Overcoming Barriers to Access and Use of Digital Learning Materials by Instructors in Higher Education Alan Wolf, University of Wisconsin - Madison Flora McMartin, Broad-based Knowledge Glenda Morgan, California State University Ellen Iverson, Carleton College Cathy Manduca, Carleton College Josh Morrill, Morrill Solutions Research

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 2 Research Questions What are the characteristics of online collections that make them useful for teaching? How do faculty employ materials in useful collections? How are collections, resources, and services best aligned with faculty work patterns?

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 3 Methodology Focus groups Code transcripts & determine themes Survey design Institution recruitment Survey delivery Analysis

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 4 Focus groups 12 focus groups conducted across the range of higher education institutions, STEM disciplines, and instructor ranks Questions Finding materials (types, methods, barriers) Sharing materials (types, methods, barriers) Communities and their roles in teaching improvement and sharing. How faculty and instructors use the web for professional development

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 5 Focus Group Findings Personal definitions of DLs vary widely Very few people knew about NSF DL efforts Barriers to use Google Information overload Concern about copyright and use Not invented here Persistence of resources

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 6 Focus Group Themes 1. Characteristics of useful online collections Valued content, valued features, ease of use 2. Faculty work patterns What, how & where they seek, why create/select curriculum, how used in teaching 3. Alignment between DLs and faculty work patterns SOTL, PD, community of practice, research 4. Obstacles to faculty use of DLs Prefer Google, no/low ROI, time consuming, lack of right content, lack of knowledge about DLs 5. Faculty use of Web for P&T purposes Research, Service, Teaching

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 7 Survey design Three Facets of Survey Validity Face Validity (does it seem right?) Extensive feedback, meetings External Validity (do other people think it clear, cohesive, right?) Pre-test w/ 20 faculty members, representative of sample, 6 in-depth interviews Internal Validity (measuring what you think your are measuring? Minimizing error) Reverse coding; Likert scales throughout, factor analysis & reliability testing - more to come

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 8 Recruiting Participants Contacted ~3,000 US institutions ~100 currently are, or will implement survey Response Rate: 24% Respondents not restricted to STEM Stratified sample by highest degree given (along older Carnegie Classification lines). We are getting what we believe will be a representative sample

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 9 Preliminary results To date, much of the focus group data is being confirmed - data are still coming in - no firm conclusions But the level of granularity in the survey is giving some unique nuance/ differentiation to the focus group data.

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 10 How do survey results compare to focus group results? Focus groups Low-complexity objects (easy to incorporate into existing materials) High granularity (easily reassembled) Google as gateway to content Survey Low-complexity High granularity Google …interesting trends emerging in how people use different objects in different institution types.

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 11 Emerging Trends Type of Resource How Used Digital images - visualLecture Professional Development AnimationsScholarly work Tests - quizzes Data SetsProfessional Development Problem Based Learning Teaching, Learning ExercisesStudent study aid Lecture Online scholarly resourceProfessional Development Grant, scholarship

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 12 Importance of Digital Library Services Are most concerned with the Depth of content Accuracy of content Less interest in Pedagogical materials Use in professional development as teachers

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 13 Next Steps: Faculty Development Results useful for designing faculty development interventions, programs, etc. Analyze which practices work best under which circumstances Provide guidance for faculty developers as to which practices might work best for local circumstances

WCET, Portland Oregon 2006Slide 14 Contact Information If you are interested in participating in our next iteration of our survey Contact For more details visit We wish to acknowledge the National Science Foundation for their support (DUE ). Ideas and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.