This article was downloaded by: [Washington State University Libraries ]On: 31 October 2014, At: 00:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Internet Reference Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wirs20

Developing Faculty ICT CompetenciesInside and Outside the LibraryA column by James A. Buczynski a & Saira Rachel Mall ba Seneca Libraries, Seneca@York Library & Computing Commons ,Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology , Toronto, Ontario,Canadab Educational Technology Liaison Centre for Teaching Support &Innovation , University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 14 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: A column by James A. Buczynski & Saira Rachel Mall (2010) Developing FacultyICT Competencies Inside and Outside the Library, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 15:2, 87-96,DOI: 10.1080/10875301003757211

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10875301003757211

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 15:87–96, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1087-5301 print / 1540-4749 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10875301003757211

Bridging the Gap

A column by JAMES A. BUCZYNSKISeneca Libraries, Seneca@York Library & Computing Commons, Seneca College of Applied

Arts & Technology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

SAIRA RACHEL MALLEducational Technology Liaison Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation, University of

Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Developing Faculty ICT Competencies Insideand Outside the Library

Despite all the financial resources that are directed to supportand acquire learning technologies, the results have been gener-ally disappointing. Faculty are eager to use technology but lackthe technical skills, ability, and experience. Library staff includesa talent tool rich in Information and Communication Technolo-gies (ICT)/WEB 2.0 technical expertise and experience. In terms ofcontent sourcing and procurement, library technical services andselection staff have broad knowledge of the marketplace for onlineinformation and content as well as experience in licensing access.They have a firm grasp of the transaction process, workflows, pric-ing, and licensing negotiations. Content development and sourcinginevitably involves access management, online storage, copyright,and licensing—things at which libraries are good. ICT deploymentis changing teaching and learning on campuses, and the roles ofthose involved in teaching and learning are also changing. Whetherformally through mandated library services, or informally throughback channels, library staff are supporting faculty new technol-ogy use as well as faculty teaching materials content sourcing andprocurement.

KEYWORDS eLearning, Web 2.0, training, mentoring, ICT, skills,competencies, copyright, faculty, teaching

Address correspondence to James A. Buczynski, Seneca@York Library & ComputingCommons, Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 70 the Pond Road, Toronto,Ontario, Canada M3J 3M6. E-mail: James.Buczynski@senecac.on.ca

87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

88 J. A. Buczynski and S. R. Mall

E-Learning, specifically technology-mediated instruction and learning as op-posed to distance education, remains a myth to a large degree. Informationand communication technologies (ICTs) have changed how we get news,make purchases, and communicate. Higher education environments to manystudents appear to be like a step back in time. While students acquire theirmusic and movies, connect and communicate, and share content online, theyare expected to buy course packs from the bookstore, photocopy readingsfrom the library, attend face-to-face classes, watch films on DVD, and waitfor email responses from their faculty. Faculty-to-student, student-to-faculty,and student-to-student dialogue about course topics take place mainly ifnot exclusively in the classroom. Student work is largely hidden from viewas opposed to the sharing environment that exists outside the classroom.If you cannot be in class, the experience you paid for is lost forever. It isnot streamed online nor is it recorded for later viewing. Autonomous self-directed learning is not supported. You cannot pay tuition online by creditcard or online banking bill payment methods, you cannot set up an onlineaccount for copying and printing, and the cafeteria may not take debit orcredit cards. If higher education is supposed to be one of the foundationpieces of the knowledge economy, why do they look so “last century”?

