOVA method (Dori & Barnea, 1994).
9. Frequency of occurrence (Morton, 1996).
10. Use of Alpha Scores via SPSS software (Morton, 1996).

21

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction
After a full year of managing the TCRC and Writing Lab, the author of this study
found that only a small number of the faculty and staff in the Department of English and
Philosophy used the lab. This was observed as a problem, considering the Department of
English and Philosophy has their own lab and easy access to it. To add to the problem of
under-utilization, the lab was scheduled to receive a substantial modification. These
changes will likely make the TCRC and Writing Lab one of the best computer labs at
UW-Stout. Hence, the purpose of this study to identify the facilitating and detracting
factors that affect the utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by the faculty and staff of
the Department of English and Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin - Stout.
Specifically, the objectives of this study are as follows:
1. Identify the facilitating factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.
2. Identify the detracting factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to NOT USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.
3. Analyze the facilitating and detracting factors with the intent of recommending
interventions to improve utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by the faculty and
staff of the Department of English and Philosophy.
Research design, population and sample, instrumentation, and research schedule
are the subjects that will be covered in this research methods chapter.

Research Design
For this subject, a descriptive study was used to determine the facilitating and

22

detracting factors related to the use of the TCRC and Writing Lab. Interviewing and
surveying the faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy identified
these specific factors. Lab usage records were also used to identify the original problem
that eventually led to this study.

The descriptive study method, which emphasizes survey and archival analysis,
was the most appropriate due to the nature of the information sought. After the problem
was identified via lab usage records, the "what" or the factors relating to lab usage needed
to be identified to pinpoint the causes of under-utilization. With the factors identified,
interventions could be recommended to potentially increase the utilization of the lab.

With the study purpose and the list of three objectives, the study began. First, the
related literature was reviewed to identify similar studies, create additional ideas related
to the study subject, and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the various research
designs. Second, the research methodology was identified. Third, the instrument to
collect the needed data was created (described in detail in upcoming sections). Fourth,
the data was collected, analyzed and put into a text and visual format. Finally, the data
was used to make recommendations that would potentially lead to better utilization of the
TCRC and Writing Lab.

Population and Sample
The population consists of the faculty and staff of the Department of English and
Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. Generally speaking, this is a highly
educated group of people. The majority of the faculty has PhD's in English or related
academic degrees. Along with the education level, this group also has a great deal of
teaching experience. Currently, there are 27 faculty and staff members in the Department

23

of English and Philosophy (n = 27).
The population (Department of English and Philosophy) has the priority in use of

the TCRC and Writing Lab. Therefore, the faculty and staff of the Department of
English and Philosophy are a logical choice to focus on for this study of utilization of the
TCRC and Writing Lab.

Since the faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy use or do
not use the TCRC and Writing Lab, it makes good sense to go to these people and find
out from them how they choose to use the lab. Therefore, a 100% sample will be used
for this study since the sample size (n=27) is relatively small. Another reason for a 100%
sample is to get input from everyone in the department. Opportunity for utilization of the
TCRC and Writing Lab in the Department of English and Philosophy should be as equal
as possible. Therefore, including all faculty and staff in the department is appropriate.

Instrumentation
The purpose of the study identifies the information that is needed: namely, the
facilitating and detracting factors affecting the utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab.
The identification of these factors (facilitating and detracting) was from the information
provided by the faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy in the
initial interviews and then from the department wide survey results.
The process of identifying the facilitating and detracting factors began with one-
on-one interviews with selected members of the faculty and staff. These interviews aided
in the development of the survey instrument. With the survey instrument, all of the
faculty and staff members had the opportunity to provide their own opinions on the
identified lab usage factors. An equal number of faculty lab users (2) and faculty non-

24

users (2) was selected. The following open-ended questions were used in the interviews:
1. What reasons do faculty and staff in the Department of English and Philosophy have

for using the TCRC and Writing Lab?
2. What reasons do faculty and staff in the Department of English and Philosophy have

for not using the TCRC and Writing Lab?
3. Are there any other comments you have about reasons for use or non-use of the

