1. Faculty Use of Technology
Univariate Analysis of Age and Gender
Thomas S. Cushing & Meron Lindenfeld

2. Introduction Faculty use of technology
Timothy Kelly’s dissertation 2005 A Case Study of a College Facultys’ Use of Technology, Professional Development and Perceptions of Organizational Support
Technology use: present and desired
Is there a difference if factor analysis is performed?

3. Methodology
Define new variables: instructional technology and assessment technology
t-test for gender
One-way ANOVA for age
Univariate analysis using Post Hoc DunnettT3

4. Assessment Technology Items
Web Portal/Intranet.
Web Portal to view class rosters.
Web Portal to access student records.
Web Portal to submit grades.
Blackboard course management software use – online gradebook

5. Instructional Technology
Presentation software such as PowerPoint to deliver instructional materials.
Word processing Software to create instructional materials i.e., lecture notes, assessments.
Smart Room technology to enhance instruction.
Simulation / Modeling software for instruction.
Graphic Software such as Photoshop to display images.
Search Engines such as Google to locate online sources.
Digital camera for acquiring images to use in lectures and presentations

6. Likert Scale-Kelly Instrument
1 = Never use
2 = Rarely use
3 = Occasionally use
4 = Often use
5 = Always model use for colleagues

7. Results
t test to evaluate the hypothesis(?) that the degree of technology used for assessment differs between women(22) and men(36). The test was not significant, t(54) = -1.06, p = .29. Women’s use of technology was not significantly different (M = 9.31, SD = 4.65) compared to men’s use of technology (M = 10.70, SD = 4.80).
t test to evaluate the hypothesis that the degree of technology used for instruction differs between women(22) and men(36). The test was not significant, t(53) = 0.44, p = Women’s use of technology was not significantly different (M = 20.09, SD = 5.09) compared to men’s use of technology (M = 19.50, SD = 4.11).

8. Independent Variable - Age
Group 1 – participants
Group 2 – participants
Group 3 – participants

9. Results
A one-way analysis of variance to evaluate the relationship between age of educators and the degree that they use technology for assessment. The dependent variable was the degree of use of assessment technology. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2,53) = -1.32, p = .28.

10. Results
A one-way analysis of variance to evaluate the relationship between age of educators and the degree that they use technology for instruction. The dependent variable was the degree of use of instructional technology. The ANOVA was not significant, F(2, 54)= 2.28, p = .11.

11. Results Found no difference between gender.
No difference in assessment technology.
Data indicated the first group tends to use more technology than the second.
We found it interesting that the 1st group used technology more than the 2nd group.
We found it interesting that the 3rd group used it more than the 2nd group

12. Age groups: 25-40 (Group 1), 41-55 (Group 2), 55+ (Group 3)