Despite all the financial resources that have been and continue to bedirected to support and acquire learning technologies, the results have beengenerally disappointing (Selwyn, 2007). ICT advances in theory encouragescontact between students and faculty; facilitates cooperation among students;supports active learning; supports prompt feedback; focuses time on task;and provides diverse ways of learning (Seimens and Tittenberger, 2009). ICTenables instructors to move content acquisition activities such as readingsand lectures to online spaces that are accessed outside of face-to-face classperiods so class time can be spent on dialogue and learning activities. Read-ing tasks can be tested with online quizzes and classroom discussions canoccur face-to-face or online via discussion boards, instant messaging, emaillistservs, blogs, and wikis. Virtual classrooms can provide synchronous real-time presentation sharing, application sharing, polling, whiteboard sharing,co-Web browsing, and other functionalities. Simulations and virtual labs candrastically improve a student’s flexibility in pursuing his or her educationalgoals. Face-to-face office hours can be augmented or be replaced by moreengaging virtual office hours via text messaging, Facebook, Skype, or SecondLife. Technology and software have the potential to reduce the separationbetween learner, instructor, and resources, but this potential is not beingrealized. Higher education is stalled in the traditional method of knowledgetransmission and competency acquisition. Technology adoption has oftenfailed to reach the masses, and many technologies are stuck at the innovatoror early adopter phases.

The whole point of using technology in learning is to increase produc-tivity and student success. Unfortunately technology is often introduced or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Bridging the Gap 89

trialed just because it is available and someone else is also playing aroundwith it. Technology for the sake of technology is a huge problem. Vendors ofhardware, software, and online services are bombarding faculty, administra-tors,; and IT staff with their offerings. Technology in and of itself is seductive,and it does not take much to begin a romance with a vendor’s offering iffunding is available. Surprisingly, faculty and instructors often begin with thetool itself and try to identify a way to use it in a course, ultimately conformingthe course to the tools. “The mindset is: if they use it for fun, maybe we canget them to use it for school” (Siemens and Tittenberger, 2009: 4). While thisapproach may lead to interesting applications of technology it often resultswith little or no effect on the outcomes in student learning and success(Deal, 2007). Technology use should be mapped to specific course learningobjectives before deployment. The complexities of integrating technologyinto courses have been grossly underestimated (Moser, 2007: 66).

Faculty are eager to use technology and to improve their teaching, butmany lack the technical skills, ability, and experience. Their knowledge oftechnology is often less than that of their students, and in particular theyare unsure of how best to use it to achieve their teaching goals (Bates andPoole, 2003; Siemens and Tittenberger, 2009). Adopting a department-levelview of eLearning is important in creating learning material, creating asupport infrastructure, allocating resources (including incentives to partic-ipate), and building a “comprehensive program of continuing professionaldevelopment” (Siemens and Tittenberger, 2009: 75) While concerned aboutimproving teaching and learning, educators generally resist advancedpedagogical discussions that are not readily transferable to the classroom(Siemens 2009). Most implementations of technology in classrooms are farless structured and planned than dictated by instructional design (Siemensand Tittenberger, 2009: 36).

Not all instructors are timid when it comes to teaching with technol-ogy. Many instructors are knowledgeable and keen to learn “what’s new.”Over-enthusiasm, however, without proper planning and strategic imple-mentation, can have negative effects on both the teaching and learning.Faculty are not given time to learn new technologies, which is ironic sincetime is generally their scarcest resource. The resource most needed for tech-nology deployment success is a bigger challenge to obtain than the technol-ogy itself. Technology deployment rarely includes release time for teachingfaculty. Grassroots innovation frequently encounters organizational barriers(Schneckenberg, 2009). Faculty and/or student support for new technolo-gies may be limited or not available at all and is often difficult to locate.Typically someone learns and adapts to one application and is happy withthe results only to find in time that the upgrade or next version is drasticallydifferent, is discontinued by his or her school or department, or is replacedby something purported to be better, leaving him or her feeling frustrated.Students are not as tech savvy as the literature says (Lopes, 2009). They oftenneed much, much more support than their stereotypical “millennial student”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

90 J. A. Buczynski and S. R. Mall

profile suggests. Successful organizational eLearning initiatives require plan-ning, incentives, and adequate support resources.