TCRC and Writing Lab?
The interviewer also probed for additional reasons for the usage and non-usage of

the lab.
After the facilitating and detracting factors were identified through the interviews,

the information was then put into a five - point Likert scale survey. This survey was
distributed to all faculty and staff members in the Department of English and Philosophy.
The resulting data of facilitating and detracting factors was then organized into ranked
(highest to lowest) mean scores. Survey items #43 and #44 were cross-tabulated and
separate rankings of facilitating and detracting factors for each of the four groups were
listed. The facilitating and detracting factors listed in the department results and the four
cross-tabulation groups were then analyzed to create recommendations to address the lab
utilization problem.

Data Validity and Reliability
The content of both the interview questions and the survey relate directly to the
purpose and objectives of this study. In other words, the instruments are valid because
they are measuring what they are supposed to measure. Namely, the facilitating and
detracting factors affecting the utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab.

25

The reliability of the instruments used in this survey is very specific to the time
they are used. It is estimated that the results have the potential to change over time. In
fact, this is desired. Increased utilization of the lab would likely mean that factors that
once were detracting are no longer as influential as previous studies may have shown.

It should also be noted that both the authors' research advisor and the university's
research and statistical consultant reviewed the survey instrument before it was
distributed to the faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy.

Data Justification and Common Practices
It is a well-known fact that computer technology changes at an astounding rate.
One day an organization possesses state-of-the-art equipment, and in a month's time that
same equipment is obsolete. The same can be said of this study. The data that was
collected now will very likely change in the future. Therefore, the data collected in this
study are valid for the listed purpose and objectives.

Research Schedule
The following is the progression of the major research activities for this study:
1. The interviews that were used to identify the facilitating and detracting factors
affecting lab utilization were completed during the week ending 7/17/98.
2. After the interviews, the survey was developed and reviewed by the author's research
advisor and the university's research and statistical consultant who were contacted by
the author of this study. This occurred during the week ending 7/24/98.
Modifications were made to add an additional detracting factor, along with editing a
number of the items that were not properly worded. The survey was examined a
second time by one of the previously mentioned research experts and found to be

26

ready for distribution to the sample group.
3. The survey was distributed to the faculty and staff of the Department of English and

Philosophy at the department meeting that began the new school year. This meeting
took place on 8/31/98.
4. The majority of the surveys were returned during the week ending 9/11/98. A second
round of surveys was distributed on 9/24/98. On 10/8/98, the author of the study
determined that enough surveys had been returned (21) to sufficiently address the
purpose of the study. Twenty-one returned surveys represent 78% of the total survey
sample.

27

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

Introduction

After two distributions of the survey instrument, it was determined that a

reasonable percentage (78%) had been returned and that the results could be processed

and examined. Mean scores determined the ranking of those factors that were identified

in the preliminary interviews. The highest mean score and the most significant

corresponding facilitating / detracting factor was listed first and then descended to the

lowest score and the least significant corresponding facilitating / detracting factor. The

mean score rankings correspond to the (Table 1) response key:

Table 1 (Survey Response Key)

Descriptor Value

Strongly Agree 5.0

Agree 4.0

Neutral 3.0

Disagree 2.0

Strongly Disagree 1.0

To better determine the significance of the ranked facilitating and detracting
factors, a decision-rule table was created. Table 2 shows the components of the decision-
rule table.

28

Table 2 (Decision-Rule Table)
If... Then...
Mean Score > 3.00 The Facilitating / Detracting Factor is SIGNIFICANT.
Mean Score < 3.00 The Facilitating / Detracting Factor is NOT SIGNIFICANT.
Mean Score = 3.00 The Facilitating / Detracting Factor is SOMEWHAT

SIGNIFICANT.

Along with the mean score ranking of facilitating and detracting factors, a cross-
tabulation analysis was used to determine the users of the TCRC and Writing Lab.
Survey items 42 & 43 asked the respondents if they had used the lab in the past and if
they were planning on using the lab in the future. Three groups identified themselves.
The first group was labeled the “Yes/Yes Grouping.” This group had used the TCRC and
Writing Lab in the past and was planning on using the lab in the future. The second
group was labeled the “No/Yes Grouping.” This group had not used the TCRC and
Writing Lab in the past, but was planning on using the lab in the future. The third group
was labeled the “No/No Grouping.” This group had not used the TCRC and Writing Lab
in the past and had no plans for using the lab in the future. The fourth potential grouping,
the Yes/No Grouping, was not represented in the cross-tabulation analysis. Table 3
shows the results of the cross-tabulation analysis. (Note: Two of the twenty-one returned
surveys were not included in the results because they were not properly completed.)

29

Table 3 (Cross-Tabulation Analysis Results)

Survey Items WILL use the lab in the FUTURE WILL NOT use the lab in the
FUTURE
USED lab in the 13
PAST. Yes/Yes Grouping 0
DID NOT USE Yes/No Grouping
lab in the PAST. 3
No/Yes Grouping 3
No/No Grouping

The results of this study first show the facilitating and detracting factors from the
perspective of the entire faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy.
After the department results have been presented, the facilitating and detracting factors
identified in the Yes/Yes Grouping, No/Yes Grouping, and the No/No Grouping will be
presented.

Department of English and Philosophy Survey Results
Facilitating Factors

The department faculty and staff identified factors 1 through 12 (Table 4) as the
significant facilitating factors for using the TCRC and Writing Lab. The number one
ranked facilitating reason for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was “I see value in
researching via the web.” This facilitating factor had a mean score of 4.16. The next
ranked facilitating reason for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was “Because the
computer equipment has recently been updated, I will be more likely to use the lab.”
This facilitating factor had a mean score of 4.11. The facilitating factor, “Applied
Communications students will be more likely to use the lab,” was next in rank order.
This facilitating factor had a mean score of 4.00. The lowest ranked significant
facilitating factor was item 12 (Table 4). “The lab is a good place to work with English

30

Composition classes.” This facilitating factor had a mean score of 3.26. The rest of the

significant and non-significant facilitating factors are listed in Table 4.

Table 4 (Department of English and Philosophy / Facilitating Factors Ranking)

Facilitating Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
Department of English and Philosophy Results
1. I see value in researching via the web. 4.16
4.11
2. Because the computer equipment has recently been updated, I will
be more likely to use the lab. 4.00
3.89
3. Applied Communications student will be more likely to use the lab. 3.58

4. The lab is convenient to use versus other labs on campus. 3.53

5. Using the lab’s computers, with the assistance of the instructor, 3.47
improves the revision and editing process. 3.32
3.32
6. Technical and Business Writing classes are more likely to use the 3.32
lab. 3.26

7. The new multimedia station is something I will likely make use of. 3.26
2.53
8. Groups within the department use the lab to define themselves. 2.42
2.42
9. The lab is a dependable place to use computers. 2.21
2.21
10. Using the lab is a fun break from regular classroom activities.

11. I use the lab so that my classes develop coping skills in an
electronic environment.

12. The lab is a good place to work with English Composition classes.

13. I (will) use the lab so that my students can develop web pages.

14. I use the lab for web-based demonstrations.

15. I use the lab to teach my students how to use e-mail.

16. I use the lab to teach my student’s word processing.

17. I use the lab because it is expected that I do.

Detracting Factors
The department faculty and staff identified factors 1 through 9 (Table 5) as the
significant detracting factors that would discourage a faculty or staff member from using
the TCRC and Writing Lab. The number one ranked detracting factor was “The
computer that I have (had) in my office is (was) outdated.” This detracting factor had a
mean score of 3.63. The next ranked detracting factor was “It is difficult to keep up with

31

technological changes in computers.” This detracting factor also had a mean score of

3.63. The detracting factor, “Students have their own computers,” was next in rank

order. Once again, this detracting factor had a mean score of 3.63. The lowest ranked

significant detracting factor was item 9 (Table 5). “The computer software in the lab is

not my first choice.” This detracting factor had a mean score of 3.05. The rest of the

significant and non-significant detracting factors are listed in Table 5.

Table 5 (Department of English and Philosophy / Detracting Factors Ranking)

Detracting Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
Department of English and Philosophy Results
1. The computer that I have (had) in my office is (was) outdated. 3.63
3.63
2. It is difficult to keep up with technological changes in computers. 3.63
3.32
3. Students have their own computers. 3.26
3.21
4. Students prefer working outside of class. 3.21
3.16
5. Students are already computer literate before they take my class.
3.05
6. I am not sure how to use the lab effectively. 2.95
2.95
7. There is a lack of formal computer training for the department faculty.
2.89
8. I have been deterred from using the lab because of the outdated 2.84
equipment. 2.74
2.74
9. The computer software in the lab is not my first choice. 2.63
2.53
10. Scheduling problems deter me from using the lab. 2.42
2.42
11. Group work doesn't happen in the lab because computers isolate the
students. 2.32
2.32
12. There is a lack of technical assistance while using the lab.

13. I don't use the lab because I can't spare regular class time.

14. Too much effort is required to incorporate the lab into a class lesson.

15. The computer platforms in the lab are not my first choice.

16. Computers are intimidating.

17. Computers take too much time to learn.

18. I resist technological changes.

19. The benefits of using the lab don't seem to justify the cost of
incorporating it into my class (es).

20. Critical thinking skills are lacking while using a computer.

21. Political roadblocks within the department deter me from using the
lab.

32

22. Computers are not relevant to English Courses. 2.16
23. I am not sure how the lab fulfills the English Department Mission. 2.00
24. While in the lab, I find it is somewhat difficult to control my class. 2.00
25. There are no proper uses of the lab related to the courses I teach. 1.79

Yes/Yes Grouping Survey Results

Facilitating Factors

The Yes/Yes Grouping identified factors 1 through 12 (Table 6) as the significant

facilitating factors for using the TCRC and Writing Lab. The number one ranked

facilitating factor for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was,“I see value in researching

via the web.” This facilitating factor had a mean score of 4.69. The next ranked

facilitating factor for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was, “Because the computer

equipment has recently been updated, I will be more likely to use the lab.” This

facilitating factor had a mean score of 4.38. The facilitating factor, “Applied

Communications students will be more likely to use the lab,” was next in rank order.

This facilitating factor had a mean score of 4.15. The lowest ranked significant

facilitating factor was item 12 (Table 6); “Groups within the department use the lab to

define themselves.” This facilitating factor had a mean score of 3.31. The rest of the

significant and non-significant facilitating factors are listed in Table 6.

Table 6 (Yes/Yes Grouping / Facilitating Factors Ranking)

Facilitating Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
Yes/Yes Grouping
1. I see value in researching via the web. 4.69
4.38
2. Because the computer equipment has recently been updated, I will
be more likely to use the lab. 4.15

3. Applied Communications students will be more likely to use the 4.08
lab.

4. The lab is convenient to use versus other labs on campus.

33

5. Using the lab’s computers, with the assistance of the instructor, 3.77
improves the revision and editing process.
3.62
6. The new multimedia station is something I will likely make use of. 3.62

7. Technical and Business Writing classes are more likely to use the 3.54
lab. 3.46
3.38
8. The lab is a good place to work with English Composition classes.
3.38
9. The lab is a dependable place to use computers. 3.31
2.69
10. I use the lab so that my classes develop coping skills in an 2.62
electronic environment. 2.54
2.38
11. Using the lab is a fun break from regular classroom activities. 2.08

12. Groups within the department use the lab to define themselves.

13. I use the lab for web-based demonstrations.

14. I use the lab to teach my students how to use email.

15. I (will) use the lab so that my students can develop web pages.

16. I use the lab to teach my student’s word processing.

17. I use the lab because it is expected that I do so.

Detracting Factors
The Yes/Yes Grouping identified factors 1 through 7 (Table 7) as the significant
detracting factors that would discourage a faculty or staff member from using the TCRC
and Writing Lab. The number one ranked detracting factor was “It is difficult to keep up
with technological changes in computers.” This detracting factor had a mean score of
3.85. The next ranked detracting factor was “Students have their own computers.” This
detracting factor had a mean score of 3.69. The detracting factor, “I have been deterred
from using the lab because of outdated equipment,” was next in rank order. This
detracting factor had a mean score of 3.31. The lowest ranked significant detracting
factor was item 7 (Table 7), “The computer that I have (had) in my office is (was)
outdated.” This detracting factor had a mean score of 3.15. Detracting factors 8 through
10 were identified as being somewhat significant. The rest of the significant, somewhat
significant and non-significant detracting factors are listed in Table 7.

34

Table 7 (Yes/Yes Grouping / Detracting Factors Ranking)

Detracting Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
Yes/Yes Grouping
1. It is difficult to keep up with technological changes in computers. 3.85
3.69
2. Students have their own computers. 3.31

3. I have been deterred from using the lab because of the outdated 3.31
equipment. 3.31
3.23
4. Students prefer working outside of class.
3.15
5. Students are already computer literate before they take my class. 3.00
3.00
6. There is a lack of formal computer training for the department 3.00
faculty. 2.85
2.85
7. The computer that I have (had) in my office is (was) outdated.
2.69
8. I am not sure how to use the lab effectively. 2.69
2.46
9. There is a lack of technical assistance while using the lab. 2.46
2.38
10. The computer software in the lab is not my first choice. 2.31
2.23
11. Scheduling problems deter me from using the lab.
2.08
12. Group work doesn’t happen in the lab because computers isolate the
students. 2.00
2.00
13. The computer platforms in the lab are not my first choice. 1.77
1.69
14. I don’t use the lab because I can’t spare regular class time. 1.46

15. Too much effort is required to incorporate the lab into a class lesson.

16. Critical thinking skills are lacking while using a computer.

17. Computers take too much time to learn.

18. Computers are intimidating.

19. The benefits of using the lab don’t seem to justify the cost of
incorporating it into my class (es).

20. Political roadblocks within the department deter me from using the
lab.

21. I resist technological changes.

22. Computers are not relevant to English Courses.

23. While in the lab, I find it is somewhat difficult to control my class.

24. I am not sure how the lab fulfills the English Department Mission.

25. There are no proper uses of the lab related to the courses I teach.

35

No/Yes Grouping Survey Results

Facilitating Factors

The No/Yes Grouping identified factors 1 through 7 (Table 8) as the significant

facilitating factors for using the TCRC and Writing Lab. The number one ranked

facilitating factor for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was “Applied Communications

students will be more likely to use the lab.” This facilitating factor had a mean score of

4.33. The next ranked facilitating factor for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was

“Groups with the department use the lab to define themselves.” This facilitating factor

had a mean score of 3.67. The facilitating factor, “The new multimedia station is

something I will likely make use of,” was next in rank order. This facilitating factor also

had a mean score of 3.67. The lowest ranked significant facilitating factors were items 6

& 7 (Table 8). “Using the lab’s computer equipment, with the assistance of the

instructor, improves the revision and editing process.” “The lab is convenient to use

versus other labs on campus.” These facilitating factors both had a mean score of 3.33.

Facilitating factors 8 through 11 (Table 8) were identified as being somewhat significant.

The rest of the significant, somewhat significant and non-significant facilitating factors

are listed in Table 8.

Table 8 (No/Yes Grouping / Facilitating Factors Ranking)

Facilitating Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
No/Yes Grouping
1. Applied Communications student will be more likely to use the lab. 4.33
3.67
2. Groups within the department use the lab to define themselves. 3.67
3.67
3. The new multimedia station is something I will likely make use of.
3.67
4. Technical and Business Writing classes are more likely to use the
lab.

5. Because the computer equipment has recently been updated, I will
be more likely to use the lab.

36

6. Using the lab’s computers, with the assistance of the instructor, 3.33
improves the revision and editing process.
3.33
7. The lab is convenient to use versus other labs on campus. 3.00
8. I use the lab so that my classes develop coping skills in an
3.00
electronic environment. 3.00
9. The lab is a dependable place to use computers. 3.00
10. The lab is a good place to work with English Composition classes. 2.67
11. Using the lab is a fun break from regular classroom activities. 2.33
2.33
12. I use the lab because it is expected that I do. 1.33
13. I (will) use the lab so that my students can develop web pages. 1.00
14. I see value in researching via the web. 1.00
15. I use the lab to teach my students how to use e-mail.

16. I use the lab to teach my students’ word processing.
17. I use the lab for web-based demonstrations.

Detracting Factors
The No/Yes Grouping identified factors 1 through 13 (Table 9) as the significant
detracting factors that would discourage a faculty or staff member from using the TCRC
and Writing Lab. The number one ranked detracting factor was “The computer that I
have (had) in my office is (was) outdated.” This detracting factor had a mean score of
4.67. Detracting factors 2 through 7 are tied for second with a mean score of 3.67. The
detracting factor, “I am not sure how to use the lab effectively,” was one of the factors
tied for second. There was also a tie for the lowest significant detracting factor. Factors
8 through 13 all have a mean score of 3.33. The detracting factor, “Computers are
intimidating,” was one of the factors tied with the lowest significant mean score.
Detracting factors 14 through 19 were identified as being somewhat significant. The
rest of the significant, somewhat significant and non-significant detracting factors are
listed in Table 9.

37

Table 9 (No/Yes Grouping / Detracting Factors Ranking)

Detracting Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
No/Yes Grouping
1. The computer that I have (had) in my office is (was) outdated. 4.67
3.67
2. I am not sure how to use the lab effectively. 3.67

3. There is a lack of formal computer training for the department 3.67
faculty. 3.67
3.67
4. I don't use the lab because I can't spare regular class time.
3.67
5. Students have their own computers. 3.33
3.33
6. Group work doesn't happen in the lab because computers isolate the 3.33
students. 3.33
3.33
7. Students are already computer literate before they take my class. 3.33
3.00
8. Computers are intimidating.
3.00
9. Too much effort is required to incorporate the lab into a class lesson. 3.00
3.00
10. It is difficult to keep up with technological changes in computers. 3.00

11. The computer platforms in the lab are not my first choice. 3.00
2.67
12. The computer software in the lab is not my first choice. 2.67
2.67
13. Students prefer working outside of class.
2.67
14. The benefits of using the lab don't seem to justify the cost of 2.33
incorporating it into my class (es). 2.33

15. There are no proper uses of the lab related to the courses I teach.

16. I am not sure how the lab fulfills the English Department Mission.

17. Scheduling problems deter me from using the lab.

18. I have been deterred from using the lab because of the outdated
equipment.

19. There is a lack of technical assistance while using the lab.

20. While in the lab, I find it is somewhat difficult to control my class.

21. Critical thinking skills are lacking while using a computer.

22. Political roadblocks within the department deter me from using the
lab.

23. Computers take too much time to learn.

24. I resist technological changes.

25. Computers are not relevant to English Courses.

38

No/No Grouping Survey Results

Facilitating Factors

The No/No Grouping identified factors 1 through 4 (Table 10) as the significant

facilitating factors for using the TCRC and Writing Lab. The number one ranked

facilitating factor for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was “I see value in researching

via the web.” This facilitating factor had a mean score of 3.67. The next ranked

facilitating factor for using the TCRC and Writing Lab was “The lab is convenient to use

versus other labs on campus.” This facilitating factor also had a mean score of 3.67.

There was a tie for the lowest ranked significant facilitating factor. These factors were

items 3 and 4 (Table 10). These two facilitating factors have a mean score of 3.33.

Facilitating factors 5 through 10 (Table 10) were identified as being somewhat

significant. The rest of the significant, somewhat significant and non-significant

facilitating factors are listed in Table 10.

Table 10 (No/No Grouping / Facilitating Factors Ranking)

Facilitating Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
No/No Grouping
1. I see value in researching via the web. 3.67
3.67
2. The lab is convenient to use versus other labs on campus. 3.33
3.33
3. Using the lab is a fun break from regular classroom activities.
3.00
4. Because the computer equipment has recently been updated, I will be 3.00
more likely to use the lab. 3.00

5. Groups within the department use the lab to define themselves. 3.00

6. Applied Communications students will be more likely to use the lab. 3.00
3.00
7. I use the lab so that my classes develop coping skills in an electronic
environment.

8. Using the lab’s computers, with the assistance of the instructor,
improves the revision and editing process.

9. The lab is a dependable place to use computers.

10. Technical and Business Writing classes are more likely to use the lab.

39

11. I use the lab to teach my students’ word processing. 2.67
12. I use the lab for web-based demonstrations. 2.67
13. I (will) use the lab so that my students can develop web pages. 2.67
14. I use the lab to teach my students how to use e-mail. 2.67
15. The new multimedia station is something I will likely make use of. 2.67
16. I use the lab because it is expected that I do. 2.33
17. The lab is a good place to work with English Composition classes. 2.33

Detracting Factors
The No/No Grouping identified factors 1 through 8 (Table 11) as the significant
detracting factors that would discourage a faculty or staff member from using the TCRC
and Writing Lab. The number one ranked detracting factor was “The computer that I
have (had) in my office is (was) outdated.” This detracting factor had a mean score of
4.67. The second ranked detracting factor is, “I resist technological changes.” This
detracting factor had a mean score of 4.33. There was a five-way tie for the lowest
significant detracting factor. Factors 4 through 8 all have a mean score of 3.33. The
detracting factor, “Too much effort is required to incorporate the lab into a class lesson,”
was one of the factors tied with the lowest significant mean score. Detracting factors 9
through 12 were identified as being somewhat significant. The rest of the significant,
somewhat significant and non-significant detracting factors are listed in Table 11.
Table 11 (No/No Grouping / Detracting Factors Ranking)

Detracting Factors Mean
(Rank Order via Mean Score) Score
No/No Grouping
1. The computer that I have (had) in my office is (was) outdated. 4.67
4.33
2. I resist technological changes. 3.67
3.33
3. I am not sure how to use the lab effectively. 3.33
3.33
4. Computers are intimidating.

5. Too much effort is required to incorporate the lab into a class lesson.

6. Scheduling problems deter me from using the lab.

40

7. Students prefer working outside of class. 3.33
3.33
8. Students have their own computers. 3.00
3.00
9. It is difficult to keep up with technological changes in computers.
3.00
10. Political roadblocks within the department deter me from using the 3.00
lab. 2.67
2.67
11. The computer software in the lab is not my first choice.
2.67
12. Computers take too much time to learn.
2.67
13. Computers are not relevant to English Courses.
2.67
14. The benefits of using the lab don't seem to justify the cost of 2.67
incorporating it into my class (es).
2.67
15. I have been deterred from using the lab because of the outdated 2.33
equipment. 2.33
2.33
16. There is a lack of formal computer training for the department 2.33
faculty. 2.00
1.33
17. I don't use the lab because I can't spare regular class time.

18. Group work doesn't happen in the lab because computers isolate the
students.

19. Students are already computer literate before they take my class.

20. I am not sure how the lab fulfills the English Department Mission.

21. While in the lab, I find it is somewhat difficult to control my class.

22. There is a lack of technical assistance while using the lab.

23. The computer platforms in the lab are not my first choice.

24. There are no proper uses of the lab related to the courses I teach.

25. Critical thinking skills are lacking while using a computer.

41

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
This chapter includes a summary of the study, conclusions, and recommendations.
The summary includes the purpose of the study, the study objectives, the significance of
the study, the design, and the major findings. The conclusions will cover the significant
facilitating / detracting factors. Lastly, recommendations for use of the study findings
and recommendations for further research will be given.

Summary
The purpose of this study was to identify the facilitating and detracting factors
that affect the utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by the faculty and staff of the
Department of English and Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. The
detracting and facilitating factors were identified so as to provide information in the
development of potential remedies related to the low utilization of the TCRC and Writing
Lab.
The objectives of this study were as follows:
1. Identify the facilitating factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.
2. Identify the detracting factors that cause a Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff member to NOT USE the TCRC and Writing Lab.
3. Identify interventions to improve utilization of the TCRC and Writing Lab by faculty
and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy.
The TCRC and Writing Lab received new computers and accessory equipment
that made it one of the best computer labs at UW-Stout. Because of the concern over low