Technology-assisted instruction and instructor cyberphobia: Recognizing the ways to effect change

The new educational system with a technology orientation has multimedia, interactive presentations, hypertext, internet and usergroups as developmental tools for education. Schools and colleges hastening to adopt technological sophistication may be forgetting the basis of change; student satisfaction and the most important person in the system-the instructor. The instructor may feel that he/she is a victim of change and may resist it. This paper articulates the behavioral challenges facing the drive towards multimedia instruction and suggests ways in which to over-come instructor phobia. We introduce a typology of personal roles relating technology awareness to technology use in classrooms as a starting point in understanding instructor phobia. We also suggest generic strategies for instructors with varying levels of technology awareness.

Ansoff & McDonnell (1990) noted that resistance to change occurs when there is a departure from the historic behavior, culture and power structure. Resistance will manifest as behavioral resistance and systemic resistance. Behavioral resistance occurs as active opposition to change, while systemic resistance arises out of passive incompetence to change. The technology-assisted instruction drive should account for the two types of resistance, both allaying fears of instructors and educating them to use technology effectively. This paper draws on a typology of personal roles in relating to technological change and advocates change strategies that would help overcome instructor anxiety and fear of new technology.

Literature

The new information revolution in the classroom is now in a unique situation where it can permanently alter the method of instruction. Several authors (Dede, 1987, 1993; Issing, 1994; Large et al., 1995; Melmed, 1994 Park and Hannafin, 1993; Sammons, 1995; Ward; 1994; Zack, 1995) have stressed the importance of technology-assisted instruction by means of electronic messaging, hypermedia and multimedia presentations. The change to the `new system' is highly dependent on perceptions of people and will elicit different reactions, some of which will be positive and some negative. The modern age has seen technological change and its eventual acceptance. However, when we ask instructors to change their method of instruction which they have been practicing for a long time we are more likely to face immediate rejection than passive acceptance.

Technology aversion is not an uncommon problem. A survey by Dell Computer Corporation revealed 55% of the population harbors fear of some form of technology (Hogan, 1994). Another survey found that 36% of people who use computers at their office feel that their skill levels are inadequate (Donoho, 1994). Do these numbers reflect phobia of faculty? Maybe not, but we have to realize and recognize that instructors may harbor some form of fear or anxiety to use technology in their classrooms where they are focus of the student's attention.

Harris (1985) coined the term cyberphobia, an aversion or anxiety caused by technology. Attention to the phenomenon has led to several descriptions. Applebaum (1990) concluded that perhaps the principal common denominator of computer anxious people was that they were over thirty years old. Cyberphobics in Gardner's (1985) study were principally over 50, and female, though either of these findings may well have changed, or will change, with time and acculturation (Watson & Barker, 1984; Lehman & Kramer, 1990; Hapens & Rasmussen, 1991). Research shows that opposition to attitudinal change can gradually give way to acceptance with the passage of time (Coch & French, 1966; Tesser, 1978; Tesser & Shaffer; 1990). Attitudinal change towards acceptance may be a slow and even tedious experience for some teachers.

Classifying and Recognizing Phobic Behaviors

Sleeth, Pearce and George (1995) suggested Phobia as anxiety produces reactions involving avoidance of public scrutiny. A natural response to anxiety would be to seek comfort in isolation_a private response of avoiding others. Computer anxiety is a person's tendency to experience a level of uneasiness over his or her impending use of technology that is disproportionate to the threat the technology presents. The response modes to aversion of technology (cyberphobia) may appear as a general anxiety to use technology (cyberanxiety). The cyberanxious person who seeks isolation from the group is not rejecting the learning or even the technology, but probably is avoiding the public scrutiny. Given this discussion, a procedure for coping with cyberphobia is to recognize the change strategies possible for each. First, however, we note five symptoms or failure modes which can signal resistance and thus alert us to investigate for any cyberphobia.

1. Negative Symbolism in Technological Change

Failure to recognize the negative symbolism in technological change may be a prime reason cyberphobia remains a major concern (Crimando, 1992). Negative symbolism may involve (1) perceiving oneself as incompetent, (2) rationalizing that adapting to the new order isn't necessary to get ahead (it isn't that important), or (3) feeling deskilled by the new order. Frustration may emanate from perceptions that computers are not instinctive or that systems are faulty or somehow incomplete (Bird, 1991).

2. Technological Change per se

During or even in anticipation of technological change, discomforted people may show symptoms of cyberphobia (LaPlante, 1991). These response modes can emanate from or accompany change itself, loss of status or power, personal interaction, effects of computers on society, isolation, failure, or job displacement (Applebaum, 1990).