At the opposite side of the technology adoption continuum is depart-mental pressure from senior management and student expectations to teachwith technology. Bates and Poole (2003: 9) refer to this as the “technologicalimperative”: “. . . we have to use technology because of a blind belief that itis good for us.” If we don’t agree to use the technology, we will be consid-ered out of date and may lose our credibility. Students today, for example,are insisting faculty use PowerPoint in lectures and post the slides online.Faculty feel pressured to include PowerPoint in their teaching. At the sametime students feel many faculty have become too PowerPoint dependentduring lectures (Greenleaf, Baillie, and Olmstead, 2009; Cook-Sather, 2001).The reason for this paradox is how faculty and students view PowerPoint.To faculty, PowerPoint is a form of technology—include PowerPoint in yourteaching and you are up-to-date with the latest form of teaching with tech-nology in the classroom. Students on the other hand don’t see PowerPoint orother MS Office tools as technology—PowerPoint simply provides studentswith the instructor’s notes—they still need the instructor to clarify and ex-plain concepts and ideas and learn them. They still need their instructors to“teach them” and make the content engaging for them so they can take betternotes in class. Instructional design problems that faculty encounter are oftenmisdiagnosed as technical expertise shortcomings or novice software issues.

Higher education enrollment has been expanding to meet increased de-mand by both students and industry. Faculty hiring rates and school facilitiesand service expansion has not kept pace (Cote, 2007). When the economywas humming, the imbalance was kept in check by a combination of ICT de-ployments, new buildings, and staff and faculty hiring. Today, given the fiscalchallenges most schools face, asset growth has declined and in many casesshrunk. Faculty and staff have been let go, exacerbating the imbalance be-tween enrollment and resources. In this challenging environment, ICT invest-ment is under the microscope in terms of return on investment. There is a biggap between forecast predictions of gains from ICT investment and what hastaken place. A CDW-G report found that only 45 percent of students agreedthat ICT was fully integrated into their curriculum, down from 58 percentin 2008. The study found faculty rate their use and understanding of ICT ashigh while students rate faculty lack of technology knowledge as the biggestobstacle to classroom ICT integration and see it as a growing problem.

LIBRARY STAFF DEVELOP ICT COMPETENCIES INSIDEAND OUTSIDE THE LIBRARY

Over the past 10 years, library staff have been experiencing an unrelent-ing techno-hysteria. While many professions have experienced a conferencecircuit increasingly dominated by technology topics, few professions are as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Bridging the Gap 91

threatened by the emerging knowledge economy as librarians. Informationproduction, dissemination, and discovery is experiencing dramatic changesin pace, scale, and pattern as new information technologies emerge, develop,and mature. Information and data are being produced faster and in greaterquantities and are being disseminated quicker and to more people. It is nolonger necessary to meet with a “gatekeeper,” “Sherpa,” or “wise man” todiscover what information exists and to access it. In fact the data that a lotof information is based on is now available in raw form. Library profession-als have a real fear of being marginalized and libraries being downsized orgoing extinct. Librarians look at travel agents and real estate agents and howthe Internet and competitors rapidly changed their industries and decimatedemployment and firms, and they don’t want to experience the same fate.

In reaction to the ICT threat, library staff have mobilized to maintaintheir position in learning, business, and municipal service environments.They rapidly adopted new technologies, changed their content sourcing andprocurement practices, assumed new roles in their institutions, and havedeveloped infrastructure for online storage of local content. Libraries have,as a community, decided to embrace technology and to some degree idolizeit. Over the past 10 years, while education as a whole has been slow tobroadly adopt new ICTs (Harley, 2010), libraries have used it to supportexisting services, deploy new services, and increase the productivity of itsstaff. Name any ICT or Web service that has emerged over the past 10 years,and you’ll see libraries that have deployed it:

Virtual real-time online chat servicesWeb or mobile phone textingPodcastingScreencastingBlogging, wikisFacebook, Linkedin, Second LifeGoToMeeting, Webinar, SkypeeBay, iTunesU, iPhone appsContent and search tools formatted for mobile phonesJoomla, Drupal, XML

Many library staff have acquired Web 2.0 technology skill sets and expe-rience that have, on average, distanced them from other faculty groups atuniversities and community colleges. The successful worldwide “23 things”self-directed technology exposure program, in both its Special Libraries As-sociation (SLA)-sanctioned and cloned variants, has given many library staffthe confidence and knowledge to use Web 2.0 tools and services. While skillsets and experience are far from uniform, there is a talent pool available.

Library staff are partnering with information technology services in theirhost institutions to deploy new technologies and services. While faculty arebeginning to experiment with the content management systems offered by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

92 J. A. Buczynski and S. R. Mall

courseware or learning management systems, library staff have been usingthese types of infrastructure for some time now. Whether hosted remotelyor locally, the tasks of loading, organizing, and maintaining online contentas well as making it available via customized portals is one of the thingsmany library staff are very good at. They know how to digitize content interms of technical specifications, policies, and protocols. Staff know how tomanage copyright infringement risk management. Library staff can be playinga broader role than they have been in supporting faculty adoption of newICTs.

Library staff have always been in the business of procuring and organiz-ing content. In terms of content sourcing and procurement, library technicalservices and selection staff have broad knowledge of the marketplace foronline information and content as well as experience in licensing access.They have a firm grasp of the transaction process, workflows, pricing, andlicensing negotiations. Libraries often have jurisdiction over course reservesin physical and online form. While faculty may know how to add linksto readings for a course in their institution’s learning management system,technically building the link, or negotiating a license with a vendor is oftenbeyond their level of experience. The same is true for discovering onlinecourse content that is freely available but not easily accessible through Websearch engines like Google and Bing. Reference staff have knowledge ofcourse content institutional repositories that offer textual, video, and audiocontent (MIT’s Open Courseware being the most widely known). Content iscontent, it is no longer just books, journals, magazines, newspapers, maps,films government documents, and archival materials. It now includes data,blogs, wikis, MS Word documents, MS PowerPoint slides, screencasts, videos,recorded lectures, online tutorials, educational games, audio files, PDF files,etc. Sourcing course materials from textbooks, articles, films, and websitesis one degree of difficulty. Sourcing a course using all the content availableonline is another.

Content development and sourcing inevitably involves online storage,copyright, and licensing—things libraries are good at. While libraries ini-tially focused their efforts on building institutional repositories to capturethe scholarly output of their researchers and authors, higher learning insti-tutions now develop and maintain all kinds of repositories for all kinds ofpurposes. Examples include learning object repositories (local or consortiallybased) to support teaching, online libraries of statistical data, online librariesof geographic information system (GIS) datasets, and research data curationinitiatives. Depending on the size and organization of an institution, jurisdic-tion for development and management of these assets fall with the library,IT services, or a mixture of both. Libraries generally have staff with the tech-nical skills and know-how to partner with faculty or mentor them in usesof ICT they are planning or deploying. While in the past these staff wereoften overlooked, in an environment where IT staff are overburdened and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Bridging the Gap 93

funding for temporary project staff is reduced or unavailable due to austeritymeasures, the value of library staff with ICT competencies is being noticed,and as a result, new roles and institutional reach is emerging for library staff.

While many academic librarians have faculty status in their institutions,they only gained substantial teaching and instruction workloads in the past10 years. Librarians became focused on instructing faculty, staff, and stu-dents in how to effectively use the library’s search systems. Today, librarianshave moved from tool instruction to teaching the foundations of lifelonginformation literacy competencies. Librarians partner with faculty to providefirst-year experience classes, develop learning objects like online tutorials,and integrate library resources into courses. Some partnerships have evendeveloped to include assignment design and grading responsibilities. Theteaching is taking place in a technology-rich environment. Librarians useonline classrooms like Elluminate, deploy tutorials and course cartridges inlearning management systems like BlackBoard, and employ computer labmanagement systems when teaching face-to-face in a lab classroom. Theyhave knowledge of the technologies in the marketplace, lobby for accessto new technologies and services, and are among the first to use them. Li-braries have staff and faculty with expertise and experience in using learningtechnologies. Given this fact and their roles in their institutions, formal andinformal support is being provided to teaching and research faculty by librarypersonnel.

ICT deployment is changing teaching and learning on campuses, andthe roles of those involved in teaching and learning are also changing. Thegrassroots approach to ICT deployment in higher education institutions cre-ates islands of expertise and experience. ICT successes and failures in oneacademic department are not known by another, and, as a result, effort is du-plicated or wasted. The absence of economies of scale potentially increasestechnology licensing and acquisition costs. Silos keep faculty and staff iso-lated from each other. Few groups on campus are positioned to connectthese “islands” of experience: library staff, IT staff, and professional develop-ment/organizational effectiveness/teaching and learning staff are examples.

Collaboration is an essential part of any librarian’s job. Librarians havealways had to work with each other and with faculty members, administra-tors, and technology support staff across institutions. Liaison librarians, forexample, are perfectly positioned between faculty and students: they assistfaculty in selecting and hosting course readings and in developing courseassignments, and support students directly in completing assignments. Inconsultation with faculty, the librarian draws from his or her own experienceand expertise to advocate and offer perspectives and options to using tech-nology and content to meet learning objectives in a course. Librarians, dueto their positioning, reach, and relationships, often have broad knowledgeof who is doing what on campus when it comes to technology deploymentand trials. Whether formally through mandated library services or informally

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

94 J. A. Buczynski and S. R. Mall

through back channels, library staff are working hard to support faculty newtechnology/Web services awareness as well as faculty teaching materials,content sourcing, and procurement. Librarians are partnering with their in-stitution’s Organizational Effectiveness/Professional Development/Teachingand Learning units to train faculty in using technology via workshops andone-on-one training. Liaison librarians are raising faculty awareness abouteTextbooks and custom eTextbook options in the marketplace. Pedagogicalroles are changing on campus. Learning management systems (LMS) are anexcellent example of the bridging role library staff play between technologyand faculty.

LMS such as Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Sakai, and Moodle have in-creased opportunities for library staff to help train faculty how to use newtechnologies and increase their comfort with the tools. Most learning man-agement systems include a basic set of tools that includes resource sharing,communication, and assessment (Black, 2008). Many Web 2.0 services ortechnologies can be easily incorporated into LMS courses, assuming they donot already exist in the LMS. Library staff regularly show faculty how Web2.0 technologies they are familiar with such as blogs, wikis, feeds/feed read-ers, tagging, instant messaging (IM), podcasts, vodcasts, and cloud apps likeGoogle docs can be useful for supporting learning objectives in a course.Librarians have experience in using the tools/services and know the rangeof useful learning applications for them.

For example, a liaison librarian can be consulting with an instructorabout populating his or her course with various learning resources content.In discussing the course, the instructor may reveal that the synchronous chattool built into the LMS would not fully support the communication practicesin his or her course. A library staff member could recommend that a vir-tual, real-time online chat service such as Meebo be embedded in the onlinecourse. Meebo is used often to meet a similar need in LibGuides researchpathfinders. Librarians know Meebo well. The library can help faculty createan account, design a specialized “widget” for their course, teach the instruc-tor how to integrate the “widget,” and recommend best practices in onlinecommunication. This type of informal tech training and support is happeningin libraries of all types today. It is a bonus side effect of libraries’ rush to getand stay tech savvy.

Online student engagement is important to faculty: “How can I make mycourse interesting?” is frequently heard. One option is to include multi-mediain their LMS courses and PowerPoint/Keynote presentations. The integrationof technology in teaching must be seamless and not interfere with the learn-ing experience. Library staff are training faculty on how to embed videos aslinks or objects. They know the basics of copyright infringement risk man-agement and the technical aspects of displaying and embedding video andwhere to source it from, whether it is from library collections, online serviceslike YouTube, or lecture repositories like iTunesU. Not only is the library

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Bridging the Gap 95

providing faculty with training on how to use new technologies, ongoingfaculty consultation on the effective use of technology raises the technicalexpertise of its staff. Faculty and staff ICT competencies are being developedboth inside and outside the library.

Academe is a highly conservative system. Despite this fact, Web 2.0technology vendors and content publishers have convinced decision mak-ers in higher education to adopt the mantra “build it and they will come.”Demonstrate the Web technology/service and provide workshops and therest will take care of itself. The reality of what actually happens is quitedifferent. Workshops have been shown to have major flaws in efficacy(Schneckenberg, 2009). Few if any ICT deployments live up to the hypethat inevitably surrounds them. Technologies come and go or are used bya select few. The reason is that the successful and sustainable integration oftechnology into teaching and learning activities requires challenging manydeeply held beliefs, changing long-established practices, and encouragingnew ways of thinking in an institution (Bates 2000: 42–43; Cook-Sather,2001: 128). Libraries and their staff have been down this road before. Theyknow all about changing “what you do” and “how you do it.” Library staffincludes a talent tool rich in ICT technical expertise and experience. It isnot surprising then that library staff are providing faculty with formal andinformal technology support. There is a mutual interest in successful tech-nology/Web 2.0 service adoption. If faculty don’t use specific technologies,libraries cannot extend the accessibility of their collections or the reach oftheir instruction programs. Collections get lesser use and library staff instruc-tors experience higher workloads. From the faculty side, library staff can helpin the development and support of richer course learning environments forstudents and all the benefits that go with them. Library staff is playing a ma-jor role in supporting faculty and students’ adoption and use of technologyand new media in the classroom. They are helping to bridge the return oninvestment gap that higher education institutions are facing.

REFERENCES

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College andUniversity Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bates, A. W., and Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in HigherEducation: Foundations for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Black, E. L. (2008). Toolkit approach to integrating library resources in the learningmanagement system. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(6):496–501.

CDW Government Inc. (2009). 21st-Century Campus Report: Defining the Vision. Re-trieved February 23 2010, from http://webobjects.cdw.com/webobjects/media/pdf/Newsroom/CDWG-21st-Century-Campus-1009.pdf

Cook-Sather, A. (2001). Unrolling roles in techno-pedagogy: Toward new formsof collaboration in traditional college settings. Innovative Higher Education,26(2):122–140.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4

96 J. A. Buczynski and S. R. Mall

Cote, J. E., and Allahar, A. L. (2007). Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Deal, A. (2007). A teaching with technology white paper: Podcasting. Office ofTechnology for Education and Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence CarnegieMellon University. Retrieved 10 February 2010, from http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/resources/PublicationsArchives/StudiesWhitepapers/Podcasting Jun07.pdf

Greenleaf, E., Baillie, C., and Olmstead, K. (2009). The Impact of Technology onTeaching and Learning: Lessons Learned [Video]. Toronto, ON: Centre for Teach-ing Support and Innovation.

Harley, D. et al. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly commu-nication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines.Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved 23 February 2010, fromhttp://escholarship.org/uc/cshe fsc

Lopes, V. M. (2009). The Efficacy of a Course Management System in Learning:Perceptions of Students and Faculty at One Ontario College. Thesis (Ph.D.),University of Toronto.

Moser, F. Z. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology: Educational tech-nology support plays a critical role in helping faculty add technology to theirteaching. Educause Quarterly. 1 Nov. 2007.

Siemens, G., and Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technolo-gies for learners. Retrieved 11 February 2010, from http://umanitoba.ca/learning technologies/cetl/HETL.pdf

Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhancedinnovation in higher education. Educational Research, 51(4):411–424.

Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learn-ing: A critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2):83–94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 0

0:21

31

Oct

ober

201

4