THE FACILITATING AND DETRACTING FACTORS RELATED TO THE ...

42

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 of 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 related to the use of the lab by faculty and staff members
who taught Technical and Business Writing courses, researched via the Internet, and to
the Applied Communications emphasis lead the way to encourage Department of English
and Philosophy faculty and staff to use the TCRC and Writing Lab. The updating of the
equipment in the TCRC and Writing Lab was also a significant encouragement for the
faculty and staff to use the lab. Detracting factors that related to lack of proper computer
equipment, lack of proper training, and the lack of a clear departmental purpose statement
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.

Conclusions
This conclusion section will be broken down into four sections. First, comments
will be made for the combined survey results of the Department of English and
Philosophy. Second, comments will be made for each of the user groups that identified
themselves in the cross-tabulation analysis. Each section will have two sections. One

43

section will look at the facilitating factors and the other section will look at the detracting
factors.

Department of English and Philosophy Faculty and Staff Grouping
Facilitating Factors

The most significant facilitating factors related to why a Department of English
and Philosophy faculty and staff member would be encouraged to use the TCRC and
Writing Lab relate to the activities that are academic in nature (See Chapter IV, Table 4).
This gives credence to the idea that the use of computers can be effectively incorporated
into course curriculum (Falba, et al, 1997). However, the results of the survey also
suggest that the Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff, who are
involved with Technical and Business Writing classes, will primarily use the TCRC and
Writing Lab.

Other than the facilitating factors that relate to academic uses, the updating of the
TCRC and Writing Lab’s equipment has had a major influence on the future use of the
TCRC and Writing Lab. A mean score of 4.11 is what the Department of English and
Philosophy faculty and staff gave the facilitating factor, “Because the computer
equipment has recently been updated, I will be more likely to use the lab.” The literature
supports the idea that appropriate equipment encourages the use of computers (Payne,
1997).

The facilitating factor, “Groups within the department use the lab to define
themselves,” was ranked as the eighth most significant facilitating factor. It would seem
that the use of the TCRC and Writing Lab is a significant part of many Department of

44

English and Philosophy faculty and staff. Without the lab, certain department members
would appear to be significantly limited in what they would do.
Detracting Factors

There is a direct relationship between the second highest ranked facilitating factor
and the first and eighth detracting factors in the combined departmental survey results
grouping. The relationship has to do with the updating of the equipment in the TCRC
and Writing Lab. The second highest ranked facilitating factor was “Because the
computer equipment has recently been updated, I will be more likely to use the lab.” The
two detracting factors that relate to the highest ranked facilitating factor are related to the
outdated equipment the lab used to have and the outdated equipment that Department of
English and Philosophy faculty and staff have had in their offices. The combined results
of the department ranked the detracting factor, “The computer that I have (had) in my
office is (was) outdated,” as the most significant detracting factor (Mean Score = 3.63).
The eighth ranked detracting factor that is related to the most significant detracting factor
reads, "I have been deterred from using the lab because of the outdated equipment (Mean
Score = 3.16)." From these detracting factors, it can be implied that upgrading the
computer lab equipment on a consistent basis in the future will likely encourage
continued use. However, if faculty and staff members are not given computers or are not
given updated equipment on a frequent basis, the future lab usage may be negatively
affected.

Along with inadequate equipment, detracting factors that relate to knowing how
to properly utilize the TCRC and Writing Lab ranked significantly high. The following

45

detracting factors correspond to knowing how to properly utilize the resources of the
TCRC and Writing Lab:

• It is difficult to keep up with technological changes in computers (Mean Score =
3.63).

• I am not sure how to use the lab effectively (Mean Score = 3.21).
• There is a lack of formal computer training for the department faculty (Mean

Score = 3.21).
The literature is clear about the need for a clear departmental mission for using
computers (Morton, 1996) and providing appropriate training for faculty and staff
members in their given departments (Payne, 1997).
The detracting factor, “It is difficult to keep up with technological changes in
computers,” can be looked at in two ways. First, it can be related to faculty members
who are resistant to technological change. People use a particular computer application
and they use it for years even though there are better, more efficient applications
available to them and their students. On the other hand, change for the sake of change
seems to happen quite often with computers and software. This change for the sake of
change is likely driven by the computer industry. To purchase a new computer and
software will often mean that in two years the equipment is out-of-date. There needs to
be a balance between “purpose” and “computer hardware and software.” Without this
balance, exclusively the forces that affect the computer industry will drive educational
institutions. Again, the literature states that computers need to “service curriculum needs
first” (Morton, 1996, p.2).

46

Yes/Yes Grouping
Facilitating Factors

Sixty-four percent of the respondents fell into the Yes/Yes Grouping. Therefore,
the facilitating factors identified by the Yes/Yes Groupings are generally the same as the
Department of English and Philosophy faculty and staff grouping.
Detracting Factors

Unlike the facilitating factors for the Yes/Yes Grouping, the detracting factors
were somewhat different when compared with the Department of English and Philosophy
faculty and staff grouping results. The most significant detracting factor for the Yes/Yes
Grouping was, “It is difficult to keep up with technological changes in computers.”
Again, a clear departmental purpose statement on the use of computers in the curriculum
and appropriate support (Training / Technical) could effectively alleviate this problem.
Training support for the use of the lab's computers would be provided for the faculty and
staff. This training could be provided by a function within the Department of English and
Philosophy or by a campus wide training provider. The technical support would come
from campus computing services or a computer technician retained by the Department of
English and Philosophy. Further down the list were the detracting factors that related to
the type and age of computer hardware and software. This might suggest that this
grouping have a significant commitment in using computers in their classes. It also
shows that the age or condition of their own computers and the computers that used to be
in the TCRC and Writing Lab were somewhat less of a detracting factor related to the
entire Department of English and Philosophy faculty. Overall, outdated equipment in the

47

TCRC and Writing Lab was ranked as a significant detracting factor when considering
use of the TCRC and Writing Lab.

No/Yes Grouping
Facilitating Factors

Sixteen percent of respondents fell into this grouping. This group may be the
faculty and staff members who are not entirely sure how they can use the TCRC and
Writing Lab, but are encouraged to use the lab because of the recently updated computer
equipment. The top ranked facilitating factors for using the TCRC and Writing Lab seem
to relate to future uses. This supports the earlier statement that this grouping may not
know how to best use the lab. The window of opportunity to keep this group as users
may be small. Therefore, it is critical that this group is supported via training,
encouragement from the Yes/Yes Grouping members, and a clear, concise departmental
statement of purpose regarding the use of computers and the TCRC and Writing Lab.
Detracting Factors

The ranking of detracting factors in the No/Yes Grouping is rather telling.
Overall, it appears that this group does not have a clear understanding of the benefits of
computer use in their classes. Support for this statement comes from the top three ranked
detracting factors. The top three factors read as follows:
1. The computer that I have (had) in my office is (was) outdated (Mean = 4.67).
2. I am not sure how to use the lab effectively (Mean = 3.67).
3. There is a lack of formal computer training for the department faculty (Mean = 3.67).

These top three detracting factors directly relate to the previously mentioned
components that are needed to successfully use computers in an organization: a clear

48

purpose statement, appropriate computer hardware and software, and appropriate training
and support (Payne, 1997).

A detracting factor that had not been significant enough to mention in the
Department of English and Philosophy Results Grouping and Yes/Yes Grouping is the
detracting factor that reads, “Computers are intimidating.” The significance of this factor
relates directly to lack of proper computer training and negative experiences with
computers in the past (Hadfield, Love & Maddux, 1997). Computer anxiety,
computerphobia, and other similar terms are used to describe the irrational fear that is
associated with the use of computers. The author of this study suggests that the members
of the No/Yes Grouping are depending on an unknown positive force that is keeping the
positive use of computers a possible future reality. The way the Department of English
and Philosophy responds to this phenomenon will determine if this group will use the
TCRC and Writing Lab in the future.

No/No Grouping
Facilitating Factors

This grouping doesn't use the TCRC and Writing Lab and has no plans of using it
in the future. This was the only grouping that had lower mean scores for facilitating
reasons versus detracting factor mean scores. In other words, this grouping had stronger
reasons why they would not use the TCRC and Writing Lab.
Detracting Factors

This group has not used the TCRC and Writing Lab in the past and will not use
the updated lab in the future. This group could be considered in the following ways:

49

1. They could represent purists who believe that any technology taints the content of
their classes. The literature supports that some teaching majors are more likely not to
use computers related to their subjects (Raub, 1982).

2. However, this group is likely the people who have had the worst experiences with
computers, have not received appropriate training, and don’t have a clear directive as
to how computers are to fit into their classes. The majority of the identified
significant detracting factors support this statement.
It is notable that the detracting factor, “Political roadblocks within the department

deter me from using lab,” was ranked as a “somewhat significant factor.” This was the
only grouping where this factor was given any significance. How this detracting factor
could relate to the No/No Grouping is likely a subject for future study.

Recommendations
This section contains recommended uses of the findings of this study and will
conclude with recommendations for further research.

Recommendations Based on the Findings
Based on the review of literature and the findings of this study, the author
proposes the following list of recommendations:
1. The Department of English and Philosophy needs to create a clear mission statement
related to the use of the TCRC and Writing Lab and computers in general. This
statement should include input from the entire department and should be based on
meeting the objectives of the curriculum and supporting the need to expose students
to the computing environment.

50

2. An ongoing training program should be established. This training should cover uses
of the equipment in the TCRC and Writing Lab and the use of individual faculty and
staff member’s computers in their office. This training should be an appropriate part
of ongoing professional development. This should include appropriate funding by the
University.

3. Exclusively the faculty and staff of the Department of English and Philosophy should
control computer hardware, software, and technical support choices. The choices
made would be based on predetermined needs stated in the department’s purpose
statement on the use of computers. In other words, the choices related to networking,
hardware, software, and other considerations should be controlled by the faculty and
staff of the Department of English and Philosophy.

4. In the future, when the TCRC and Writing Lab is updated, the faculty and staff of the
Department of English and Philosophy should also have their office computer
systems updated.

5. All budgeting for computer technologies should include a component for training of
faculty and staff. Budgeting for proper technical support should also be included.

6. Modifications or changes in the TCRC and Writing Lab should be exclusively based
on curriculum objectives. The changes in hardware and software should not be
driven by new hardware and software developments in the computer industry.
Recommendations for Further Research
Based on the review of literature and the findings of this study, the author

proposes the following recommendations for further research:

51

1. After implementing a comprehensive training program for the use of the computers in
the TCRC and Writing Lab, it would be interesting to do a study to determine the
changes, if any, in usage of the TCRC and Writing Lab.

2. Expanding the scope of this study to include all faculty and staff members in all
academic departments at the University of Wisconsin-Stout.

3. Do a return-on-investment study on computer related expenditures at the University
of Wisconsin-Stout.

4. Finally, a study comparing the University of Wisconsin-Stout’s computing support
services (TNN), the computing support services in the other schools in the Wisconsin
University System, and other private support service organizations.

52

References
Achleitner, Herbert, and others. (1996). Repackaging and Recycling: Using
Information Technology to Enhance Education in the Present and the Future. Realizing
the Potential of Information Resources: Information, Technology, and Services.
Proceedings of the CAUSE Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 392 340.)
Arnzen, Michael. (1995, October). Campus Connections. Internet World, v6
n10, p. 44-48.
Askov, Eunice. (1994). Technology as an Instructional Strategy for Program
Transitions. Paper presented at "Transitions: Building Partnerships between Literacy
Volunteers and Adult Education Programs," a national conference sponsored by the U.S
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 372 225.)
Ayersman, David & others. (1996). Creating a Computer Competency
Requirement for Mary Washington College Students. In Association of Small Computer
Users in Education (ASCUE) Summer Conference Proceedings, North Myrtle Beach, SC.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 810.)
Balajthy, Ernest. (1995). Preparation of Teachers for Computer and Multimedia-
Based Instruction in Literacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the College
Reading Association, Clearwater, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
396 274.)
Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward
computers. Journal of Education Computing Research, 12(2), p147-158.

53

Carter, M.T. (1997). Factors Affecting Use of E-Mail by Public School Principles
of the Central Appalachian Region. Ed. D. Dissertation, East Tennessee State University.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 135.)

Clagett, Craig. (1995). The MAHE Journal, 1995. Maryland Association for
Higher Education, Largo, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394
365.)

Connections: AT&T Vision of the Future. (VideoTape). 1993. AT&T.
Dori, Y.J. & Barnea, N. (1994). In-Service Chemistry Teachers Training: The
Impact of Introducing Computer Technology on Teachers' Attitudes. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Anaheim, CA, March 26-29, 1994). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369
646.)
Dupagne, M. & Krendl, K.A. (1992). Teachers' Attitudes toward Computers: A
Review of the Literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, v24n3, p420-
429.
Falba, Christy, Zehm, Stanley, Bean, Tom, Markos, Patricia, Dixon, Juli &
McKinney, Marilyn. (1997). Choreographing Change One Step at a Time: Integrating
Technology in Teacher Education. A symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 411 227)
Gibbs, William & Lario-Gibbs, Annette. (1995). TestMaker: A Computer-Based
Test Development Tool. Association of Small Computer Users in Education. Summer

54

Conference. North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. June 18-22, 1995 (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 387 097)

Gilbert, Steven. (1995). Teaching, Learning, & Technology: The Need for
Campuswide Planning and Faculty Support Services. Change, v27 n2, p46-48.

Hadfield, O.D., Maddux, C.D., & Love, G.D. (1997). Critical thinking ability and
prior experience as predictors of reduced computer aversion. Computers-in-the-Schools,
v13 n3-4, p13-29.

Harris, Jean & Ludwig, Michael. (1997). Incorporating a Technology Component
into Health Education Courses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, St. Louis, MO. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 228)

Hope, Warren, (1997). Today is a Good Day To Begin Using A Computer.
Contemporary Education, v68, p108-9.

Hunt, N.P. & Bohlin, R.M. (1991). Entry attitudes of students towards using
computers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the California Education Research
Association, Fresno, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 706)

Igbaria, M. & Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards
microcomputer use. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9(3), p229-241.

Kazlauskas, Edward & Picus, Lawrence. (1990). A Systems Analysis Approach
to Selecting, Designing and Implementing Automated Systems: Administrative Uses Of
Microcomputers in Schools. Association of School Business Officials International,
Reston VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 825)

55

Lance, Denise. (1996). Computer Access in Higher Education: A National
Survey of Service Providers for Students with Disabilities. Journal of College Student
Development, v37n3, p279-288.

Lindquist, Victor. (1991). Trends in the Employment of College and University
Graduates in Business and Industry. The Northwestern Lindquist-Endicott Report, 1991.
Forty-Fifth Annual Report: A National Survey of 320 Well-Known Business and
Industrial Organizations. (Northwestern University, Evanston, ILL). (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 341 299.)

Locksley, Norman, and Others (1993). Technology, Teaching, & Trustees in
2001: A Guide for Leaders. Forum papers presented at "Leadership 2000," the Annual
International Conference of the League for Innovation in the Community College and the
Community College Leadership Program. (Washington D.C. July 18-21). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 361 010.)

McInerney, Valentina, and Others (1990). Computer Anxiety and Student
Teachers: Interrelationships between Computer Anxiety, Demographic Variables and an
Intervention Strategy. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the AARE. (Sydney,
New South Wales, Australia, November 27-December 2, 1990). (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 352 940.)

Morton, Allan. (1996). Factors Affecting the Integration of Computers in
Western Sydney Secondary Schools. Learning Technologies: Prospects and Pathways.
Selected papers for EdTech '96 Biennial Conference of the Australian Society for
Educational Technology. (Melbourne, Australia). (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 396 737)

56

Mulder, Carl & Murphy, Francis (1993). Comprehensive Long Range Plan for
Instructional Technology. Technology Plan for Owego Apalachin Central School
District, State of New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 919)

National Literacy Secretariat. (1990). Creating a Learning Culture. Work and
Literacy in the Nineties. Based on the Report, "Workforce Literacy: An Economic
Challenge for Canada," by the Hudson Institute. Report. (Ottawa, Ontario) (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 527)

Payne, Carla. (1997). Opening the Door with E-Mail: From No-Tech to Low-
Tech. Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 936)

Pina, A.A.& Harris, B.R. (1993). Increasing Teachers' Confidence in Using
Computers for Education. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Arizona
Educational Research Organization. (Tucson, Arizona, November 1993). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 648)

Pisapia, John. (1994). Planning for Technology Infusion into Schools. Research
Brief #11. Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. (Richmond, VA). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 363)

Raub, A.C. (1982). Correlates of computer anxiety in college students.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(11a), 4775A. (University Microfilms No.
AAG82-08027.)

Rosen, L.D., Sears, D.C., & Weil, M.M. (1987). Computerphobia. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19(2), p167-179.

57

Scott, C.R.& Rockwell, S.C. (1997). The effect of communication, writing, and
technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies.
Communication-Education, v 46 n1, p44-62.

Wisconsin State Board of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education. (1992).
Skill Needs and Training Strategies in the Wisconsin Printing Industry. Report.
(Madison, WI.). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 521)

58

Appendix A
INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

59

Interview Consent

Purpose of the Interview
The purpose of this interview is to identify the facilitating and detracting factors related to the
usage of the TCRC Writing Lab. The information from the interviews will be used to develop a
survey instrument that will be distributed to all Department of English and Philosophy faculty and
staff.

Procedures
Three questions will be asked that relate to usage of the TCRC Writing Lab. The interviewer will
also use probing questions to solicit additional responses.

Risk
There is minimal risk of being identified within the department as having given information for
the development of the survey instrument.

Safeguards
All information gathered by the interviewer will be used to create the survey instrument. The
interviewee's name will not be attached to the interview worksheet.

Freedom to Withdraw
The interview may withdraw from the interview process at anytime.

Confidentiality
The information gather from the interview will be used to create a survey instrument. The
interviewee's responses will not be used for any other purpose.

Offer to Answer Inquiries
All inquiries regarding this interview may be addressed to:
Evan Sveum
[email protected]
(715) 235-4172

Third Party Referral for Concerns
Dr. Joseph Benkowski. Research Adviser. (715) 232-5266

Signature
"I consent to this interview."

Signature of Interviewee__________________________

60

Appendix B
INTERVIEW WORKSHEET

61

Interview Worksheet

1. What do you think the reasons are for some members within the Department of English and
Philosophy to use the TCRC Writing Lab? (Any other reasons?)

2. What do you think the reasons are for some members within the Department of English and
Philosophy to not use the TCRC Writing Lab? (Any other reasons?)

3. Are there any other reasons that you can think of for use or non-use of the TCRC Writing Lab?

62

Appendix C
COVER OF SURVEY