3. Manifested Resistance

Bralove (1983) hypothesized that resistance to implementation of technological change may be due to underlying perceptions. These perceptions include sensing or anticipate loss of control; insecurity; work overload resulting from learning a new order; altered status; learning unwanted new skills; financial loss; a challenge to self-organization; or that the new order imposes forced changes in behavior, beliefs, or values. Fortunately, resistance, even when manifested, stops short of rejection, and therefore is more easily overcome.

4. Failure to Recognize Stages of Change and Acceptance

Stages of change and acceptance form an evolving process which appears to parallel stages in the change process: (1) identify need for change, (2) unfreeze old order, (3) learn new order, and (4) refreeze new order (Lewin, 1952). There is no point to additional intervention during ordered progress that meets time limitations. Awareness that the change process is going reasonably well can spare costly intervention into circumstances that will resolve themselves.

5. Failures of Implementation

Cyberphobia may result from deficient execution. Rosetti and DeZoort (1989) pointed out that implementation problems may come from failing to plan well the introduction of new technology and not involving people sufficiently in planning and design. The involvement of teachers and administrators in the planning and implementation phase is a crucial requirement for success. Bird (1991) added that problems may arise due to a lack of direction to guide implementation. The response modes of poor implementation include puzzlement, resentment, feelings of inferiority or of being left out, and task disorientation. Instructors with symptoms of cyberanxiety need to overcome the negative symbolism associated with technological change. The sense of hopelessness and helplessness is often accompanied by rationalization that adaptation is not too important.

Measuring and differentiating between various levels of anxiety and response modes is an important first step to identify and isolate anxious groups. The next step is to approach specific groups with school-wide solutions to instructor anxiety reduction. Several constructs (Dukes, Discenza & Couger, 1989; Igbaria & Parasuraman, 1989,1991; Kernan & Howard 1990; Morrow, Prell & McElroy, 1986; Raub, 1982) exist to measure the anxiety and stress levels. The following section introduces a nine cell typology of groups based on states of preparedness and awareness of technology change.

Who is where in the technology square?

Faculty and staff have different ideas and perceptions of new developments. We have to approach the key people at the right time to avoid resistance. For this approach, we created a typology (Figure 1) that groups instructors based on interaction of their level of knowledge of new technology (its mechanics, functions and implications) and their use of technology in classrooms.

Change Strategies for the Academic Community

The Novice:

The Novice type has little knowledge of the technology involved and resists it because he/she is not fully aware of its implications and uses. This type may represent the majority in the academic community. Igbaria and Chakrabarti (1990) found a negative correlation between training and anxiety. Hence, resistance is less likely to occur if instructors are adequately trained and exposed to the new technology. The generic strategy is "Be realistic - educate through technology, its implications and benefits." Over time educators are likely to change categories. The desired direction of change is shown by arrows in Figure 1. The challenge is to move them towards the squatter category, rather than become a cynic, by educating them about the technology, its implications and benefits.

The Skeptic & The Agnostic:

The Skeptic is aware of the technology involved but is cynical of its benefits and probably does not realize the need to change. Since this group has some knowledge of the technology involved, the best strategy is to "educate through implications, needs and benefits to students." The Agnostic is an expert in technology but is not able or, sometimes, unwilling to relate technology-assisted instruction to student satisfaction and performance.

The Explorer & the Optimist:

The Explorer is the educator who has a low knowledge of technology but is enthusiastic and would like to learn more and the Optimist has low knowledge but accepts the technology on face value. Both have an increased desire to use technology but lack awareness of what it entails. The best impetus for these two groups will be to "Increase educator's awareness of technology."

The Conformist & the Squatter:

The Conformist is an expert with technology and accepts it at face value while the Squatter dabbles with it. Both types we should leave undisturbed. They know what the technology can do for them and they accept it. The best strategy for them is "Do nothing." As a source of constant encouragement information will produce change when they deem it necessary; they would not appreciate coercion.

The Dabbler and Expert have high expectations. The Dabbler experiments and plays with the technology as a source of entertainment and expression while an Expert has a higher level of needs and expectations. He/She is likely to be involved with hypermedia and student interactive random access programs. The best strategy is to "Support" them with technical updates and developments.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to explain that different instructors would likely respond to technological change in different ways. Some may willingly accept changes even when they would greatly affect the method of instruction and course content. Others may rebel against any such efforts. This challenge stimulus may elicit a fear of or anxiety to the technology (cyberphobia), not because the technology is difficult to learn but because it may change the existing culture, power structure or habits. Our main challenges will be cyberphobics in the lower cells of the typology. We should reach out to specific groups, especially the novice, the skeptic and the optimist, to channel their efforts towards greater use of technology in classrooms. We can make them realize that technology-assisted instruction increases student satisfaction and performance.

References

Ansoff, I. & McDonnell, E. (1990). Implanting Strategic Management (Second ed.) Prentice Hall: New York Applebaum, S.H. (1990). Computerphobia: training managers to reduce fears and love the machines. Industrial and Commercial Training (UK), 22(6), 9-16.

Bird, J. (1991). Overcoming technofear. Management Today (UK), MTO, 86 - 87 (ISSB:0025-1925; February). Bralove, M. (1983). Computer anxiety hits middle management. The Wall Street Journal (March 7), 22, 3. Coch, L. & French, J.R.P Jr. (1996). Overcoming resistance to change. In Proshki, H. & Seidenberg, B. (Eds), Basic Studies in Social Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Crimando, L. (1992). Technophobia. Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, 21(3). Dede, C.J. (1987). Emoweing Environments, Hypermedia and Microworlds. Computing Teacher, 15(3), 20-24. Dede, C.J. et al. (1993). Trends and Forecasts. Educom Review, 28 (6), 35-38. Donoho, R. (1994). Terminal illness. Successful Meetings, 43(3), 46-51. Dukes, R.L., Discenza, R. & Couger, J.D. (1989), Convergent validity of four computer anxiety scales, Educational & Psychological Measurement, 49(1), 195-203. Gardner, E. (1985). Human-oriented implementation cures phobia. Data Management, 46(November), 2932.

Hapens, T., & Rasmussen, B. (1991). Excluding women from the technology of the future? A case study of the culture of computer science. Futures, 23 (December), 1107-1119. Harris, P.H. (1985). Future Work II. Personnel Journal, 64(7), 52-57. Hogan, K. (1994, February 28). Technophobia, Forbes, ASAP Supplement, 116. Igbaria, M. and Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputer use. Behavior & Information Technology, 9(3), 229-241. Igbaria, M. & Parasuraman, S. (1989). A path analytic study of individual characteristics, computer anxiety and attitudes towards computers, Journal of Management, 15(3), 373-388. Igbaria, M. & Parasuraman, S. (1991). Attitudes toward microcomputers: Development and construct validation of a measure, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35(4), 553-573. Issing, L.J. (1994). From instructional technology to Multimedia Didactics. Educational Media International, 31(3), 171-182. Kernan, M.C. & Howard, G.S. (1990). Computer anxiety and computer attitudes: An investigation of construct and predictive validity issues, Educational & Psychological Measurement, 50 (3), 681-690.

Laplante, A. (1991). Resistance to change can obstruct computing strategy, Infoworld, 13(23), S59-S63. Large, A. et al. (1995). Multimedia and Comprehension: The relationship among Text, Animation and Captions. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 46(5), 340-347. Lehman, S. & Kramer, PE. (1990). Mismeasuring women: a critique of research on computer ability and avoidance. Signs, 16 (Autumn), 158-172. Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb. & E.L. Harley (Eds.) Readings in Social Psychology, (pp. 459-473). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Melmed, A. (1994). A learning infrastructure for all Americans: Summary of a Report to the National Science Foundation. Machine-Mediated Learning, 4(4), 377-397. Morrow, PC., Prell, E.C., & McElroy, J.C. (1986). Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of computer anxiety, Psychological Reports, 59(3), 1119-1204. Park, I. and Hannafin, M.J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 41(3), 63-85.

Raub, A.C. (1982). Correlates of computer anxiety in college students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(11-A), 4775. Rosetti, D.K. & Dezoort, F.A. (1989). Organizational adaptation to technology innovation. Advanced! Management Journal, 54(4), 29-33. Sammons, M.C. (1995). Students Assess ComputerAided Classroom Presentations. TH.E. Journal, May 1995, 66-69. Sleeth, R.G. Pearce, C.G. and George, G. (1995). Community Networking: Managing Phobic Behaviors at the Individual and Community Levels. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Community Networking. IEEE Communications Society, 249-253. Tesser, A. (1978). Self generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 289-338), New York: Academic Press. Tesser, A., & Shaffer, D.R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 479-523. Watson, K.W., & Barker, L.L. (1984). Listening behavior: definition and measurement. Communication Yearbook, 8, 178-197. Zack, M.H. (1995). Using Electronic Messaging to improve quality of instruction. Journal of Education for Business, March/April, 202-207.

Copyright Project Innovation Summer 1996
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved