Citation
Instructional use of the Internet

Material Information

Title:
Instructional use of the Internet stages of concern among faculty at the University of Florida
Creator:
Toms, Sue Anne
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 111 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College instruction ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Computers in education ( jstor )
Demography ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Personal computers ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Instruction and Curriculum -- UF ( lcsh )
Instruction and Curriculum thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1997.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 86-91).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sue Anne Toms.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
028074507 ( ALEPH )
37925289 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


















INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF THE INTERNET:
STAGES OF CONCERN AMONG FACULTY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA














By

SUE ANNE TOMS













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1997




INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF THE INTERNET:
STAGES OF CONCERN AMONG FACULTY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
By
SUE ANNE TOMS
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1997


This work is dedicated to the memory of
Ray Edward Toms (1922-1969) and of
Tawat Chotigeat (1921-1975).


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any project of this magnitude is not executed as a solo
effort, but rather it represents the contribution of many to
its success. To those below, I offer my most heartfelt
appreciation:
Dr. Clemens L. Hallman, whom I have known since 1986
and who shared his enthusiasm about this project early on in
the process, for his continual support and encouragement.
Dr. Sebastian L. Foti, who always had the time to
listen and share his thoughts, even when he knew me as no
more than a stranger when I first arrived on campus, and who
demonstrated his unfailing loyalty throughout the course of
my studies.
Dr. James J. Algina for his kind guidance and endless
patience as I attempted to gain some mastery of statistical
analysis which includes skills similar to those of learning
a foreign languageholding many rules in mind
simultaneously.
Dr. Richard D. Downie for his assurance and the wisdom
of his many years on this campus and in the field of
international education.
iii


Dr. Constance L. Shehan for showing early on her
willingness to encourage this undertaking and for offering
the resources of the University Center for Excellence in
Teaching in support of this project.
Tosporn Chotigeat for not wanting me to go but not
wanting to hold me back either and for understanding why I
wanted to do this.
Ruth Evelyn Bishop Toms King for always telling me that
I could do anything that I set my mind to.
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Need for the Study 2
Current Changes in Institutions
of Higher Education 2
Teaching During These Changes 4
The Institutional Context 7
Research Questions 10
Limitations and Assumptions 10
Definition of Terms 11
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14
Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations 15
Beginning Teacher Concerns 16
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model 18
Stages of Concern 19
Non-concern 20
Self 21
Task 21
Impact 21
Levels of Use 22
Innovation Configuration 24
Intervention Taxonomy and
Intervention Anatomy 25
Change Facilitator Stages of Concern and
Questionnaire 25
Models Incorporating the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model 26
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire 29
v


Development of the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire 30
Psychometric Properties 31
The Demographic Data Page 33
Instructional Use of the Internet
in Higher Education 37
Summary 41
3 RESEARCH DESIGN 43
Study Design/Procedures 43
Variables 44
Sample 44
Instrumentation 46
Development of the Questionnaire 46
Reliability/Validity 47
Description of the Questionnaire 48
Data Collection 56
Data Analysis 59
Summary 60
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 62
Research Questions 62
Variables 63
Findings 64
Descriptive Statistics 64
Correlational Relationships 70
Regression Analysis 73
Research Question 1 73
Research Question 2 75
Research Question 3 76
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 78
Summary 78
Findings 82
Implications 83
Recommendations for Further Research 84
REFERENCES 86
APPENDICES
A STUDENT SENATE PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO ALL UF
FACULTY 93
vi


B PERMISSION TO USE STAGES OF CONCERN
QUESTIONNAIRE 97
C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 99
D STAGES OF CONCERN QUESTIONNAIRE 101
E TEXT OF INITIAL MAILING 106
F LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL: FIRST MAILING OF
QUESTIONNAIRE 108
G LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL: FOLLOW-UP MAILING OF
QUESTIONNAIRE 110
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ill
vii


LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1 Demographic profile of the respondents 61
2 Peak stage of concern 66
3 Levels of use of the Internet 67
4 How much teaching is modified based on
student learning 68
5 Rank, gender, and national origin of
respondents 69
6 Intercorrelations between peak stage of
concern and other variables 71
7 Summary of multiple regression for
variables predicting peak stage of
concern 74
viii


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF THE INTERNET:
STAGES OF CONCERN AMONG FACULTY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
By
Sue Anne Toms
August 1997
Chairman: Clemens L. Hallman
Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum
This descriptive correlational study explored the
patterns in the stages of concern of the faculty at the
University of Florida regarding the innovation adoption of
the Internet for instructional purposes. Recent
technological developments in computers and
telecommunications, especially in access to the storage and
transfer of vast quantities of information, have included
many possibilities for direct application to university
classrooms.
Three research questions were posed. What are the
relationships of the level of Internet use for instructional
purposes and the level of Internet use for all other
purposes to the sequence of stages of concern? Are there
IX


significant differences in the peak stages of concern of the
faculty members grouped by the extent to which they modify
their instructional practices based on how or what students
learn? Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model provided the
theoretical framework for the study. Made up of several
dimensions, CBAM's seven stages of concern represent a
developmental sequence through which an individual passes
when confronted with change or innovation. The stages range
from non-concern (Awareness), to self (Information,
Personal), task (Management), and impact concerns
(Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing).
During Spring 1997 the Stages of Concern Questionnaire
was mailed to 1,650 faculty members within ten colleges at
the University of Florida. The final sample contained 540
responses, a return rate of 33%. The data were analyzed
using correlational and regression techniques.
Findings included significant correlations between the
peak or most intense stage of concern and level of use of
the Internet for instructional purposes, level of use of the
Internet for all other purposes, and attention to how
students learn. However, the multiple regression model
produced only two significant predictors of peak stage of
x


concern:
purposes
level of use of the Internet for instructional
and gender.
xi


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The history of modern education is littered with
the trash of technology left behind by unrealistic
purchases, naive users, and vendors working on a
quota system. (Polley, 1977, cited in Albright,
1996, p. 2)
Statement of the Problem
This quantitative study explored the patterns in the
needs thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the University
of Florida faculty as manifested in their stages of concern
regarding the innovation adoption of the Internet for
instructional purposes. The sources of the problem are
several. The first involves the trend of traditional brick-
and-mortar colleges and universities investigating novel
modes of instructional delivery facilitated by recent
technological developments in computers and
telecommunications. Another stems from the customary
approach to faculty development within these organizations,
one which seldom considers at the level of the individual
the psychological orientation which occurs with expectations
for incorporation of these technological changes into their
daily teaching lives. Finally, the need originates in the
1


2
current tensions at universities across the nation between
incoming students' increasing levels of technological
sophistication and their demands for access to computers and
networked resources to supplement and enhance their own
learning. These tensions place unprecedented strains on
ever tighter budgets.
Need for the Study
Current Changes in Institutions of Higher Education
The innovation central to this study, use of the
Internet for instructional purposes, stands poised to
complement substantially the primacy of the model of higher
learning which has prevailed for many centuries in the
Western world. The rise of monasteries as centers of
learning produced the classroom model as we now know it.
Classrooms where an expert gathered with students and talked
to them to transmit knowledge represent the oral, pre-print
tradition (Warnock, 1996). Same time/same place for teacher
and student was the requirement in this transmission model
of teaching and learning.
The advent of the printing press brought about
repositories of knowledge in the form of libraries where
information could be stored through time on the substrate of
paper. Thus, students were able to learn from the written


3
works of past (even deceased) scholars, but they still had
to adhere to the 'same place' requirement, gathering where
these libraries were located. Knowledge transmission
continued to dominate.
In the present age, both time and place are losing
their importance. The availability and distribution of
information and with it knowledge are changing drastically.
The Internet represents a new medium for the storage and
transfer of information, both without the customary
substrate of paper (Warnock, 1996). Sources of information
distributed throughout networks accessible more widely than
ever before are becoming the norm.
Full realization of all that this means to the world of
students, scholars, and researchers will not be achieved for
some time to come. Nevertheless, the present represents a
key moment in the evolution of the spread of knowledge, the
likes of which have not been seen for many hundreds of
years. This is not to say that the current paradigm will be
replaced any time soon nor that it will ever disappear. One
fact is unarguable, however; new features will be added. As
the president of Harvard recently mused, "The world of
learning will not become lost in cyberspace, I suspect, any
more than it has drowned in books" (Rudenstine, 1997, p.
A48) .


4
Teaching During These Changes
The process of "becoming a teacher is complex,
stressful, intimate, and largely covert" (Fuller & Brown,
1975, p. 75). College professors participate in this
process and find all of the above amplified. Furthermore,
the process is compounded for those who are expected to keep
abreast of changes in the teaching of their disciplines and
who are interested in incorporating what adoption of
instructional innovation offers.
The individuals in the front lines of instructional
innovation or change at post-secondary institutions, that is
the teaching faculty, are seldom trained in any systematic
way to become members of the professorate. They may have
taught as graduate students, but they usually have chosen a
career in the academic world due to an affinity for their
content area or for research. Those who feel a commitment
to teaching well and express an interest in improving their
teaching skills can typically avail themselves of the campus
resources at hand. Among the options at the University of
Florida is the University Center for Excellence in Teaching.
UCET's primary mission is to assure access to the
resources needed for teaching by both new and established
faculty. Its major functions include supplying new faculty
with "orientation, instruction, and consultation about
teaching and learning" (Shehan, 1994, p. 1). To this end,


5
its Advisory Board members act as consultants or partners to
new faculty to facilitate development of their teaching
styles and philosophies (Shehan, 1994).
In addition, another charge of UCET is to "[f]acilitate
the continuing development of tenured faculty as teachers"
(Shehan, 1995, p. 4) The center offers information about
developments related to teaching at the higher education
level through its Conversations about Teaching series and
the Focus on Teaching annual workshops. Finally, UCET
contributes to the preparation of graduate students for
their roles as future educators (Shehan, 1995, p. 4) .
Two examples of the application of instructional uses
of the Internet advocated by UCET are found in a recent
issue of the center's newsletter in an article on teaching
large classes. The author offers eight suggestions, among
them encouraging others to "[d]evelop a homepage so that
students can get important information from there rather
than calling you" and "[ejncourage the use of e-mail as a
way for students to get their questions answered. That way
you can respond at your convenience and save time"
(Schwartz, 1996, p. 2).
Although prominent among the topics recently offered in
UCET activities are diversity in the classroom and dealing
with individual differences in learning styles, Loucks and


6
Hall (1977) make the valid point that when teachers or
faculty are trained in some new instructional innovation,
they are often not treated as diverse individuals themselves
(p. 18). Faculty development is seldom carried out on the
basis of the needs and concerns of the faculty. For staff
developers whose clients teach across a myriad of
disciplines, in class groups of from 7 to 700, to students
who are fresh on the university scene or those who may have
been there nearly a decade, making instructional
interventions relevant is indeed a challenge.
This study speaks directly to this need. It yields
concerns data collected at the level of the individual
regarding adoption of the innovation of using the Internet
for instructional purposes using the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire, part of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model.
The model was devised to depict "the process of change in
terms of the individuals involved" (Loucks & Hall, 1977, p.
18). Hall and Loucks (1978) list the six basic assumptions
that underlie the model: (1) rather than an event, change is
a process; (2) facilitating change involves the individual
as the "primary target"; (3) change occurs at a very
personal level; (4) the change process occurs along a
pathway marked by stages in both thoughts and skills; (5)
interventions by staff developers are most effective when
they focus on the client and follow a "diagnostic/


7
prescriptive model"; and (6) the effectiveness of staff
development will depend on constant diagnostic input and on
systematic adaptation of the intervention as well as of the
innovation itself (pp. 37-38).
Within the CBfiM structure are found basic frames of
reference, of which the concerns dimension is one. Concerns
have been defined as "perceptions, feelings, and
motivations" (Hall & Loucks, 1978, p. 39) which beset an
individual faced with change. Interventions based on
individuals' concerns not only facilitate the process of
adoption of an innovation, they also increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of the adoption and decrease
the trauma of the change for the individual. In short,
information on individuals' stages of concerns provides a
powerful tool for improving staff development interventions.
The Institutional Context
The final source of the problem at hand involves the
context within which the study was set. Two principal
factors constitute the pertinence of the study's outcomes to
the conditions regarding adoption of the Internet for
instructional purposes at the University of Florida.
The first of these factors revolves around the student-
driven movement to assure the accustomed access to and use
of the Internet without students incurring additional costs.


8
Until spring semester 1996 all UF students (even members of
the general public) had access to computer labs on campus
and to the full range of applications and networking offered
without charge. Starting with that semester, however,
undergraduate students were assessed a charge of $20 for
maintenance of an account which included basic Internet
access (they still could use word-processing, spreadsheet
and database applications free of charge). At that point,
the administration made a distinction between what was
considered essential computer access and what was considered
elective, a dichotomy with which the student body could not
agree.
The uproar caused by the imposition of the fee finally
resulted in a November 19, 1996, letter from the UF Student
Senate President to all faculty including the full text of a
resolution passed unanimously by the Senate expressing the
students' view: "the use of computers as an essential,
rather than elective, element of fulfilling educational
goals" (C. E. Dorworth, communication, November 19, 1996).
In addition, the letter went on to ask that all faculty
include the following in the syllabus for each course they
teach:


9
It is the formal policy of this class that in
order to fully and properly fulfill the
requirements of this course some use of and
proficiency in the use of computers, including
access to and use of the Internet (e-mail and
World Wide Web), will be required. (C. E.
Dorworth, communication, November 19, 1996)
Clearly, adoption of the innovation of the Internet for
learning purposes among the students represented by their
Student Senate had out paced the ability of the
administration to provide access to it within the given
budgetary constraints. (For full text of letter and
resolution, see Appendix A.)
The tensions fueled by student demands on limited
resources were not unique to the University of Florida
campus; they were also apparent at the level of the (state)
Board of Regents during the fall of 1996 and into 1997.
Despite student protest and after debating proposals as high
as $100, at their meeting on January 24, 1997, the Board
approved a recommendation that the legislature vote to
assess a technology fee of $50 per student throughout the
State University System (Malernee, 1997). This represents a
potential inflow of approximately $2,000,000 in the
technology budget for the University of Florida. Making a
contribution to a well-informed decision on allocation of
this money to avoid the "trash of technology left behind by
. . naive users" (Polley, 1977, cited in Albright, 1996,


10
p. 2) as mentioned at the outset, represents the second
factor in the significance of the outcomes and the single
greatest need for this study.
Research Questions
What are the concerns regarding adoption of the
Internet for instructional purposes among the faculty at the
University of Florida? To explore this question, the
following were answered:
(1) What are the relationships of the level of Internet
use for instructional purposes and the level of Internet use
for all other purposes to the sequence of stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
Limitations and Assumptions
The findings offer a one-time view of a dynamic
processthe respondents' moves through the developmental
stages of concern about an innovation. The subjects were
instructional faculty affiliated with an academic unit
within the ten college-level units which offer undergraduate


11
education at a large southeastern U.S. research university.
Generalizibility is limited to those who completed the
survey.
The data were collected on a survey undertaken by the
University Center for Excellence in Teaching. The quantity
and quality of the responses may be influenced by this fact.
Those who have had experience with and benefitted from UCET-
sponsored activities may have been more likely to reply.
Since response to the questionnaire was voluntary,
response rates may have been higher among those with a
higher-than-representative degree of interest in and/or
experience with use of the Internet for instructional
purposes.
The results reflected the respondents' honest concerns
and are valid to the extent that the respondents share the
definitions of the terms used with those of the researcher.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following
definitions have been used:
The Internet is an international network linking
smaller networks; it includes electronic mail and file
transfer capabilities, as well as access to information
(text, graphics, audio, video) throughout those networks
(Oblinger, 1992) .


12
Instructional purpose refers to a use (either required
or optional) to support classroom routines, e.g., course
announcements, distributing hand-outs, sending or receiving
assignments, and research for term projects.
Concern is the mental construct represented by an
individual's feelings, preoccupations, thoughts, and
considerations directed at a specific task to be
accomplished or an issue to be resolved. This definition
follows that developed by Hall et al. (1979).
Stages of concern constitute a sequential set through
which a person passes when confronted with change.
Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCO) is an instrument
with thirty-five Likert-type items yielding scores on seven
subscales to measure the intensities of concern of educators
about the adoption of an educational innovation (Hall et
al., 1979).
Peak stage of concern is that stage with the highest
score and thus the most intense concern. A given individual
may exhibit varying levels of concern on the multiple items
measuring within the same stage, but an overall score for
each stage will show the stage of greatest intensity. In
the event of equal scores on two or more stages, the stage
furthest forward on the continuum, and thus in the process
of adoption innovation, was used.


13
Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a conceptual
framework for understanding how individuals in educational
settings react to change. It posits that change is a
process, that it occurs at the level of the individual and
should therefore be measured at that level, and that
individuals confronted with change pass through a
developmental sequence of stages of concern as they adopt
that change. The stages of concern are one dimension of the
model (Hall et al., 1973).
Faculty refers to those persons employed at the
University of Florida during spring semester 1997 who are
remunerated as faculty within one of the following ten
college-level units: Architecture, Business Administration,
Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Health and Human
Performance, Health Professions, the Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, Journalism and Communications, and
Liberal Arts.
Foreign faculty are those of the above group who are
not native-born American citizens. They may be naturalized
American citizens, permanent residents, or holders of a visa
which permits them to work in the United States.


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review for this study opens with a
summary of the findings of the two antecedents to the
theoretical framework central to itresearch on the
adoption and diffusion of innovations and on beginning
teachers' concerns. It then turns to the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model, explaining its various dimensions and
tracing the development of the first one, Stages of Concern.
Examples of models which have incorporated the CBAM are
given. The review continues with a close look at the survey
instrument which measures the first dimension, the Stages of
Concern Questionnaire, including how it was developed and
its psychometric properties. This is followed by a review
of the literature concerning the variables captured on the
demographic page which makes up part of the instrument used
for this study. Finally, the research on current practices
of using the Internet for instructional purposes in higher
education settings is reviewed.
14


15
Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations
Within the vast body of research and theory on
innovation adoption, of direct relevance to this study is
the work of Everett Rogers. By synthesizing the findings
and theories from over 500 publications in his 1962 work
Diffusion of Innovations, he made a lasting contribution to
this area and significantly added to what is known about
adoption of an innovation.
The basic elements of diffusion of any innovation are
(a) the innovation, (b) its communication from one
individual to another, ( c) the social system, and (d) a
period of time (Rogers, 1962, p. 12). While diffusion
operates at the level of the social system or across
systems, adoption as a process does so at the level of the
individual. Rogers (1962) defines adoption as "the mental
process through which an individual passes from first
hearing about an innovation to final adoption" (p. 17).
Rogers segmented the adoption process into five stages:
awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption.
Through these five stages, the individual moves from a point
of random exposure to the innovation, to actively seeking
information about it, weighing its possible benefits, trying
it out on a limited basis, and finally adopting it.
Although rejection may truncate the process at any stage,


16
the outcome of the fourth stage (trial) is crucial to moving
to the final stage (pp. 81-86).
Rogers also typified adopters by the sequence in which
they adopt an innovation and their salient characteristics.
He termed those at the lead in the process "innovators" who
are venturesome; the next group are called "early adopters"
and are respected by others; the following "early majority"
are deliberate; the "late majority" are skeptics; and the
final "laggards" are traditional (Rogers, 1962, pp. 168-
171) .
Beginning Teacher Concerns
Central to Frances Fuller's research (1969) was an
exploration of the mental processes of an individual who is
confronted with change manifested in the demands of learning
to practice a future profession. Her pioneering studies on
undergraduate education majors dealing with the mismatch
between (a) their own motivation to learn and (b) the
content and sequence of the academic courses that teacher
educators had deemed appropriate and necessary for them
(1969) have made a lasting contribution.
To improve the match between learner goals and teacher
preparation programs, more information was needed about the
concerns of future teachers. An analysis of previous
studies about beginning teachers' concerns revealed


17
surprisingly consistent patterns, although missing were
concerns over the topics covered in the typical
undergraduate teacher-training curriculum (Fuller, 1969, pp.
208-210).
During counseling sessions with student teachers in
Fuller's first study, two categories of concerns emerged:
those with the self and those with pupils. Furthermore, the
preponderance of topics in the two categories was not
scattered about randomly during the eleven weeks of
counseling sessions, but rather a developmental pattern from
self to pupils was uncovered. In her second study, written
responses to open-ended concerns statements with student
teachers lent validity to the self-other dichotomy and its
sequential attribute. By reviewing findings of previous
studies through this 'dichotomous' lens, as well as by
looking at (then) contemporary unpublished data from
colleagues, Fuller found further support for the two
categories and their developmental nature (1969).
Attempts to categorize the "amorphous and vague"
responses about concerns from education majors before their
student teaching experience, i.e., during their sophomore
and junior years, proved more elusive (Fuller, 1969, p.
219). As a result, a pre-teaching phase with non-concern
was added at the front of the two-phase developmental model


18
of teacher concerns conceptualized as self>other. Among
the implications for further research, Fuller questions the
validity of generalization to other groups, including
college professors, and the feasibility of developing an
instrument for measuring concerns, thus opening the way to
her successors.
The timelessness of Fuller's findings is demonstrated
by the appearance of articles decades later exploring the
development of professors' careers as teachers. Kugel
(1993) proposes three major stages that professors move
through as they hone their teaching abilities. The first
centers on the self, the second on the subject matter at
hand, and the third on the student. The parallel between
such a model and the self>other model of Fuller is
evident.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model
While the legacy left by Rogers's work was much
knowledge in understanding innovation diffusion and adoption
at the level of social interaction and that of Fuller was a
glance into the motivation, thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions of beginning teachers, the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model or CBAM developed by Gene Hall and his
associates had as its mission "the study of what happens to
the individual classroom teacher and professor involved in


19
change" (Hall, 1976, p. 22). The CBAM, in conjunction with
the Procedures for Adopting Educational Innovations Project
at The Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, University of Texas, addresses innovation
adoption within an educational setting not as an event, but
rather as a long-term process from the perspectives of the
individual, the organization, and the innovation (Hall et
al., 1975; Loucks & Hall, 1977). Goals of the model include
describing developmental changes in individuals as they move
through the process and effective intervention strategies
which can facilitate that movement. The basic diagnostic
frame of reference in the model includes the dimensions of
(a) the concerns that users have prior to and during
adoption of an innovation (Stages of Concern), (b) the way
in which the innovation is actually used (Levels of Use),
and ( c) how the innovation itself adapts to the exigencies
of the adopters (Innovation Configuration). In addition,
the fourth component prescribes intervention parameters to
facilitate the change process (Intervention Taxonomy and
Intervention Anatomy) (Hord & Loucks, 1980).
Stages of Concern
The CBAM project identified seven stages of concern
about an innovation (SoC). These stages expand on those
first proposed by Fuller and are grouped into self, task,


20
and impact concerns. Concerns are considered to be
manifestations of what an individual involved in the change
process is feeling, a construct referring "to the
categorization of expressions stated by the user related to
his use of the innovation" (Hall et al., 1973, p. 14).
Originally, the seven stages of concern were described as
(0) unaware, (1) awareness, (2) exploration, (3) early
trial, (4) limited impact, (5) maximum benefit, and (6)
renewal (Hall et al., 1973). Whereas the original works had
identified the concerns of preservice teachers, Hall (1976)
presents findings derived from a study that included
inservice teachers and professors in college settings.
Additional research resulted in defining the concerns more
precisely, developing a measurement of the stages of
concern, and testing the concerns across innovations (Hall &
Rutherford, 1976; Hall et al., 1977). Additional
applications of the concerns model to the change process are
reported among university administrators, state education
agency officials, and those working in the private sector
(Hall, 1979, 1985). Refined definitions of the stages of
concern (from Hall et al., 1979 [original concept from Hall
et al., 1973]) are given as
Non-concern0 Awareness. Little concern about or
involvement with the innovation is indicated.


21
Self1 Informational. A general awareness of the
innovation and interest in learning more detail about it is
indicated. The person seems to be unworried about
himself/herself in relation to the innovation. S/he is
interested in substantive aspects of the innovation in a
selfless manner such as general characteristics, effects,
and requirements for use.
2 Personal. Individual is uncertain about the demands
of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those
demands, and his/her role with the innovation. This
includes analysis of his/her role in relation to the reward
structure of the organization, decision making, and
consideration of potential conflicts with existing
structures or personal commitment. Financial or status
implications of the program for self and colleagues may also
be reflected.
Task3 Management. Attention is focused on the
processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best use
of information and resources. Issues related to efficiency,
organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands are
utmost.
Impact4 Consequence. Attention focuses on impact of
the innovation on student in his/her immediate sphere of
influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for
students, evaluation of student outcomes, including


22
performance and competencies, and changes needed to increase
student outcomes.
5 Collaboration. The focus is on coordination and
cooperation with others regarding use of the innovation.
6 Refocusing. The focus is on exploration of more
universal benefits from the innovation, including the
possibility of major changes or replacement with a more
powerful alternative. Individual has definite ideas about
alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the
innovation.
Levels of Use
The second diagnostic component of the CRAM, levels of
use of the innovation, explains actual behaviors of the
innovation user without regard to such affective variables
as attitudes, motivation, or needs (those which are central
to the stages of concern) (Hall et al., 1975, p. 52). In
the broadest sense, stages of concern move from self to task
to impact whereas levels of use follow an orienting to
managing to integrating path (Loucks S Hall, 1977). The
eight levels of use describe the behaviors of the user (as
opposed to the feelings of the stages of concern) ranging
from non-use to orientation, preparation, mechanical use,
routine, refinement, integration, and renewal (Hall et al.,


23
1975; Loucks & Hall, 1977). These levels have been compared
to those passed through by a person learning to drive an
automobile (Hall & Hord, 1987, pp. 17-18). Assessment of
individuals' stages of concern and levels of use is
considered essential to choosing appropriate modes of
intervention in order to maximize the effectiveness and
efficiency of the change process and minimize the trauma of
that process on the individual. Interventions must be
coordinated with adopters' levels of use to be of maximum
benefit (Hall et al., 1975, p. 56). In addition, multiple
cycles of use make up the innovation adoption process and
intervention support must fall across these cycles.
Hall and Hord (1984) discuss the complex relationship
between stages of concern and levels of use, stating that at
the two extremes there seems to be a positive, linear
relationship, i.e. an individual whose peak stage of concern
falls at or near either extreme of the seven-unit SoC
continuum will tend to also be at or near that same extreme
level of use on the eight-unit LoU continuum. The
relationship between the two dimensions for those who fall
in the middle on one or both, nevertheless, is much less
clear. The overall hypothesized relationship follows an
elongated S-curve where "at early points in the change
process, use tends to 'drive' concerns, and at later points,


24
aroused concerns push Levels of Use" (Hall & Hord, 1984, p.
338) .
Innovation Configuration
The third diagnostic dimension of the CHAM model
involves clarifying and operationalizing what use of the
innovation in its intended setting means (Hall s Loucks,
1981). The Innovation Configuration acknowledges an
interaction between the innovation user and the innovation
itself. By means of a checklist, it assesses user patterns
from among the components a user may or may not choose to
adopt. Each individual has a unique 'fingerprint' which
shows the pattern of that person's encounter with the
innovation. It will include the components selected, their
organization, and their variations (Yessayan, 1991).
Implications for change facilitators are clear; once
acceptable components and variations have been identified,
guiding users along the path of adoption is greatly
simplified. In addition, adopters evaluate their progress
and gauge the distance left to complete the change process.
Rutherford outlines the categories of components to an
innovation configuration: those which are crucial to the
innovation (musts), those which are desirable, and those
which are suitable but not required (1986, pp. 10-13).


25
Intervention Taxonomy (IT) and Intervention Anatomy (IA)
Later research on the CHAM has resulted in a final two-
part dimension which must also be mentioned. With an eye
toward more effective interventions for the successful
adoption of an innovation, the Intervention Taxonomy and
Intervention Anatomy were developed. The IT facilitates
comprehensive intervention planning by specifying six levels
for school improvement and staff development. The IA
addresses the internal components of potential interventions
and yields information which, when used with the IT,
contributes to more effectively addressing the individuals'
needs (Hord & Loucks, 1980).
Change Facilitator Stages of Concern and Questionnaire
A more recent addition to the body of theory and
instruments to grow out of the original CBAM is the Change
Facilitator Stages of Concern dimension and its
corresponding CFSoC Questionnaire. Administration of the
original SoCQ to those charged with managing or facilitating
change proved inappropriate. For example, educational
supervisors are typically not concerned about use of the
innovation as adopters (teachers) are but rather with
realizing their role in helping the adopters use the


26
innovation. As a result, the CFSoCQ was developed (Hall et
al., 1991).
This instrument was used at the beginning and end of a
one-month residential training program for secondary school
science department heads in the Philippines during the
summer of 1991. Since the administrative structure of
educational authority places responsibility for
instructional leadership with these individuals, their role
is that of change facilitator within their own schools
(Matthews, 1993). The change facilitator concerns data
collected at the beginning was used to aid in the design of
the staff development program. Post-program data on the
change facilitator participants' stages of concern showed
significant progress through the developmental stages.
Models Incorporating the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
Building on CBAM for the enhancement of staff
development interventions, McCarthy (1982) has included the
stages of concern in her novel approach to teacher
inservice. Starting with modes of perception from thinking
to sensing/feeling along one axis, and adding modes of
processing from doing to watching along another axis, she
derives the four major learning styles. She then dissects
each learning style quadrant into two halves to portray


27
right-brain/left-brain dominance, and finally superimposes
the seven stages of concern (the first six inside the now
circular diagram and the seventhrefocusingleaving the
circle) Her trademarked system called 4Mat accounts for
the affective stages of concern and guides a staff developer
to meeting the "needs of all four major learning styles,
while using right and left mode techniques" (McCarthy, 1982,
p. 20) .
The stages of concern of the CBAM have also been
proposed in a model for faculty development specifically
aimed at technological innovations (Wedman & Strathe, 1985) .
The authors advocate diverse strategies of faculty
development derived from three dimensions: the concerns
dimension (which they have simplified into four levels
information, exploration, utilization, and
collaboration/innovation), the organization dimension
(individual, groups, departments, college), and the faculty
context dimension (instructional, creative, management,
personal). The result is a framework which may serve as an
alternative to the traditional "spray and pray" (Wedman &
Strathe, 1985, p. 19) approach to faculty development.
The usefulness of applying data from the first two
diagnostic dimensions of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
to the design of inservice training is demonstrated in a


28
series of articles by Cicchelli and Baecher. Their 1987
work reports on 18 senior high school teachers undergoing
inservice regarding the use of microcomputers in the
classroom. Data gleaned from the stages of concern
questionnaire and levels of use interviews (of three users
and three non-users) served to guide the design and
implementation of 15 hours of training over three days.
Post-training administration of the SoCQ showed "a
significant change in teachers' concerns towards
microcomputers" (p. 85). In a similar study also involving
the implementation of computer technology at the high school
level, six teachers filled out the SoCQ to supply
information used in a nine-hour inservice program. When
administered the SoCQ afterward, the teachers showed a
difference of at least 10 percentile points in each stage
score (1990).
Cicchelli (1990) enlisted stages of concern theory when
confronted anew with Fuller's conundrum of some two decades
before about the best content and sequence of courses for
teacher education programs. The Fordham University Pre-
Service Program enrolls both fourth-year undergraduate and
fifth-year graduate students in a year of
professional/technical teacher training. The difference
between the two groups is in the additional training in


29
liberal arts which the fifth-year students have had. The
SoCQ was administered to 24 fourth-year and 17 fifth-year
students at the beginning and again at the end of the two-
semester preservice program. Liberal arts training as a
part of teacher preparation programs would be supported if
the fifth-year students were found to be further along in
the developmental sequence of stages of concern at the
beginning or at the end of their year of professional
teacher training, i.e., if they demonstrated lower self
concerns and/or higher impact concerns. This, however, was
not the case when looking at the two groups. At least on
the personal dimension of concerns about teaching, the
additional training in liberal arts cannot be linked to a
more advanced starting point on or greater movement along
the SoC wave-like pattern either before or after a one-year
program of professional/technical education training
(Cicchelli, 1990, p. 45).
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire
The stages of concern are assessed on a questionnaire
of thirty-five items where respondents indicate the
relevance of the statements to their present concerns
regarding an innovation. Use of the SoCQ results in
"standardized, individualized data that can be aggregated


30
and used to facilitate, monitor, plan, and communicate about
a change process" (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 333) This
questionnaire was developed and copyrighted in 1974 by The
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at The
University of Texas at Austin as part of the Procedures for
Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM Project (Hall et al.,
1979).
Development of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire
The conceptual basis for developing a questionnaire of
concerns about adoption of an innovation grew out of the
extensive work of Fuller and others during the 1960s. To
develop this "quick-scoring, paper-pencil instrument" (Hall
& Rutherford, 1976, p. 228), Hall and his associates
elicited responses to an open-ended concerns statement,
forced rankings, Likert scales, adjective checklists, and
interviews; and from a total of 544 Q-sorted items, a group
of 400 were judged as central (by a minimum of six out of
ten judges) to the measurement of the seven concerns derived
from the definitions espoused in the original 1973 CBAM
paper (Hall et al., 1973, 1979, p. 9). From these, editing
and eliminating redundant items left 195.
Hall and Rutherford (1976) report on the administration
of the 195-item pilot instrument to elementary teachers


31
involved with teaming and college faculty involved with
instructional modules (each group's members stratified by
their length of experience with the innovation in hopes of
capturing information from people all along the full
continuum of stages). Data from the 366 respondents were
factor analyzed, and the first seven resulting factors were
found to be congruent with the outcome of the previous Q-
sort. The resultant 35 items were produced when the factors
were rotated in the direction of the originally defined
stages (factor loadings exceeding 0.5) (Hall & Rutherford,
1976). Between 1974 and 1976, the shortened instrument was
administered to educators involved with eleven different
innovations for results in both cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies (Hall et al., 1979).
Psychometric Properties
The reliability of the SoCQ is interpreted from the
reported test-retest correlations for each of the seven
stages (n = 132, two weeks elapsed) of from 0.65 to 0.86
(four of the seven correlations were above 0.80) (Hall et
al., 1979). The alpha coefficients of internal reliability
of the stages for the same group range from 0.80 to 0.93
(Hall & Rutherford, 1976). Data from a stratified sample of
teachers and professors numbering 830, however, show alpha


32
coefficients for the seven stages of from 0.64 to 0.83 (six
of the seven correlations above 0.70)(Hall et al., 1979).
Indications of the validity of concerns theory and the
instrument include a report of the correlations between
individual items and the stage which they supposedly measure
(72% of the items had higher correlations with their
assigned stage than with other stages), lower correlations
between distant stages than between adjacent ones, results
of factor analyses which indicate independence of the
individual stage subscales, and multi-method procedures
using the open-ended concerns statements, surveys, and
interviewsall resulting in multiple Rs greater than .56 (jo
< .05) for four of the seven stagesand longitudinal
studies demonstrating the wave-like pattern of movement
through the stages (Hall et al., 1979).
The 1979 manual for scoring and interpreting the SoCQ
calls to the attention of the potential user of the
instrument a few of its limitations. First among these is
the purpose of its use; having been devised for diagnostic
functions, Hall et al. (1979) point out that any use which
might involve "screening or evaluation" or even judgement
about personality would be inappropriate (p. 57). Secondly,
the age group on which the instrument was normed was adult,
and their occupational affiliations were with educational


33
institutions; use of the SoCQ with persons outside these
groups would invalidate the claims of reliability and
validity. Finally, the quality of the results of the
analyses is dependent on the good will of the respondents as
they fill out the questionnaire.
The Demographic Data Page
In addition to the thirty-five items designed to gather
data on the concerns of the individual respondents to the
SoCQ, a demographic data page is also included. The
information collected from the responses to these items
serves a two-fold purpose: description of the survey sample
and comparison of it to the population and input for
statistical analyses.
Results of research reported by Hall et al. (1979)
report "no outstanding relationships between standard
demographic variables and concerns data" (p. 52). One of
his associates, William Rutherford, concurs by mentioning
age, gender, and years of teaching experience as lacking any
"consistent relationship" between them and concerns stages
scores (1986, p. 7).
In their research article on student engagement of 90
developmental reading students at El Camino College, Marsh
and Penn (1988) also report no relationship between stages


34
of concern and demographic variables. Numerous other
studies report no significant differences in SoC scores
according to demographic variables (Shoemaker, 1990; Falvo,
1990; Hickox, 1994; Lewis, 1994).
Exception to the lack of findings related to age is
taken by Lee-Kang (1993), who found that undergraduate
textiles, clothing, and merchandising program departments
with a greater number of males over sixty were associated
with a lesser degree of adoption of the instructional use of
computers.
A study by Wells and Anderson (1995) which looked into
the relationship between gender (and various levels of
computer knowledge) and SoC scores before, during, and after
a course called Computers and Telecommunications in
Education for graduate students majoring in education at
West Virginia University found that gender was associated
with significant differences at the final administration of
the questionnaire on Stage 0 Awareness and at the midpoint
administration for Stage 5 Collaboration and Stage 6
Refocusing. However, since details about the sample size
and gender breakdown are not reported, these findings are
difficult to evaluate.
A review of the research on the variables of rank and
tenure also finds claims on both sides of the innovation


35
adoption. King (1990) claims that "junior faculty work on
instructional innovation at their peril" (p. 297), yet Lee-
Kang in the 1993 study cited above found that more assistant
professors in a program increased the likelihood of
implementation of instructional computer use at higher
levels.
In contrast to the standard demographic variables,
those which make up the constellation termed the "state of
the user system" by Hall et al. (1979) seem to be more
crucial to a full understanding of the stages of concern
framework. Among these, the most prominent is the second
diagnostic dimension of the CBAM, levels of use.
Also comprising the set of variables defining the
'state of the user system' are the length of time the user
has had experience with the innovation and whether the user
has had any formal training in the innovation. Both
experience and training have been found to be significantly
related to SoC in a number of studies. Aneke (1996) found
that high school teachers in Virginia involved with the High
Schools That Work reform had SoC that correlated positively
with the amount of experience with and number of hours of
training in the innovation. McQuain (1995) polled teachers
at thirteen high schools and a community college in Virginia
about the innovation of Technical Preparation (Tech Prep)


36
programs and found both experience and training to be
significantly related to SoC. Chandler (1994) researched
the innovation of institutional effectiveness criteria in
North Carolina community colleges and found significant
differences in respondents grouped by level of (a)
experience and (b) training.
While exploring how innovative instructional computer
users in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford
differed from their colleagues, Leong-Childs (1989) found
that how professors conceptualized their role as teachers
was important in explaining these patterns. Those who paid
more attention to how their students learn (whom she deemed
transactive teachers) had a significantly higher probability
of using computers in innovative instructional ways than
those who primarily attended to what their students learn
(transmissive teachers).
Finally, Shoemaker (1990) explored the relationship
between differences on SoC scores regarding innovative
computer use and native language and culture among foreign-
born faculty members in ten foreign language departments at
the Defense Language Institute. The ten language groups
differed significantly on four of the seven SoC, and he thus
concluded that culture (defined by native language and


37
country of birth) plays a significant role in types and
intensity of concerns about the innovation of instructional
computer use at DLI.
Instructional Use of the Internet in Higher Education
From its originally conceived role as crucial to
national security, the Internet has undergone several
transformations (Dankel, 1996) Its defense role led to
greater dispersion among a select community of university
scholars and researchers for sharing and collaborating on
government-funded projects. Further development permitted
greater spread throughout academic institutions and greatly
increased numbers of users. Under the Internet umbrella and
spurning on its growth is the World Wide Web, developed in
1989 at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics.
The release in November, 1992, of a new tool, the Mosaic web
browser, made searching much easier and thus opened the door
for users with less computer acumen (Dankel, 1996).
Subseguent additions of user-friendly browsers have
continued the trend.
In summing up the year of 1993 and what happened in
networking at institutions of higher education, Clement and
Abrahams (1994) also give a taxonomy of instructional uses
of the Internet at that point in time:


38
In postsecondary settings, trends are for gradually
increasing use of networking to support education, in
contrast with research, where networking is well
established and near-essential in many disciplines. An
underlying trend that leads to ongoing change is the
pervasive invasion of campus networks into the college
culture at many universities. We see collaborative
courses being taught by faculty, often between
campuses; we see professors offering network bulletin
boards as course discussion areas, offering tutorial
chat lines and e-mail addresses at the equivalent of
"office hours"; assignment delivery via networks; and
network-based projects and simulations used as course
laboratory areas. The frequency of these applications,
though increasing, is still small in relation to the
total of campus opportunities, (p. 107)
Green's (1996) exhaustive, annual campus computing
survey of two- and four-year public and private colleges and
universities gives the reader a comprehensive view. The
data collected during fall 1995 from the 645 respondents
(survey sent to the primary academic computing official at
each of the 1,500 institutions in the sample), including 42
public research universities which most resemble the
institution of this study, show that approximately 75% of
all faculty have access to the Internet, although only 6% of
all college courses make use of resources on the World Wide
Web for instructional support (Green, 1996, p. 15). Further
indication of this small but growing trend is evidenced by
71.5% of the respondents rating Internet resources for
instruction as a "very important" priority and 50.3% also
seeing web pages for individual classes or whole courses at


39
the same level of importance in the coming 2-3 years (p. 2).
Nevertheless, only 15% of universities reported having a
plan in place for incorporation of instructional resources
drawn from the Internet/World Wide Web (p. 8). Finally,
97.4% of the respondents agreed fully or agreed somewhat
that over the next 2-3 years the Internet/World Wide Web
will be an "important source for content and instructional
resources" (p. 18).
Maddux's 1994 article dealing with seven different
prospects and the problems of adopting the Internet as an
instructional innovation cautions the reader about
statistics such as those above, particularly with regard to
'access.' While a figure like 75% of all faculty with
Internet 'access' may seem to pave the way for fairly rapid
incorporation of its resources into instruction, Maddux
points out that what is often termed 'access' is mere
physical availability. He says that instructional access to
the benefits of an information technology such as the
Internet is something much more complex. Another of his
stated problems involves support for adoption of the
Internet as an innovation. Support must be of two kinds:
technical and curriculum. It is precisely this curriculum
support which is the typically missing link between


40
availability of a new technology and access to its
instructional potential.
Discipline-specific accounts of experiences with the
development of instructional uses of the Internet abound.
Some, such as Smith's 1995 article, provide insights into
new ways of communicating in both directions between
instructor and student as well as student and student in a
particular discipline (physics in this case), but
applications are easily imagined across disciplines. Others
explore how teaching college-level writing is changing and
is changed by use of the Internet, and still others present
specific case studies including the new skills which are
added and the wider range of materials such as hypertext
documents, all despite the typically "chilly embrace
humanities departments have given computers" (Rouzie, 1995,
p. 4) .
Some accounts are more than personal histories, as
teachers look for empirical evidence of differences in
student learning as a result of integrating use of the
Internet into their courses. A professor of sociology at
California State University at Northridge randomly divided
his Fall 1996 class in statistics, assigning one group to
his accustomed format and teaching the other through an on
line version of the course. Although subjective comments


41
about the experience filled the spectrum, the results on
both the mid-term and the final examinations (the only times
when the on-line group ever showed up) revealed that "the
wired students outscored their traditional counterparts by
an average of 20 per cent" (McCollum, 1997, p. A23).
Summary
This section has sought to trace the research pertinent
to the study at hand which relates directly to the adoption
of an innovation within an educational setting. A brief
overview of the landmark work of Rogers (1962) was followed
by an analysis of the effects of change at the micro level,
that of the individual. The work of Fuller (1969) which
served as a basis for the Concerns-Based Adoption Model of
Hall et al. (1973) was reviewed. The parts of the CBAM were
described in detail, and examples of the incorporation of
CBAM into other models also accounting for individual
preferences was discussed. Applications of diagnostic
frameworks of the CBAM were also presented. Development of
the Stages of Concern Questionnaire and its psychometric
properties were outlined. Special attention was given to
the demographic page which typically accompanies it and to
studies which looked at the possible relationships between
the variables captured on the demographic page and the


42
stages of concern. Finally, a brief overview of the recent
history of the Internet and of its growing contribution to
the changes underway in instruction at institutions of
higher education was given.


CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
Study Desian/Procednres
Of primary interest in this descriptive correlational
study are the concerns regarding the innovation adoption of
the Internet for instructional purposes among the faculty at
the University of Florida. To explore these concerns, the
following questions were posed:
(1) What are the relationships of the levels of
Internet use for instructional purposes and the levels of
Internet use for all other purposes to the sequence of
stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
43


44
Variables
The dependent variable in the study was the peak or
most intense of the seven stages of concern about adoption
of the Internet for instructional purposes. Derived from
the Stages of Concern Questionnaire, each stage score ranges
from 0 to 35 on Stage 0-Awareness, Stage 1-Personal, Stage
2-Information, Stage 3-Management, Stage 4-Consequence,
Stage 5-Collaboration, and Stage 6-Refocusing.
The independent variables were level of Internet use
for instructional purposes, level of Internet use for all
other purposes, level of attention paid to how students
learn, level of attention paid to what students learn, rank,
gender, age, and national origin.
Sample
The population for this study consisted of the 1,650
persons employed at the University of Florida during spring
semester 1997 who are remunerated as faculty within the
following ten college-level units: Architecture, Business
Administration, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Health
and Human Performance, Health Professions, the Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, Journalism and
Communications, and Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Office
of the Associate Vice-President for Academic Affairs
supplied the labels used to distribute the questionnaire to


45
the nine colleges, and the IFAS mailing facility supplied
them for that unit.
Since a time lag typically occurs between a) when a
faculty member leaves or a new one is appointed and starts
to work and b) when the database is updated to reflect the
changes, the information from these labels vary slightly
from the true number of faculty within an academic unit at
any given time.
The Office of Academic Affairs supplies labels pre
addressed with department names and the number of faculty at
a given destination according to the latest database
figures. When mail is delivered bearing these labels, it is
put into faculty mailboxes without regard to the names of
the currently employed members. To provide a more complete
profile of the respondents and to control for questionnaires
destined to those other than the intended, additional
demographic data were collected on what percent-time the
faculty member was teaching during the semester of the
survey, whether the faculty member was working part- or
full-time, academic rank and type of faculty line
(tenure/non-tenure).
The mailing labels supplied by the mailing facility of
the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences were
personally addressed. These labels were affixed to the top


46
of the letters of transmittal, and the surveys were grouped
into envelopes by academic unit.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this mailed survey was the 35-
item Stages of Concern Questionnaire, developed by The
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at The
University of Texas at Austin as part of the Procedures for
Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM Project (Hall et al.,
1979). Permission to use the copyrighted questionnaire for
the purpose of this study was requested on October 31, 1996,
and granted on November 1, 1996 (see letter in Appendix B).
The Institutional Review Board of the University of
Florida reviewed a draft of the entire instrument and the
cover letter submitted on December 5, 1996; approval was
granted on December 12, 1996 (see letter in Appendix C).
Development of the questionnaire
The conceptual basis for developing a questionnaire of
concerns about adoption of an innovation grew out of the
extensive work of Frances Fuller during the 1960s and Gene
Hall and his associates during the 1970s. From responses
elicited by an open-ended concerns survey, a total of 544
items was narrowed to a group of 400 judged as central to
measuring concerns. From these, editing and eliminating
redundant items left 195. After administering this 195-item


47
survey and analyzing the data from 359 respondents, over 60%
of the variance in the items was attributed to seven
factors, a finding resulting from item correlation and
factor analyses. The seven stages of concern represent the
outcome of this work (Hall et al., 1979).
Throughout the subsequent testing of the instrument and
its eventual shortening to the current 35 items,
administration of the survey was on populations of teachers
and college faculty involved in adoption of a number of
educational innovations. For example, in 1974 (n = 359) the
innovation at the higher education level was the use of
instructional modules, while that for elementary teachers
was teaming (Hall et al., 1979).
Reliabilitv/Validitv
Internal reliability (alpha) coefficients for the
stages range from .64 to .83 (n = 830, a stratified sample
of professors and teachers). Test-retest correlations (n =
132, two weeks elapsed) are from .65 to .86 (Hall et al.,
1979, p. 11).
Indications of the validity of the instrument include
the correlations between individual items and the stage
which they supposedly measure (72% of the items had higher
correlations with their assigned stage than with other
stages), lower correlations between distant stages than
between adjacent ones, results of factor analyses which


48
indicate independence of the individual stage subscales, and
multi-method procedures using the survey and interviews
resulting in multiple Rs greater than .56 (jo < .05) for four
of the stages (Hall et al., 1979).
Description of the Questionnaire
Respondents choose from eight alternatives on a Likert-
type scale: (0) irrelevant, or one of seven levels of
concern (level 1 is defined as "Not true of me now"; levels
2, 3, and 4 represent gradations of "Somewhat true of me
now"; and levels 5, 6, and 7 represent gradations of "Very
true of me now" [Hall et al., 1979, p. 69]). Each of the
seven stage scores is the sum of the five individual item
scores measuring that stage of concern, constituting a range
of from 0 to 35. A description of each stage and the five
items which make up the score for that stage are as follows
(adapted from Hall et al., 1979; original concept from Hall
et al., 1973):
0 Awareness. Little concern about or involvement with
the innovation is indicated.
I don't even know what using the Internet for
instructional purposes would be.
I am not concerned about use of the Internet for
instructional purposes.
I am completely occupied with other things.


49
Although I don't know about instructional Internet use,
I am concerned about issues in this area.
At this time, I am not interested in learning about
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
1 Informational. A general awareness of the innovation
and interest in learning more detail about it is indicated.
The person seems to be unworried about himself/herself in
relation to the innovation. S/he is interested in
substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfless manner
such as general characteristics, effects, and requirements
for use.
I have a very limited knowledge of instructional uses
of the Internet.
I would like to discuss the possibility of using the
Internet for instructional purposes.
I would like to know what resources are available if we
decide to adopt instructional use of the Internet.
I would like to know what instructional use of the
Internet will require in the immediate future.
1 would like to know how instructional use of the
Internet is better than what we are doing now.
2 Personal. Individual is uncertain about the demands
of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those demands,
and his/her role with the innovation. This includes
analysis of his/her role in relation to the reward


50
structure of the organization, decision making, and
consideration of potential conflicts with existing
structures or personal commitment. Financial or status
implications of the program for self and colleagues may also
be reflected.
I would like to know the effect of using the Internet
for instructional purposes on my professional status.
I would like to know who will make the decisions
regarding use of the Internet for instruction.
I would like to know how my teaching or administration
is supposed to change.
I need more information on time and energy commitments
required by instructional Internet use.
I would like to know how my role will change when I am
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
3 Management. Attention is focused on the processes
and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of
information and resources. Issues related to efficiency,
organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands are
utmost.
I am concerned about not having enough time to organize
myself each day.
I am concerned about conflict between my interests and
my responsibilities.


51
I am concerned about my inability to manage all that
instructional Internet use requires.
I am concerned about time spent working with non-
academic problems related to using the Internet for
instructional purposes.
Coordinating tasks/people takes too much of my time.
4 Consequence. Attention focuses on impact of the
innovation on student in his/her immediate sphere of
influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for
students, evaluation of student outcomes, including
performance and competencies, and changes needed to increase
student outcomes.
I am concerned about students' attitudes toward
instructional use of the Internet.
I am concerned about how instructional use of the
Internet affects students.
I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.
I would like to excite my students about their part in
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
I would like to use feedback from students to change
use of the Internet for instruction.
5 Collaboration. The focus is on coordination and
cooperation with others regarding use of the innovation.


52
I would like to help other faculty in their
instructional Internet use.
I would like to develop working relationships with both
our faculty and outside faculty using the Internet for
instructional purposes.
I would like to familiarize other departments or
persons with our progress in using the Internet.
I would like to coordinate my effort with others to
maximize the effects of instructional Internet use.
I would like to know what other faculty are doing in
this area.
6 Refocusing. The focus is on exploration of more
universal benefits from the innovation, including the
possibility of major changes or replacement with a more
powerful alternative. Individual has definite ideas about
alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the
innovation.
I now know of some other approaches that might work
better.
I am concerned about revising my instructional use of
the Internet.
I would like to revise the instructional approach to
use of the Internet.


53
I would like to modify our instructional use of the
Internet based on the experiences of our students.
I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance,
or replace instructional use of the Internet.
In addition to the responses on the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire, data from demographic variables were also
collected. The percent time teaching during the semester of
inquiry, working part- vs. full-time, and the type of
faculty line held (tenure or non-tenure) were collected to
control for distribution of the questionnaires to those who
do not make up the population of primary interest to the
study.
Levels of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes and levels of use of the Internet for all other
purposes were collected to address research question 1 and
to test theory from the Concerns-Based Adoption Model.
Stages of concern are the first dimension of the CBAM, and
levels of use make up the second dimension. In the CBAM
eight different levels of use are proposed. More pro-active
in nature, the levels of use sequence resembles that of the
stages of concern quite closely, as do the description of
the states and the decisions made by the user. The eight
levels of use (Hord, et al., 1987, p. 55) and their
corresponding stages of concern are:


54
Level of Use
Stage of Concern
Level 0 Non-Use
Stage 0 Awareness
Level 1 Orientation
Stage 1 Information
Level 2 Preparation
Stage 2 Preparation
Level 3 Mechanical Use
Stage 3 Management
Level 4a Routine
Stage 4 Consequence
Level 4b Refinement
Level 5 Integration
Stage 5 Collaboration
Level 6 Renewal
Stage 6 Refocusing
Levels of use are typically determined during a focused
interview with the help of an extremely detailed and
explicit chart. Since the size of the sample for this study
necessitated gathering the data on a survey, a taxonomy
appropriate for such a technique had to be found. Dreyfus
and Dreyfus (1986) offer the five-stage model for skill
acquisition which has been used here. A category for the
non-user was added to their five levels as outlined below.
The corresponding levels of use from the CBAM are also
shown:
CBAM Level Of Use Survey Terms
Level 0 Non-Use
Level 1 Orientation Non-user
Level 2 Preparation
Level 3 Mechanical Novice


55
Level 4a Routine
Advanced beginner
Level 4b Refinement
Competent user
Level 5 Integration
Proficient user
Level 6 Renewal
Expert
Finally, items inquiring about the number of years at
the institution, length of time involved with instructional
use of the Internet, prior formal training in the Internet
for instructional purposes, and recent or concurrent
involvement in some other major innovation or program were
taken from the original demographic variable sheet suggested
by Hall, et al. (1979) and contribute to the full assessment
of the "state of the user system" (p. 52).
An estimate of the completion time of the 35-item SoCQ
was ten to fifteen minutes. The additional items did not
add substantially to this range.
The questionnaire was distributed to a panel of six
experts, all members of the same group to whom it would
eventually be distributed, for comment on overall clarity of
the items and suggestions for improvement. The final
version reflected the incorporation of their suggestions.
In one case the order of the demographic variable items was
changed, and response to other comments led to naming 'the
Internet for instructional purposes' rather than relying on
'the innovation' throughout (survey found in Appendix D).


56
Data Collection
The first announcement of the study was mailed on
January 10, 1997, on a bright pink post card. Its primary
objective was to alert the faculty to the coming survey.
The text of the notice is found in Appendix E.
The questionnaire itself was duplicated front and back
on high-quality pink paper and was accompanied by a letter
of transmittal on top. The letter of transmittal was on the
letterhead of the University Center for Excellence in
Teaching and was signed by the director (see Appendix E).
The first page under the letter of transmittal was dedicated
to instructions on filling out the concerns questionnaire.
The format and wording were taken directly from Hall et al.,
1979. Specific definitions of 'Internet' and 'instructional
purpose' were included, as well as examples of the latter.
The survey began on the back of the instructions page.
The questions were numbered consecutively, and the final
page included an area for the respondent to write comments.
The return address was placed on the instruction page,
repeated again at the end of the questionnaire below the
comments area, and printed three times on the final
(outside) page. Respondents were requested to fold, close,
and return the questionnaires via campus mail.


57
To prepare the questionnaires for mailing, each
academic unit was assigned a three-digit code number, and
that same number was placed on each questionnaire destined
for that academic unit. The number of faculty indicated on
the label determined the number of questionnaires placed in
a large manilla envelope destined for that academic unit. A
cover sheet was included on top requesting the cooperation
of the recipient in distributing the questionnaires to the
faculty for whom they were intended.
The questionnaire itself was sent through campus mail
on Friday of the third week of spring semester, i.e.,
January 24, 1997. The timing of the mailing sought to
maximize the attention it might get among those on an
academic schedule with an uneven workload distribution
throughout the typical sixteen-week semester.
Simultaneous with the mailing, the questionnaire was
posted on the World Wide Web at the UCET site. Care was
taken in the design of the survey for the web site so that
responses would be comparable irrespective of which medium a
respondent used. Although all those who replied had a paper
copy of the questionnaire available to them, they did not
need any information from the paper copy to be able to
answer the form over the Internet. Links to the full text
of the letter of transmittal and to the instructions for


58
filling out the Stages of Concern Questionnaire were
included. At the end of the form the respondent activated a
"Send Form" button which transmitted the results to an email
address anonymously.
The Internet address for the site was included in the
cover letter and repeated on the questionnaire instruction
page. The electronic form had one additional demographic
item at the beginning; it requested the respondent's
departmental affiliation (either the three-digit code from
the paper copy or the name of the academic unit), since this
information was lost from the paper copy by those choosing
to submit their responses electronically.
The requested return date of the instruments was
Wednesday, February 5, 1997, or twelve days after they were
mailed out.
A follow-up mailing following the same procedure was
undertaken. The letter of transmittal included a polite
reminder and a request to complete the questionnaire. Those
who had already done so were asked to disregard the request
(see Appendix F for follow-up letter of transmittal). The
mailing of the follow-up went out on Friday, February 21,
1997, and return was requested by Wednesday, March 5, 1997,
again an interval of twelve days. This second deadline fell


59
in the middle of the week immediately prior to the week-long
spring break.
Data Analysis
Responses to the survey from the three mailings totaled
540 of a possible 1, 650 in the population. Of these, 50 (or
9%) were received electronically. The sample thus
represents a 33% response rate. This compares favorably
with the results found during a review of the literature for
similar surveys on equivalent populations (response rate
percentages in the high twenties were the rule although one
was found at 32). Furthermore, surveys within the last year
on subsets of this population, one undertaken within the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences only and another
campus-wide of new faculty after their first year at the
University of Florida, had response rates of 20% and 30%
respectively.
The survey data were entered, verified, and saved on a
3.5" disk from where they were subsequently stored on the
mainframe of the University of Florida Center for
Instructional and Research Computing Activities. Analyses
of the data were carried out using SAS run interactively
with the UNIX operating system on the mainframe.


60
Demographic information on the respondents is shown in
Table 1. Comparison of the sample to all faculty as
described in the University of Florida Affirmative Action
Plan-1996 shows that females are represented only slightly
higher in the sample than in the population (26.2% of the
sample vs 25.7% of all faculty) and that those on tenure-
track faculty lines responded in a higher proportion (85.3%
of the sample vs 74.0% of all faculty occupy faculty lines).
In order to address the research questions, a
correlational analysis and multiple regression were used.
The alpha level to test for statistical significance was set
at .05.
Summary
This section has given an overview of the study
undertaken, including the design of the study, the
variables, the instrument, and the procedures followed.
Specifically, the sample is described; the instrument is
identified and described, and its development is traced;
methods of data collection are outlined; demographic
variables are reported for the respondents; and analyses of
the data are set out.


61
Table 1
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
_£ _i
Time (H = 531)
Part-time
30
6
Full-time
501
94
Gender (H = 530)
Male
379
72
Female
151
28
Rank (H = 538)
Instruetor/Lecturer
34
6
Post-doc
2
0
Assistant Professor
106
20
Associate Professor
138
26
Professor
226
42
Other
32
6
Track (H = 534)
Tenure
456
85
Non-tenure
78
15
National Origin (U = 531)
American
457
86
Foreign
74
14


CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This sections opens with a restatement of the problem
and of the research questions of interest in the study.
These are followed by the variables chosen for the study and
then a section on the findings. The data are first analyzed
descriptively one at a time. Then the bivariate
relationships are examined. Finally, the results of the
multiple regression analysis of the data are given,
specifically in relation to the research questions set out
at the beginning of the study. Also included is a
discussion of the meaning of each of the significant
findings and its relationship to findings of previous
studies.
Research Questions
Central to this descriptive correlational study were
the concerns regarding the innovation adoption of the
Internet for instructional purposes among the faculty at the
University of Florida. To explore these concerns, the
following questions were posed:
(1) What are the relationships of the levels of
62


63
Internet use for instructional purposes and the levels of
Internet use for all other purposes to the sequence of
stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
Variables
The dependent variable in the study was the peak or
most intense stage of the seven stages of concern about
adoption of the Internet for instructional purposes.
Derived from the Stages of Concern Questionnaire, each stage
score ranges from 0 to 35 on Stage 0-Awareness, Stage 1-
Personal, Stage 2-Information, Stage 3-Management, Stage 4-
Consequence, Stage 5-Collaboration, and Stage 6-Refocusing.
Although all respondents to the questionnaire have scores on
all seven stages of concern, only the peak stage of concern
of each individual was of interest in this study. When two
or more stage of concern scores shared an equal intensity
(i.e., an equal score within the 0-to-35 range), the stage
at the further (furthest) point along the developmental


64
continuum from Stage 0 to Stage 6 was chosen as the peak
stage of concern.
The independent variables were level of Internet use
for instructional purposes, level of Internet use for all
other purposes, level of attention paid to how students
learn, level of attention paid to what students learn, rank,
gender, age, and national origin.
In order to address the research questions, the alpha
level was set at .05, and a correlational analysis and
regression technique were used. Borg and Gall (1989)
mention that when dealing with "the degree of relationship
among various combinations of three or more variables"
multiple regression is a technique offering "considerable
versatility" (p. 601) in correlational studies.
Fi ndi nas
Descriptive Statistics
The greatest portion of the sample, 132 or about one-
fourth of the respondents, was found to exhibit their peak
stage of concern regarding adoption of the educational
innovation of use of the Internet for instructional purposes
at the first of the self stages, Information. Another 119
(22%) of the sample were found to be at Stage 4 -
Consequence, the first of the impact stages. The mean peak


65
stage of concern for the sample was 2.90 (£D = 1.94) (high
Stage 2 Personal). (See Table 2 for a complete summary.)
Table 3 displays the findings on the levels of use of
the sample participants with regard to the Internet. Over
half of the sample self-reported a level of use of the
Internet for instructional purposes of non-use or novice (n
= 349). Levels of use of the Internet for all other
purposes, however, were higher. Over two-thirds of the
sample use the Internet for non-instructional purposes at
the self-reported levels of novice, advanced beginner, or
competent user. The mean for instructional use of the
Internet fell at level 1 novice (M = 1.24, £2 = 1.33),
whereas that for its use for all other purposes fell at
level 2 advanced beginner (M = 2.28, = 1.30) .
Responses to the survey items asking how much
participants modify their teaching on the basis of how and
what students learn are shown in Table 4. About 65% (n =
311) of the participants reported that they alter their
teaching on the basis of how students learn to an average
degree or quite a bit. Likewise 310 members of the sample
or 67% reported one of the same two categories when asked
about how much they change their teaching according to what
students learn.
A profile of the sample respondents with regard to
their rank, gender, and national origin is given in Table 5.


66
Table 2
Peak Stage of Concern
Stage (H = 540)
_£
_i
0
- Awareness
47
9
1
- Information
132
24
2
- Personal
77
14
3
- Management
53
10
4
- Consequence
119
22
5
- Collaboration
26
5
6
- Refocusing
86
16
Note. M = 2.90.
= 1.94.


67
Table 3
Levels of Use of the Internet
Level
_£
_i
Instructional purposes ( = 533)
0 Non-user
207
39
1 -
Novice
142
27
2 -
Advanced beginner
81
15
3 -
Competent user
67
13
4 -
Proficient user
23
4
5 -
Expert
13
2
Non-
0 -
instructional purposes (H = 537)
Non-user
45
8
1 -
Novice
115
21
2 -
Advanced beginner
150
28
3 -
Competent user
122
23
4 -
Proficient user
84
16
5 -
Expert
21
4
Note. Instructional purposes: M = 1.24.
SC = 1.33.
Non-instructional purposes: M = 2.28.
SC = 1.30.


68
Table 4
How Much Teaching Is Modified Based on Student Learning
Degree of Modification
_£
_i
How
0 -
students learn (M =
Not at all
476)
15
3
1 -
Moderately
79
17
2 -
Average
139
29
3 -
Quite a bit
172
36
4 -
A great deal
71
15
What
0 -
students learn (M =
Not at all
471)
11
2
1 -
Moderately
70
15
2 -
Average
127
27
3 -
Quite a bit
188
40
4 -
A great deal
75
16
Note. How: M = 2.43.
= 1.03.
What: M = 2.52.
£E = 1.00.


69
Table 5
Rank, Gender and National Origin of Respondents
Rank (H = 538)
_i
Instructor/Lecturer
34
6
Post-doc
2
0
Assistant Professor
106
20
Associate Professor
138
26
Professor
226
42
Other
32
6
Gender (N = 530)
Male
379
72
Female
151
28
National Origin (M = 531)
American-born
457
86
Foreign-born
74
14


70
One-fifth of the sample were Assistant Professors, one-
fourth (26%) Associate Professors, and just under one-half
(42%) were Professors. The sample was about three-fourths
male (72%). The age range of the respondents was from 24 to
83 years old; the mean age was 48.58 and the standard
deviation was 9.90. The participants were 86% native-born
American citizens.
Correlational Relationships
Table 6 contains a correlation matrix showing the zero-
order or Pearson product-moment correlations between all the
variables in the study. For the purposes of this part of
the analysis of the data, the respondents who held a rank
other than Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or
Professor were excluded. Lee et al. (1989) state that "no
adjustment may be necessary when a very small proportion of
cases is excluded" (p. 40)the case here where 68 of 538,
or 12%, were excluded. In addition, the four possible
answer choices for the question of whether the respondent
was an international faculty member were reduced to a
dichotomous variable: American- or foreign-born.
Davis's taxonomy (1971) categorizes the strength of
association measured by correlations in the following
manner:


Table 6
Xnlercorrelations Between Peak Stage of Concern and Other Variables
Peak
L' iip
L' net
How
What
Rank
Sex
Age Orig
Peak

L' iip
0.33

L' net
0.17
0.65

How
0.10
0.10
-0.05

What
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.57

Rank
-0.05
-0.13
-0.14
-0.18
-0.09

Sex
0.04
-0.15
-0.24
0.17
0.11
-0.32

Age
-0.07
-0.16
-0.25
-0.04
0.01
0.68
-0.18

Orig
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.09
-0.02
-0.03
0.01
Note. Peak = peak stage of concern; L'iip = level of instructional Internet use; L'net =
non-instructional Internet use level; How = attention to how students learn; What =
attention to what students learn; Orig = national origin (American- or foreign-born).
Single underline denotes p < 0.05; double underline denotes p < 0.01.


72
Correlation Value
Classification
.70 and above
Very strong
.50 to .69
Substantial
.30 to .49
Moderate
.10 to .29
Low
.01 to .09
Negligible
When the independent variables are viewed one at a time
for a relationship to the dependent variable peak stage of
concern, three are found to be significantly correlated with
the outcome variable. Moderately correlated with peak stage
of concern is level of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes (p = 0.33, p < .01). Level of use of the Internet
for all other purposes is also significantly related to peak
stage of concern, but this variable demonstrates only a low
level of strength of association (p = 0.17, p < .01)
according to Davis's terminology. Finally, degree to which
respondents reported that they modify their teaching based
on how students learn also showed a low level of strength of
association (p = 0.10, p < .05).
Further bivariate analysis of the data included viewing
the scatter diagrams to assure that a linear relationship
was "a reasonable approximation" (Agresti & Finlay, 1986, p.
274) of the assumed form of the relationships between peak


73
stage of concern and the independent variables. In each
case, this assumption was confirmed.
Regression Analysis
Finally, a multiple regression with all of the
variables of interest in the study was carried out to
determine the contribution of each to the prediction of peak
stage of concern when all others were controlled. Results
are given in Table 7.
Research Question 1
What are the relationships of the levels of Internet
use for instructional purposes and the levels of Internet
use for all other purposes to the sequence of stages of
concern?
Both levels of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes and levels of use of the Internet for all other
purposes are significantly correlated with peak stage of
concern. However, when controlling for other variables,
only level of use of the Internet for instructional purposes
has a significant strength of association with peak stage of
concern (£. = 7.591, p < 0.0001). All other variables being
equal, a respondent who was one level higher in use of the
Internet for instructional purposes exhibited a peak stage
of concern 0.62 stage higher.


74
Table 7
Summary of Multiple Regression for Variables Predicting Peak
Stage of Concern
Variable B SF. B
Level of use of the Internet
for instructional purposes 0.62* 0.08
Level of use of the Internet
for all other purposes -0.08 0.09
Degree of modification to teaching
based on how students learn 0.12 0.11
Degree of modification to teaching
based on what students learn -0.12 0.11
Rank 0.15 0.15
Gender 0.54* 0.21
Age -0.01 0.01
National Origin -0.02 0.24
Note
j> < 05.


75
The findings of the significant contribution of level
of use of the educational adoption being investigated in
this study, use of the Internet for instructional purposes,
confirm the theory of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model,
which states that stages of concern about the innovation and
Levels of Use of the same "will move in nearly a one-to-one
correspondence" (Loucks & Hall, 1977, p. 20).
Research Question 2
Are there significant differences in the peak stages of
concern of the faculty members grouped by the extent to
which they modify their instructional practices based on how
or what students learn?
The degree to which participants reported that they
modify their teaching based on how students learn proved to
be significantly correlated to peak stage of concern,
although the degree to which they claimed to modify their
instruction based on what students learn did not.
This finding would lend support to the results of the
1989 study by Leong-Childs, who found that Stanford
University School of Humanities and Sciences professors who
were innovative instructional computer users differed
significantly in the amount of attention they pay to how
their students learn.


76
Nevertheless, when all other variables of the current
study were controlled, neither degree to which respondents
modify their teaching based on how students learn nor the
same based on what students learn contributed significantly
to the prediction of peak stage of concern (£ = 1.165 for
attention to how students learn and £ = -1.125 for attention
to what).
Research Question 3
Are there significant differences in the peak stages of
concern among faculty members grouped by rank, gender, age,
or national origin?
Rank was not significantly correlated to peak stage of
concern; and when all other variables were controlled, it
did not have a significant strength of association with peak
stage of concern (£ = 1.024) .
Although gender was not significantly correlated to
peak stage of concern, when all other variables were
controlled it contributed significantly to the prediction of
peak stage of concern (£ = 2.543, j> = 0.0114). When all
other variables were controlled, women respondents were
predicted to be .54 stage higher on their peak stage of
concern.
This finding for the respondents in the sample would
seem to refute the results of research reported by Hall et


77
al. (1979) reporting "no outstanding relationships between
standard demographic variables and concerns data" (p. 52)
and concurring with Rutherford (1986) that gender (and other
variables) lack any "consistent relationship" (p. 7) with
stage of concern scores.
Age was not significantly correlated to peak stage of
concern; and when all other variables were controlled, it
did not have a significant strength of association with peak
stage of concern (£ = .0832). This would validate the
findings of Hall et al. (1979) and Rutherford (1986).
National origin was not significantly correlated to
peak stage of concern; and when all other variables were
controlled, it did not make a significant contribution to
the prediction of peak stage of concern (£. = -0.071).
Although Shoemaker (1990) found significant differences in
stage of concern scores about adoption of instructional use
of computers in foreign language teaching among the five
foreign culture groups (as defined by native language and
country of birth) he investigated, his study dealt solely
with foreign culture groups. Since Shoemaker's study did
not include Americans as a cultural group and the foreign-
born respondents of this study were not further subdivided,
no direct parallel can be drawn.


CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This section opens with a summary of the study
undertaken. It then moves on to reiterate the findings and
to state the conclusions which can be reasonably drawn from
those findings. Implications for the conclusions are given,
and finally recommendations for further research are
outlined.
Summary
This exploratory, descriptive correlational study set
out to measure the stages of concern of the faculty of the
University of Florida regarding adoption of the innovation
of use of the Internet for instructional purposes.
The current paradigm shift underway as institutions of
higher education break out of the constraints of the last
several hundred years of a model of same time, same place
learning has incited exploration of new modes of
instructional delivery. Recent advances in computers and
telecommunications technology have been crucial to the role
the Internet will play in this shift. Greater capacity for
storage and faster retrieval and transfer of information
78


79
have meant greater potential for this medium than could have
been conceived of only a short time ago.
Teachers, not unlike others confronted with change or
innovation, react in a number of ways to the current times.
Some avail themselves of training and informal meetings to
learn about what others have done or to share what they have
accomplished. A mid-April 1997 talk entitled "Impact of
Multimedia Lectures" given by a faculty member of the
Department of Psychology at the University of Florida and
sponsored by the University Center for Excellence in
Teaching and the Office of Instructional Resources resulted
in higher attendance than any such voluntary meeting to
date. Over 60 faculty members, administrators, and graduate
teaching assistants gathered to hear about the experience of
one of their colleagues and to learn from it.
The topic addressed at this lecture represents quite a
different orientation from that of workshops being given as
few as two years ago, where during a one-day conference
called Data Day '95 University of Florida officials
organized sessions to inform faculty and graduate students
about Internet resources that faculty may not be aware of"
(Passarella, 1995, p. 8). At that time a member of the
organizing committee admitted to not anticipating a
sophisticated level of experience among those attending.


80
Faculty concerns over instructional use of the Internet
have become even more pertinent during the 1996-1997
academic year. As changes in access to computers and
networked resources in student computer laboratories across
campus have been put into effect, students have resisted
paying an additional fee. The administration's distinction
between essential and elective computer access has been one
with which students could not agree.
The theoretical framework for the study was the
Concerns-Based Adoption Model, which has been developed to
help facilitate change at the level of the individual
involved with innovation adoption within educational
settings. The model was developed by Gene Hall and his
associates at The Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education of the University of Texas at Austin as
part of the Procedures for Adopting Educational
Innovations/CBAM Project. The model has multiple dimensions
which serve to guide change facilitators and others for
successful implementation of educational change.
The first dimension of the CBAM involves the stages of
concern, further described as seven psychological constructs
through which an individual passes when confronted with
change. Concerns are defined as an individual's motivation,
thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.


81
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire has been developed
to measure an individual's concerns regarding an educational
innovation. Interventions designed to resolve the most
intense stage(s) of concern are thought to promote more
efficient and effective implementation of the innovation
being proposed. Moreover, arousal of concerns at higher
stages is unlikely until resolution has been achieved at
lower stages of concern. The 35-item questionnaire offers a
pencil-and-paper measure of an individual's concerns and
supplies important information for planning training
interventions.
Specifically, the research questions the study set out
to answer were:
(1) What are the relationships of the level of Internet
use for instructional purposes and the level of Internet use
for all other purposes to the sequence of stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
In order to investigate these questions, a mailed
survey using the Stages of Concern Questionnaire was carried


82
out of 1,650 faculty members in ten colleges within the
University of Florida. A total of 540 responses (33%)
provided the data for analyzing the results.
Findings
With respect to the first research question, both
levels of use of the Internet for instructional purposes and
levels of use for all other purposes were significantly
correlated with peak stage of concern among the members of
the sample. Nevertheless, when controlling for other
variables of interest in the study, only level of use of the
Internet for instructional purposes contributes
significantly to the prediction of peak stage of concern.
Typically, the respondent who was one level of use higher
was .62 stage further along in the developmental continuum
known as stages of concern.
With regard to the second research question, only the
extent to which respondents reported that they change their
teaching based on how students learn was significantly
correlated to peak stage of concern. When the other
variables were controlled, neither the extent to which
respondents reported that they change their teaching based
on how students learn nor the same based on what students
learn showed a significant contribution to prediction of
peak stage of concern.


83
Finally, among the variables of rank, gender, age, and
national origin, none was significantly correlated to the
outcome variable. Furthermore, only gender exhibited a
significant contribution to prediction of peak stage of
concern when all other variables were controlled.
Imolications
Since instructional use of the Internet is similar to
instructional use of other computer technology in that it
often has a preceding use which may involve research or even
recreation before transfer of the power and potential of the
technology to classroom applications, the finding in this
study that level of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes will significantly contribute to predicting peak
stage of concern is not surprising. Promoting use of the
Internet for any purpose among university faculty may well
spur the user on to recognizing possible teaching
applications. In order to increase awareness of what is
available, an issue as simple as faculty member access to
network connectivity in the office first, and updated
equipment with sufficient processing speed and memory
capacity second, may well be key among the conditions that
would promote instructional applications of this medium.
Mention is made of spending future allocations from the
technology fee generated by the monies collected from


84
students on connecting every classroom to the Internet.
However, this may well be 'buying the saddle before buying
the horse.' Attention to assuring that every faculty office
is connected first and supplied with sufficient resources to
benefit from something so simple and low-tech as email first
and then from what is available on the Internet may indeed
be a more informed route.
Since gender is correlated negatively with rank (-0.32,
p < .01) as well as with age (-0.18, p < .01) in the sample,
we know that women tend to be represented more than would be
expected at the lower ranks and among the younger faculty
members. In addition, gender maintained a significant
contribution to the prediction of peak stage of concern when
all other variables were controlled. This would mean that
controlling for other variables women of the sample tend to
be further along the developmental continuum represented by
the seven stages of concern (and probably levels of use)
regarding adopting the innovation of use of the Internet for
instructional purposes. The findings place these young
women at the lower ranks in key positions to become change
agents for their colleagues.
Recommendations for Further Research
If level of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes is associated with reaching a given stage of


85
concern regarding adoption of this educational innovation
and, in turn, level of use of the Internet for all other
purposes is correlated significantly with its use in the
classroom, then further research into the components of its
use in both categories is needed. Another topic of interest
would be the progression of the interest in and use of the
Internet from non-instructional uses such as research or
recreation to interest in its teaching and learning
applications.
Simply gathering information about the numbers and
locations of faculty with networked connectivity which
permits Internet access in the office and about those who
have the appropriate equipment to make the most of the
educational potential of the medium would be of great value
in setting systematic goals for implementation of wider
faculty use of the Internet for instructional purposes
across the campus.
Whether driven by student demand, through gradual
coercion from sources in the administration, or from
colleagues who are innovators, instructional use of the
Internet is an innovation which holds promise of being
central to the changing patterns in delivery of instruction
by institutions of higher education in the United States and
throughout the world for some time to come.


REFERENCES
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1986). Statistical methods
for the social sciences (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Dellen.
Albright, M. (1996, February 5) Instruct iona1
technology and higher education: Rewards, rights and
responsibilities. Keynote address of the Southern Regional
Faculty and Instructional Development Consortium, Baton
Rouge, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 392 412)
Aneke, N. (1996). Teachers' stages of concern about a
school-wide educational reform (Doctoral dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1996).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 57(3). 934A.
(University Microfilms No. 9624162)
Borg, W., & Gall, M. (1989). Educational research (5th
ed.). New York: Longman.
Cicchelli, T. (1990). Concerns theory in liberal arts
related to preservice education of undergraduate and
graduate students. Educational Research Quarterly, 14(4).
41-48.
Cicchelli, T., & Baecher, R. (1987). The use of
concerns theory in inservice training for computer
education. Computers in Education. 11(2). 85-93.
Cicchelli, T., & Baecher, R. (1990). Theory and
practice: Implementing computer technology in a secondary
school. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 059)
Clement, J., & Abrahams, J. (1994). Networking in 1993
Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 1994, 20. 106-119
86


87
Chandler, J. (1994). Stages of concern expressed by
selected North Carolina community college faculty and staff
about the adoption of institutional effectiveness criteria
(Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University,
1994). (University Microfilms No. 9425455) Pissertation
Abstracts International. 55(4). 843A. (University Microfilms
No. 9425455)
Dankel, D., Jr. (1996). The use of the World Wide Web
in distance education. Paper presented at Computer Expo
1996, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Davis, J. (1971). Elementary survey analysis.
Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine:
The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the
computer. New York: The Free Press.
Falvo, J. (1990). An analysis of language teachers'
concerns regarding new technologies: The case of Minnesota
teachers of Spanish assessing satellite video technology to
deliver authentic cultural materials (Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1990) Pissertation
Abstracts International, 52(3). 827A.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A
developmental conceptualization. American Educational
Research Journal. 6(2). 207-226.
Fuller, F., & Brown, 0. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In
K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: The seventy-fourth
yearbook of the national society for the study of education.
Part II (pp. 25-52). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Green, K. (1996). Campus computing 1995. Encino, CA:
Campus Computing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
394 383)
Hall, G. (1976). The study of individual teacher and
professor concerns about innovations. Journal of Teacher
Education. 27(1). 22-23.
Hall, G. (1979). The concerns-based approach to
facilitating change. Educational Horizons. 57(4). 202-208.


88
Hall, G. (1985) A..al-aa.es .of. concern approach to
teacher preparation (Report 3213) Austin, TX: The Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 265 126)
Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1977).
Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual
for use of the stages of concern questionnaire. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 342)
Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1979).
Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual
for use of the stages of concern questionnaire. (R & D
Report No. 3032). Austin, TX: The Research and Development
Center for Teacher Education.
Hall, G., S Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools:
Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a
basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development.
Teachers College Record. 8 0(1 I 36-53.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1981). Program definition and
adaptation: Implications for inservice. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 14(2). 46-58.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S., Rutherford, W., & Newlove, B.
(1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for
analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education.
26(1), 52-56.
Hall, G., Newlove, B., George, A., Rutherford, W., &
Hord, S. (1991). Measuring change facilitator stages of
concernA manual for the use of the CFSoC questionnaire.
Greeley, CO: Center for Research on Teaching and Learning,
University of Northern Colorado. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 353 307)
Hall, G., & Rutherford, W. (1976). Concerns of teachers
about implementing team teaching. Educational Leadership.
21(3), 227-233.
Hall, G., Wallace, R., Jr., & Dossett, W. (1973). A
developmental conceptualization of the adoption process
within educational institutions. Austin, TX: The Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 095 126)


Full Text
LD
1780
1997
T<2
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08555 0084



PAGE 1

,16758&7,21$/ 86( 2) 7+( ,17(51(7 67$*(6 2) &21&(51 $021* )$&8/7< $7 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ %\ 68( $11( 7206 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

7KLV ZRUN LV GHGLFDWHG WR WKH PHPRU\ RI 5D\ (GZDUG 7RPV f DQG RI 7DZDW &KRWLJHDW f

PAGE 3

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f§KROGLQJ PDQ\ UXOHV LQ PLQG VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ 'U 5LFKDUG 'RZQLH IRU KLV DVVXUDQFH DQG WKH ZLVGRP RI KLV PDQ\ \HDUV RQ WKLV FDPSXV DQG LQ WKH ILHOG RI LQWHUQDWLRQDO HGXFDWLRQ LLL

PAGE 4

'U &RQVWDQFH / 6KHKDQ IRU VKRZLQJ HDUO\ RQ KHU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR HQFRXUDJH WKLV XQGHUWDNLQJ DQG IRU RIIHULQJ WKH UHVRXUFHV RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ &HQWHU IRU ([FHOOHQFH LQ 7HDFKLQJ LQ VXSSRUW RI WKLV SURMHFW 7RVSRUQ &KRWLJHDW IRU QRW ZDQWLQJ PH WR JR EXW QRW ZDQWLQJ WR KROG PH EDFN HLWKHU DQG IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ ZK\ ZDQWHG WR GR WKLV 5XWK (YHO\Q %LVKRS 7RPV .LQJ IRU DOZD\V WHOOLQJ PH WKDW FRXOG GR DQ\WKLQJ WKDW VHW P\ PLQG WR ,9

PAGE 5

7$%/( 2) &217(176 $&.12:/('*0(176 LLL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YLLL $%675$&7 L[ &+$37(56 ,1752'8&7,21 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 1HHG IRU WKH 6WXG\ &XUUHQW &KDQJHV LQ ,QVWLWXWLRQV RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7HDFKLQJ 'XULQJ 7KHVH &KDQJHV 7KH ,QVWLWXWLRQDO &RQWH[W 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV /LPLWDWLRQV DQG $VVXPSWLRQV 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( $GRSWLRQ DQG 'LIIXVLRQ RI ,QQRYDWLRQV %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHU &RQFHUQV 7KH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 1RQFRQFHUQ 6HOI 7DVN ,PSDFW /HYHOV RI 8VH ,QQRYDWLRQ &RQILJXUDWLRQ ,QWHUYHQWLRQ 7D[RQRP\ DQG ,QWHUYHQWLRQ $QDWRP\ &KDQJH )DFLOLWDWRU 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ DQG 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 0RGHOV ,QFRUSRUDWLQJ WKH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO 7KH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH Y

PAGE 6

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n6 /(77(5 72 $// 8) )$&8/7< YL

PAGE 7

% 3(50,66,21 72 86( 67$*(6 2) &21&(51 48(67,211$,5( & ,167,787,21$/ 5(9,(: %2$5' $33529$/ 67$*(6 2) &21&(51 48(67,211$,5( ( 7(;7 2) ,1,7,$/ 0$,/,1* ) /(77(5 2) 75$160,77$/ ),567 0$,/,1* 2) 48(67,211$,5( /(77(5 2) 75$160,77$/ )2//2:83 0$,/,1* 2) 48(67,211$,5( %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ ,OO YLL

PAGE 8

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 7DEOH SDJH 'HPRJUDSKLF SURILOH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV 3HDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ /HYHOV RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW +RZ PXFK WHDFKLQJ LV PRGLILHG EDVHG RQ VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ 5DQN JHQGHU DQG QDWLRQDO RULJLQ RI UHVSRQGHQWV ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ DQG RWKHU YDULDEOHV 6XPPDU\ RI PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU YDULDEOHV SUHGLFWLQJ SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ YLLL

PAGE 9

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

PAGE 10

VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ RI WKH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ PRGLI\ WKHLU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV EDVHG RQ KRZ RU ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ" $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DPRQJ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ UDQN JHQGHU DJH RU QDWLRQDO RULJLQ 7KH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO SURYLGHG WKH WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH VWXG\ 0DGH XS RI VHYHUDO GLPHQVLRQV &%$0nV VHYHQ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ UHSUHVHQW D GHYHORSPHQWDO VHTXHQFH WKURXJK ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO SDVVHV ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK FKDQJH RU LQQRYDWLRQ 7KH VWDJHV UDQJH IURP QRQFRQFHUQ $ZDUHQHVVf WR VHOI ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3HUVRQDOf WDVN 0DQDJHPHQWf DQG LPSDFW FRQFHUQV &RQVHTXHQFH &ROODERUDWLRQ DQG 5HIRFXVLQJf 'XULQJ 6SULQJ WKH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV PDLOHG WR IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV ZLWKLQ WHQ FROOHJHV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7KH ILQDO VDPSOH FRQWDLQHG UHVSRQVHV D UHWXUQ UDWH RI b 7KH GDWD ZHUH DQDO\]HG XVLQJ FRUUHODWLRQDO DQG UHJUHVVLRQ WHFKQLTXHV )LQGLQJV LQFOXGHG VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH SHDN RU PRVW LQWHQVH VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ DQG OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV DQG DWWHQWLRQ WR KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ +RZHYHU WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO SURGXFHG RQO\ WZR VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRUV RI SHDN VWDJH RI [

PAGE 11

FRQFHUQ SXUSRVHV OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO DQG JHQGHU [L

PAGE 12

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 7KH KLVWRU\ RI PRGHUQ HGXFDWLRQ LV OLWWHUHG ZLWK WKH WUDVK RI WHFKQRORJ\ OHIW EHKLQG E\ XQUHDOLVWLF SXUFKDVHV QDLYH XVHUV DQG YHQGRUV ZRUNLQJ RQ D TXRWD V\VWHP 3ROOH\ FLWHG LQ $OEULJKW S f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

PAGE 13

FXUUHQW WHQVLRQV DW XQLYHUVLWLHV DFURVV WKH QDWLRQ EHWZHHQ LQFRPLQJ VWXGHQWVn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f 6DPH WLPHVDPH SODFH IRU WHDFKHU DQG VWXGHQW ZDV WKH UHTXLUHPHQW LQ WKLV WUDQVPLVVLRQ PRGHO RI WHDFKLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ 7KH DGYHQW RI WKH SULQWLQJ SUHVV EURXJKW DERXW UHSRVLWRULHV RI NQRZOHGJH LQ WKH IRUP RI OLEUDULHV ZKHUH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRXOG EH VWRUHG WKURXJK WLPH RQ WKH VXEVWUDWH RI SDSHU 7KXV VWXGHQWV ZHUH DEOH WR OHDUQ IURP WKH ZULWWHQ

PAGE 14

ZRUNV RI SDVW HYHQ GHFHDVHGf VFKRODUV EXW WKH\ VWLOO KDG WR DGKHUH WR WKH nVDPH SODFHn UHTXLUHPHQW JDWKHULQJ ZKHUH WKHVH OLEUDULHV ZHUH ORFDWHG .QRZOHGJH WUDQVPLVVLRQ FRQWLQXHG WR GRPLQDWH ,Q WKH SUHVHQW DJH ERWK WLPH DQG SODFH DUH ORVLQJ WKHLU LPSRUWDQFH 7KH DYDLODELOLW\ DQG GLVWULEXWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG ZLWK LW NQRZOHGJH DUH FKDQJLQJ GUDVWLFDOO\ 7KH ,QWHUQHW UHSUHVHQWV D QHZ PHGLXP IRU WKH VWRUDJH DQG WUDQVIHU RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ERWK ZLWKRXW WKH FXVWRPDU\ VXEVWUDWH RI SDSHU :DUQRFN f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f

PAGE 15

7HDFKLQJ 'XULQJ 7KHVH &KDQJHV 7KH SURFHVV RI EHFRPLQJ D WHDFKHU LV FRPSOH[ VWUHVVIXO LQWLPDWH DQG ODUJHO\ FRYHUW )XOOHU t %URZQ S f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nV SULPDU\ PLVVLRQ LV WR DVVXUH DFFHVV WR WKH UHVRXUFHV QHHGHG IRU WHDFKLQJ E\ ERWK QHZ DQG HVWDEOLVKHG IDFXOW\ ,WV PDMRU IXQFWLRQV LQFOXGH VXSSO\LQJ QHZ IDFXOW\ ZLWK RULHQWDWLRQ LQVWUXFWLRQ DQG FRQVXOWDWLRQ DERXW WHDFKLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ 6KHKDQ S f 7R WKLV HQG

PAGE 16

LWV $GYLVRU\ %RDUG PHPEHUV DFW DV FRQVXOWDQWV RU SDUWQHUV WR QHZ IDFXOW\ WR IDFLOLWDWH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKHLU WHDFKLQJ VW\OHV DQG SKLORVRSKLHV 6KHKDQ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ DQRWKHU FKDUJH RI 8&(7 LV WR >I@DFLOLWDWH WKH FRQWLQXLQJ GHYHORSPHQW RI WHQXUHG IDFXOW\ DV WHDFKHUV 6KHKDQ S f 7KH FHQWHU RIIHUV LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW GHYHORSPHQWV UHODWHG WR WHDFKLQJ DW WKH KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ OHYHO WKURXJK LWV &RQYHUVDWLRQV DERXW 7HDFKLQJ VHULHV DQG WKH )RFXV RQ 7HDFKLQJ DQQXDO ZRUNVKRSV )LQDOO\ 8&(7 FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV IRU WKHLU UROHV DV IXWXUH HGXFDWRUV 6KHKDQ S f 7ZR H[DPSOHV RI WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVHV RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DGYRFDWHG E\ 8&(7 DUH IRXQG LQ D UHFHQW LVVXH RI WKH FHQWHUnV QHZVOHWWHU LQ DQ DUWLFOH RQ WHDFKLQJ ODUJH FODVVHV 7KH DXWKRU RIIHUV HLJKW VXJJHVWLRQV DPRQJ WKHP HQFRXUDJLQJ RWKHUV WR >G@HYHORS D KRPHSDJH VR WKDW VWXGHQWV FDQ JHW LPSRUWDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKHUH UDWKHU WKDQ FDOOLQJ \RX DQG >HMQFRXUDJH WKH XVH RI HPDLO DV D ZD\ IRU VWXGHQWV WR JHW WKHLU TXHVWLRQV DQVZHUHG 7KDW ZD\ \RX FDQ UHVSRQG DW \RXU FRQYHQLHQFH DQG VDYH WLPH 6FKZDUW] S f $OWKRXJK SURPLQHQW DPRQJ WKH WRSLFV UHFHQWO\ RIIHUHG LQ 8&(7 DFWLYLWLHV DUH GLYHUVLW\ LQ WKH FODVVURRP DQG GHDOLQJ ZLWK LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV /RXFNV DQG

PAGE 17

+DOO f PDNH WKH YDOLG SRLQW WKDW ZKHQ WHDFKHUV RU IDFXOW\ DUH WUDLQHG LQ VRPH QHZ LQVWUXFWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQ WKH\ DUH RIWHQ QRW WUHDWHG DV GLYHUVH LQGLYLGXDOV WKHPVHOYHV S f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t +DOO S f +DOO DQG /RXFNV f OLVW WKH VL[ EDVLF DVVXPSWLRQV WKDW XQGHUOLH WKH PRGHO f UDWKHU WKDQ DQ HYHQW FKDQJH LV D SURFHVV f IDFLOLWDWLQJ FKDQJH LQYROYHV WKH LQGLYLGXDO DV WKH SULPDU\ WDUJHW f FKDQJH RFFXUV DW D YHU\ SHUVRQDO OHYHO f WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV RFFXUV DORQJ D SDWKZD\ PDUNHG E\ VWDJHV LQ ERWK WKRXJKWV DQG VNLOOV f LQWHUYHQWLRQV E\ VWDII GHYHORSHUV DUH PRVW HIIHFWLYH ZKHQ WKH\ IRFXV RQ WKH FOLHQW DQG IROORZ D GLDJQRVWLF

PAGE 18

SUHVFULSWLYH PRGHO DQG f WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI VWDII GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO GHSHQG RQ FRQVWDQW GLDJQRVWLF LQSXW DQG RQ V\VWHPDWLF DGDSWDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUYHQWLRQ DV ZHOO DV RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LWVHOI SS f :LWKLQ WKH &%IL0 VWUXFWXUH DUH IRXQG EDVLF IUDPHV RI UHIHUHQFH RI ZKLFK WKH FRQFHUQV GLPHQVLRQ LV RQH &RQFHUQV KDYH EHHQ GHILQHG DV SHUFHSWLRQV IHHOLQJV DQG PRWLYDWLRQV +DOO t /RXFNV S f ZKLFK EHVHW DQ LQGLYLGXDO IDFHG ZLWK FKDQJH ,QWHUYHQWLRQV EDVHG RQ LQGLYLGXDOVn FRQFHUQV QRW RQO\ IDFLOLWDWH WKH SURFHVV RI DGRSWLRQ RI DQ LQQRYDWLRQ WKH\ DOVR LQFUHDVH WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG HIILFLHQF\ RI WKH DGRSWLRQ DQG GHFUHDVH WKH WUDXPD RI WKH FKDQJH IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO ,Q VKRUW LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ LQGLYLGXDOVn VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQV SURYLGHV D SRZHUIXO WRRO IRU LPSURYLQJ VWDII GHYHORSPHQW LQWHUYHQWLRQV 7KH ,QVWLWXWLRQDO &RQWH[W 7KH ILQDO VRXUFH RI WKH SUREOHP DW KDQG LQYROYHV WKH FRQWH[W ZLWKLQ ZKLFK WKH VWXG\ ZDV VHW 7ZR SULQFLSDO IDFWRUV FRQVWLWXWH WKH SHUWLQHQFH RI WKH VWXG\nV RXWFRPHV WR WKH FRQGLWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ DGRSWLRQ RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7KH ILUVW RI WKHVH IDFWRUV UHYROYHV DURXQG WKH VWXGHQW GULYHQ PRYHPHQW WR DVVXUH WKH DFFXVWRPHG DFFHVV WR DQG XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW ZLWKRXW VWXGHQWV LQFXUULQJ DGGLWLRQDO FRVWV

PAGE 19

8QWLO VSULQJ VHPHVWHU DOO 8) VWXGHQWV HYHQ PHPEHUV RI WKH JHQHUDO SXEOLFf KDG DFFHVV WR FRPSXWHU ODEV RQ FDPSXV DQG WR WKH IXOO UDQJH RI DSSOLFDWLRQV DQG QHWZRUNLQJ RIIHUHG ZLWKRXW FKDUJH 6WDUWLQJ ZLWK WKDW VHPHVWHU KRZHYHU XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV ZHUH DVVHVVHG D FKDUJH RI IRU PDLQWHQDQFH RI DQ DFFRXQW ZKLFK LQFOXGHG EDVLF ,QWHUQHW DFFHVV WKH\ VWLOO FRXOG XVH ZRUGSURFHVVLQJ VSUHDGVKHHW DQG GDWDEDVH DSSOLFDWLRQV IUHH RI FKDUJHf $W WKDW SRLQW WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ PDGH D GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ ZKDW ZDV FRQVLGHUHG HVVHQWLDO FRPSXWHU DFFHVV DQG ZKDW ZDV FRQVLGHUHG HOHFWLYH D GLFKRWRP\ ZLWK ZKLFK WKH VWXGHQW ERG\ FRXOG QRW DJUHH 7KH XSURDU FDXVHG E\ WKH LPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH IHH ILQDOO\ UHVXOWHG LQ D 1RYHPEHU OHWWHU IURP WKH 8) 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH 3UHVLGHQW WR DOO IDFXOW\ LQFOXGLQJ WKH IXOO WH[W RI D UHVROXWLRQ SDVVHG XQDQLPRXVO\ E\ WKH 6HQDWH H[SUHVVLQJ WKH VWXGHQWVn YLHZ WKH XVH RI FRPSXWHUV DV DQ HVVHQWLDO UDWKHU WKDQ HOHFWLYH HOHPHQW RI IXOILOOLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV & ( 'RUZRUWK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 1RYHPEHU f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH OHWWHU ZHQW RQ WR DVN WKDW DOO IDFXOW\ LQFOXGH WKH IROORZLQJ LQ WKH V\OODEXV IRU HDFK FRXUVH WKH\ WHDFK

PAGE 20

,W LV WKH IRUPDO SROLF\ RI WKLV FODVV WKDW LQ RUGHU WR IXOO\ DQG SURSHUO\ IXOILOO WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI WKLV FRXUVH VRPH XVH RI DQG SURILFLHQF\ LQ WKH XVH RI FRPSXWHUV LQFOXGLQJ DFFHVV WR DQG XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW HPDLO DQG :RUOG :LGH :HEf ZLOO EH UHTXLUHG & ( 'RUZRUWK FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 1RYHPEHU f &OHDUO\ DGRSWLRQ RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU OHDUQLQJ SXUSRVHV DPRQJ WKH VWXGHQWV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKHLU 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH KDG RXW SDFHG WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ WR SURYLGH DFFHVV WR LW ZLWKLQ WKH JLYHQ EXGJHWDU\ FRQVWUDLQWV )RU IXOO WH[W RI OHWWHU DQG UHVROXWLRQ VHH $SSHQGL[ $f 7KH WHQVLRQV IXHOHG E\ VWXGHQW GHPDQGV RQ OLPLWHG UHVRXUFHV ZHUH QRW XQLTXH WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD FDPSXV WKH\ ZHUH DOVR DSSDUHQW DW WKH OHYHO RI WKH VWDWHf %RDUG RI 5HJHQWV GXULQJ WKH IDOO RI DQG LQWR 'HVSLWH VWXGHQW SURWHVW DQG DIWHU GHEDWLQJ SURSRVDOV DV KLJK DV DW WKHLU PHHWLQJ RQ -DQXDU\ WKH %RDUG DSSURYHG D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ WKDW WKH OHJLVODWXUH YRWH WR DVVHVV D WHFKQRORJ\ IHH RI SHU VWXGHQW WKURXJKRXW WKH 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 6\VWHP 0DOHUQHH f 7KLV UHSUHVHQWV D SRWHQWLDO LQIORZ RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ LQ WKH WHFKQRORJ\ EXGJHW IRU WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 0DNLQJ D FRQWULEXWLRQ WR D ZHOOLQIRUPHG GHFLVLRQ RQ DOORFDWLRQ RI WKLV PRQH\ WR DYRLG WKH WUDVK RI WHFKQRORJ\ OHIW EHKLQG E\ QDLYH XVHUV 3ROOH\ FLWHG LQ $OEULJKW

PAGE 21

S f DV PHQWLRQHG DW WKH RXWVHW UHSUHVHQWV WKH VHFRQG IDFWRU LQ WKH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH RXWFRPHV DQG WKH VLQJOH JUHDWHVW QHHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV :KDW DUH WKH FRQFHUQV UHJDUGLQJ DGRSWLRQ RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DPRQJ WKH IDFXOW\ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD" 7R H[SORUH WKLV TXHVWLRQ WKH IROORZLQJ ZHUH DQVZHUHG f :KDW DUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RI WKH OHYHO RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DQG WKH OHYHO RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV WR WKH VHTXHQFH RI VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ" f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ RI WKH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ PRGLI\ WKHLU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV EDVHG RQ KRZ RU ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ" f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DPRQJ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ UDQN JHQGHU DJH RU QDWLRQDO RULJLQ" /LPLWDWLRQV DQG $VVXPSWLRQV 7KH ILQGLQJV RIIHU D RQHWLPH YLHZ RI D G\QDPLF SURFHVVf§WKH UHVSRQGHQWVn PRYHV WKURXJK WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DERXW DQ LQQRYDWLRQ 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWLRQDO IDFXOW\ DIILOLDWHG ZLWK DQ DFDGHPLF XQLW ZLWKLQ WKH WHQ FROOHJHOHYHO XQLWV ZKLFK RIIHU XQGHUJUDGXDWH

PAGE 22

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n KRQHVW FRQFHUQV DQG DUH YDOLG WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH UHVSRQGHQWV VKDUH WKH GHILQLWLRQV RI WKH WHUPV XVHG ZLWK WKRVH RI WKH UHVHDUFKHU 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV )RU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH IROORZLQJ GHILQLWLRQV KDYH EHHQ XVHG 7KH ,QWHUQHW LV DQ LQWHUQDWLRQDO QHWZRUN OLQNLQJ VPDOOHU QHWZRUNV LW LQFOXGHV HOHFWURQLF PDLO DQG ILOH WUDQVIHU FDSDELOLWLHV DV ZHOO DV DFFHVV WR LQIRUPDWLRQ WH[W JUDSKLFV DXGLR YLGHRf WKURXJKRXW WKRVH QHWZRUNV 2EOLQJHU f

PAGE 23

,QVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVH UHIHUV WR D XVH HLWKHU UHTXLUHG RU RSWLRQDOf WR VXSSRUW FODVVURRP URXWLQHV HJ FRXUVH DQQRXQFHPHQWV GLVWULEXWLQJ KDQGRXWV VHQGLQJ RU UHFHLYLQJ DVVLJQPHQWV DQG UHVHDUFK IRU WHUP SURMHFWV &RQFHUQ LV WKH PHQWDO FRQVWUXFW UHSUHVHQWHG E\ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV IHHOLQJV SUHRFFXSDWLRQV WKRXJKWV DQG FRQVLGHUDWLRQV GLUHFWHG DW D VSHFLILF WDVN WR EH DFFRPSOLVKHG RU DQ LVVXH WR EH UHVROYHG 7KLV GHILQLWLRQ IROORZV WKDW GHYHORSHG E\ +DOO HW DO f 6WDJHV RI FRQFHUQ FRQVWLWXWH D VHTXHQWLDO VHW WKURXJK ZKLFK D SHUVRQ SDVVHV ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK FKDQJH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 6R&2f LV DQ LQVWUXPHQW ZLWK WKLUW\ILYH /LNHUWW\SH LWHPV \LHOGLQJ VFRUHV RQ VHYHQ VXEVFDOHV WR PHDVXUH WKH LQWHQVLWLHV RI FRQFHUQ RI HGXFDWRUV DERXW WKH DGRSWLRQ RI DQ HGXFDWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQ +DOO HW DO f 3HDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ LV WKDW VWDJH ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW VFRUH DQG WKXV WKH PRVW LQWHQVH FRQFHUQ $ JLYHQ LQGLYLGXDO PD\ H[KLELW YDU\LQJ OHYHOV RI FRQFHUQ RQ WKH PXOWLSOH LWHPV PHDVXULQJ ZLWKLQ WKH VDPH VWDJH EXW DQ RYHUDOO VFRUH IRU HDFK VWDJH ZLOO VKRZ WKH VWDJH RI JUHDWHVW LQWHQVLW\ ,Q WKH HYHQW RI HTXDO VFRUHV RQ WZR RU PRUH VWDJHV WKH VWDJH IXUWKHVW IRUZDUG RQ WKH FRQWLQXXP DQG WKXV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI DGRSWLRQ LQQRYDWLRQ ZDV XVHG

PAGE 24

&RQFHUQV %DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO &%$0f LV D FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUN IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ LQGLYLGXDOV LQ HGXFDWLRQDO VHWWLQJV UHDFW WR FKDQJH ,W SRVLWV WKDW FKDQJH LV D SURFHVV WKDW LW RFFXUV DW WKH OHYHO RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG VKRXOG WKHUHIRUH EH PHDVXUHG DW WKDW OHYHO DQG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV FRQIURQWHG ZLWK FKDQJH SDVV WKURXJK D GHYHORSPHQWDO VHTXHQFH RI VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DV WKH\ DGRSW WKDW FKDQJH 7KH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DUH RQH GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH PRGHO +DOO HW DO f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

PAGE 25

&+$37(5 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 7KH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ IRU WKLV VWXG\ RSHQV ZLWK D VXPPDU\ RI WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKH WZR DQWHFHGHQWV WR WKH WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN FHQWUDO WR LWf§UHVHDUFK RQ WKH DGRSWLRQ DQG GLIIXVLRQ RI LQQRYDWLRQV DQG RQ EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUVn FRQFHUQV ,W WKHQ WXUQV WR WKH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO H[SODLQLQJ LWV YDULRXV GLPHQVLRQV DQG WUDFLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH ILUVW RQH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ ([DPSOHV RI PRGHOV ZKLFK KDYH LQFRUSRUDWHG WKH &%$0 DUH JLYHQ 7KH UHYLHZ FRQWLQXHV ZLWK D FORVH ORRN DW WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW ZKLFK PHDVXUHV WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ WKH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH LQFOXGLQJ KRZ LW ZDV GHYHORSHG DQG LWV SV\FKRPHWULF SURSHUWLHV 7KLV LV IROORZHG E\ D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH FRQFHUQLQJ WKH YDULDEOHV FDSWXUHG RQ WKH GHPRJUDSKLF SDJH ZKLFK PDNHV XS SDUW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ )LQDOO\ WKH UHVHDUFK RQ FXUUHQW SUDFWLFHV RI XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ VHWWLQJV LV UHYLHZHG

PAGE 26

$GRSWLRQ DQG 'LIIXVLRQ RI ,QQRYDWLRQV :LWKLQ WKH YDVW ERG\ RI UHVHDUFK DQG WKHRU\ RQ LQQRYDWLRQ DGRSWLRQ RI GLUHFW UHOHYDQFH WR WKLV VWXG\ LV WKH ZRUN RI (YHUHWW 5RJHUV %\ V\QWKHVL]LQJ WKH ILQGLQJV DQG WKHRULHV IURP RYHU SXEOLFDWLRQV LQ KLV ZRUN 'LIIXVLRQ RI ,QQRYDWLRQV KH PDGH D ODVWLQJ FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKLV DUHD DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ DGGHG WR ZKDW LV NQRZQ DERXW DGRSWLRQ RI DQ LQQRYDWLRQ 7KH EDVLF HOHPHQWV RI GLIIXVLRQ RI DQ\ LQQRYDWLRQ DUH Df WKH LQQRYDWLRQ Ef LWV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ IURP RQH LQGLYLGXDO WR DQRWKHU Ff WKH VRFLDO V\VWHP DQG Gf D SHULRG RI WLPH 5RJHUV S f :KLOH GLIIXVLRQ RSHUDWHV DW WKH OHYHO RI WKH VRFLDO V\VWHP RU DFURVV V\VWHPV DGRSWLRQ DV D SURFHVV GRHV VR DW WKH OHYHO RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO 5RJHUV f GHILQHV DGRSWLRQ DV WKH PHQWDO SURFHVV WKURXJK ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDO SDVVHV IURP ILUVW KHDULQJ DERXW DQ LQQRYDWLRQ WR ILQDO DGRSWLRQ S f 5RJHUV VHJPHQWHG WKH DGRSWLRQ SURFHVV LQWR ILYH VWDJHV DZDUHQHVV LQWHUHVW HYDOXDWLRQ WULDO DQG DGRSWLRQ 7KURXJK WKHVH ILYH VWDJHV WKH LQGLYLGXDO PRYHV IURP D SRLQW RI UDQGRP H[SRVXUH WR WKH LQQRYDWLRQ WR DFWLYHO\ VHHNLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW LW ZHLJKLQJ LWV SRVVLEOH EHQHILWV WU\LQJ LW RXW RQ D OLPLWHG EDVLV DQG ILQDOO\ DGRSWLQJ LW $OWKRXJK UHMHFWLRQ PD\ WUXQFDWH WKH SURFHVV DW DQ\ VWDJH

PAGE 27

WKH RXWFRPH RI WKH IRXUWK VWDJH WULDOf LV FUXFLDO WR PRYLQJ WR WKH ILQDO VWDJH SS f 5RJHUV DOVR W\SLILHG DGRSWHUV E\ WKH VHTXHQFH LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DGRSW DQ LQQRYDWLRQ DQG WKHLU VDOLHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV +H WHUPHG WKRVH DW WKH OHDG LQ WKH SURFHVV LQQRYDWRUV ZKR DUH YHQWXUHVRPH WKH QH[W JURXS DUH FDOOHG HDUO\ DGRSWHUV DQG DUH UHVSHFWHG E\ RWKHUV WKH IROORZLQJ HDUO\ PDMRULW\ DUH GHOLEHUDWH WKH ODWH PDMRULW\ DUH VNHSWLFV DQG WKH ILQDO ODJJDUGV DUH WUDGLWLRQDO 5RJHUV SS f %HJLQQLQJ 7HDFKHU &RQFHUQV &HQWUDO WR )UDQFHV )XOOHUnV UHVHDUFK f ZDV DQ H[SORUDWLRQ RI WKH PHQWDO SURFHVVHV RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZKR LV FRQIURQWHG ZLWK FKDQJH PDQLIHVWHG LQ WKH GHPDQGV RI OHDUQLQJ WR SUDFWLFH D IXWXUH SURIHVVLRQ +HU SLRQHHULQJ VWXGLHV RQ XQGHUJUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ PDMRUV GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH PLVPDWFK EHWZHHQ Df WKHLU RZQ PRWLYDWLRQ WR OHDUQ DQG Ef WKH FRQWHQW DQG VHTXHQFH RI WKH DFDGHPLF FRXUVHV WKDW WHDFKHU HGXFDWRUV KDG GHHPHG DSSURSULDWH DQG QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKHP f KDYH PDGH D ODVWLQJ FRQWULEXWLRQ 7R LPSURYH WKH PDWFK EHWZHHQ OHDUQHU JRDOV DQG WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV QHHGHG DERXW WKH FRQFHUQV RI IXWXUH WHDFKHUV $Q DQDO\VLV RI SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV DERXW EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUVn FRQFHUQV UHYHDOHG

PAGE 28

VXUSULVLQJO\ FRQVLVWHQW SDWWHUQV DOWKRXJK PLVVLQJ ZHUH FRQFHUQV RYHU WKH WRSLFV FRYHUHG LQ WKH W\SLFDO XQGHUJUDGXDWH WHDFKHUWUDLQLQJ FXUULFXOXP )XOOHU SS f 'XULQJ FRXQVHOLQJ VHVVLRQV ZLWK VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV LQ )XOOHUn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nGLFKRWRPRXVn OHQV DV ZHOO DV E\ ORRNLQJ DW WKHQf FRQWHPSRUDU\ XQSXEOLVKHG GDWD IURP FROOHDJXHV )XOOHU IRXQG IXUWKHU VXSSRUW IRU WKH WZR FDWHJRULHV DQG WKHLU GHYHORSPHQWDO QDWXUH f $WWHPSWV WR FDWHJRUL]H WKH DPRUSKRXV DQG YDJXH UHVSRQVHV DERXW FRQFHUQV IURP HGXFDWLRQ PDMRUV EHIRUH WKHLU VWXGHQW WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFH LH GXULQJ WKHLU VRSKRPRUH DQG MXQLRU \HDUV SURYHG PRUH HOXVLYH )XOOHU S f $V D UHVXOW D SUHWHDFKLQJ SKDVH ZLWK QRQFRQFHUQ ZDV DGGHG DW WKH IURQW RI WKH WZRSKDVH GHYHORSPHQWDO PRGHO

PAGE 29

RI WHDFKHU FRQFHUQV FRQFHSWXDOL]HG DV VHOIf§!RWKHU $PRQJ WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK )XOOHU TXHVWLRQV WKH YDOLGLW\ RI JHQHUDOL]DWLRQ WR RWKHU JURXSV LQFOXGLQJ FROOHJH SURIHVVRUV DQG WKH IHDVLELOLW\ RI GHYHORSLQJ DQ LQVWUXPHQW IRU PHDVXULQJ FRQFHUQV WKXV RSHQLQJ WKH ZD\ WR KHU VXFFHVVRUV 7KH WLPHOHVVQHVV RI )XOOHUnV ILQGLQJV LV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI DUWLFOHV GHFDGHV ODWHU H[SORULQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI SURIHVVRUVn FDUHHUV DV WHDFKHUV .XJHO f SURSRVHV WKUHH PDMRU VWDJHV WKDW SURIHVVRUV PRYH WKURXJK DV WKH\ KRQH WKHLU WHDFKLQJ DELOLWLHV 7KH ILUVW FHQWHUV RQ WKH VHOI WKH VHFRQG RQ WKH VXEMHFW PDWWHU DW KDQG DQG WKH WKLUG RQ WKH VWXGHQW 7KH SDUDOOHO EHWZHHQ VXFK D PRGHO DQG WKH VHOIf§!RWKHU PRGHO RI )XOOHU LV HYLGHQW 7KH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO :KLOH WKH OHJDF\ OHIW E\ 5RJHUVnV ZRUN ZDV PXFK NQRZOHGJH LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ LQQRYDWLRQ GLIIXVLRQ DQG DGRSWLRQ DW WKH OHYHO RI VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG WKDW RI )XOOHU ZDV D JODQFH LQWR WKH PRWLYDWLRQ WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHJLQQLQJ WHDFKHUV WKH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO RU &%$0 GHYHORSHG E\ *HQH +DOO DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV KDG DV LWV PLVVLRQ WKH VWXG\ RI ZKDW KDSSHQV WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO FODVVURRP WHDFKHU DQG SURIHVVRU LQYROYHG LQ

PAGE 30

FKDQJH +DOO S f 7KH &%$0 LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WKH 3URFHGXUHV IRU $GRSWLQJ (GXFDWLRQDO ,QQRYDWLRQV 3URMHFW DW 7KH 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DGGUHVVHV LQQRYDWLRQ DGRSWLRQ ZLWKLQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO VHWWLQJ QRW DV DQ HYHQW EXW UDWKHU DV D ORQJWHUP SURFHVV IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYHV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG WKH LQQRYDWLRQ +DOO HW DO /RXFNV t +DOO f *RDOV RI WKH PRGHO LQFOXGH GHVFULELQJ GHYHORSPHQWDO FKDQJHV LQ LQGLYLGXDOV DV WKH\ PRYH WKURXJK WKH SURFHVV DQG HIIHFWLYH LQWHUYHQWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV ZKLFK FDQ IDFLOLWDWH WKDW PRYHPHQW 7KH EDVLF GLDJQRVWLF IUDPH RI UHIHUHQFH LQ WKH PRGHO LQFOXGHV WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI Df WKH FRQFHUQV WKDW XVHUV KDYH SULRU WR DQG GXULQJ DGRSWLRQ RI DQ LQQRYDWLRQ 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQf Ef WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LV DFWXDOO\ XVHG /HYHOV RI 8VHf DQG Ff KRZ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LWVHOI DGDSWV WR WKH H[LJHQFLHV RI WKH DGRSWHUV ,QQRYDWLRQ &RQILJXUDWLRQf ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH IRXUWK FRPSRQHQW SUHVFULEHV LQWHUYHQWLRQ SDUDPHWHUV WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV ,QWHUYHQWLRQ 7D[RQRP\ DQG ,QWHUYHQWLRQ $QDWRP\f +RUG t /RXFNV f 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 7KH &%$0 SURMHFW LGHQWLILHG VHYHQ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DERXW DQ LQQRYDWLRQ 6R&f 7KHVH VWDJHV H[SDQG RQ WKRVH ILUVW SURSRVHG E\ )XOOHU DQG DUH JURXSHG LQWR VHOI WDVN

PAGE 31

DQG LPSDFW FRQFHUQV &RQFHUQV DUH FRQVLGHUHG WR EH PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI ZKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDO LQYROYHG LQ WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV LV IHHOLQJ D FRQVWUXFW UHIHUULQJ WR WKH FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ RI H[SUHVVLRQV VWDWHG E\ WKH XVHU UHODWHG WR KLV XVH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ +DOO HW DO S f 2ULJLQDOO\ WKH VHYHQ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ ZHUH GHVFULEHG DV f XQDZDUH f DZDUHQHVV f H[SORUDWLRQ f HDUO\ WULDO f OLPLWHG LPSDFW f PD[LPXP EHQHILW DQG f UHQHZDO +DOO HW DO f :KHUHDV WKH RULJLQDO ZRUNV KDG LGHQWLILHG WKH FRQFHUQV RI SUHVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV +DOO f SUHVHQWV ILQGLQJV GHULYHG IURP D VWXG\ WKDW LQFOXGHG LQVHUYLFH WHDFKHUV DQG SURIHVVRUV LQ FROOHJH VHWWLQJV $GGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK UHVXOWHG LQ GHILQLQJ WKH FRQFHUQV PRUH SUHFLVHO\ GHYHORSLQJ D PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DQG WHVWLQJ WKH FRQFHUQV DFURVV LQQRYDWLRQV +DOO t 5XWKHUIRUG +DOO HW DO f $GGLWLRQDO DSSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH FRQFHUQV PRGHO WR WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV DUH UHSRUWHG DPRQJ XQLYHUVLW\ DGPLQLVWUDWRUV VWDWH HGXFDWLRQ DJHQF\ RIILFLDOV DQG WKRVH ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH SULYDWH VHFWRU +DOO f 5HILQHG GHILQLWLRQV RI WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ IURP +DOO HW DO >RULJLQDO FRQFHSW IURP +DOO HW DO @f DUH JLYHQ DV 1RQFRQFHUQf§ $ZDUHQHVV /LWWOH FRQFHUQ DERXW RU LQYROYHPHQW ZLWK WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LV LQGLFDWHG

PAGE 32

6HOIf§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f§ 0DQDJHPHQW $WWHQWLRQ LV IRFXVHG RQ WKH SURFHVVHV DQG WDVNV RI XVLQJ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DQG WKH EHVW XVH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG UHVRXUFHV ,VVXHV UHODWHG WR HIILFLHQF\ RUJDQL]LQJ PDQDJLQJ VFKHGXOLQJ DQG WLPH GHPDQGV DUH XWPRVW ,PSDFWf§ &RQVHTXHQFH $WWHQWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ LPSDFW RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RQ VWXGHQW LQ KLVKHU LPPHGLDWH VSKHUH RI LQIOXHQFH 7KH IRFXV LV RQ UHOHYDQFH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ IRU VWXGHQWV HYDOXDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW RXWFRPHV LQFOXGLQJ

PAGE 33

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f +DOO HW DO S f ,Q WKH EURDGHVW VHQVH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ PRYH IURP VHOI WR WDVN WR LPSDFW ZKHUHDV OHYHOV RI XVH IROORZ DQ RULHQWLQJ WR PDQDJLQJ WR LQWHJUDWLQJ SDWK /RXFNV 6 +DOO f 7KH HLJKW OHYHOV RI XVH GHVFULEH WKH EHKDYLRUV RI WKH XVHU DV RSSRVHG WR WKH IHHOLQJV RI WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQf UDQJLQJ IURP QRQXVH WR RULHQWDWLRQ SUHSDUDWLRQ PHFKDQLFDO XVH URXWLQH UHILQHPHQW LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG UHQHZDO +DOO HW DO

PAGE 34

/RXFNV t +DOO f 7KHVH OHYHOV KDYH EHHQ FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH SDVVHG WKURXJK E\ D SHUVRQ OHDUQLQJ WR GULYH DQ DXWRPRELOH +DOO t +RUG SS f $VVHVVPHQW RI LQGLYLGXDOVn VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DQG OHYHOV RI XVH LV FRQVLGHUHG HVVHQWLDO WR FKRRVLQJ DSSURSULDWH PRGHV RI LQWHUYHQWLRQ LQ RUGHU WR PD[LPL]H WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG HIILFLHQF\ RI WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV DQG PLQLPL]H WKH WUDXPD RI WKDW SURFHVV RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO ,QWHUYHQWLRQV PXVW EH FRRUGLQDWHG ZLWK DGRSWHUVn OHYHOV RI XVH WR EH RI PD[LPXP EHQHILW +DOO HW DO S f ,Q DGGLWLRQ PXOWLSOH F\FOHV RI XVH PDNH XS WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DGRSWLRQ SURFHVV DQG LQWHUYHQWLRQ VXSSRUW PXVW IDOO DFURVV WKHVH F\FOHV +DOO DQG +RUG f GLVFXVV WKH FRPSOH[ UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DQG OHYHOV RI XVH VWDWLQJ WKDW DW WKH WZR H[WUHPHV WKHUH VHHPV WR EH D SRVLWLYH OLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS LH DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZKRVH SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ IDOOV DW RU QHDU HLWKHU H[WUHPH RI WKH VHYHQXQLW 6R& FRQWLQXXP ZLOO WHQG WR DOVR EH DW RU QHDU WKDW VDPH H[WUHPH OHYHO RI XVH RQ WKH HLJKWXQLW /R8 FRQWLQXXP 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH WZR GLPHQVLRQV IRU WKRVH ZKR IDOO LQ WKH PLGGOH RQ RQH RU ERWK QHYHUWKHOHVV LV PXFK OHVV FOHDU 7KH RYHUDOO K\SRWKHVL]HG UHODWLRQVKLS IROORZV DQ HORQJDWHG 6FXUYH ZKHUH DW HDUO\ SRLQWV LQ WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV XVH WHQGV WR nGULYHn FRQFHUQV DQG DW ODWHU SRLQWV

PAGE 35

DURXVHG FRQFHUQV SXVK /HYHOV RI 8VH +DOO t +RUG S f ,QQRYDWLRQ &RQILJXUDWLRQ 7KH WKLUG GLDJQRVWLF GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH &+$0 PRGHO LQYROYHV FODULI\LQJ DQG RSHUDWLRQDOL]LQJ ZKDW XVH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LQ LWV LQWHQGHG VHWWLQJ PHDQV +DOO V /RXFNV f 7KH ,QQRYDWLRQ &RQILJXUDWLRQ DFNQRZOHGJHV DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ XVHU DQG WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LWVHOI %\ PHDQV RI D FKHFNOLVW LW DVVHVVHV XVHU SDWWHUQV IURP DPRQJ WKH FRPSRQHQWV D XVHU PD\ RU PD\ QRW FKRRVH WR DGRSW (DFK LQGLYLGXDO KDV D XQLTXH nILQJHUSULQWn ZKLFK VKRZV WKH SDWWHUQ RI WKDW SHUVRQnV HQFRXQWHU ZLWK WKH LQQRYDWLRQ ,W ZLOO LQFOXGH WKH FRPSRQHQWV VHOHFWHG WKHLU RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG WKHLU YDULDWLRQV
PAGE 36

,QWHUYHQWLRQ 7D[RQRP\ ,7f DQG ,QWHUYHQWLRQ $QDWRP\ ,$f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n QHHGV +RUG t /RXFNV f &KDQJH )DFLOLWDWRU 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ DQG 4XHVWLRQQDLUH $ PRUH UHFHQW DGGLWLRQ WR WKH ERG\ RI WKHRU\ DQG LQVWUXPHQWV WR JURZ RXW RI WKH RULJLQDO &%$0 LV WKH &KDQJH )DFLOLWDWRU 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ GLPHQVLRQ DQG LWV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ &)6R& 4XHVWLRQQDLUH $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH RULJLQDO 6R&4 WR WKRVH FKDUJHG ZLWK PDQDJLQJ RU IDFLOLWDWLQJ FKDQJH SURYHG LQDSSURSULDWH )RU H[DPSOH HGXFDWLRQDO VXSHUYLVRUV DUH W\SLFDOO\ QRW FRQFHUQHG DERXW XVH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DV DGRSWHUV WHDFKHUVf DUH EXW UDWKHU ZLWK UHDOL]LQJ WKHLU UROH LQ KHOSLQJ WKH DGRSWHUV XVH WKH

PAGE 37

LQQRYDWLRQ $V D UHVXOW WKH &)6R&4 ZDV GHYHORSHG +DOO HW DO f 7KLV LQVWUXPHQW ZDV XVHG DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ DQG HQG RI D RQHPRQWK UHVLGHQWLDO WUDLQLQJ SURJUDP IRU VHFRQGDU\ VFKRRO VFLHQFH GHSDUWPHQW KHDGV LQ WKH 3KLOLSSLQHV GXULQJ WKH VXPPHU RI 6LQFH WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VWUXFWXUH RI HGXFDWLRQDO DXWKRULW\ SODFHV UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO OHDGHUVKLS ZLWK WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV WKHLU UROH LV WKDW RI FKDQJH IDFLOLWDWRU ZLWKLQ WKHLU RZQ VFKRROV 0DWWKHZV f 7KH FKDQJH IDFLOLWDWRU FRQFHUQV GDWD FROOHFWHG DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ ZDV XVHG WR DLG LQ WKH GHVLJQ RI WKH VWDII GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP 3RVWSURJUDP GDWD RQ WKH FKDQJH IDFLOLWDWRU SDUWLFLSDQWVn VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ VKRZHG VLJQLILFDQW SURJUHVV WKURXJK WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO VWDJHV 0RGHOV ,QFRUSRUDWLQJ WKH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO %XLOGLQJ RQ &%$0 IRU WKH HQKDQFHPHQW RI VWDII GHYHORSPHQW LQWHUYHQWLRQV 0F&DUWK\ f KDV LQFOXGHG WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ LQ KHU QRYHO DSSURDFK WR WHDFKHU LQVHUYLFH 6WDUWLQJ ZLWK PRGHV RI SHUFHSWLRQ IURP WKLQNLQJ WR VHQVLQJIHHOLQJ DORQJ RQH D[LV DQG DGGLQJ PRGHV RI SURFHVVLQJ IURP GRLQJ WR ZDWFKLQJ DORQJ DQRWKHU D[LV VKH GHULYHV WKH IRXU PDMRU OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV 6KH WKHQ GLVVHFWV HDFK OHDUQLQJ VW\OH TXDGUDQW LQWR WZR KDOYHV WR SRUWUD\

PAGE 38

ULJKWEUDLQOHIWEUDLQ GRPLQDQFH DQG ILQDOO\ VXSHULPSRVHV WKH VHYHQ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ WKH ILUVW VL[ LQVLGH WKH QRZ FLUFXODU GLDJUDP DQG WKH VHYHQWKf§UHIRFXVLQJf§OHDYLQJ WKH FLUFOHf +HU WUDGHPDUNHG V\VWHP FDOOHG 0DW DFFRXQWV IRU WKH DIIHFWLYH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DQG JXLGHV D VWDII GHYHORSHU WR PHHWLQJ WKH QHHGV RI DOO IRXU PDMRU OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV ZKLOH XVLQJ ULJKW DQG OHIW PRGH WHFKQLTXHV 0F&DUWK\ S f 7KH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ RI WKH &%$0 KDYH DOVR EHHQ SURSRVHG LQ D PRGHO IRU IDFXOW\ GHYHORSPHQW VSHFLILFDOO\ DLPHG DW WHFKQRORJLFDO LQQRYDWLRQV :HGPDQ t 6WUDWKH f 7KH DXWKRUV DGYRFDWH GLYHUVH VWUDWHJLHV RI IDFXOW\ GHYHORSPHQW GHULYHG IURP WKUHH GLPHQVLRQV WKH FRQFHUQV GLPHQVLRQ ZKLFK WKH\ KDYH VLPSOLILHG LQWR IRXU OHYHOVf§ LQIRUPDWLRQ H[SORUDWLRQ XWLOL]DWLRQ DQG FROODERUDWLRQLQQRYDWLRQf WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ GLPHQVLRQ LQGLYLGXDO JURXSV GHSDUWPHQWV FROOHJHf DQG WKH IDFXOW\ FRQWH[W GLPHQVLRQ LQVWUXFWLRQDO FUHDWLYH PDQDJHPHQW SHUVRQDOf 7KH UHVXOW LV D IUDPHZRUN ZKLFK PD\ VHUYH DV DQ DOWHUQDWLYH WR WKH WUDGLWLRQDO VSUD\ DQG SUD\ :HGPDQ t 6WUDWKH S f DSSURDFK WR IDFXOW\ GHYHORSPHQW 7KH XVHIXOQHVV RI DSSO\LQJ GDWD IURP WKH ILUVW WZR GLDJQRVWLF GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO WR WKH GHVLJQ RI LQVHUYLFH WUDLQLQJ LV GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ D

PAGE 39

VHULHV RI DUWLFOHV E\ &LFFKHOOL DQG %DHFKHU 7KHLU ZRUN UHSRUWV RQ VHQLRU KLJK VFKRRO WHDFKHUV XQGHUJRLQJ LQVHUYLFH UHJDUGLQJ WKH XVH RI PLFURFRPSXWHUV LQ WKH FODVVURRP 'DWD JOHDQHG IURP WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ TXHVWLRQQDLUH DQG OHYHOV RI XVH LQWHUYLHZV RI WKUHH XVHUV DQG WKUHH QRQXVHUVf VHUYHG WR JXLGH WKH GHVLJQ DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI KRXUV RI WUDLQLQJ RYHU WKUHH GD\V 3RVWWUDLQLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH 6R&4 VKRZHG D VLJQLILFDQW FKDQJH LQ WHDFKHUVn FRQFHUQV WRZDUGV PLFURFRPSXWHUV S f ,Q D VLPLODU VWXG\ DOVR LQYROYLQJ WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI FRPSXWHU WHFKQRORJ\ DW WKH KLJK VFKRRO OHYHO VL[ WHDFKHUV ILOOHG RXW WKH 6R&4 WR VXSSO\ LQIRUPDWLRQ XVHG LQ D QLQHKRXU LQVHUYLFH SURJUDP :KHQ DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 6R&4 DIWHUZDUG WKH WHDFKHUV VKRZHG D GLIIHUHQFH RI DW OHDVW SHUFHQWLOH SRLQWV LQ HDFK VWDJH VFRUH f &LFFKHOOL f HQOLVWHG VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ WKHRU\ ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG DQHZ ZLWK )XOOHUnV FRQXQGUXP RI VRPH WZR GHFDGHV EHIRUH DERXW WKH EHVW FRQWHQW DQG VHTXHQFH RI FRXUVHV IRU WHDFKHU HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV 7KH )RUGKDP 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UH 6HUYLFH 3URJUDP HQUROOV ERWK IRXUWK\HDU XQGHUJUDGXDWH DQG ILIWK\HDU JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LQ D \HDU RI SURIHVVLRQDOWHFKQLFDO WHDFKHU WUDLQLQJ 7KH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV LV LQ WKH DGGLWLRQDO WUDLQLQJ LQ

PAGE 40

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f 7KH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DUH DVVHVVHG RQ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH RI WKLUW\ILYH LWHPV ZKHUH UHVSRQGHQWV LQGLFDWH WKH UHOHYDQFH RI WKH VWDWHPHQWV WR WKHLU SUHVHQW FRQFHUQV UHJDUGLQJ DQ LQQRYDWLRQ 8VH RI WKH 6R&4 UHVXOWV LQ VWDQGDUGL]HG LQGLYLGXDOL]HG GDWD WKDW FDQ EH DJJUHJDWHG

PAGE 41

DQG XVHG WR IDFLOLWDWH PRQLWRU SODQ DQG FRPPXQLFDWH DERXW D FKDQJH SURFHVV +DOO t +RUG S f 7KLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV GHYHORSHG DQG FRS\ULJKWHG LQ E\ 7KH 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ DW 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DW $XVWLQ DV SDUW RI WKH 3URFHGXUHV IRU $GRSWLQJ (GXFDWLRQDO ,QQRYDWLRQV&%$0 3URMHFW +DOO HW DO f 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH FRQFHSWXDO EDVLV IRU GHYHORSLQJ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH RI FRQFHUQV DERXW DGRSWLRQ RI DQ LQQRYDWLRQ JUHZ RXW RI WKH H[WHQVLYH ZRUN RI )XOOHU DQG RWKHUV GXULQJ WKH V 7R GHYHORS WKLV TXLFNVFRULQJ SDSHUSHQFLO LQVWUXPHQW +DOO t 5XWKHUIRUG S f +DOO DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV HOLFLWHG UHVSRQVHV WR DQ RSHQHQGHG FRQFHUQV VWDWHPHQW IRUFHG UDQNLQJV /LNHUW VFDOHV DGMHFWLYH FKHFNOLVWV DQG LQWHUYLHZV DQG IURP D WRWDO RI 4VRUWHG LWHPV D JURXS RI ZHUH MXGJHG DV FHQWUDO E\ D PLQLPXP RI VL[ RXW RI WHQ MXGJHVf WR WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKH VHYHQ FRQFHUQV GHULYHG IURP WKH GHILQLWLRQV HVSRXVHG LQ WKH RULJLQDO &%$0 SDSHU +DOO HW DO S f )URP WKHVH HGLWLQJ DQG HOLPLQDWLQJ UHGXQGDQW LWHPV OHIW +DOO DQG 5XWKHUIRUG f UHSRUW RQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH LWHP SLORW LQVWUXPHQW WR HOHPHQWDU\ WHDFKHUV

PAGE 42

LQYROYHG ZLWK WHDPLQJ DQG FROOHJH IDFXOW\ LQYROYHG ZLWK LQVWUXFWLRQDO PRGXOHV HDFK JURXSnV PHPEHUV VWUDWLILHG E\ WKHLU OHQJWK RI H[SHULHQFH ZLWK WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LQ KRSHV RI FDSWXULQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP SHRSOH DOO DORQJ WKH IXOO FRQWLQXXP RI VWDJHVf 'DWD IURP WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH IDFWRU DQDO\]HG DQG WKH ILUVW VHYHQ UHVXOWLQJ IDFWRUV ZHUH IRXQG WR EH FRQJUXHQW ZLWK WKH RXWFRPH RI WKH SUHYLRXV 4 VRUW 7KH UHVXOWDQW LWHPV ZHUH SURGXFHG ZKHQ WKH IDFWRUV ZHUH URWDWHG LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKH RULJLQDOO\ GHILQHG VWDJHV IDFWRU ORDGLQJV H[FHHGLQJ f +DOO t 5XWKHUIRUG f %HWZHHQ DQG WKH VKRUWHQHG LQVWUXPHQW ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG WR HGXFDWRUV LQYROYHG ZLWK HOHYHQ GLIIHUHQW LQQRYDWLRQV IRU UHVXOWV LQ ERWK FURVVVHFWLRQDO DQG ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXGLHV +DOO HW DO f 3V\FKRPHWULF 3URSHUWLHV 7KH UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH 6R&4 LV LQWHUSUHWHG IURP WKH UHSRUWHG WHVWUHWHVW FRUUHODWLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKH VHYHQ VWDJHV Q WZR ZHHNV HODSVHGf RI IURP WR IRXU RI WKH VHYHQ FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH DERYH f +DOO HW DO f 7KH DOSKD FRHIILFLHQWV RI LQWHUQDO UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH VWDJHV IRU WKH VDPH JURXS UDQJH IURP WR +DOO t 5XWKHUIRUG f 'DWD IURP D VWUDWLILHG VDPSOH RI WHDFKHUV DQG SURIHVVRUV QXPEHULQJ KRZHYHU VKRZ DOSKD

PAGE 43

FRHIILFLHQWV IRU WKH VHYHQ VWDJHV RI IURP WR VL[ RI WKH VHYHQ FRUUHODWLRQV DERYH f+DOO HW DO f ,QGLFDWLRQV RI WKH YDOLGLW\ RI FRQFHUQV WKHRU\ DQG WKH LQVWUXPHQW LQFOXGH D UHSRUW RI WKH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV DQG WKH VWDJH ZKLFK WKH\ VXSSRVHGO\ PHDVXUH b RI WKH LWHPV KDG KLJKHU FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK WKHLU DVVLJQHG VWDJH WKDQ ZLWK RWKHU VWDJHVf ORZHU FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ GLVWDQW VWDJHV WKDQ EHWZHHQ DGMDFHQW RQHV UHVXOWV RI IDFWRU DQDO\VHV ZKLFK LQGLFDWH LQGHSHQGHQFH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VWDJH VXEVFDOHV DQG PXOWLPHWKRG SURFHGXUHV XVLQJ WKH RSHQHQGHG FRQFHUQV VWDWHPHQWV VXUYH\V DQG LQWHUYLHZVf§DOO UHVXOWLQJ LQ PXOWLSOH 5V JUHDWHU WKDQ MR f IRU IRXU RI WKH VHYHQ VWDJHVf§DQG ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXGLHV GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKH ZDYHOLNH SDWWHUQ RI PRYHPHQW WKURXJK WKH VWDJHV +DOO HW DO f 7KH PDQXDO IRU VFRULQJ DQG LQWHUSUHWLQJ WKH 6R&4 FDOOV WR WKH DWWHQWLRQ RI WKH SRWHQWLDO XVHU RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW D IHZ RI LWV OLPLWDWLRQV )LUVW DPRQJ WKHVH LV WKH SXUSRVH RI LWV XVH KDYLQJ EHHQ GHYLVHG IRU GLDJQRVWLF IXQFWLRQV +DOO HW DO f SRLQW RXW WKDW DQ\ XVH ZKLFK PLJKW LQYROYH VFUHHQLQJ RU HYDOXDWLRQ RU HYHQ MXGJHPHQW DERXW SHUVRQDOLW\ ZRXOG EH LQDSSURSULDWH S f 6HFRQGO\ WKH DJH JURXS RQ ZKLFK WKH LQVWUXPHQW ZDV QRUPHG ZDV DGXOW DQG WKHLU RFFXSDWLRQDO DIILOLDWLRQV ZHUH ZLWK HGXFDWLRQDO

PAGE 44

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f UHSRUW QR RXWVWDQGLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VWDQGDUG GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG FRQFHUQV GDWD S f 2QH RI KLV DVVRFLDWHV :LOOLDP 5XWKHUIRUG FRQFXUV E\ PHQWLRQLQJ DJH JHQGHU DQG \HDUV RI WHDFKLQJ H[SHULHQFH DV ODFNLQJ DQ\ FRQVLVWHQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKHP DQG FRQFHUQV VWDJHV VFRUHV S f ,Q WKHLU UHVHDUFK DUWLFOH RQ VWXGHQW HQJDJHPHQW RI GHYHORSPHQWDO UHDGLQJ VWXGHQWV DW (O &DPLQR &ROOHJH 0DUVK DQG 3HQQ f DOVR UHSRUW QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VWDJHV

PAGE 45

RI FRQFHUQ DQG GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV 1XPHURXV RWKHU VWXGLHV UHSRUW QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ 6R& VFRUHV DFFRUGLQJ WR GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV 6KRHPDNHU )DOYR +LFNR[ /HZLV f ([FHSWLRQ WR WKH ODFN RI ILQGLQJV UHODWHG WR DJH LV WDNHQ E\ /HH.DQJ f ZKR IRXQG WKDW XQGHUJUDGXDWH WH[WLOHV FORWKLQJ DQG PHUFKDQGLVLQJ SURJUDP GHSDUWPHQWV ZLWK D JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI PDOHV RYHU VL[W\ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D OHVVHU GHJUHH RI DGRSWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI FRPSXWHUV $ VWXG\ E\ :HOOV DQG $QGHUVRQ f ZKLFK ORRNHG LQWR WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ JHQGHU DQG YDULRXV OHYHOV RI FRPSXWHU NQRZOHGJHf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

PAGE 46

DGRSWLRQ .LQJ f FODLPV WKDW MXQLRU IDFXOW\ ZRUN RQ LQVWUXFWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQ DW WKHLU SHULO S f \HW /HH .DQJ LQ WKH VWXG\ FLWHG DERYH IRXQG WKDW PRUH DVVLVWDQW SURIHVVRUV LQ D SURJUDP LQFUHDVHG WKH OLNHOLKRRG RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO FRPSXWHU XVH DW KLJKHU OHYHOV ,Q FRQWUDVW WR WKH VWDQGDUG GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV WKRVH ZKLFK PDNH XS WKH FRQVWHOODWLRQ WHUPHG WKH VWDWH RI WKH XVHU V\VWHP E\ +DOO HW DO f VHHP WR EH PRUH FUXFLDO WR D IXOO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ IUDPHZRUN $PRQJ WKHVH WKH PRVW SURPLQHQW LV WKH VHFRQG GLDJQRVWLF GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH &%$0 OHYHOV RI XVH $OVR FRPSULVLQJ WKH VHW RI YDULDEOHV GHILQLQJ WKH nVWDWH RI WKH XVHU V\VWHPn DUH WKH OHQJWK RI WLPH WKH XVHU KDV KDG H[SHULHQFH ZLWK WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DQG ZKHWKHU WKH XVHU KDV KDG DQ\ IRUPDO WUDLQLQJ LQ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ %RWK H[SHULHQFH DQG WUDLQLQJ KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR 6R& LQ D QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV $QHNH f IRXQG WKDW KLJK VFKRRO WHDFKHUV LQ 9LUJLQLD LQYROYHG ZLWK WKH +LJK 6FKRROV 7KDW :RUN UHIRUP KDG 6R& WKDW FRUUHODWHG SRVLWLYHO\ ZLWK WKH DPRXQW RI H[SHULHQFH ZLWK DQG QXPEHU RI KRXUV RI WUDLQLQJ LQ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ 0F4XDLQ f SROOHG WHDFKHUV DW WKLUWHHQ KLJK VFKRROV DQG D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH LQ 9LUJLQLD DERXW WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RI 7HFKQLFDO 3UHSDUDWLRQ 7HFK 3UHSf

PAGE 47

SURJUDPV DQG IRXQG ERWK H[SHULHQFH DQG WUDLQLQJ WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR 6R& &KDQGOHU f UHVHDUFKHG WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV FULWHULD LQ 1RUWK &DUROLQD FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV DQG IRXQG VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ UHVSRQGHQWV JURXSHG E\ OHYHO RI Df H[SHULHQFH DQG Ef WUDLQLQJ :KLOH H[SORULQJ KRZ LQQRYDWLYH LQVWUXFWLRQDO FRPSXWHU XVHUV LQ WKH 6FKRRO RI +XPDQLWLHV DQG 6FLHQFHV DW 6WDQIRUG GLIIHUHG IURP WKHLU FROOHDJXHV /HRQJ&KLOGV f IRXQG WKDW KRZ SURIHVVRUV FRQFHSWXDOL]HG WKHLU UROH DV WHDFKHUV ZDV LPSRUWDQW LQ H[SODLQLQJ WKHVH SDWWHUQV 7KRVH ZKR SDLG PRUH DWWHQWLRQ WR KRZ WKHLU VWXGHQWV OHDUQ ZKRP VKH GHHPHG WUDQVDFWLYH WHDFKHUVf KDG D VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU SUREDELOLW\ RI XVLQJ FRPSXWHUV LQ LQQRYDWLYH LQVWUXFWLRQDO ZD\V WKDQ WKRVH ZKR SULPDULO\ DWWHQGHG WR ZKDW WKHLU VWXGHQWV OHDUQ WUDQVPLVVLYH WHDFKHUVf )LQDOO\ 6KRHPDNHU f H[SORUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ GLIIHUHQFHV RQ 6R& VFRUHV UHJDUGLQJ LQQRYDWLYH FRPSXWHU XVH DQG QDWLYH ODQJXDJH DQG FXOWXUH DPRQJ IRUHLJQ ERUQ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV LQ WHQ IRUHLJQ ODQJXDJH GHSDUWPHQWV DW WKH 'HIHQVH /DQJXDJH ,QVWLWXWH 7KH WHQ ODQJXDJH JURXSV GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ RQ IRXU RI WKH VHYHQ 6R& DQG KH WKXV FRQFOXGHG WKDW FXOWXUH GHILQHG E\ QDWLYH ODQJXDJH DQG

PAGE 48

FRXQWU\ RI ELUWKf SOD\V D VLJQLILFDQW UROH LQ W\SHV DQG LQWHQVLW\ RI FRQFHUQV DERXW WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO FRPSXWHU XVH DW '/, ,QVWUXFWLRQDO 8VH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ )URP LWV RULJLQDOO\ FRQFHLYHG UROH DV FUXFLDO WR QDWLRQDO VHFXULW\ WKH ,QWHUQHW KDV XQGHUJRQH VHYHUDO WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV 'DQNHO f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f 6XEVHJXHQW DGGLWLRQV RI XVHUIULHQGO\ EURZVHUV KDYH FRQWLQXHG WKH WUHQG ,Q VXPPLQJ XS WKH \HDU RI DQG ZKDW KDSSHQHG LQ QHWZRUNLQJ DW LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ &OHPHQW DQG $EUDKDPV f DOVR JLYH D WD[RQRP\ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVHV RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DW WKDW SRLQW LQ WLPH

PAGE 49

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f *UHHQnV f H[KDXVWLYH DQQXDO FDPSXV FRPSXWLQJ VXUYH\ RI WZR DQG IRXU\HDU SXEOLF DQG SULYDWH FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV JLYHV WKH UHDGHU D FRPSUHKHQVLYH YLHZ 7KH GDWD FROOHFWHG GXULQJ IDOO IURP WKH UHVSRQGHQWV VXUYH\ VHQW WR WKH SULPDU\ DFDGHPLF FRPSXWLQJ RIILFLDO DW HDFK RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV LQ WKH VDPSOHf LQFOXGLQJ SXEOLF UHVHDUFK XQLYHUVLWLHV ZKLFK PRVW UHVHPEOH WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ VKRZ WKDW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI DOO IDFXOW\ KDYH DFFHVV WR WKH ,QWHUQHW DOWKRXJK RQO\ b RI DOO FROOHJH FRXUVHV PDNH XVH RI UHVRXUFHV RQ WKH :RUOG :LGH :HE IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO VXSSRUW *UHHQ S f )XUWKHU LQGLFDWLRQ RI WKLV VPDOO EXW JURZLQJ WUHQG LV HYLGHQFHG E\ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV UDWLQJ ,QWHUQHW UHVRXUFHV IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ DV D YHU\ LPSRUWDQW SULRULW\ DQG b DOVR VHHLQJ ZHE SDJHV IRU LQGLYLGXDO FODVVHV RU ZKROH FRXUVHV DW

PAGE 50

WKH VDPH OHYHO RI LPSRUWDQFH LQ WKH FRPLQJ \HDUV S f 1HYHUWKHOHVV RQO\ b RI XQLYHUVLWLHV UHSRUWHG KDYLQJ D SODQ LQ SODFH IRU LQFRUSRUDWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV GUDZQ IURP WKH ,QWHUQHW:RUOG :LGH :HE S f )LQDOO\ b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV DJUHHG IXOO\ RU DJUHHG VRPHZKDW WKDW RYHU WKH QH[W \HDUV WKH ,QWHUQHW:RUOG :LGH :HE ZLOO EH DQ LPSRUWDQW VRXUFH IRU FRQWHQW DQG LQVWUXFWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV S f 0DGGX[nV DUWLFOH GHDOLQJ ZLWK VHYHQ GLIIHUHQW SURVSHFWV DQG WKH SUREOHPV RI DGRSWLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW DV DQ LQVWUXFWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQ FDXWLRQV WKH UHDGHU DERXW VWDWLVWLFV VXFK DV WKRVH DERYH SDUWLFXODUO\ ZLWK UHJDUG WR nDFFHVVn :KLOH D ILJXUH OLNH b RI DOO IDFXOW\ ZLWK ,QWHUQHW nDFFHVVn PD\ VHHP WR SDYH WKH ZD\ IRU IDLUO\ UDSLG LQFRUSRUDWLRQ RI LWV UHVRXUFHV LQWR LQVWUXFWLRQ 0DGGX[ SRLQWV RXW WKDW ZKDW LV RIWHQ WHUPHG nDFFHVVn LV PHUH SK\VLFDO DYDLODELOLW\ +H VD\V WKDW LQVWUXFWLRQDO DFFHVV WR WKH EHQHILWV RI DQ LQIRUPDWLRQ WHFKQRORJ\ VXFK DV WKH ,QWHUQHW LV VRPHWKLQJ PXFK PRUH FRPSOH[ $QRWKHU RI KLV VWDWHG SUREOHPV LQYROYHV VXSSRUW IRU DGRSWLRQ RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DV DQ LQQRYDWLRQ 6XSSRUW PXVW EH RI WZR NLQGV WHFKQLFDO DQG FXUULFXOXP ,W LV SUHFLVHO\ WKLV FXUULFXOXP VXSSRUW ZKLFK LV WKH W\SLFDOO\ PLVVLQJ OLQN EHWZHHQ

PAGE 51

DYDLODELOLW\ RI D QHZ WHFKQRORJ\ DQG DFFHVV WR LWV LQVWUXFWLRQDO SRWHQWLDO 'LVFLSOLQHVSHFLILF DFFRXQWV RI H[SHULHQFHV ZLWK WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVHV RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DERXQG 6RPH VXFK DV 6PLWKnV DUWLFOH SURYLGH LQVLJKWV LQWR QHZ ZD\V RI FRPPXQLFDWLQJ LQ ERWK GLUHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ LQVWUXFWRU DQG VWXGHQW DV ZHOO DV VWXGHQW DQG VWXGHQW LQ D SDUWLFXODU GLVFLSOLQH SK\VLFV LQ WKLV FDVHf EXW DSSOLFDWLRQV DUH HDVLO\ LPDJLQHG DFURVV GLVFLSOLQHV 2WKHUV H[SORUH KRZ WHDFKLQJ FROOHJHOHYHO ZULWLQJ LV FKDQJLQJ DQG LV FKDQJHG E\ XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DQG VWLOO RWKHUV SUHVHQW VSHFLILF FDVH VWXGLHV LQFOXGLQJ WKH QHZ VNLOOV ZKLFK DUH DGGHG DQG WKH ZLGHU UDQJH RI PDWHULDOV VXFK DV K\SHUWH[W GRFXPHQWV DOO GHVSLWH WKH W\SLFDOO\ FKLOO\ HPEUDFH KXPDQLWLHV GHSDUWPHQWV KDYH JLYHQ FRPSXWHUV 5RX]LH S f 6RPH DFFRXQWV DUH PRUH WKDQ SHUVRQDO KLVWRULHV DV WHDFKHUV ORRN IRU HPSLULFDO HYLGHQFH RI GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VWXGHQW OHDUQLQJ DV D UHVXOW RI LQWHJUDWLQJ XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW LQWR WKHLU FRXUVHV $ SURIHVVRU RI VRFLRORJ\ DW &DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ DW 1RUWKULGJH UDQGRPO\ GLYLGHG KLV )DOO FODVV LQ VWDWLVWLFV DVVLJQLQJ RQH JURXS WR KLV DFFXVWRPHG IRUPDW DQG WHDFKLQJ WKH RWKHU WKURXJK DQ RQn OLQH YHUVLRQ RI WKH FRXUVH $OWKRXJK VXEMHFWLYH FRPPHQWV

PAGE 52

DERXW WKH H[SHULHQFH ILOOHG WKH VSHFWUXP WKH UHVXOWV RQ ERWK WKH PLGWHUP DQG WKH ILQDO H[DPLQDWLRQV WKH RQO\ WLPHV ZKHQ WKH RQOLQH JURXS HYHU VKRZHG XSf UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH ZLUHG VWXGHQWV RXWVFRUHG WKHLU WUDGLWLRQDO FRXQWHUSDUWV E\ DQ DYHUDJH RI SHU FHQW 0F&ROOXP S $f 6XPPDU\ 7KLV VHFWLRQ KDV VRXJKW WR WUDFH WKH UHVHDUFK SHUWLQHQW WR WKH VWXG\ DW KDQG ZKLFK UHODWHV GLUHFWO\ WR WKH DGRSWLRQ RI DQ LQQRYDWLRQ ZLWKLQ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO VHWWLQJ $ EULHI RYHUYLHZ RI WKH ODQGPDUN ZRUN RI 5RJHUV f ZDV IROORZHG E\ DQ DQDO\VLV RI WKH HIIHFWV RI FKDQJH DW WKH PLFUR OHYHO WKDW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO 7KH ZRUN RI )XOOHU f ZKLFK VHUYHG DV D EDVLV IRU WKH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO RI +DOO HW DO f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

PAGE 53

VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ )LQDOO\ D EULHI RYHUYLHZ RI WKH UHFHQW KLVWRU\ RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DQG RI LWV JURZLQJ FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH FKDQJHV XQGHUZD\ LQ LQVWUXFWLRQ DW LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ZDV JLYHQ

PAGE 54

&+$37(5 5(6($5&+ '(6,*1 6WXG\ 'HVLDQ3URFHGQUHV 2I SULPDU\ LQWHUHVW LQ WKLV GHVFULSWLYH FRUUHODWLRQDO VWXG\ DUH WKH FRQFHUQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DGRSWLRQ RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DPRQJ WKH IDFXOW\ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7R H[SORUH WKHVH FRQFHUQV WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV ZHUH SRVHG f :KDW DUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RI WKH OHYHOV RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DQG WKH OHYHOV RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV WR WKH VHTXHQFH RI VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ" f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ RI WKH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ PRGLI\ WKHLU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV EDVHG RQ KRZ RU ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ" f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DPRQJ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ UDQN JHQGHU DJH RU QDWLRQDO RULJLQ"

PAGE 55

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

PAGE 56

WKH QLQH FROOHJHV DQG WKH ,)$6 PDLOLQJ IDFLOLW\ VXSSOLHG WKHP IRU WKDW XQLW 6LQFH D WLPH ODJ W\SLFDOO\ RFFXUV EHWZHHQ Df ZKHQ D IDFXOW\ PHPEHU OHDYHV RU D QHZ RQH LV DSSRLQWHG DQG VWDUWV WR ZRUN DQG Ef ZKHQ WKH GDWDEDVH LV XSGDWHG WR UHIOHFW WKH FKDQJHV WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKHVH ODEHOV YDU\ VOLJKWO\ IURP WKH WUXH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ ZLWKLQ DQ DFDGHPLF XQLW DW DQ\ JLYHQ WLPH 7KH 2IILFH RI $FDGHPLF $IIDLUV VXSSOLHV ODEHOV SUHn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f 7KH PDLOLQJ ODEHOV VXSSOLHG E\ WKH PDLOLQJ IDFLOLW\ RI WKH ,QVWLWXWH RI )RRG DQG $JULFXOWXUDO 6FLHQFHV ZHUH SHUVRQDOO\ DGGUHVVHG 7KHVH ODEHOV ZHUH DIIL[HG WR WKH WRS

PAGE 57

RI WKH OHWWHUV RI WUDQVPLWWDO DQG WKH VXUYH\V ZHUH JURXSHG LQWR HQYHORSHV E\ DFDGHPLF XQLW ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ 7KH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ WKLV PDLOHG VXUYH\ ZDV WKH LWHP 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH GHYHORSHG E\ 7KH 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ DW 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DW $XVWLQ DV SDUW RI WKH 3URFHGXUHV IRU $GRSWLQJ (GXFDWLRQDO ,QQRYDWLRQV&%$0 3URMHFW +DOO HW DO f 3HUPLVVLRQ WR XVH WKH FRS\ULJKWHG TXHVWLRQQDLUH IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV UHTXHVWHG RQ 2FWREHU DQG JUDQWHG RQ 1RYHPEHU VHH OHWWHU LQ $SSHQGL[ %f 7KH ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD UHYLHZHG D GUDIW RI WKH HQWLUH LQVWUXPHQW DQG WKH FRYHU OHWWHU VXEPLWWHG RQ 'HFHPEHU DSSURYDO ZDV JUDQWHG RQ 'HFHPEHU VHH OHWWHU LQ $SSHQGL[ &f 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH FRQFHSWXDO EDVLV IRU GHYHORSLQJ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH RI FRQFHUQV DERXW DGRSWLRQ RI DQ LQQRYDWLRQ JUHZ RXW RI WKH H[WHQVLYH ZRUN RI )UDQFHV )XOOHU GXULQJ WKH V DQG *HQH +DOO DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV GXULQJ WKH V )URP UHVSRQVHV HOLFLWHG E\ DQ RSHQHQGHG FRQFHUQV VXUYH\ D WRWDO RI LWHPV ZDV QDUURZHG WR D JURXS RI MXGJHG DV FHQWUDO WR PHDVXULQJ FRQFHUQV )URP WKHVH HGLWLQJ DQG HOLPLQDWLQJ UHGXQGDQW LWHPV OHIW $IWHU DGPLQLVWHULQJ WKLV LWHP

PAGE 58

VXUYH\ DQG DQDO\]LQJ WKH GDWD IURP UHVSRQGHQWV RYHU b RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ WKH LWHPV ZDV DWWULEXWHG WR VHYHQ IDFWRUV D ILQGLQJ UHVXOWLQJ IURP LWHP FRUUHODWLRQ DQG IDFWRU DQDO\VHV 7KH VHYHQ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ UHSUHVHQW WKH RXWFRPH RI WKLV ZRUN +DOO HW DO f 7KURXJKRXW WKH VXEVHTXHQW WHVWLQJ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW DQG LWV HYHQWXDO VKRUWHQLQJ WR WKH FXUUHQW LWHPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH VXUYH\ ZDV RQ SRSXODWLRQV RI WHDFKHUV DQG FROOHJH IDFXOW\ LQYROYHG LQ DGRSWLRQ RI D QXPEHU RI HGXFDWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQV )RU H[DPSOH LQ Q f WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DW WKH KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ OHYHO ZDV WKH XVH RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO PRGXOHV ZKLOH WKDW IRU HOHPHQWDU\ WHDFKHUV ZDV WHDPLQJ +DOO HW DO f 5HOLDELOLWY9DOLGLWY ,QWHUQDO UHOLDELOLW\ DOSKDf FRHIILFLHQWV IRU WKH VWDJHV UDQJH IURP WR Q D VWUDWLILHG VDPSOH RI SURIHVVRUV DQG WHDFKHUVf 7HVWUHWHVW FRUUHODWLRQV Q WZR ZHHNV HODSVHGf DUH IURP WR +DOO HW DO S f ,QGLFDWLRQV RI WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW LQFOXGH WKH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV DQG WKH VWDJH ZKLFK WKH\ VXSSRVHGO\ PHDVXUH b RI WKH LWHPV KDG KLJKHU FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK WKHLU DVVLJQHG VWDJH WKDQ ZLWK RWKHU VWDJHVf ORZHU FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ GLVWDQW VWDJHV WKDQ EHWZHHQ DGMDFHQW RQHV UHVXOWV RI IDFWRU DQDO\VHV ZKLFK

PAGE 59

LQGLFDWH LQGHSHQGHQFH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VWDJH VXEVFDOHV DQG PXOWLPHWKRG SURFHGXUHV XVLQJ WKH VXUYH\ DQG LQWHUYLHZV UHVXOWLQJ LQ PXOWLSOH 5V JUHDWHU WKDQ MR f IRU IRXU RI WKH VWDJHV +DOO HW DO f 'HVFULSWLRQ RI WKH 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 5HVSRQGHQWV FKRRVH IURP HLJKW DOWHUQDWLYHV RQ D /LNHUW W\SH VFDOH f LUUHOHYDQW RU RQH RI VHYHQ OHYHOV RI FRQFHUQ OHYHO LV GHILQHG DV 1RW WUXH RI PH QRZ OHYHOV DQG UHSUHVHQW JUDGDWLRQV RI 6RPHZKDW WUXH RI PH QRZ DQG OHYHOV DQG UHSUHVHQW JUDGDWLRQV RI 9HU\ WUXH RI PH QRZ >+DOO HW DO S @f (DFK RI WKH VHYHQ VWDJH VFRUHV LV WKH VXP RI WKH ILYH LQGLYLGXDO LWHP VFRUHV PHDVXULQJ WKDW VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ FRQVWLWXWLQJ D UDQJH RI IURP WR $ GHVFULSWLRQ RI HDFK VWDJH DQG WKH ILYH LWHPV ZKLFK PDNH XS WKH VFRUH IRU WKDW VWDJH DUH DV IROORZV DGDSWHG IURP +DOO HW DO RULJLQDO FRQFHSW IURP +DOO HW DO f $ZDUHQHVV /LWWOH FRQFHUQ DERXW RU LQYROYHPHQW ZLWK WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LV LQGLFDWHG GRQnW HYHQ NQRZ ZKDW XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV ZRXOG EH DP QRW FRQFHUQHG DERXW XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DP FRPSOHWHO\ RFFXSLHG ZLWK RWKHU WKLQJV

PAGE 60

$OWKRXJK GRQnW NQRZ DERXW LQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW LVVXHV LQ WKLV DUHD $W WKLV WLPH DP QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ OHDUQLQJ DERXW XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV ,QIRUPDWLRQDO $ JHQHUDO DZDUHQHVV RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DQG LQWHUHVW LQ OHDUQLQJ PRUH GHWDLO DERXW LW LV LQGLFDWHG 7KH SHUVRQ VHHPV WR EH XQZRUULHG DERXW KLPVHOIKHUVHOI LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH LQQRYDWLRQ 6KH LV LQWHUHVWHG LQ VXEVWDQWLYH DVSHFWV RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ LQ D VHOIOHVV PDQQHU VXFK DV JHQHUDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV HIIHFWV DQG UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU XVH KDYH D YHU\ OLPLWHG NQRZOHGJH RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVHV RI WKH ,QWHUQHW ZRXOG OLNH WR GLVFXVV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ ZKDW UHVRXUFHV DUH DYDLODEOH LI ZH GHFLGH WR DGRSW LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ ZKDW LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW ZLOO UHTXLUH LQ WKH LPPHGLDWH IXWXUH ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ KRZ LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW LV EHWWHU WKDQ ZKDW ZH DUH GRLQJ QRZ 3HUVRQDO ,QGLYLGXDO LV XQFHUWDLQ DERXW WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ KLVKHU LQDGHTXDF\ WR PHHW WKRVH GHPDQGV DQG KLVKHU UROH ZLWK WKH LQQRYDWLRQ 7KLV LQFOXGHV DQDO\VLV RI KLVKHU UROH LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH UHZDUG

PAGE 61

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

PAGE 62

, DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW P\ LQDELOLW\ WR PDQDJH DOO WKDW LQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH UHTXLUHV DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW WLPH VSHQW ZRUNLQJ ZLWK QRQ DFDGHPLF SUREOHPV UHODWHG WR XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV &RRUGLQDWLQJ WDVNVSHRSOH WDNHV WRR PXFK RI P\ WLPH &RQVHTXHQFH $WWHQWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ LPSDFW RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RQ VWXGHQW LQ KLVKHU LPPHGLDWH VSKHUH RI LQIOXHQFH 7KH IRFXV LV RQ UHOHYDQFH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ IRU VWXGHQWV HYDOXDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW RXWFRPHV LQFOXGLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG FKDQJHV QHHGHG WR LQFUHDVH VWXGHQW RXWFRPHV DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW VWXGHQWVn DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW KRZ LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DIIHFWV VWXGHQWV DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW HYDOXDWLQJ P\ LPSDFW RQ VWXGHQWV ZRXOG OLNH WR H[FLWH P\ VWXGHQWV DERXW WKHLU SDUW LQ XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV ZRXOG OLNH WR XVH IHHGEDFN IURP VWXGHQWV WR FKDQJH XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ &ROODERUDWLRQ 7KH IRFXV LV RQ FRRUGLQDWLRQ DQG FRRSHUDWLRQ ZLWK RWKHUV UHJDUGLQJ XVH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ

PAGE 63

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

PAGE 64

, ZRXOG OLNH WR PRGLI\ RXU LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW EDVHG RQ WKH H[SHULHQFHV RI RXU VWXGHQWV ZRXOG OLNH WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ WR VXSSOHPHQW HQKDQFH RU UHSODFH LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH GDWD IURP GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV ZHUH DOVR FROOHFWHG 7KH SHUFHQW WLPH WHDFKLQJ GXULQJ WKH VHPHVWHU RI LQTXLU\ ZRUNLQJ SDUW YV IXOOWLPH DQG WKH W\SH RI IDFXOW\ OLQH KHOG WHQXUH RU QRQWHQXUHf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f DQG WKHLU FRUUHVSRQGLQJ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DUH

PAGE 65

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f RIIHU WKH ILYHVWDJH PRGHO IRU VNLOO DFTXLVLWLRQ ZKLFK KDV EHHQ XVHG KHUH $ FDWHJRU\ IRU WKH QRQXVHU ZDV DGGHG WR WKHLU ILYH OHYHOV DV RXWOLQHG EHORZ 7KH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ OHYHOV RI XVH IURP WKH &%$0 DUH DOVR VKRZQ &%$0 /HYHO 2I 8VH 6XUYH\ 7HUPV /HYHO 1RQ8VH /HYHO 2ULHQWDWLRQ 1RQXVHU /HYHO 3UHSDUDWLRQ /HYHO 0HFKDQLFDO 1RYLFH

PAGE 66

/HYHO D 5RXWLQH $GYDQFHG EHJLQQHU /HYHO E 5HILQHPHQW &RPSHWHQW XVHU /HYHO ,QWHJUDWLRQ 3URILFLHQW XVHU /HYHO 5HQHZDO ([SHUW )LQDOO\ LWHPV LQTXLULQJ DERXW WKH QXPEHU RI \HDUV DW WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ OHQJWK RI WLPH LQYROYHG ZLWK LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW SULRU IRUPDO WUDLQLQJ LQ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DQG UHFHQW RU FRQFXUUHQW LQYROYHPHQW LQ VRPH RWKHU PDMRU LQQRYDWLRQ RU SURJUDP ZHUH WDNHQ IURP WKH RULJLQDO GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH VKHHW VXJJHVWHG E\ +DOO HW DO f DQG FRQWULEXWH WR WKH IXOO DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH VWDWH RI WKH XVHU V\VWHP S f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nWKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHVn UDWKHU WKDQ UHO\LQJ RQ nWKH LQQRYDWLRQn WKURXJKRXW VXUYH\ IRXQG LQ $SSHQGL[ 'f

PAGE 67

'DWD &ROOHFWLRQ 7KH ILUVW DQQRXQFHPHQW RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV PDLOHG RQ -DQXDU\ RQ D EULJKW SLQN SRVW FDUG ,WV SULPDU\ REMHFWLYH ZDV WR DOHUW WKH IDFXOW\ WR WKH FRPLQJ VXUYH\ 7KH WH[W RI WKH QRWLFH LV IRXQG LQ $SSHQGL[ ( 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LWVHOI ZDV GXSOLFDWHG IURQW DQG EDFN RQ KLJKTXDOLW\ SLQN SDSHU DQG ZDV DFFRPSDQLHG E\ D OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDO RQ WRS 7KH OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDO ZDV RQ WKH OHWWHUKHDG RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ &HQWHU IRU ([FHOOHQFH LQ 7HDFKLQJ DQG ZDV VLJQHG E\ WKH GLUHFWRU VHH $SSHQGL[ (f 7KH ILUVW SDJH XQGHU WKH OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDO ZDV GHGLFDWHG WR LQVWUXFWLRQV RQ ILOOLQJ RXW WKH FRQFHUQV TXHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH IRUPDW DQG ZRUGLQJ ZHUH WDNHQ GLUHFWO\ IURP +DOO HW DO 6SHFLILF GHILQLWLRQV RI n,QWHUQHWn DQG nLQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHn ZHUH LQFOXGHG DV ZHOO DV H[DPSOHV RI WKH ODWWHU 7KH VXUYH\ EHJDQ RQ WKH EDFN RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV SDJH 7KH TXHVWLRQV ZHUH QXPEHUHG FRQVHFXWLYHO\ DQG WKH ILQDO SDJH LQFOXGHG DQ DUHD IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQW WR ZULWH FRPPHQWV 7KH UHWXUQ DGGUHVV ZDV SODFHG RQ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQ SDJH UHSHDWHG DJDLQ DW WKH HQG RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH EHORZ WKH FRPPHQWV DUHD DQG SULQWHG WKUHH WLPHV RQ WKH ILQDO RXWVLGHf SDJH 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH UHTXHVWHG WR IROG FORVH DQG UHWXUQ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV YLD FDPSXV PDLO

PAGE 68

7R SUHSDUH WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV IRU PDLOLQJ HDFK DFDGHPLF XQLW ZDV DVVLJQHG D WKUHHGLJLW FRGH QXPEHU DQG WKDW VDPH QXPEHU ZDV SODFHG RQ HDFK TXHVWLRQQDLUH GHVWLQHG IRU WKDW DFDGHPLF XQLW 7KH QXPEHU RI IDFXOW\ LQGLFDWHG RQ WKH ODEHO GHWHUPLQHG WKH QXPEHU RI TXHVWLRQQDLUHV SODFHG LQ D ODUJH PDQLOOD HQYHORSH GHVWLQHG IRU WKDW DFDGHPLF XQLW $ FRYHU VKHHW ZDV LQFOXGHG RQ WRS UHTXHVWLQJ WKH FRRSHUDWLRQ RI WKH UHFLSLHQW LQ GLVWULEXWLQJ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV WR WKH IDFXOW\ IRU ZKRP WKH\ ZHUH LQWHQGHG 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LWVHOI ZDV VHQW WKURXJK FDPSXV PDLO RQ )ULGD\ RI WKH WKLUG ZHHN RI VSULQJ VHPHVWHU LH -DQXDU\ 7KH WLPLQJ RI WKH PDLOLQJ VRXJKW WR PD[LPL]H WKH DWWHQWLRQ LW PLJKW JHW DPRQJ WKRVH RQ DQ DFDGHPLF VFKHGXOH ZLWK DQ XQHYHQ ZRUNORDG GLVWULEXWLRQ WKURXJKRXW WKH W\SLFDO VL[WHHQZHHN VHPHVWHU 6LPXOWDQHRXV ZLWK WKH PDLOLQJ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV SRVWHG RQ WKH :RUOG :LGH :HE DW WKH 8&(7 VLWH &DUH ZDV WDNHQ LQ WKH GHVLJQ RI WKH VXUYH\ IRU WKH ZHE VLWH VR WKDW UHVSRQVHV ZRXOG EH FRPSDUDEOH LUUHVSHFWLYH RI ZKLFK PHGLXP D UHVSRQGHQW XVHG $OWKRXJK DOO WKRVH ZKR UHSOLHG KDG D SDSHU FRS\ RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH DYDLODEOH WR WKHP WKH\ GLG QRW QHHG DQ\ LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH SDSHU FRS\ WR EH DEOH WR DQVZHU WKH IRUP RYHU WKH ,QWHUQHW /LQNV WR WKH IXOO WH[W RI WKH OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDO DQG WR WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV IRU

PAGE 69

ILOOLQJ RXW WKH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH ZHUH LQFOXGHG $W WKH HQG RI WKH IRUP WKH UHVSRQGHQW DFWLYDWHG D 6HQG )RUP EXWWRQ ZKLFK WUDQVPLWWHG WKH UHVXOWV WR DQ HPDLO DGGUHVV DQRQ\PRXVO\ 7KH ,QWHUQHW DGGUHVV IRU WKH VLWH ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH FRYHU OHWWHU DQG UHSHDWHG RQ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH LQVWUXFWLRQ SDJH 7KH HOHFWURQLF IRUP KDG RQH DGGLWLRQDO GHPRJUDSKLF LWHP DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ LW UHTXHVWHG WKH UHVSRQGHQWnV GHSDUWPHQWDO DIILOLDWLRQ HLWKHU WKH WKUHHGLJLW FRGH IURP WKH SDSHU FRS\ RU WKH QDPH RI WKH DFDGHPLF XQLWf VLQFH WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV ORVW IURP WKH SDSHU FRS\ E\ WKRVH FKRRVLQJ WR VXEPLW WKHLU UHVSRQVHV HOHFWURQLFDOO\ 7KH UHTXHVWHG UHWXUQ GDWH RI WKH LQVWUXPHQWV ZDV :HGQHVGD\ )HEUXDU\ RU WZHOYH GD\V DIWHU WKH\ ZHUH PDLOHG RXW $ IROORZXS PDLOLQJ IROORZLQJ WKH VDPH SURFHGXUH ZDV XQGHUWDNHQ 7KH OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDO LQFOXGHG D SROLWH UHPLQGHU DQG D UHTXHVW WR FRPSOHWH WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH 7KRVH ZKR KDG DOUHDG\ GRQH VR ZHUH DVNHG WR GLVUHJDUG WKH UHTXHVW VHH $SSHQGL[ ) IRU IROORZXS OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDOf 7KH PDLOLQJ RI WKH IROORZXS ZHQW RXW RQ )ULGD\ )HEUXDU\ DQG UHWXUQ ZDV UHTXHVWHG E\ :HGQHVGD\ 0DUFK DJDLQ DQ LQWHUYDO RI WZHOYH GD\V 7KLV VHFRQG GHDGOLQH IHOO

PAGE 70

LQ WKH PLGGOH RI WKH ZHHN LPPHGLDWHO\ SULRU WR WKH ZHHNORQJ VSULQJ EUHDN 'DWD $QDO\VLV 5HVSRQVHV WR WKH VXUYH\ IURP WKH WKUHH PDLOLQJV WRWDOHG RI D SRVVLEOH LQ WKH SRSXODWLRQ 2I WKHVH RU bf ZHUH UHFHLYHG HOHFWURQLFDOO\ 7KH VDPSOH WKXV UHSUHVHQWV D b UHVSRQVH UDWH 7KLV FRPSDUHV IDYRUDEO\ ZLWK WKH UHVXOWV IRXQG GXULQJ D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH IRU VLPLODU VXUYH\V RQ HTXLYDOHQW SRSXODWLRQV UHVSRQVH UDWH SHUFHQWDJHV LQ WKH KLJK WZHQWLHV ZHUH WKH UXOH DOWKRXJK RQH ZDV IRXQG DW f )XUWKHUPRUH VXUYH\V ZLWKLQ WKH ODVW \HDU RQ VXEVHWV RI WKLV SRSXODWLRQ RQH XQGHUWDNHQ ZLWKLQ WKH ,QVWLWXWH RI )RRG DQG $JULFXOWXUDO 6FLHQFHV RQO\ DQG DQRWKHU FDPSXVZLGH RI QHZ IDFXOW\ DIWHU WKHLU ILUVW \HDU DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD KDG UHVSRQVH UDWHV RI b DQG b UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH VXUYH\ GDWD ZHUH HQWHUHG YHULILHG DQG VDYHG RQ D GLVN IURP ZKHUH WKH\ ZHUH VXEVHTXHQWO\ VWRUHG RQ WKH PDLQIUDPH RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD &HQWHU IRU ,QVWUXFWLRQDO DQG 5HVHDUFK &RPSXWLQJ $FWLYLWLHV $QDO\VHV RI WKH GDWD ZHUH FDUULHG RXW XVLQJ 6$6 UXQ LQWHUDFWLYHO\ ZLWK WKH 81,; RSHUDWLQJ V\VWHP RQ WKH PDLQIUDPH

PAGE 71

'HPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH &RPSDULVRQ RI WKH VDPSOH WR DOO IDFXOW\ DV GHVFULEHG LQ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD $IILUPDWLYH $FWLRQ 3ODQ VKRZV WKDW IHPDOHV DUH UHSUHVHQWHG RQO\ VOLJKWO\ KLJKHU LQ WKH VDPSOH WKDQ LQ WKH SRSXODWLRQ b RI WKH VDPSOH YV b RI DOO IDFXOW\f DQG WKDW WKRVH RQ WHQXUH WUDFN IDFXOW\ OLQHV UHVSRQGHG LQ D KLJKHU SURSRUWLRQ b RI WKH VDPSOH YV b RI DOO IDFXOW\ RFFXS\ IDFXOW\ OLQHVf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

PAGE 72

7DEOH 'HPRJUDSKLF 3URILOH RI WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV Be BL 7LPH + f 3DUWWLPH )XOOWLPH *HQGHU + f 0DOH )HPDOH 5DQN + f ,QVWUXHWRU/HFWXUHU 3RVWGRF $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU 3URIHVVRU 2WKHU 7UDFN + f 7HQXUH 1RQWHQXUH 1DWLRQDO 2ULJLQ 8 f $PHULFDQ )RUHLJQ

PAGE 73

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f :KDW DUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RI WKH OHYHOV RI

PAGE 74

,QWHUQHW XVH IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DQG WKH OHYHOV RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV WR WKH VHTXHQFH RI VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ" f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ RI WKH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ PRGLI\ WKHLU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV EDVHG RQ KRZ RU ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ" f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f WKH VWDJH DW WKH IXUWKHU IXUWKHVWf SRLQW DORQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO

PAGE 75

FRQWLQXXP IURP 6WDJH WR 6WDJH ZDV FKRVHQ DV WKH SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH OHYHO RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV OHYHO RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV OHYHO RI DWWHQWLRQ SDLG WR KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ OHYHO RI DWWHQWLRQ SDLG WR ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ UDQN JHQGHU DJH DQG QDWLRQDO RULJLQ ,Q RUGHU WR DGGUHVV WKH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV WKH DOSKD OHYHO ZDV VHW DW DQG D FRUUHODWLRQDO DQDO\VLV DQG UHJUHVVLRQ WHFKQLTXH ZHUH XVHG %RUJ DQG *DOO f PHQWLRQ WKDW ZKHQ GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH GHJUHH RI UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ YDULRXV FRPELQDWLRQV RI WKUHH RU PRUH YDULDEOHV PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ LV D WHFKQLTXH RIIHULQJ FRQVLGHUDEOH YHUVDWLOLW\ S f LQ FRUUHODWLRQDO VWXGLHV )L QGL QDV 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV 7KH JUHDWHVW SRUWLRQ RI WKH VDPSOH RU DERXW RQH IRXUWK RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZDV IRXQG WR H[KLELW WKHLU SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ UHJDUGLQJ DGRSWLRQ RI WKH HGXFDWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQ RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DW WKH ILUVW RI WKH VHOI VWDJHV ,QIRUPDWLRQ $QRWKHU bf RI WKH VDPSOH ZHUH IRXQG WR EH DW 6WDJH &RQVHTXHQFH WKH ILUVW RI WKH LPSDFW VWDJHV 7KH PHDQ SHDN

PAGE 76

VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ IRU WKH VDPSOH ZDV e' f KLJK 6WDJH 3HUVRQDOf 6HH 7DEOH IRU D FRPSOHWH VXPPDU\f 7DEOH GLVSOD\V WKH ILQGLQJV RQ WKH OHYHOV RI XVH RI WKH VDPSOH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKH ,QWHUQHW 2YHU KDOI RI WKH VDPSOH VHOIUHSRUWHG D OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV RI QRQXVH RU QRYLFH Q f /HYHOV RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV KRZHYHU ZHUH KLJKHU 2YHU WZRWKLUGV RI WKH VDPSOH XVH WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU QRQLQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DW WKH VHOIUHSRUWHG OHYHOV RI QRYLFH DGYDQFHG EHJLQQHU RU FRPSHWHQW XVHU 7KH PHDQ IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IHOO DW OHYHO QRYLFH 0 e f ZKHUHDV WKDW IRU LWV XVH IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV IHOO DW OHYHO DGYDQFHG EHJLQQHU 0 f 5HVSRQVHV WR WKH VXUYH\ LWHPV DVNLQJ KRZ PXFK SDUWLFLSDQWV PRGLI\ WKHLU WHDFKLQJ RQ WKH EDVLV RI KRZ DQG ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ DUH VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH $ERXW b Q f RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ DOWHU WKHLU WHDFKLQJ RQ WKH EDVLV RI KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ WR DQ DYHUDJH GHJUHH RU TXLWH D ELW /LNHZLVH PHPEHUV RI WKH VDPSOH RU b UHSRUWHG RQH RI WKH VDPH WZR FDWHJRULHV ZKHQ DVNHG DERXW KRZ PXFK WKH\ FKDQJH WKHLU WHDFKLQJ DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ $ SURILOH RI WKH VDPSOH UHVSRQGHQWV ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKHLU UDQN JHQGHU DQG QDWLRQDO RULJLQ LV JLYHQ LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 77

7DEOH 3HDN 6WDJH RI &RQFHUQ 6WDJH + f Be BL $ZDUHQHVV ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3HUVRQDO 0DQDJHPHQW &RQVHTXHQFH &ROODERUDWLRQ 5HIRFXVLQJ 1RWH 0

PAGE 78

7DEOH /HYHOV RI 8VH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW /HYHO Be BL ,QVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV f 1RQXVHU 1RYLFH $GYDQFHG EHJLQQHU &RPSHWHQW XVHU 3URILFLHQW XVHU ([SHUW 1RQ LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV + f 1RQXVHU 1RYLFH $GYDQFHG EHJLQQHU &RPSHWHQW XVHU 3URILFLHQW XVHU ([SHUW 1RWH ,QVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV 0 6& 1RQLQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV 0 6&

PAGE 79

7DEOH +RZ 0XFK 7HDFKLQJ ,V 0RGLILHG %DVHG RQ 6WXGHQW /HDUQLQJ 'HJUHH RI 0RGLILFDWLRQ Be BL +RZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ 0 1RW DW DOO f 0RGHUDWHO\ $YHUDJH 4XLWH D ELW $ JUHDW GHDO :KDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ 0 1RW DW DOO f 0RGHUDWHO\ $YHUDJH 4XLWH D ELW $ JUHDW GHDO 1RWH +RZ 0 :KDW 0 e(

PAGE 80

7DEOH 5DQN *HQGHU DQG 1DWLRQDO 2ULJLQ RI 5HVSRQGHQWV 5DQN + f BL ,QVWUXFWRU/HFWXUHU 3RVWGRF $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU 3URIHVVRU 2WKHU *HQGHU 1 f 0DOH )HPDOH 1DWLRQDO 2ULJLQ 0 f $PHULFDQERUQ )RUHLJQERUQ

PAGE 81

2QHILIWK RI WKH VDPSOH ZHUH $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRUV RQH IRXUWK bf $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRUV DQG MXVW XQGHU RQHKDOI bf ZHUH 3URIHVVRUV 7KH VDPSOH ZDV DERXW WKUHHIRXUWKV PDOH bf 7KH DJH UDQJH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZDV IURP WR \HDUV ROG WKH PHDQ DJH ZDV DQG WKH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ ZDV 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH b QDWLYHERUQ $PHULFDQ FLWL]HQV &RUUHODWLRQDO 5HODWLRQVKLSV 7DEOH FRQWDLQV D FRUUHODWLRQ PDWUL[ VKRZLQJ WKH ]HUR RUGHU RU 3HDUVRQ SURGXFWPRPHQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ DOO WKH YDULDEOHV LQ WKH VWXG\ )RU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV SDUW RI WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZKR KHOG D UDQN RWKHU WKDQ $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RU 3URIHVVRU ZHUH H[FOXGHG /HH HW DO f VWDWH WKDW QR DGMXVWPHQW PD\ EH QHFHVVDU\ ZKHQ D YHU\ VPDOO SURSRUWLRQ RI FDVHV LV H[FOXGHG S ff§WKH FDVH KHUH ZKHUH RI RU b ZHUH H[FOXGHG ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH IRXU SRVVLEOH DQVZHU FKRLFHV IRU WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU WKH UHVSRQGHQW ZDV DQ LQWHUQDWLRQDO IDFXOW\ PHPEHU ZHUH UHGXFHG WR D GLFKRWRPRXV YDULDEOH $PHULFDQ RU IRUHLJQERUQ 'DYLVnV WD[RQRP\ f FDWHJRUL]HV WKH VWUHQJWK RI DVVRFLDWLRQ PHDVXUHG E\ FRUUHODWLRQV LQ WKH IROORZLQJ PDQQHU

PAGE 82

7DEOH ;QOHUFRUUHODWLRQV %HWZHHQ 3HDN 6WDJH RI &RQFHUQ DQG 2WKHU 9DULDEOHV 3HDN /n LLS /n QHW +RZ :KDW 5DQN 6H[ $JH 2ULJ 3HDN f§ /n LLS f§ /n QHW f§ +RZ f§ :KDW f§ 5DQN f§ 6H[ f§ $JH f§ 2ULJ 1RWH 3HDN SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ /nLLS OHYHO RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH /nQHW QRQLQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH OHYHO +RZ DWWHQWLRQ WR KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ :KDW DWWHQWLRQ WR ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ 2ULJ QDWLRQDO RULJLQ $PHULFDQ RU IRUHLJQERUQf 6LQJOH XQGHUOLQH GHQRWHV S GRXEOH XQGHUOLQH GHQRWHV S

PAGE 83

&RUUHODWLRQ 9DOXH &ODVVLILFDWLRQ DQG DERYH 9HU\ VWURQJ WR 6XEVWDQWLDO WR 0RGHUDWH WR /RZ WR 1HJOLJLEOH :KHQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV DUH YLHZHG RQH DW D WLPH IRU D UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ WKUHH DUH IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH 0RGHUDWHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ LV OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV S S f /HYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV LV DOVR VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ EXW WKLV YDULDEOH GHPRQVWUDWHV RQO\ D ORZ OHYHO RI VWUHQJWK RI DVVRFLDWLRQ S S f DFFRUGLQJ WR 'DYLVnV WHUPLQRORJ\ )LQDOO\ GHJUHH WR ZKLFK UHVSRQGHQWV UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ PRGLI\ WKHLU WHDFKLQJ EDVHG RQ KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ DOVR VKRZHG D ORZ OHYHO RI VWUHQJWK RI DVVRFLDWLRQ S S f )XUWKHU ELYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD LQFOXGHG YLHZLQJ WKH VFDWWHU GLDJUDPV WR DVVXUH WKDW D OLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV D UHDVRQDEOH DSSUR[LPDWLRQ $JUHVWL t )LQOD\ S f RI WKH DVVXPHG IRUP RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ SHDN

PAGE 84

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e S f $OO RWKHU YDULDEOHV EHLQJ HTXDO D UHVSRQGHQW ZKR ZDV RQH OHYHO KLJKHU LQ XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV H[KLELWHG D SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ VWDJH KLJKHU

PAGE 85

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 0XOWLSOH 5HJUHVVLRQ IRU 9DULDEOHV 3UHGLFWLQJ 3HDN 6WDJH RI &RQFHUQ 9DULDEOH % 6) % /HYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV r /HYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV 'HJUHH RI PRGLILFDWLRQ WR WHDFKLQJ EDVHG RQ KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ 'HJUHH RI PRGLILFDWLRQ WR WHDFKLQJ EDVHG RQ ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ 5DQN *HQGHU r $JH 1DWLRQDO 2ULJLQ 1RWH M!

PAGE 86

7KH ILQGLQJV RI WKH VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ RI OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH HGXFDWLRQDO DGRSWLRQ EHLQJ LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV FRQILUP WKH WKHRU\ RI WKH &RQFHUQV%DVHG $GRSWLRQ 0RGHO ZKLFK VWDWHV WKDW VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DERXW WKH LQQRYDWLRQ DQG /HYHOV RI 8VH RI WKH VDPH ZLOO PRYH LQ QHDUO\ D RQHWRRQH FRUUHVSRQGHQFH /RXFNV t +DOO S f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

PAGE 87

1HYHUWKHOHVV ZKHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZHUH FRQWUROOHG QHLWKHU GHJUHH WR ZKLFK UHVSRQGHQWV PRGLI\ WKHLU WHDFKLQJ EDVHG RQ KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ QRU WKH VDPH EDVHG RQ ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ FRQWULEXWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR WKH SUHGLFWLRQ RI SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ e IRU DWWHQWLRQ WR KRZ VWXGHQWV OHDUQ DQG e IRU DWWHQWLRQ WR ZKDWf 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DPRQJ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ UDQN JHQGHU DJH RU QDWLRQDO RULJLQ" 5DQN ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ DQG ZKHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG LW GLG QRW KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW VWUHQJWK RI DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ e f $OWKRXJK JHQGHU ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ ZKHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG LW FRQWULEXWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR WKH SUHGLFWLRQ RI SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ e M! f :KHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG ZRPHQ UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH SUHGLFWHG WR EH VWDJH KLJKHU RQ WKHLU SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ 7KLV ILQGLQJ IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV LQ WKH VDPSOH ZRXOG VHHP WR UHIXWH WKH UHVXOWV RI UHVHDUFK UHSRUWHG E\ +DOO HW

PAGE 88

DO f UHSRUWLQJ QR RXWVWDQGLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VWDQGDUG GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOHV DQG FRQFHUQV GDWD S f DQG FRQFXUULQJ ZLWK 5XWKHUIRUG f WKDW JHQGHU DQG RWKHU YDULDEOHVf ODFN DQ\ FRQVLVWHQW UHODWLRQVKLS S f ZLWK VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ VFRUHV $JH ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ DQG ZKHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG LW GLG QRW KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW VWUHQJWK RI DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ e f 7KLV ZRXOG YDOLGDWH WKH ILQGLQJV RI +DOO HW DO f DQG 5XWKHUIRUG f 1DWLRQDO RULJLQ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ DQG ZKHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG LW GLG QRW PDNH D VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH SUHGLFWLRQ RI SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ e f $OWKRXJK 6KRHPDNHU f IRXQG VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ VFRUHV DERXW DGRSWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI FRPSXWHUV LQ IRUHLJQ ODQJXDJH WHDFKLQJ DPRQJ WKH ILYH IRUHLJQ FXOWXUH JURXSV DV GHILQHG E\ QDWLYH ODQJXDJH DQG FRXQWU\ RI ELUWKf KH LQYHVWLJDWHG KLV VWXG\ GHDOW VROHO\ ZLWK IRUHLJQ FXOWXUH JURXSV 6LQFH 6KRHPDNHUnV VWXG\ GLG QRW LQFOXGH $PHULFDQV DV D FXOWXUDO JURXS DQG WKH IRUHLJQ ERUQ UHVSRQGHQWV RI WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH QRW IXUWKHU VXEGLYLGHG QR GLUHFW SDUDOOHO FDQ EH GUDZQ

PAGE 89

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

PAGE 90

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n 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD RIILFLDOV RUJDQL]HG VHVVLRQV WR LQIRUP IDFXOW\ DQG JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DERXW ,QWHUQHW UHVRXUFHV WKDW IDFXOW\ PD\ QRW EH DZDUH RI 3DVVDUHOOD S f $W WKDW WLPH D PHPEHU RI WKH RUJDQL]LQJ FRPPLWWHH DGPLWWHG WR QRW DQWLFLSDWLQJ D VRSKLVWLFDWHG OHYHO RI H[SHULHQFH DPRQJ WKRVH DWWHQGLQJ

PAGE 91

)DFXOW\ FRQFHUQV RYHU LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW KDYH EHFRPH HYHQ PRUH SHUWLQHQW GXULQJ WKH DFDGHPLF \HDU $V FKDQJHV LQ DFFHVV WR FRPSXWHUV DQG QHWZRUNHG UHVRXUFHV LQ VWXGHQW FRPSXWHU ODERUDWRULHV DFURVV FDPSXV KDYH EHHQ SXW LQWR HIIHFW VWXGHQWV KDYH UHVLVWHG SD\LQJ DQ DGGLWLRQDO IHH 7KH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQn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nV PRWLYDWLRQ WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV

PAGE 92

7KH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH KDV EHHQ GHYHORSHG WR PHDVXUH DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FRQFHUQV UHJDUGLQJ DQ HGXFDWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQ ,QWHUYHQWLRQV GHVLJQHG WR UHVROYH WKH PRVW LQWHQVH VWDJHVf RI FRQFHUQ DUH WKRXJKW WR SURPRWH PRUH HIILFLHQW DQG HIIHFWLYH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ EHLQJ SURSRVHG 0RUHRYHU DURXVDO RI FRQFHUQV DW KLJKHU VWDJHV LV XQOLNHO\ XQWLO UHVROXWLRQ KDV EHHQ DFKLHYHG DW ORZHU VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ 7KH LWHP TXHVWLRQQDLUH RIIHUV D SHQFLODQGSDSHU PHDVXUH RI DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FRQFHUQV DQG VXSSOLHV LPSRUWDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU SODQQLQJ WUDLQLQJ LQWHUYHQWLRQV 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV WKH VWXG\ VHW RXW WR DQVZHU ZHUH f :KDW DUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RI WKH OHYHO RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV DQG WKH OHYHO RI ,QWHUQHW XVH IRU DOO RWKHU SXUSRVHV WR WKH VHTXHQFH RI VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ" f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ RI WKH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH\ PRGLI\ WKHLU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV EDVHG RQ KRZ RU ZKDW VWXGHQWV OHDUQ" f $UH WKHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHDN VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DPRQJ IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV JURXSHG E\ UDQN JHQGHU DJH RU QDWLRQDO RULJLQ" ,Q RUGHU WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKHVH TXHVWLRQV D PDLOHG VXUYH\ XVLQJ WKH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV FDUULHG

PAGE 93

RXW RI IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV LQ WHQ FROOHJHV ZLWKLQ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD $ WRWDO RI UHVSRQVHV bf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

PAGE 94

)LQDOO\ DPRQJ WKH YDULDEOHV RI UDQN JHQGHU DJH DQG QDWLRQDO RULJLQ QRQH ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR WKH RXWFRPH YDULDEOH )XUWKHUPRUH RQO\ JHQGHU H[KLELWHG D VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ WR SUHGLFWLRQ RI SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ ZKHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG ,PROLFDWLRQV 6LQFH LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW LV VLPLODU WR LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI RWKHU FRPSXWHU WHFKQRORJ\ LQ WKDW LW RIWHQ KDV D SUHFHGLQJ XVH ZKLFK PD\ LQYROYH UHVHDUFK RU HYHQ UHFUHDWLRQ EHIRUH WUDQVIHU RI WKH SRZHU DQG SRWHQWLDO RI WKH WHFKQRORJ\ WR FODVVURRP DSSOLFDWLRQV WKH ILQGLQJ LQ WKLV VWXG\ WKDW OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV ZLOO VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRQWULEXWH WR SUHGLFWLQJ SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ 3URPRWLQJ XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU DQ\ SXUSRVH DPRQJ XQLYHUVLW\ IDFXOW\ PD\ ZHOO VSXU WKH XVHU RQ WR UHFRJQL]LQJ SRVVLEOH WHDFKLQJ DSSOLFDWLRQV ,Q RUGHU WR LQFUHDVH DZDUHQHVV RI ZKDW LV DYDLODEOH DQ LVVXH DV VLPSOH DV IDFXOW\ PHPEHU DFFHVV WR QHWZRUN FRQQHFWLYLW\ LQ WKH RIILFH ILUVW DQG XSGDWHG HTXLSPHQW ZLWK VXIILFLHQW SURFHVVLQJ VSHHG DQG PHPRU\ FDSDFLW\ VHFRQG PD\ ZHOO EH NH\ DPRQJ WKH FRQGLWLRQV WKDW ZRXOG SURPRWH LQVWUXFWLRQDO DSSOLFDWLRQV RI WKLV PHGLXP 0HQWLRQ LV PDGH RI VSHQGLQJ IXWXUH DOORFDWLRQV IURP WKH WHFKQRORJ\ IHH JHQHUDWHG E\ WKH PRQLHV FROOHFWHG IURP

PAGE 95

VWXGHQWV RQ FRQQHFWLQJ HYHU\ FODVVURRP WR WKH ,QWHUQHW +RZHYHU WKLV PD\ ZHOO EH nEX\LQJ WKH VDGGOH EHIRUH EX\LQJ WKH KRUVHn $WWHQWLRQ WR DVVXULQJ WKDW HYHU\ IDFXOW\ RIILFH LV FRQQHFWHG ILUVW DQG VXSSOLHG ZLWK VXIILFLHQW UHVRXUFHV WR EHQHILW IURP VRPHWKLQJ VR VLPSOH DQG ORZWHFK DV HPDLO ILUVW DQG WKHQ IURP ZKDW LV DYDLODEOH RQ WKH ,QWHUQHW PD\ LQGHHG EH D PRUH LQIRUPHG URXWH 6LQFH JHQGHU LV FRUUHODWHG QHJDWLYHO\ ZLWK UDQN S f DV ZHOO DV ZLWK DJH S f LQ WKH VDPSOH ZH NQRZ WKDW ZRPHQ WHQG WR EH UHSUHVHQWHG PRUH WKDQ ZRXOG EH H[SHFWHG DW WKH ORZHU UDQNV DQG DPRQJ WKH \RXQJHU IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV ,Q DGGLWLRQ JHQGHU PDLQWDLQHG D VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH SUHGLFWLRQ RI SHDN VWDJH RI FRQFHUQ ZKHQ DOO RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZHUH FRQWUROOHG 7KLV ZRXOG PHDQ WKDW FRQWUROOLQJ IRU RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZRPHQ RI WKH VDPSOH WHQG WR EH IXUWKHU DORQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO FRQWLQXXP UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKH VHYHQ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DQG SUREDEO\ OHYHOV RI XVHf UHJDUGLQJ DGRSWLQJ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV 7KH ILQGLQJV SODFH WKHVH \RXQJ ZRPHQ DW WKH ORZHU UDQNV LQ NH\ SRVLWLRQV WR EHFRPH FKDQJH DJHQWV IRU WKHLU FROOHDJXHV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 5HVHDUFK ,I OHYHO RI XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK UHDFKLQJ D JLYHQ VWDJH RI

PAGE 96

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

PAGE 97

5()(5(1&(6 $JUHVWL $ t )LQOD\ % f 6WDWLVWLFDO PHWKRGV IRU WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV QG HGf 6DQ )UDQFLVFR 'HOOHQ $OEULJKW 0 )HEUXDU\ f ,QVWUXFW LRQD WHFKQRORJ\ DQG KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 5HZDUGV ULJKWV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV .H\QRWH DGGUHVV RI WKH 6RXWKHUQ 5HJLRQDO )DFXOW\ DQG ,QVWUXFWLRQDO 'HYHORSPHQW &RQVRUWLXP %DWRQ 5RXJH /$ (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f $QHNH 1 f 7HDFKHUVn VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DERXW D VFKRROZLGH HGXFDWLRQDO UHIRUP 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 9LUJLQLD 3RO\WHFKQLF ,QVWLWXWH DQG 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f %RUJ : t *DOO 0 f (GXFDWLRQDO UHVHDUFK WK HGf 1HZ
PAGE 98

&KDQGOHU f 6WDJHV RI FRQFHUQ H[SUHVVHG E\ VHOHFWHG 1RUWK &DUROLQD FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII DERXW WKH DGRSWLRQ RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO HIIHFWLYHQHVV FULWHULD 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 1RUWK &DUROLQD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f 3LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f 'DQNHO -U f 7KH XVH RI WKH :RUOG :LGH :HE LQ GLVWDQFH HGXFDWLRQ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW &RPSXWHU ([SR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD *DLQHVYLOOH )/ 'DYLV f (OHPHQWDU\ VXUYH\ DQDO\VLV (QJOHZRRG 13UHQWLFH +DOO 'UH\IXV + t 'UH\IXV 6 f 0LQG RYHU PDFKLQH 7KH SRZHU RI KXPDQ LQWXLWLRQ DQG H[SHUWLVH LQ WKH HUD RI WKH FRPSXWHU 1HZ
PAGE 99

+DOO f $DODDHV RI FRQFHUQ DSSURDFK WR WHDFKHU SUHSDUDWLRQ 5HSRUW f $XVWLQ 7; 7KH 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f +DOO *HRUJH $ t 5XWKHUIRUG : f 0HDVXULQJ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DERXW WKH LQQRYDWLRQ $ PDQXDO IRU XVH RI WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ TXHVWLRQQDLUH (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f +DOO *HRUJH $ t 5XWKHUIRUG : f 0HDVXULQJ VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DERXW WKH LQQRYDWLRQ $ PDQXDO IRU XVH RI WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ TXHVWLRQQDLUH 5 t 5HSRUW 1R f $XVWLQ 7; 7KH 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ +DOO 6 +RUG 6 f &KDQJH LQ VFKRROV )DFLOLWDWLQJ WKH SURFHVV $OEDQ\ 1< 681< 3UHVV +DOO t /RXFNV 6 f 7HDFKHU FRQFHUQV DV D EDVLV IRU IDFLOLWDWLQJ DQG SHUVRQDOL]LQJ VWDII GHYHORSPHQW 7HDFKHUV &ROOHJH 5HFRUG +DOO t /RXFNV 6 f 3URJUDP GHILQLWLRQ DQG DGDSWDWLRQ ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU LQVHUYLFH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW LQ (GXFDWLRQ f +DOO t /RXFNV 6 5XWKHUIRUG : t 1HZORYH % f /HYHOV RI XVH RI WKH LQQRYDWLRQ $ IUDPHZRUN IRU DQDO\]LQJ LQQRYDWLRQ DGRSWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ f +DOO 1HZORYH % *HRUJH $ 5XWKHUIRUG : t +RUG 6 f 0HDVXULQJ FKDQJH IDFLOLWDWRU VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQf§$ PDQXDO IRU WKH XVH RI WKH &)6R& TXHVWLRQQDLUH *UHHOH\ &2 &HQWHU IRU 5HVHDUFK RQ 7HDFKLQJ DQG /HDUQLQJ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1RUWKHUQ &RORUDGR (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f +DOO t 5XWKHUIRUG : f &RQFHUQV RI WHDFKHUV DERXW LPSOHPHQWLQJ WHDP WHDFKLQJ (GXFDWLRQDO /HDGHUVKLS f +DOO :DOODFH 5 -U t 'RVVHWW : f $ GHYHORSPHQWDO FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH DGRSWLRQ SURFHVV ZLWKLQ HGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV $XVWLQ 7; 7KH 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f

PAGE 100

+LFNR[ & f 7UDLQLQJ IRU WKH ,QWHUQHW 6WDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DPRQJ DFDGHPLF OLEUDU\ VWDII LQ WKH $PLJRV &RQVRUWLXP 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ (DVW 7H[DV 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f +RUG 6 t /RXFNV 6 f $ FRQFHUQVEDVHG PRGHO IRU WKH GHOLYHU\ RI LQVHUYLFH (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f +RUG 6 5XWKHUIRUG : +XOLQJ$XVWLQ / t +DOO f 7DNLQJ FKDUJH RI FKDQJH $OH[DQGULD 9$ $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU 6XSHUYLVLRQ DQG &XUULFXOXP 'HYHORSPHQW .LQJ f ,QIRUPDWLRQ WHFKQRORJLHV LQ VXSSRUW RI WHDFKLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW f .XJHO 3 f +RZ SURIHVVRUV GHYHORS DV WHDFKHUV 6WXGLHV LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ f /HH ( )RUWKRIIHU 5 t /RULPHU 5 f $QDO\]LQJ &RPSOH[ 6XUYH\ 'DWD 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH /HH.DQJ f )DFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ WKH DGRSWLRQ RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI FRPSXWHUV LQ XQGHUJUDGXDWH WH[WLOHV FORWKLQJ DQG PHUFKDQGLVLQJ SURJUDPV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 7KH 2KLR 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f /HRQJ&KLOGV f 3URIHVVRUVn XVH RI FRPSXWHUV IRU LQQRYDWLYH LQVWUXFWLRQ 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 6WDQIRUG 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 4f $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f /HZLV f &RQFHUQV DQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DIIHFWLQJ WKH DGRSWLRQ RI FRPSXWHU EDVHG LQVWUXFWLRQ E\ GLDEHWHV HGXFDWRUV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ :HVW 9LUJLQLD 8QLYHUVLW\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f /RXFNV 6 t +DOO f $VVHVVLQJ DQG IDFLOLWDWLQJ WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI LQQRYDWLRQV $ QHZ DSSURDFK (GXFDWLRQDO 7HFKQRORJ\ f 0DGGX[ & f 7KH ,QWHUQHW (GXFDWLRQDO SURVSHFWV DQG SUREOHPV (GXFDWLRQDO 7HFKQRORJ\ f

PAGE 101

0DOHUQHH -DQXDU\ f 5HJHQWV DSSURYH WXLWLRQ LQFUHDVH WHFKQRORJ\ IHH 7KH ,QGHSHQGHQW )ORULGD $O LJDWRU‘ SS 0DUVK t 3HQQ f (QJDJLQJ VWXGHQWV LQ LQQRYDWLYH LQVWUXFWLRQ $Q DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ IUDPHZRUN WR VWXG\LQJ VWXGHQW HQJDJHPHQW -RXUQDO RI &ODVVURRP ,QWHUDFWLRQ f 0DWWKHZV 5 f 8VLQJ FRQFHUQV GDWD WR GHVLJQ D VWDII GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDP -RXUQDO RI 6WDII 'HYHORSPHQW f 0F&DUWK\ % f ,PSURYLQJ VWDII GHYHORSPHQW WKURXJK &%$0 DQG PDW (GXFDWLRQDO /HDGHUVKLS f 0F&ROOXP )HEUXDU\ f $ SURIHVVRU GLYLGHV KLV FODVV LQ WZR WR WHVW YDOXH RI RQOLQH LQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH &KURQLFOH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ S $ 0F4XDLQ f $ VWXG\ H[DPLQLQJ WHDFKHU FRQFHUQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WHFKQLFDO SUHSDUDWLRQ SURJUDPV LQ WKH %OXH 5LGJH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 6HUYLFH $UHD 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 9LUJLQLD f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 8QLYHUVLW\ 0LFURILOPV 1R f 2EOLQJHU f 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f 3DVVDUHOOD 0 0DUFK f 8) ZRUNVKRSV WR WHDFK EDVLF RQOLQH VNLOOV 7KH ,QGHSHQGHQW )ORULGD $OOLJDWRU S 5RJHUV ( 'LIIXVLRQ RI LQQRYDWLRQV 1HZ
PAGE 102

6DODQW S f +F!ZBBW4 FRQGXFW \RXU RZQ VXUYH\ 1HZ
PAGE 103

$33(1',; $ 678'(17 6(1$7( 35(6,'(17n6 /(77(5 72 $// 8) )$&8/7<

PAGE 104

81,9(56,7< 2) A)/25,'$ 2IILFH RI WKH 6HQDWH 3UHVLGHQW ,:58 32 %R[ 1RYHPEHU *DLQHVYLOOH )/ f H[W )D[f 7R $OO 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD )DFXOW\ $V \RX PD\ EH DZDUH &,5&$ KDV UHFHQWO\ LPSOHPHQWHG D 6 IHH WR VWXGHQWV IRU WKH XVH RI FRPSXWHUV 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH XQLYHUVLW\fV VWXGHQWV ILQGV WKLV SROLF\ XQDFFHSWDEOH :H DUH DVNLQJ IRU \RXU KHOS LQ SURYLGLQJ VWXGHQWV DFFHVV WR FRPSXWHUV DQG WKH ,QWHUQHW LQ WKHLU HGXFDWLRQDO HQGHDYRUV 7KH DWWDFKHG 6WXGHQW %RG\ 5HVROXWLRQ ZDV SDVVHG XQDQLPRXVO\ E\ WKH 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH RQ 2FWREHU 7KH UHVROXWLRQ JLYHV WKH fVWDWHPHQW RI SXUSRVH DQG PLVVLRQf IRU WKH 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 6\VWHP DV VWDWHG LQ )ORULGD 6WDWXWHV DV ZHOO DV WKH f,QVWLWXWLRQDO 3XUSRVHf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f ZLOO EH UHTXLUHG :LWK \RXU KHOS LQ UHTXLULQJ WKH XVH RI FRPSXWHUV IRU HGXFDWLRQDO SXUSRVHV ZH KRSH &,5&$ ZLOO GLVFRQWLQXH WKLV SROLF\ RI FKDUJLQJ VWXGHQWV IRU FRPSXWHU XVH DQG DGGUHVV RWKHU PHDQV RI PHHULQJ WKHLU ILQDQFLDO QHHGV 7KH VWXGHQW ERG\ WKDQNV \RX IRU \RXU FRRSFUDGRQ LQ WKLV HIIRUW ,I \RX KDYH TXHVWLRQV RU ZRXOG OLNH IXUWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ SOHDVH FRQWDFW WKH 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH RIILFH
PAGE 105

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH -:58 32 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH )/ f H[W 6WXGHQW %RG\ 5HVROXWLRQ )D[ f :H WKH VWXGHQWV RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD KHUHE\ UHVROYH 7,7/( 6WXGHQW %RG\ 2SSRVLWLRQ WR &KDUJHV IRU $FFHVV WR &RPSXWLQJ )DFLOLWLHV DQG 5HTXHVW IRU )DFXOW\ WR )RUPDOO\ 'HFODUH &RPSXWHU $FFHVV DV (VVHQWLDO $87+25 &KDUOHV *UDSVNL &KULV 'RUZRQK 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH 3UHVLGHQW :+(5($6 6WXGHQW *RYHUQPHQW LV HVWDEOLVKHG IRU WKH H[SUHVV SXUSRVH DV VHW IRUWK LQ WKH SUHDPEOH WR WKH &RQVXWXWLRQ WR 'HYHORS EHWWHU HGXFDWLRQDO VWDQGDUGV IDFLOLWLHV DQG WHDFKLQJ PHWKRGV f3URYLGH D IRUXP IRU WKH H[SUHVVLRQV RI VWXGHQW YLHZV DQG LQWHUHVWV 0DLQWDLQ DFDGHPLF UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG VWXGHQW ULJKWV )RVWHU WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKH ULJKWV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV RI VWXGHQWV WR WKH VFKRRO WKH FRPPXQLW\ DQG KXPDQLW\ $1' :+(5($6 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SXEOLFO\ VWDWHV LQ LWV RIILFLDO &DWDORJ LQ UHIHUHQFH WR LWV f,QVXWX8RQDO 3XUSRVH WKDW WKH IDFXOW\ DQG VWDOO DUH GHGLFDWHG WR WHDFKLQJ ZKLFK WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ GHFODUHV WR EH WKH fIXQGDPHQWDO SXUSRVH RI WKH XQLYHUVLW\ $1' :+(5($6 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SXEOLFO\ VXWHV LQ LWV RIILFLDO &DWDORJ LQ UHIHUHQFH WR LWV 0LVVLRQ DQG *RDOV WKDW LWV PDP JRDO LV W@KH IRUPDWLRQ RI HGXFDWHG SHRSOH WKH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ RI PLQG WKURXJK OHDUQLQJ DQG WKH KXQFKLQJ RI D OLIHWLPH RI LQWHOOHFWXDO JURZWK $1' :+(5($6 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SXEOLFO\ VWDWHV LQ LWV RIILFLDO &DXORJ LQ UHIHUHQFH WR LWV 0LVVLRQ DQG *RDOV WKDW LW LV fD PDMRU SXEOLF FRPSUHKHQVLYH ODQGJUDQW UHVHDUFK XQLYHUVLW\f $1' :+(5($6 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SXEOLFO\ VWDWHV LQ LWV RIILFLDO &DWDORJ LQ UHIHUHQFH WR LWV 3URJUDPV WKURXJK QXPHURXV FLXWLRQV RI LWV SXEOLF VWDQGLQJ LQ WKH DFDGHPLF ZRUOG WKDW LW LV DPRQJ WKH EHVW LQVXWXXRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDXRQ LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6ODWHV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ FODLPV WKDW 8) LV RQH RI WKH QDWLRQnV WRS WKUHH XQLYHUVLWLHV $1' :+(5($6 7KH 6WDWH RI )ORULGD SXEOLFO\ VHWV IRUWK LQ )ORULGD 6WDWXWHV LWV f6WDWHPHQW RI SXUSRVH DQG PLVVLRQ IRU WKH 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 6\VWHP DQG LWV PHPEHU LQVWLWXWLRQV WKDW ff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f 7KH PLVVLRQ RI WKH VWDWH V\VWHP RI SRVWVHFRQGDU\ HGXFDXRQLV WR GHYHORS KXPDQ UHVRXUFHV WR GLVFRYHU DQG GLVVHPLQDWH NQRZOHGJH WR H[WHQG NQRZOHGJH DQG LWV DSSOLFDWLRQ EH\RQG WKH ERXQGDULHV RI LWV FDPSXVHV DQG WR VHUYH DQG VWLPXODWH VRFLHW\ E\ GHYHORSLQJ LQ VWXGHQWV KHLJKWHQHG LQWHOOHFWXDO FXOWXUDO DQG KXPDQH VHQVLWLYLWLHV VFLHQWLILF SURIHVVLRQDO DQG (RWXL 2RRRPMQLUY $IILUPLDY $PDQ L

PAGE 106

7+(5()25( %( U7 5(62/9('7KDL WKH 6WXGHQW 6HQDWH DV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH 6WXGHQW %RG\ IRUPDOO\ GHFODUHV WWV RSSRVLWLRQ WR WKH fHOHFXYH DFFHVVf SROLF\ LPSOHPHQWHG RQ EHKDOI RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD E\ &,5&$ %( ,7 )857+(5 5(62/9(' 7KDW WKH 6WXGHQW %RG\ IRUPDOO\ VWDWHV WKDr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f ZLOO EH UHTXLUHG %\ IRUPDOO\ GHFODULQJ WKH QHFHVVDU\ DQG HVVHQWLDO QDWXUH RI VXFK DFFHVV DQG RIILFLDOO\ VXEPLWWLQJ LW WR WKH 'LUHFWRU RI &,5&$ DFFRUGLQJ WR &,5&$nV SXEOLFO\ VWDWHG SROLF\ UHJDUGLQJ fHOHFXYH DFFHVVf WR FRPSXWHUV DOO VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ WKRVH FODVVHV VKDOO EH JUDQWHG DFFHVV WR 8)V FRPSXWHUV DQG FRPSXXQJ IDFLOLWLHV DW QR DGGLWLRQDO FRVW IRU WKDW VHPHVWHU &RSLHV WR 8QLYHUVLW\ 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW 6WXGHQW %RG\ 3UHVLGHQW 6WXGHQW %RG\ 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW 6WXGHQW %RG\ 7UHDVXUHU 6WXGHQW +RQRU &RXUW 3DVVHG 6%5

PAGE 107

$33(1',; % 3(50,66,21 72 86( 67$*(6 2) &21&(51 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 108

))4,, &2/ 2) e>!8&&(6+ 2)),&I80,0 2) 7( &2//(*( 2) ('8&$7,21 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) 7(;$6 $7 $867,1 2IILHW RI WKH 'HDQ f *HWLJH 6£QFKH] %XLOGLQJ f $POLQ 7ULDO ,f ‘ )$; f 1RYHPEHU &RQVWDQFH / 6KHKDQ 3K' 'LUHFWRU DQG 3URIHVVRU RI 6RFLRORJ\ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 5ROIV +DOO 32 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH )/ 'HDU 'U 6KHKDQ ZULWH LQ UHVSRQVH WR \RXU UHTXHVW RI 2FWREHU 2Q EHKDOI RI WKH FRS\ULJKW KROGHU 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DW $XVWLQ &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ JUDQWV \RX SHUPLVVLRQ WR XVH WKH 6WDJHV RI &RQFHUQ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KLV SXEOLFDWLRQ ZDV SUHSDUHG DV DQ DFWLYLW\ RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\nV &HQWHU IRU 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW LQ 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7KH &HQWHU ORVW WKHLU IHGHUDO IXQGLQJ RYHU HLJKW \HDUV DJR DQG LV QR ORQJHU LQ RSHUDWLRQ :LWK UHJDUG WR FUHGLWV SOHDVH LQFOXGH WKH DSSURSULDWH FRS\ULJKW QRWLFH &HQWHU IRU 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW LQ 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DW $XVWLQf RQ GXSOLFDWHV RI WKH LQVWUXPHQWV DQG RWKHUZLVH XVH WKH FUHGLW IRUPDO VWDQGDUG IRU DFDGHPLF SXEOLFDWLRQV $GPLQLVWUDWLYH $VVRFLDWH UO

PAGE 109

$33(1',; & ,167,787,21$/ 5(9,(: %2$5' $33529$/

PAGE 110

6? 81,9(56,7< 2) n)/25,'$ 3V\FKRORJ\ %OGJ 32 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH )/ 3KRQH f )D[ f ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG 'HFHPEHU 72 )520 6XH $QQH 7RPV 151 G\ & 0LFKDHO /HY\ &KDLU ? Y Y 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG ?M 68%-(&7 $SSURYDO RI 3URMHFW mA ,QVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH LQWHUQHW VWDJHV RI FRQFHUQ DPRQJ 8) IDFXOW\ )XQGLQJ 8QIXQGHG DP SOHDVHG WR DGYLVH \RX WKDW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HYLHZ %RDUG KDV UHFRPPHQGHG DSSURYDO RI WKLV SURMHFW %DVHG RQ LWV UHYLHZ RI \RXU SURWRFRO WKH 8),5% GHWHUPLQHG WKDW WKLV UHVHDUFK SUHVHQWV QR PRUH WKDQ PLQLPDO ULVN WR SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG EDVHG RQ &)5 Ff DXWKRUL]HV \RX WR DGPLQLVWHU WQH LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW SURFHVV DV VSHFLILHG LQ WKH DWWDFKHG GHVFULSWLRQ ,I \RX ZLVK WR PDNH DQ\ FKDQJHV LQ WKLV SURWRFRO \RX PXVW GLVFORVH \RXU SODQV EHIRUH \RX LPSOHPHQW WKHP VR WKW WKH %RDUG FDQ DVVHVV WKHLU LPSDFW RQ \RXU SURMHFW ,Q DGGLWLRQ \RX PXVW UHSRQ WR WKH %RDUG DQ\ XQH[SHFWHG FRPSOLFDWLRQV DULVLQJ IURP WKH SURMHFW ZKLFK DIIHFW \RXU SDQLFLSDQWV ,I \RX KDYH QRW FRPSOHWHG WKLV SURMHFW E\ 'HFHPEHU SOHDVH WHOHSKRQH RXU RIILFH f DQG ZH ZLOO WHOO \RX KRZ WR REWDLQ D UHQHZDO ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WKDW \RX NHHS \RXU 'HSDQPHQW &KDLU LQIRUPHG DERXW WKH VWDWXV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK SURMHFW &0/K FF 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW IRU 5HVHDUFK 'U &OHPHQV +DOOPDQ (LIXDO 2SSRUUXU

PAGE 111

$33(1',; 67$*(6 2) &21&(51 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 112

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n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f WKURXJKRXW WKRVH QHWZRUNV DQG FDSDELOLWLHV IRU HOHFWURQLF PDLO DQG ILOH WUDQVIHU ,QVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHD XVH HLWKHU UHTXLUHG RU RSWLRQDOf WR VXSSRUW FODVVURRP URXWLQHV HJ FRXUVH DQQRXQFHPHQWV GLVWULEXWLQJ KDQGRXWV VHQGLQJ RU UHFHLYLQJ DVVLJQPHQWV UHVHDUFK IRU WHUP SURMHFWV
PAGE 113

3/($6( 7(// 86 $%287 <2856(/) b :KDW SHUFHQW WLPH DUH \RX WHDFKLQJ WKLV VHPHVWHU" $UH \RX ZRUNLQJ 3DUWWLPH )XOOWLPH :KDW LV \RXU JHQGHU" 0DOH )HPDOH +RZ ROG DLUH \RX" :KDW LV \RXU UDQN" ,QVWUXFWRU/HFWXUHU 3RVWGRF $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU 3URIHVVRU 2WKHU SOHDVH VSHFLI\f :KLFK W\SH RI IDFXOW\ OLQH DUH \RX RQ" 7HQXUH WUDFN 1RQWHQXUH WUDFN +RZ PDQ\ \HDUV LQFO WKLV RQHf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
PAGE 114

$UH \RX FXUUHQWO\ LQ WKH ILUVW RU VHFRQG \HDU RI XVH RI VRPH RWKHU PDMRU LQQRYDWLRQ RU SURJUDP" 1R
PAGE 115

R L ,UUHOHYDQW 1RW WUXH f 6RPHZKDW WUXH RI PH QRZ 9HU\ WUXH RI PH QRZ DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW KRZ LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW DIIHFWV VWXGHQWV f DP QRW FRQFHUQHG DERXW XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV f ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ ZKR ZLOO PDNH WKH GHFLVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ f ZRXOG OLNH WR GLVFXVV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV f ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ ZKDW UHVRXUFHV DUH DYDLODEOH LI ZH GHFLGH WR DGRSW LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW f DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW P\ LQDELOLW\ WR PDQDJH DOO WKDW LQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH UHTXLUHV f ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ KRZ P\ WHDFKLQJ RU DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LV VXSSRVHG WR FKDQJH f ZRXOG OLNH WR IDPLOLDUL]H RWKHU GHSDUWPHQWV RU SHUVRQV ZLWK RXU SURJUHVV LQ XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW f DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW HYDOXDWLQJ P\ LPSDFW RQ VWXGHQWV f ZRXOG OLNH WR UHYLVH WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO DSSURDFK WR XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW f DP FRPSOHWHO\ RFFXSLHG ZLWK RWKHU WKLQJV f ZRXOG OLNH WR PRGLI\ RXU LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW EDVHG RQ WKH H[SHULHQFHV RI RXU VWXGHQWV f $OWKRXJK GRQnW NQRZ DERXW LQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW LVVXHV LQ WKLV DUHD f ZRXOG OLNH WR H[FLWH P\ VWXGHQWV DERXW WKHLU SDUW LQ XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV f DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW WLPH VSHQW ZRUNLQJ ZLWK QRQDFDGHPLF SUREOHPV UHODWHG WR XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV f ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ ZKDW LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW ZLOO UHTXLUH LQ WKH LPPHGLDWH IXWXUH @ ZRXOG OLNH WR FRRUGLQDWH P\ HIIRUW ZLWK RWKHUV WR PD[LPL]H WKH HIIHFWV RI LQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH f QHHG PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WLPH DQG HQHUJ\ FRPPLWPHQWV UHTXLUHG E\ LQVWUXFWLRQDO ,QWHUQHW XVH 3URFHGXUHV IRU $GRSWLQJ (GXFDWLRQDO ,QQRYDWLRQV&%$0 3URMHFW +$' &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DW $XVWLQ &RS\ULJKW 5HSULQWHG ZLWK SHUPLVVLRQ

PAGE 116

,UUHOHYDQW 1RW WUXH 6RPHZKDW WUXH RI PH QRZ 9HU\ WUXH RI PH QRZ f ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ ZKDW RWKHU IDFXOW\ DUH GRLQJ LQ WKLV DUHD f $W WKLV WLPH DP QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ OHDUQLQJ DERXW XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV f ZRXOG OLNH WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ WR VXSSOHPHQW HQKDQFH RU UHSODFH LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW f ZRXOG OLNH WR XVH IHHGEDFN IURP VWXGHQWV WR FKDQJH XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQ f ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ KRZ P\ UROH ZLOO FKDQJH ZKHQ DP XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUQHW IRU LQVWUXFWLRQDO SXUSRVHV f &RRUGLQDWLQJ WDVNVSHRSOH WDNHV WRR PXFK RI P\ WLPH f ZRXOG OLNH WR NQRZ KRZ LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW LV EHWWHU WKDQ ZKDW ZH DUH GRLQJ QRZ 3URFHGXUHV IRU $GRSWLQJ (GXFDWLRQDO ,QQRYDWLRQV&%$0 3URMHFW 5$' &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DW $XVWLQ &RS\ULJKW 5HSULQWHG ZLWK SHUPLVVLRQ
PAGE 117

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
PAGE 118

$33(1',; ) /(77(5 2) 75$160,77$/ ),567 0$,/,1* 2) 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 119

: )/25,'$ 81,9(56,7< 2) 8QLYHUVLW\ &HQWHU IRU ([FHOOHQFH LQ 7HDFKLQJ 5ROIV +DOO 32 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH )/ f )D[ f -DQXDU\ n0HZ $UHD &RGr  7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ &HQWHU IRU ([FHOOHQFH LQ 7HDFKLQJ LV XQGHUWDNLQJ D VXUYH\ WR FROOHFW GDWD RQ IDFXOW\ GHYHORSPHQW FRQFHUQV DQG QHHGV IRU XVH LQ SURJUDPPLQJ LWV DFWLYLWLHV LQ WKH FRPLQJ \HDUV $V D PHPEHU RI WKH IDFXOW\ GXULQJ 6SULQJ 6HPHVWHU \RXU LQSXW LV HVVHQWLDO 3OHDVH FRPSOHWH WKH HQFORVHG TXHVWLRQQDLUH (VWLPDWHG WLPH UHTXLUHG LV PLQXWHV
PAGE 120

$33(1',; /(77(5 2) 75$160,77$/ )2//2:83 0$,/,1* 2) 48(67,211$,5(

PAGE 121

b 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ 8QLYHUVLW\ &HQWHU IRU ([FHOOHQFH LQ 7HDFKLQJ 5ROIV +DOO 32 %R[ *DLQHVYLOOH ), f )D[ f )HEUXDU\ $ERXW D PRQWK DJR ZH PDLOHG \RX D TXHVWLRQQDLUH IRU WKH VWXG\ RI IDFXOW\ FRQFHUQV DQG GHYHORSPHQW QHHGV HVSHFLDOO\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR LQVWUXFWLRQDO XVH RI WKH ,QWHUQHW ,Q FDVH WKH ILUVW FRS\ ZDV ORVW ZH KDYH HQFORVHG DQRWKHU ZLWK WKLV OHWWHU
PAGE 122

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 6XH $QQH 7RPV ZDV ERUQ LQ 0DQVILHOG 2KLR DQG JUHZ XS LQ &ROXPEXV ZKHUH VKH DWWHQGHG 7KH 2KLR 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG HDUQHG D %DFKHORU RI 6FLHQFH GHJUHH LQ HGXFDWLRQ 6KH DOVR KROGV D 0DVWHU RI $UWV LQ (QJOLVK DV D IRUHLJQ ODQJXDJH IURP 6RXWKHUQ ,OOLQRLV 8QLYHUVLW\ $ VSHDNHU RI HLJKW ODQJXDJHV VKH KDV WUDYHOHG WR RYHU FRXQWULHV VWXGLHG LQ 0H[LFR DQG OLYHG DQG ZRUNHG LQ 6SDLQ 3RODQG 3XHUWR 5LFR WKH 3HRSOHnV 5HSXEOLF RI &KLQD DQG 7KDLODQG 6KH KDV KHOG WZR )XOEULJKWV RQH LQ WKH IRUPHUf
PAGE 123

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ &OHPHQV / +DOOPDQ &KDLU 3URIHVVRU RI ,QVWUXFWLRQ DQG &XUULFXOXP FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ UAO6}f§ -SMHV $ 3URIHVVRU LRQV RI (GXFDWLRQ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHHAEI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ ILFKDU£ 'RZQLH /HFWXUHU RI &RXQVHORU (GXFDWLRQ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKHHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 6HEDVWLDQ / )RWL $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI ,QVWUXFWLRQ DQG &XUULFXOXP

PAGE 124

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $XJXVW 'GDQ &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 125

/' A 7 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EZT5NRG36_CFOWMJ INGEST_TIME 2013-11-15T22:29:49Z PACKAGE AA00014241_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF THE INTERNET:
STAGES OF CONCERN AMONG FACULTY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
By
SUE ANNE TOMS
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1997

This work is dedicated to the memory of
Ray Edward Toms (1922-1969) and of
Tawat Chotigeat (1921-1975).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any project of this magnitude is not executed as a solo
effort, but rather it represents the contribution of many to
its success. To those below, I offer my most heartfelt
appreciation:
Dr. Clemens L. Hallman, whom I have known since 1986
and who shared his enthusiasm about this project early on in
the process, for his continual support and encouragement.
Dr. Sebastian L. Foti, who always had the time to
listen and share his thoughts, even when he knew me as no
more than a stranger when I first arrived on campus, and who
demonstrated his unfailing loyalty throughout the course of
my studies.
Dr. James J. Algina for his kind guidance and endless
patience as I attempted to gain some mastery of statistical
analysis which includes skills similar to those of learning
a foreign language—holding many rules in mind
simultaneously.
Dr. Richard D. Downie for his assurance and the wisdom
of his many years on this campus and in the field of
international education.
iii

Dr. Constance L. Shehan for showing early on her
willingness to encourage this undertaking and for offering
the resources of the University Center for Excellence in
Teaching in support of this project.
Tosporn Chotigeat for not wanting me to go but not
wanting to hold me back either and for understanding why I
wanted to do this.
Ruth Evelyn Bishop Toms King for always telling me that
I could do anything that I set my mind to.
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Need for the Study 2
Current Changes in Institutions
of Higher Education 2
Teaching During These Changes 4
The Institutional Context 7
Research Questions 10
Limitations and Assumptions 10
Definition of Terms 11
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14
Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations 15
Beginning Teacher Concerns 16
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model 18
Stages of Concern 19
Non-concern 20
Self 21
Task 21
Impact 21
Levels of Use 22
Innovation Configuration 24
Intervention Taxonomy and
Intervention Anatomy 25
Change Facilitator Stages of Concern and
Questionnaire 25
Models Incorporating the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model 26
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire 29
v

Development of the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire 30
Psychometric Properties 31
The Demographic Data Page 33
Instructional Use of the Internet
in Higher Education 37
Summary 41
3 RESEARCH DESIGN 43
Study Design/Procedures 43
Variables 44
Sample 44
Instrumentation 46
Development of the Questionnaire 46
Reliability/Validity 47
Description of the Questionnaire 48
Data Collection 56
Data Analysis 59
Summary 60
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 62
Research Questions 62
Variables 63
Findings 64
Descriptive Statistics 64
Correlational Relationships 70
Regression Analysis 73
Research Question 1 73
Research Question 2 75
Research Question 3 76
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 78
Summary 78
Findings 82
Implications 83
Recommendations for Further Research 84
REFERENCES 86
APPENDICES
A STUDENT SENATE PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO ALL UF
FACULTY 93
vi

B PERMISSION TO USE STAGES OF CONCERN
QUESTIONNAIRE 97
C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 99
D STAGES OF CONCERN QUESTIONNAIRE 101
E TEXT OF INITIAL MAILING 106
F LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL: FIRST MAILING OF
QUESTIONNAIRE 108
G LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL: FOLLOW-UP MAILING OF
QUESTIONNAIRE 110
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ill
vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1 Demographic profile of the respondents 61
2 Peak stage of concern 66
3 Levels of use of the Internet 67
4 How much teaching is modified based on
student learning 68
5 Rank, gender, and national origin of
respondents 69
6 Intercorrelations between peak stage of
concern and other variables 71
7 Summary of multiple regression for
variables predicting peak stage of
concern 74
viii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF THE INTERNET:
STAGES OF CONCERN AMONG FACULTY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
By
Sue Anne Toms
August 1997
Chairman: Clemens L. Hallman
Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum
This descriptive correlational study explored the
patterns in the stages of concern of the faculty at the
University of Florida regarding the innovation adoption of
the Internet for instructional purposes. Recent
technological developments in computers and
telecommunications, especially in access to the storage and
transfer of vast quantities of information, have included
many possibilities for direct application to university
classrooms.
Three research questions were posed. What are the
relationships of the level of Internet use for instructional
purposes and the level of Internet use for all other
purposes to the sequence of stages of concern? Are there
IX

significant differences in the peak stages of concern of the
faculty members grouped by the extent to which they modify
their instructional practices based on how or what students
learn? Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model provided the
theoretical framework for the study. Made up of several
dimensions, CBAM's seven stages of concern represent a
developmental sequence through which an individual passes
when confronted with change or innovation. The stages range
from non-concern (Awareness), to self (Information,
Personal), task (Management), and impact concerns
(Consequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing).
During Spring 1997 the Stages of Concern Questionnaire
was mailed to 1,650 faculty members within ten colleges at
the University of Florida. The final sample contained 540
responses, a return rate of 33%. The data were analyzed
using correlational and regression techniques.
Findings included significant correlations between the
peak or most intense stage of concern and level of use of
the Internet for instructional purposes, level of use of the
Internet for all other purposes, and attention to how
students learn. However, the multiple regression model
produced only two significant predictors of peak stage of
x

concern:
purposes
level of use of the Internet for instructional
and gender.
xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The history of modern education is littered with
the trash of technology left behind by unrealistic
purchases, naive users, and vendors working on a
quota system. (Polley, 1977, cited in Albright,
1996, p. 2)
Statement of the Problem
This quantitative study explored the patterns in the
needs thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the University
of Florida faculty as manifested in their stages of concern
regarding the innovation adoption of the Internet for
instructional purposes. The sources of the problem are
several. The first involves the trend of traditional brick-
and-mortar colleges and universities investigating novel
modes of instructional delivery facilitated by recent
technological developments in computers and
telecommunications. Another stems from the customary
approach to faculty development within these organizations,
one which seldom considers at the level of the individual
the psychological orientation which occurs with expectations
for incorporation of these technological changes into their
daily teaching lives. Finally, the need originates in the
1

2
current tensions at universities across the nation between
incoming students' increasing levels of technological
sophistication and their demands for access to computers and
networked resources to supplement and enhance their own
learning. These tensions place unprecedented strains on
ever tighter budgets.
Need for the Study
Current Changes in Institutions of Higher Education
The innovation central to this study, use of the
Internet for instructional purposes, stands poised to
complement substantially the primacy of the model of higher
learning which has prevailed for many centuries in the
Western world. The rise of monasteries as centers of
learning produced the classroom model as we now know it.
Classrooms where an expert gathered with students and talked
to them to transmit knowledge represent the oral, pre-print
tradition (Warnock, 1996). Same time/same place for teacher
and student was the requirement in this transmission model
of teaching and learning.
The advent of the printing press brought about
repositories of knowledge in the form of libraries where
information could be stored through time on the substrate of
paper. Thus, students were able to learn from the written

3
works of past (even deceased) scholars, but they still had
to adhere to the 'same place' requirement, gathering where
these libraries were located. Knowledge transmission
continued to dominate.
In the present age, both time and place are losing
their importance. The availability and distribution of
information and with it knowledge are changing drastically.
The Internet represents a new medium for the storage and
transfer of information, both without the customary
substrate of paper (Warnock, 1996). Sources of information
distributed throughout networks accessible more widely than
ever before are becoming the norm.
Full realization of all that this means to the world of
students, scholars, and researchers will not be achieved for
some time to come. Nevertheless, the present represents a
key moment in the evolution of the spread of knowledge, the
likes of which have not been seen for many hundreds of
years. This is not to say that the current paradigm will be
replaced any time soon nor that it will ever disappear. One
fact is unarguable, however; new features will be added. As
the president of Harvard recently mused, "The world of
learning will not become lost in cyberspace, I suspect, any
more than it has drowned in books" (Rudenstine, 1997, p.
A48) .

4
Teaching During These Changes
The process of "becoming a teacher is complex,
stressful, intimate, and largely covert" (Fuller & Brown,
1975, p. 75). College professors participate in this
process and find all of the above amplified. Furthermore,
the process is compounded for those who are expected to keep
abreast of changes in the teaching of their disciplines and
who are interested in incorporating what adoption of
instructional innovation offers.
The individuals in the front lines of instructional
innovation or change at post-secondary institutions, that is
the teaching faculty, are seldom trained in any systematic
way to become members of the professorate. They may have
taught as graduate students, but they usually have chosen a
career in the academic world due to an affinity for their
content area or for research. Those who feel a commitment
to teaching well and express an interest in improving their
teaching skills can typically avail themselves of the campus
resources at hand. Among the options at the University of
Florida is the University Center for Excellence in Teaching.
UCET's primary mission is to assure access to the
resources needed for teaching by both new and established
faculty. Its major functions include supplying new faculty
with "orientation, instruction, and consultation about
teaching and learning" (Shehan, 1994, p. 1). To this end,

5
its Advisory Board members act as consultants or partners to
new faculty to facilitate development of their teaching
styles and philosophies (Shehan, 1994).
In addition, another charge of UCET is to "[f]acilitate
the continuing development of tenured faculty as teachers"
(Shehan, 1995, p. 4) The center offers information about
developments related to teaching at the higher education
level through its Conversations about Teaching series and
the Focus on Teaching annual workshops. Finally, UCET
contributes to the preparation of graduate students for
their roles as future educators (Shehan, 1995, p. 4) .
Two examples of the application of instructional uses
of the Internet advocated by UCET are found in a recent
issue of the center's newsletter in an article on teaching
large classes. The author offers eight suggestions, among
them encouraging others to "[d]evelop a homepage so that
students can get important information from there rather
than calling you" and "[ejncourage the use of e-mail as a
way for students to get their questions answered. That way
you can respond at your convenience and save time"
(Schwartz, 1996, p. 2).
Although prominent among the topics recently offered in
UCET activities are diversity in the classroom and dealing
with individual differences in learning styles, Loucks and

6
Hall (1977) make the valid point that when teachers or
faculty are trained in some new instructional innovation,
they are often not treated as diverse individuals themselves
(p. 18). Faculty development is seldom carried out on the
basis of the needs and concerns of the faculty. For staff
developers whose clients teach across a myriad of
disciplines, in class groups of from 7 to 700, to students
who are fresh on the university scene or those who may have
been there nearly a decade, making instructional
interventions relevant is indeed a challenge.
This study speaks directly to this need. It yields
concerns data collected at the level of the individual
regarding adoption of the innovation of using the Internet
for instructional purposes using the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire, part of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model.
The model was devised to depict "the process of change in
terms of the individuals involved" (Loucks & Hall, 1977, p.
18). Hall and Loucks (1978) list the six basic assumptions
that underlie the model: (1) rather than an event, change is
a process; (2) facilitating change involves the individual
as the "primary target"; (3) change occurs at a very
personal level; (4) the change process occurs along a
pathway marked by stages in both thoughts and skills; (5)
interventions by staff developers are most effective when
they focus on the client and follow a "diagnostic/

7
prescriptive model"; and (6) the effectiveness of staff
development will depend on constant diagnostic input and on
systematic adaptation of the intervention as well as of the
innovation itself (pp. 37-38).
Within the CBfiM structure are found basic frames of
reference, of which the concerns dimension is one. Concerns
have been defined as "perceptions, feelings, and
motivations" (Hall & Loucks, 1978, p. 39) which beset an
individual faced with change. Interventions based on
individuals' concerns not only facilitate the process of
adoption of an innovation, they also increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of the adoption and decrease
the trauma of the change for the individual. In short,
information on individuals' stages of concerns provides a
powerful tool for improving staff development interventions.
The Institutional Context
The final source of the problem at hand involves the
context within which the study was set. Two principal
factors constitute the pertinence of the study's outcomes to
the conditions regarding adoption of the Internet for
instructional purposes at the University of Florida.
The first of these factors revolves around the student-
driven movement to assure the accustomed access to and use
of the Internet without students incurring additional costs.

8
Until spring semester 1996 all UF students (even members of
the general public) had access to computer labs on campus
and to the full range of applications and networking offered
without charge. Starting with that semester, however,
undergraduate students were assessed a charge of $20 for
maintenance of an account which included basic Internet
access (they still could use word-processing, spreadsheet
and database applications free of charge). At that point,
the administration made a distinction between what was
considered essential computer access and what was considered
elective, a dichotomy with which the student body could not
agree.
The uproar caused by the imposition of the fee finally
resulted in a November 19, 1996, letter from the UF Student
Senate President to all faculty including the full text of a
resolution passed unanimously by the Senate expressing the
students' view: "the use of computers as an essential,
rather than elective, element of fulfilling educational
goals" (C. E. Dorworth, communication, November 19, 1996).
In addition, the letter went on to ask that all faculty
include the following in the syllabus for each course they
teach:

9
It is the formal policy of this class that in
order to fully and properly fulfill the
requirements of this course some use of and
proficiency in the use of computers, including
access to and use of the Internet (e-mail and
World Wide Web), will be required. (C. E.
Dorworth, communication, November 19, 1996)
Clearly, adoption of the innovation of the Internet for
learning purposes among the students represented by their
Student Senate had out paced the ability of the
administration to provide access to it within the given
budgetary constraints. (For full text of letter and
resolution, see Appendix A.)
The tensions fueled by student demands on limited
resources were not unique to the University of Florida
campus; they were also apparent at the level of the (state)
Board of Regents during the fall of 1996 and into 1997.
Despite student protest and after debating proposals as high
as $100, at their meeting on January 24, 1997, the Board
approved a recommendation that the legislature vote to
assess a technology fee of $50 per student throughout the
State University System (Malernee, 1997). This represents a
potential inflow of approximately $2,000,000 in the
technology budget for the University of Florida. Making a
contribution to a well-informed decision on allocation of
this money to avoid the "trash of technology left behind by
. . . naive users" (Polley, 1977, cited in Albright, 1996,

10
p. 2) , as mentioned at the outset, represents the second
factor in the significance of the outcomes and the single
greatest need for this study.
Research Questions
What are the concerns regarding adoption of the
Internet for instructional purposes among the faculty at the
University of Florida? To explore this question, the
following were answered:
(1) What are the relationships of the level of Internet
use for instructional purposes and the level of Internet use
for all other purposes to the sequence of stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
Limitations and Assumptions
The findings offer a one-time view of a dynamic
process—the respondents' moves through the developmental
stages of concern about an innovation. The subjects were
instructional faculty affiliated with an academic unit
within the ten college-level units which offer undergraduate

11
education at a large southeastern U.S. research university.
Generalizibility is limited to those who completed the
survey.
The data were collected on a survey undertaken by the
University Center for Excellence in Teaching. The quantity
and quality of the responses may be influenced by this fact.
Those who have had experience with and benefitted from UCET-
sponsored activities may have been more likely to reply.
Since response to the questionnaire was voluntary,
response rates may have been higher among those with a
higher-than-representative degree of interest in and/or
experience with use of the Internet for instructional
purposes.
The results reflected the respondents' honest concerns
and are valid to the extent that the respondents share the
definitions of the terms used with those of the researcher.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following
definitions have been used:
The Internet is an international network linking
smaller networks; it includes electronic mail and file
transfer capabilities, as well as access to information
(text, graphics, audio, video) throughout those networks
(Oblinger, 1992).

12
Instructional purpose refers to a use (either required
or optional) to support classroom routines, e.g., course
announcements, distributing hand-outs, sending or receiving
assignments, and research for term projects.
Concern is the mental construct represented by an
individual's feelings, preoccupations, thoughts, and
considerations directed at a specific task to be
accomplished or an issue to be resolved. This definition
follows that developed by Hall et al. (1979).
Stages of concern constitute a sequential set through
which a person passes when confronted with change.
Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCO) is an instrument
with thirty-five Likert-type items yielding scores on seven
subscales to measure the intensities of concern of educators
about the adoption of an educational innovation (Hall et
al., 1979).
Peak stage of concern is that stage with the highest
score and thus the most intense concern. A given individual
may exhibit varying levels of concern on the multiple items
measuring within the same stage, but an overall score for
each stage will show the stage of greatest intensity. In
the event of equal scores on two or more stages, the stage
furthest forward on the continuum, and thus in the process
of adoption innovation, was used.

13
Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a conceptual
framework for understanding how individuals in educational
settings react to change. It posits that change is a
process, that it occurs at the level of the individual and
should therefore be measured at that level, and that
individuals confronted with change pass through a
developmental sequence of stages of concern as they adopt
that change. The stages of concern are one dimension of the
model (Hall et al., 1973).
Faculty refers to those persons employed at the
University of Florida during spring semester 1997 who are
remunerated as faculty within one of the following ten
college-level units: Architecture, Business Administration,
Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Health and Human
Performance, Health Professions, the Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, Journalism and Communications, and
Liberal Arts.
Foreign faculty are those of the above group who are
not native-born American citizens. They may be naturalized
American citizens, permanent residents, or holders of a visa
which permits them to work in the United States.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review for this study opens with a
summary of the findings of the two antecedents to the
theoretical framework central to it—research on the
adoption and diffusion of innovations and on beginning
teachers' concerns. It then turns to the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model, explaining its various dimensions and
tracing the development of the first one, Stages of Concern.
Examples of models which have incorporated the CBAM are
given. The review continues with a close look at the survey
instrument which measures the first dimension, the Stages of
Concern Questionnaire, including how it was developed and
its psychometric properties. This is followed by a review
of the literature concerning the variables captured on the
demographic page which makes up part of the instrument used
for this study. Finally, the research on current practices
of using the Internet for instructional purposes in higher
education settings is reviewed.
14

15
Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations
Within the vast body of research and theory on
innovation adoption, of direct relevance to this study is
the work of Everett Rogers. By synthesizing the findings
and theories from over 500 publications in his 1962 work
Diffusion of Innovations, he made a lasting contribution to
this area and significantly added to what is known about
adoption of an innovation.
The basic elements of diffusion of any innovation are
(a) the innovation, (b) its communication from one
individual to another, ( c) the social system, and (d) a
period of time (Rogers, 1962, p. 12). While diffusion
operates at the level of the social system or across
systems, adoption as a process does so at the level of the
individual. Rogers (1962) defines adoption as "the mental
process through which an individual passes from first
hearing about an innovation to final adoption" (p. 17).
Rogers segmented the adoption process into five stages:
awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption.
Through these five stages, the individual moves from a point
of random exposure to the innovation, to actively seeking
information about it, weighing its possible benefits, trying
it out on a limited basis, and finally adopting it.
Although rejection may truncate the process at any stage,

16
the outcome of the fourth stage (trial) is crucial to moving
to the final stage (pp. 81-86).
Rogers also typified adopters by the sequence in which
they adopt an innovation and their salient characteristics.
He termed those at the lead in the process "innovators" who
are venturesome; the next group are called "early adopters"
and are respected by others; the following "early majority"
are deliberate; the "late majority" are skeptics; and the
final "laggards" are traditional (Rogers, 1962, pp. 168-
171) .
Beginning Teacher Concerns
Central to Frances Fuller's research (1969) was an
exploration of the mental processes of an individual who is
confronted with change manifested in the demands of learning
to practice a future profession. Her pioneering studies on
undergraduate education majors dealing with the mismatch
between (a) their own motivation to learn and (b) the
content and sequence of the academic courses that teacher
educators had deemed appropriate and necessary for them
(1969) have made a lasting contribution.
To improve the match between learner goals and teacher
preparation programs, more information was needed about the
concerns of future teachers. An analysis of previous
studies about beginning teachers' concerns revealed

17
surprisingly consistent patterns, although missing were
concerns over the topics covered in the typical
undergraduate teacher-training curriculum (Fuller, 1969, pp.
208-210).
During counseling sessions with student teachers in
Fuller's first study, two categories of concerns emerged:
those with the self and those with pupils. Furthermore, the
preponderance of topics in the two categories was not
scattered about randomly during the eleven weeks of
counseling sessions, but rather a developmental pattern from
self to pupils was uncovered. In her second study, written
responses to open-ended concerns statements with student
teachers lent validity to the self-other dichotomy and its
sequential attribute. By reviewing findings of previous
studies through this 'dichotomous' lens, as well as by
looking at (then) contemporary unpublished data from
colleagues, Fuller found further support for the two
categories and their developmental nature (1969).
Attempts to categorize the "amorphous and vague"
responses about concerns from education majors before their
student teaching experience, i.e., during their sophomore
and junior years, proved more elusive (Fuller, 1969, p.
219). As a result, a pre-teaching phase with non-concern
was added at the front of the two-phase developmental model

18
of teacher concerns conceptualized as self—>other. Among
the implications for further research, Fuller questions the
validity of generalization to other groups, including
college professors, and the feasibility of developing an
instrument for measuring concerns, thus opening the way to
her successors.
The timelessness of Fuller's findings is demonstrated
by the appearance of articles decades later exploring the
development of professors' careers as teachers. Kugel
(1993) proposes three major stages that professors move
through as they hone their teaching abilities. The first
centers on the self, the second on the subject matter at
hand, and the third on the student. The parallel between
such a model and the self—>other model of Fuller is
evident.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model
While the legacy left by Rogers's work was much
knowledge in understanding innovation diffusion and adoption
at the level of social interaction and that of Fuller was a
glance into the motivation, thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions of beginning teachers, the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model or CBAM developed by Gene Hall and his
associates had as its mission "the study of what happens to
the individual classroom teacher and professor involved in

19
change" (Hall, 1976, p. 22). The CBAM, in conjunction with
the Procedures for Adopting Educational Innovations Project
at The Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, University of Texas, addresses innovation
adoption within an educational setting not as an event, but
rather as a long-term process from the perspectives of the
individual, the organization, and the innovation (Hall et
al., 1975; Loucks & Hall, 1977). Goals of the model include
describing developmental changes in individuals as they move
through the process and effective intervention strategies
which can facilitate that movement. The basic diagnostic
frame of reference in the model includes the dimensions of
(a) the concerns that users have prior to and during
adoption of an innovation (Stages of Concern), (b) the way
in which the innovation is actually used (Levels of Use),
and ( c) how the innovation itself adapts to the exigencies
of the adopters (Innovation Configuration). In addition,
the fourth component prescribes intervention parameters to
facilitate the change process (Intervention Taxonomy and
Intervention Anatomy) (Hord & Loucks, 1980).
Stages of Concern
The CBAM project identified seven stages of concern
about an innovation (SoC). These stages expand on those
first proposed by Fuller and are grouped into self, task,

20
and impact concerns. Concerns are considered to be
manifestations of what an individual involved in the change
process is feeling, a construct referring "to the
categorization of expressions stated by the user related to
his use of the innovation" (Hall et al., 1973, p. 14).
Originally, the seven stages of concern were described as
(0) unaware, (1) awareness, (2) exploration, (3) early
trial, (4) limited impact, (5) maximum benefit, and (6)
renewal (Hall et al., 1973). Whereas the original works had
identified the concerns of preservice teachers, Hall (1976)
presents findings derived from a study that included
inservice teachers and professors in college settings.
Additional research resulted in defining the concerns more
precisely, developing a measurement of the stages of
concern, and testing the concerns across innovations (Hall &
Rutherford, 1976; Hall et al., 1977). Additional
applications of the concerns model to the change process are
reported among university administrators, state education
agency officials, and those working in the private sector
(Hall, 1979, 1985). Refined definitions of the stages of
concern (from Hall et al., 1979 [original concept from Hall
et al., 1973]) are given as
Non-concern—0 Awareness. Little concern about or
involvement with the innovation is indicated.

21
Self—1 Informational. A general awareness of the
Innovation and interest in learning more detail about it is
indicated. The person seems to be unworried about
himself/herself in relation to the innovation. S/he is
interested in substantive aspects of the innovation in a
selfless manner such as general characteristics, effects,
and requirements for use.
2 Personal. Individual is uncertain about the demands
of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those
demands, and his/her role with the innovation. This
includes analysis of his/her role in relation to the reward
structure of the organization, decision making, and
consideration of potential conflicts with existing
structures or personal commitment. Financial or status
implications of the program for self and colleagues may also
be reflected.
Task—3 Management. Attention is focused on the
processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best use
of information and resources. Issues related to efficiency,
organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands are
utmost.
Impact—4 Consequence. Attention focuses on impact of
the innovation on student in his/her immediate sphere of
influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for
students, evaluation of student outcomes, including

22
performance and competencies, and changes needed to increase
student outcomes.
5 Collaboration. The focus is on coordination and
cooperation with others regarding use of the innovation.
6 Refocusing. The focus is on exploration of more
universal benefits from the innovation, including the
possibility of major changes or replacement with a more
powerful alternative. Individual has definite ideas about
alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the
innovation.
Levels of Use
The second diagnostic component of the CRAM, levels of
use of the innovation, explains actual behaviors of the
innovation user without regard to such affective variables
as attitudes, motivation, or needs (those which are central
to the stages of concern) (Hall et al., 1975, p. 52). In
the broadest sense, stages of concern move from self to task
to impact whereas levels of use follow an orienting to
managing to integrating path (Loucks S Hall, 1977). The
eight levels of use describe the behaviors of the user (as
opposed to the feelings of the stages of concern) ranging
from non-use to orientation, preparation, mechanical use,
routine, refinement, integration, and renewal (Hall et al.,

23
1975; Loucks & Hall, 1977). These levels have been compared
to those passed through by a person learning to drive an
automobile (Hall & Hord, 1987, pp. 17-18). Assessment of
individuals' stages of concern and levels of use is
considered essential to choosing appropriate modes of
intervention in order to maximize the effectiveness and
efficiency of the change process and minimize the trauma of
that process on the individual. Interventions must be
coordinated with adopters' levels of use to be of maximum
benefit (Hall et al., 1975, p. 56). In addition, multiple
cycles of use make up the innovation adoption process and
intervention support must fall across these cycles.
Hall and Hord (1984) discuss the complex relationship
between stages of concern and levels of use, stating that at
the two extremes there seems to be a positive, linear
relationship, i.e. an individual whose peak stage of concern
falls at or near either extreme of the seven-unit SoC
continuum will tend to also be at or near that same extreme
level of use on the eight-unit LoU continuum. The
relationship between the two dimensions for those who fall
in the middle on one or both, nevertheless, is much less
clear. The overall hypothesized relationship follows an
elongated S-curve where "at early points in the change
process, use tends to 'drive' concerns, and at later points,

24
aroused concerns push Levels of Use" (Hall & Hord, 1984, p.
338) .
Innovation Configuration
The third diagnostic dimension of the CHAM model
involves clarifying and operationalizing what use of the
innovation in its intended setting means (Hall & Loucks,
1981). The Innovation Configuration acknowledges an
interaction between the innovation user and the innovation
itself. By means of a checklist, it assesses user patterns
from among the components a user may or may not choose to
adopt. Each individual has a unique 'fingerprint' which
shows the pattern of that person's encounter with the
innovation. It will include the components selected, their
organization, and their variations (Yessayan, 1991).
Implications for change facilitators are clear; once
acceptable components and variations have been identified,
guiding users along the path of adoption is greatly
simplified. In addition, adopters evaluate their progress
and gauge the distance left to complete the change process.
Rutherford outlines the categories of components to an
innovation configuration: those which are crucial to the
innovation (musts), those which are desirable, and those
which are suitable but not required (1986, pp. 10-13).

25
Intervention Taxonomy (IT) and Intervention Anatomy (IA)
Later research on the CHAM has resulted in a final two-
part dimension which must also be mentioned. With an eye
toward more effective interventions for the successful
adoption of an innovation, the Intervention Taxonomy and
Intervention Anatomy were developed. The IT facilitates
comprehensive intervention planning by specifying six levels
for school improvement and staff development. The IA
addresses the internal components of potential interventions
and yields information which, when used with the IT,
contributes to more effectively addressing the individuals'
needs (Hord & Loucks, 1980).
Change Facilitator Stages of Concern and Questionnaire
A more recent addition to the body of theory and
instruments to grow out of the original CBAM is the Change
Facilitator Stages of Concern dimension and its
corresponding CFSoC Questionnaire. Administration of the
original SoCQ to those charged with managing or facilitating
change proved inappropriate. For example, educational
supervisors are typically not concerned about use of the
innovation as adopters (teachers) are but rather with
realizing their role in helping the adopters use the

26
innovation. As a result, the CFSoCQ was developed (Hall et
al., 1991).
This instrument was used at the beginning and end of a
one-month residential training program for secondary school
science department heads in the Philippines during the
summer of 1991. Since the administrative structure of
educational authority places responsibility for
instructional leadership with these individuals, their role
is that of change facilitator within their own schools
(Matthews, 1993). The change facilitator concerns data
collected at the beginning was used to aid in the design of
the staff development program. Post-program data on the
change facilitator participants' stages of concern showed
significant progress through the developmental stages.
Models Incorporating the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
Building on CBAM for the enhancement of staff
development interventions, McCarthy (1982) has included the
stages of concern in her novel approach to teacher
inservice. Starting with modes of perception from thinking
to sensing/feeling along one axis, and adding modes of
processing from doing to watching along another axis, she
derives the four major learning styles. She then dissects
each learning style quadrant into two halves to portray

27
right-brain/left-brain dominance, and finally superimposes
the seven stages of concern (the first six inside the now
circular diagram and the seventh—refocusing—leaving the
circle). Her trademarked system called 4Mat accounts for
the affective stages of concern and guides a staff developer
to meeting the "needs of all four major learning styles,
while using right and left mode techniques" (McCarthy, 1982,
p. 20) .
The stages of concern of the CBAM have also been
proposed in a model for faculty development specifically
aimed at technological innovations (Wedman & Strathe, 1985) .
The authors advocate diverse strategies of faculty
development derived from three dimensions: the concerns
dimension (which they have simplified into four levels—
information, exploration, utilization, and
collaboration/innovation), the organization dimension
(individual, groups, departments, college), and the faculty
context dimension (instructional, creative, management,
personal). The result is a framework which may serve as an
alternative to the traditional "spray and pray" (Wedman &
Strathe, 1985, p. 19) approach to faculty development.
The usefulness of applying data from the first two
diagnostic dimensions of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
to the design of inservice training is demonstrated in a

28
series of articles by Cicchelli and Baecher. Their 1987
work reports on 18 senior high school teachers undergoing
inservice regarding the use of microcomputers in the
classroom. Data gleaned from the stages of concern
questionnaire and levels of use interviews (of three users
and three non-users) served to guide the design and
implementation of 15 hours of training over three days.
Post-training administration of the SoCQ showed "a
significant change in teachers' concerns towards
microcomputers" (p. 85). In a similar study also involving
the implementation of computer technology at the high school
level, six teachers filled out the SoCQ to supply
information used in a nine-hour inservice program. When
administered the SoCQ afterward, the teachers showed a
difference of at least 10 percentile points in each stage
score (1990).
Cicchelli (1990) enlisted stages of concern theory when
confronted anew with Fuller's conundrum of some two decades
before about the best content and sequence of courses for
teacher education programs. The Fordham University Pre-
Service Program enrolls both fourth-year undergraduate and
fifth-year graduate students in a year of
professional/technical teacher training. The difference
between the two groups is in the additional training in

29
liberal arts which the fifth-year students have had. The
SoCQ was administered to 24 fourth-year and 17 fifth-year
students at the beginning and again at the end of the two-
semester preservice program. Liberal arts training as a
part of teacher preparation programs would be supported if
the fifth-year students were found to be further along in
the developmental sequence of stages of concern at the
beginning or at the end of their year of professional
teacher training, i.e., if they demonstrated lower self
concerns and/or higher impact concerns. This, however, was
not the case when looking at the two groups. At least on
the personal dimension of concerns about teaching, the
additional training in liberal arts cannot be linked to a
more advanced starting point on or greater movement along
the SoC wave-like pattern either before or after a one-year
program of professional/technical education training
(Cicchelli, 1990, p. 45).
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire
The stages of concern are assessed on a questionnaire
of thirty-five items where respondents indicate the
relevance of the statements to their present concerns
regarding an innovation. Use of the SoCQ results in
"standardized, individualized data that can be aggregated

30
and used to facilitate, monitor, plan, and communicate about
a change process" (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 333). This
questionnaire was developed and copyrighted in 1974 by The
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at The
University of Texas at Austin as part of the Procedures for
Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM Project (Hall et al.,
1979).
Development of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire
The conceptual basis for developing a questionnaire of
concerns about adoption of an innovation grew out of the
extensive work of Fuller and others during the 1960s. To
develop this "quick-scoring, paper-pencil instrument" (Hall
& Rutherford, 1976, p. 228), Hall and his associates
elicited responses to an open-ended concerns statement,
forced rankings, Likert scales, adjective checklists, and
interviews; and from a total of 544 Q-sorted items, a group
of 400 were judged as central (by a minimum of six out of
ten judges) to the measurement of the seven concerns derived
from the definitions espoused in the original 1973 CBAM
paper (Hall et al., 1973, 1979, p. 9). From these, editing
and eliminating redundant items left 195.
Hall and Rutherford (1976) report on the administration
of the 195-item pilot instrument to elementary teachers

31
involved with teaming and college faculty involved with
instructional modules (each group's members stratified by
their length of experience with the innovation in hopes of
capturing information from people all along the full
continuum of stages). Data from the 366 respondents were
factor analyzed, and the first seven resulting factors were
found to be congruent with the outcome of the previous Q-
sort. The resultant 35 items were produced when the factors
were rotated in the direction of the originally defined
stages (factor loadings exceeding 0.5) (Hall & Rutherford,
1976). Between 1974 and 1976, the shortened instrument was
administered to educators involved with eleven different
innovations for results in both cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies (Hall et al., 1979).
Psychometric Prnnsrtips
The reliability of the SoCQ is interpreted from the
reported test-retest correlations for each of the seven
stages (n = 132, two weeks elapsed) of from 0.65 to 0.86
(four of the seven correlations were above 0.80) (Hall et
al., 1979). The alpha coefficients of internal reliability
of the stages for the same group range from 0.80 to 0.93
(Hall & Rutherford, 1976). Data from a stratified sample of
teachers and professors numbering 830, however, show alpha

32
coefficients for the seven stages of from 0.64 to 0.83 (six
of the seven correlations above 0.70)(Hall et al., 1979).
Indications of the validity of concerns theory and the
instrument include a report of the correlations between
individual items and the stage which they supposedly measure
(72% of the items had higher correlations with their
assigned stage than with other stages), lower correlations
between distant stages than between adjacent ones, results
of factor analyses which indicate independence of the
individual stage subscales, and multi-method procedures
using the open-ended concerns statements, surveys, and
interviews—all resulting in multiple Rs greater than .56 (jo
< .05) for four of the seven stages—and longitudinal
studies demonstrating the wave-like pattern of movement
through the stages (Hall et al., 1979).
The 1979 manual for scoring and interpreting the SoCQ
calls to the attention of the potential user of the
instrument a few of its limitations. First among these is
the purpose of its use; having been devised for diagnostic
functions, Hall et al. (1979) point out that any use which
might involve "screening or evaluation" or even judgement
about personality would be inappropriate (p. 57). Secondly,
the age group on which the instrument was normed was adult,
and their occupational affiliations were with educational

33
institutions; use of the SoCQ with persons outside these
groups would invalidate the claims of reliability and
validity. Finally, the quality of the results of the
analyses is dependent on the good will of the respondents as
they fill out the questionnaire.
The Demociranhi c Data Page
In addition to the thirty-five items designed to gather
data on the concerns of the individual respondents to the
SoCQ, a demographic data page is also included. The
information collected from the responses to these items
serves a two-fold purpose: description of the survey sample
and comparison of it to the population and input for
statistical analyses.
Results of research reported by Hall et al. (1979)
report "no outstanding relationships between standard
demographic variables and concerns data" (p. 52). One of
his associates, William Rutherford, concurs by mentioning
age, gender, and years of teaching experience as lacking any
"consistent relationship" between them and concerns stages
scores (1986, p. 7).
In their research article on student engagement of 90
developmental reading students at El Camino College, Marsh
and Penn (1988) also report no relationship between stages

34
of concern and demographic variables. Numerous other
studies report no significant differences in SoC scores
according to demographic variables (Shoemaker, 1990; Falvo,
1990; Hickox, 1994; Lewis, 1994).
Exception to the lack of findings related to age is
taken by Lee-Kang (1993), who found that undergraduate
textiles, clothing, and merchandising program departments
with a greater number of males over sixty were associated
with a lesser degree of adoption of the instructional use of
computers.
A study by Wells and Anderson (1995) which looked into
the relationship between gender (and various levels of
computer knowledge) and SoC scores before, during, and after
a course called Computers and Telecommunications in
Education for graduate students majoring in education at
West Virginia University found that gender was associated
with significant differences at the final administration of
the questionnaire on Stage 0 Awareness and at the midpoint
administration for Stage 5 Collaboration and Stage 6
Refocusing. However, since details about the sample size
and gender breakdown are not reported, these findings are
difficult to evaluate.
A review of the research on the variables of rank and
tenure also finds claims on both sides of the innovation

35
adoption. King (1990) claims that "junior faculty work on
instructional innovation at their peril" (p. 297), yet Lee-
Kang in the 1993 study cited above found that more assistant
professors in a program increased the likelihood of
implementation of instructional computer use at higher
levels.
In contrast to the standard demographic variables,
those which make up the constellation termed the "state of
the user system" by Hall et al. (1979) seem to be more
crucial to a full understanding of the stages of concern
framework. Among these, the most prominent is the second
diagnostic dimension of the CBAM, levels of use.
Also comprising the set of variables defining the
'state of the user system' are the length of time the user
has had experience with the innovation and whether the user
has had any formal training in the innovation. Both
experience and training have been found to be significantly
related to SoC in a number of studies. Aneke (1996) found
that high school teachers in Virginia involved with the High
Schools That Work reform had SoC that correlated positively
with the amount of experience with and number of hours of
training in the innovation. McQuain (1995) polled teachers
at thirteen high schools and a community college in Virginia
about the innovation of Technical Preparation (Tech Prep)

36
programs and found both experience and training to be
significantly related to SoC. Chandler (1994) researched
the innovation of institutional effectiveness criteria in
North Carolina community colleges and found significant
differences in respondents grouped by level of (a)
experience and (b) training.
While exploring how innovative instructional computer
users in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford
differed from their colleagues, Leong-Childs (1989) found
that how professors conceptualized their role as teachers
was important in explaining these patterns. Those who paid
more attention to how their students learn (whom she deemed
transactive teachers) had a significantly higher probability
of using computers in innovative instructional ways than
those who primarily attended to what their students learn
(transmissive teachers).
Finally, Shoemaker (1990) explored the relationship
between differences on SoC scores regarding innovative
computer use and native language and culture among foreign-
born faculty members in ten foreign language departments at
the Defense Language Institute. The ten language groups
differed significantly on four of the seven SoC, and he thus
concluded that culture (defined by native language and

37
country of birth) plays a significant role in types and
intensity of concerns about the innovation of instructional
computer use at DLI.
Instructional Use of the Internet in Higher Education
From its originally conceived role as crucial to
national security, the Internet has undergone several
transformations (Dankel, 1996) . Its defense role led to
greater dispersion among a select community of university
scholars and researchers for sharing and collaborating on
government-funded projects. Further development permitted
greater spread throughout academic institutions and greatly
increased numbers of users. Under the Internet umbrella and
spurning on its growth is the World Wide Web, developed in
1989 at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics.
The release in November, 1992, of a new tool, the Mosaic web
browser, made searching much easier and thus opened the door
for users with less computer acumen (Dankel, 1996).
Subseguent additions of user-friendly browsers have
continued the trend.
In summing up the year of 1993 and what happened in
networking at institutions of higher education, Clement and
Abrahams (1994) also give a taxonomy of instructional uses
of the Internet at that point in time:

38
In postsecondary settings, trends are for gradually
increasing use of networking to support education, in
contrast with research, where networking is well
established and near-essential in many disciplines. An
underlying trend that leads to ongoing change is the
pervasive invasion of campus networks into the college
culture at many universities. We see collaborative
courses being taught by faculty, often between
campuses; we see professors offering network bulletin
boards as course discussion areas, offering tutorial
chat lines and e-mail addresses at the equivalent of
"office hours"; assignment delivery via networks; and
network-based projects and simulations used as course
laboratory areas. The frequency of these applications,
though increasing, is still small in relation to the
total of campus opportunities, (p. 107)
Green's (1996) exhaustive, annual campus computing
survey of two- and four-year public and private colleges and
universities gives the reader a comprehensive view. The
data collected during fall 1995 from the 645 respondents
(survey sent to the primary academic computing official at
each of the 1,500 institutions in the sample), including 42
public research universities which most resemble the
institution of this study, show that approximately 75% of
all faculty have access to the Internet, although only 6% of
all college courses make use of resources on the World Wide
Web for instructional support (Green, 1996, p. 15). Further
indication of this small but growing trend is evidenced by
71.5% of the respondents rating Internet resources for
instruction as a "very important" priority and 50.3% also
seeing web pages for individual classes or whole courses at

39
the same level of importance in the coming 2-3 years (p. 2).
Nevertheless, only 15% of universities reported having a
plan in place for incorporation of instructional resources
drawn from the Internet/World Wide Web (p. 8). Finally,
97.4% of the respondents agreed fully or agreed somewhat
that over the next 2-3 years the Internet/World Wide Web
will be an "important source for content and instructional
resources" (p. 18).
Maddux's 1994 article dealing with seven different
prospects and the problems of adopting the Internet as an
instructional innovation cautions the reader about
statistics such as those above, particularly with regard to
'access.' While a figure like 75% of all faculty with
Internet 'access' may seem to pave the way for fairly rapid
incorporation of its resources into instruction, Maddux
points out that what is often termed 'access' is mere
physical availability. He says that instructional access to
the benefits of an information technology such as the
Internet is something much more complex. Another of his
stated problems involves support for adoption of the
Internet as an innovation. Support must be of two kinds:
technical and curriculum. It is precisely this curriculum
support which is the typically missing link between

40
availability of a new technology and access to its
instructional potential.
Discipline-specific accounts of experiences with the
development of instructional uses of the Internet abound.
Some, such as Smith's 1995 article, provide insights into
new ways of communicating in both directions between
instructor and student as well as student and student in a
particular discipline (physics in this case), but
applications are easily imagined across disciplines. Others
explore how teaching college-level writing is changing and
is changed by use of the Internet, and still others present
specific case studies including the new skills which are
added and the wider range of materials such as hypertext
documents, all despite the typically "chilly embrace
humanities departments have given computers" (Rouzie, 1995,
p. 4) .
Some accounts are more than personal histories, as
teachers look for empirical evidence of differences in
student learning as a result of integrating use of the
Internet into their courses. A professor of sociology at
California State University at Northridge randomly divided
his Fall 1996 class in statistics, assigning one group to
his accustomed format and teaching the other through an on¬
line version of the course. Although subjective comments

41
about the experience filled the spectrum, the results on
both the mid-term and the final examinations (the only times
when the on-line group ever showed up) revealed that "the
wired students outscored their traditional counterparts by
an average of 20 per cent" (McCollum, 1997, p. A23).
Summary
This section has sought to trace the research pertinent
to the study at hand which relates directly to the adoption
of an innovation within an educational setting. A brief
overview of the landmark work of Rogers (1962) was followed
by an analysis of the effects of change at the micro level,
that of the individual. The work of Fuller (1969) which
served as a basis for the Concerns-Based Adoption Model of
Hall et al. (1973) was reviewed. The parts of the CBAM were
described in detail, and examples of the incorporation of
CBAM into other models also accounting for individual
preferences was discussed. Applications of diagnostic
frameworks of the CBAM were also presented. Development of
the Stages of Concern Questionnaire and its psychometric
properties were outlined. Special attention was given to
the demographic page which typically accompanies it and to
studies which looked at the possible relationships between
the variables captured on the demographic page and the

42
stages of concern. Finally, a brief overview of the recent
history of the Internet and of its growing contribution to
the changes underway in instruction at institutions of
higher education was given.

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
Study Desian/Procednres
Of primary interest in this descriptive correlational
study are the concerns regarding the innovation adoption of
the Internet for instructional purposes among the faculty at
the University of Florida. To explore these concerns, the
following questions were posed:
(1) What are the relationships of the levels of
Internet use for instructional purposes and the levels of
Internet use for all other purposes to the sequence of
stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
43

44
Variables
The dependent variable in the study was the peak or
most intense of the seven stages of concern about adoption
of the Internet for instructional purposes. Derived from
the Stages of Concern Questionnaire, each stage score ranges
from 0 to 35 on Stage 0-Awareness, Stage 1-Personal, Stage
2-Information, Stage 3-Management, Stage 4-Consequence,
Stage 5-Collaboration, and Stage 6-Refocusing.
The independent variables were level of Internet use
for instructional purposes, level of Internet use for all
other purposes, level of attention paid to how students
learn, level of attention paid to what students learn, rank,
gender, age, and national origin.
Sample
The population for this study consisted of the 1,650
persons employed at the University of Florida during spring
semester 1997 who are remunerated as faculty within the
following ten college-level units: Architecture, Business
Administration, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Health
and Human Performance, Health Professions, the Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, Journalism and
Communications, and Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Office
of the Associate Vice-President for Academic Affairs
supplied the labels used to distribute the questionnaire to

45
the nine colleges, and the IFAS mailing facility supplied
them for that unit.
Since a time lag typically occurs between a) when a
faculty member leaves or a new one is appointed and starts
to work and b) when the database is updated to reflect the
changes, the information from these labels vary slightly
from the true number of faculty within an academic unit at
any given time.
The Office of Academic Affairs supplies labels pre¬
addressed with department names and the number of faculty at
a given destination according to the latest database
figures. When mail is delivered bearing these labels, it is
put into faculty mailboxes without regard to the names of
the currently employed members. To provide a more complete
profile of the respondents and to control for questionnaires
destined to those other than the intended, additional
demographic data were collected on what percent-time the
faculty member was teaching during the semester of the
survey, whether the faculty member was working part- or
full-time, academic rank and type of faculty line
(tenure/non-tenure).
The mailing labels supplied by the mailing facility of
the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences were
personally addressed. These labels were affixed to the top

46
of the letters of transmittal, and the surveys were grouped
into envelopes by academic unit.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this mailed survey was the 35-
item Stages of Concern Questionnaire, developed by The
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at The
University of Texas at Austin as part of the Procedures for
Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM Project (Hall et al.,
1979). Permission to use the copyrighted questionnaire for
the purpose of this study was requested on October 31, 1996,
and granted on November 1, 1996 (see letter in Appendix B).
The Institutional Review Board of the University of
Florida reviewed a draft of the entire instrument and the
cover letter submitted on December 5, 1996; approval was
granted on December 12, 1996 (see letter in Appendix C).
Development of the questionnaire
The conceptual basis for developing a questionnaire of
concerns about adoption of an innovation grew out of the
extensive work of Frances Fuller during the 1960s and Gene
Hall and his associates during the 1970s. From responses
elicited by an open-ended concerns survey, a total of 544
items was narrowed to a group of 400 judged as central to
measuring concerns. From these, editing and eliminating
redundant items left 195. After administering this 195-item

47
survey and analyzing the data from 359 respondents, over 60%
of the variance in the items was attributed to seven
factors, a finding resulting from item correlation and
factor analyses. The seven stages of concern represent the
outcome of this work (Hall et al., 1979).
Throughout the subsequent testing of the instrument and
its eventual shortening to the current 35 items,
administration of the survey was on populations of teachers
and college faculty involved in adoption of a number of
educational innovations. For example, in 1974 (n = 359) the
innovation at the higher education level was the use of
instructional modules, while that for elementary teachers
was teaming (Hall et al., 1979).
Reliabilitv/Validitv
Internal reliability (alpha) coefficients for the
stages range from .64 to .83 (n = 830, a stratified sample
of professors and teachers). Test-retest correlations (n =
132, two weeks elapsed) are from .65 to .86 (Hall et al.,
1979, p. 11).
Indications of the validity of the instrument include
the correlations between individual items and the stage
which they supposedly measure (72% of the items had higher
correlations with their assigned stage than with other
stages), lower correlations between distant stages than
between adjacent ones, results of factor analyses which

48
indicate independence of the individual stage subscales, and
multi-method procedures using the survey and interviews
resulting in multiple Rs greater than .56 (jo < .05) for four
of the stages (Hall et al., 1979).
Description of the Questionnaire
Respondents choose from eight alternatives on a Likert-
type scale: (0) irrelevant, or one of seven levels of
concern (level 1 is defined as "Not true of me now"; levels
2, 3, and 4 represent gradations of "Somewhat true of me
now"; and levels 5, 6, and 7 represent gradations of "Very
true of me now" [Hall et al., 1979, p. 69]). Each of the
seven stage scores is the sum of the five individual item
scores measuring that stage of concern, constituting a range
of from 0 to 35. A description of each stage and the five
items which make up the score for that stage are as follows
(adapted from Hall et al., 1979; original concept from Hall
et al., 1973):
0 Awareness. Little concern about or involvement with
the innovation is indicated.
I don't even know what using the Internet for
instructional purposes would be.
I am not concerned about use of the Internet for
instructional purposes.
I am completely occupied with other things.

49
Although I don't know about instructional Internet use,
I am concerned about issues in this area.
At this time, I am not interested in learning about
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
1 Informational. A general awareness of the innovation
and interest in learning more detail about it is indicated.
The person seems to be unworried about himself/herself in
relation to the innovation. S/he is interested in
substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfless manner
such as general characteristics, effects, and requirements
for use.
I have a very limited knowledge of instructional uses
of the Internet.
I would like to discuss the possibility of using the
Internet for instructional purposes.
I would like to know what resources are available if we
decide to adopt instructional use of the Internet.
I would like to know what instructional use of the
Internet will require in the immediate future.
1 would like to know how instructional use of the
Internet is better than what we are doing now.
2 Personal. Individual is uncertain about the demands
of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those demands,
and his/her role with the innovation. This includes
analysis of his/her role in relation to the reward

50
structure of the organization, decision making, and
consideration of potential conflicts with existing
structures or personal commitment. Financial or status
implications of the program for self and colleagues may also
be reflected.
I would like to know the effect of using the Internet
for instructional purposes on my professional status.
I would like to know who will make the decisions
regarding use of the Internet for instruction.
I would like to know how my teaching or administration
is supposed to change.
I need more information on time and energy commitments
required by instructional Internet use.
I would like to know how my role will change when I am
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
3 Management. Attention is focused on the processes
and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of
information and resources. Issues related to efficiency,
organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands are
utmost.
I am concerned about not having enough time to organize
myself each day.
I am concerned about conflict between my interests and
my responsibilities.

51
I am concerned about my inability to manage all that
instructional Internet use requires.
I am concerned about time spent working with non-
academic problems related to using the Internet for
instructional purposes.
Coordinating tasks/people takes too much of my time.
4 Consequence. Attention focuses on impact of the
innovation on student in his/her immediate sphere of
influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for
students, evaluation of student outcomes, including
performance and competencies, and changes needed to increase
student outcomes.
I am concerned about students' attitudes toward
instructional use of the Internet.
I am concerned about how instructional use of the
Internet affects students.
I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.
I would like to excite my students about their part in
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
I would like to use feedback from students to change
use of the Internet for instruction.
5 Collaboration. The focus is on coordination and
cooperation with others regarding use of the innovation.

52
I would like to help other faculty in their
instructional Internet use.
I would like to develop working relationships with both
our faculty and outside faculty using the Internet for
instructional purposes.
I would like to familiarize other departments or
persons with our progress in using the Internet.
I would like to coordinate my effort with others to
maximize the effects of instructional Internet use.
I would like to know what other faculty are doing in
this area.
6 Refocusing. The focus is on exploration of more
universal benefits from the innovation, including the
possibility of major changes or replacement with a more
powerful alternative. Individual has definite ideas about
alternatives to the proposed or existing form of the
innovation.
I now know of some other approaches that might work
better.
I am concerned about revising my instructional use of
the Internet.
I would like to revise the instructional approach to
use of the Internet.

53
I would like to modify our instructional use of the
Internet based on the experiences of our students.
I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance,
or replace instructional use of the Internet.
In addition to the responses on the Stages of Concern
Questionnaire, data from demographic variables were also
collected. The percent time teaching during the semester of
inquiry, working part- vs. full-time, and the type of
faculty line held (tenure or non-tenure) were collected to
control for distribution of the questionnaires to those who
do not make up the population of primary interest to the
study.
Levels of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes and levels of use of the Internet for all other
purposes were collected to address research question 1 and
to test theory from the Concerns-Based Adoption Model.
Stages of concern are the first dimension of the CBAM, and
levels of use make up the second dimension. In the CBAM
eight different levels of use are proposed. More pro-active
in nature, the levels of use sequence resembles that of the
stages of concern quite closely, as do the description of
the states and the decisions made by the user. The eight
levels of use (Hord, et al., 1987, p. 55) and their
corresponding stages of concern are:

54
Level of Use
Stage of Concern
Level 0 Non-Use
Stage 0 Awareness
Level 1 Orientation
Stage 1 Information
Level 2 Preparation
Stage 2 Preparation
Level 3 Mechanical Use
Stage 3 Management
Level 4a Routine
Stage 4 Consequence
Level 4b Refinement
Level 5 Integration
Stage 5 Collaboration
Level 6 Renewal
Stage 6 Refocusing
Levels of use are typically determined during a focused
interview with the help of an extremely detailed and
explicit chart. Since the size of the sample for this study
necessitated gathering the data on a survey, a taxonomy
appropriate for such a technique had to be found. Dreyfus
and Dreyfus (1986) offer the five-stage model for skill
acquisition which has been used here. A category for the
non-user was added to their five levels as outlined below.
The corresponding levels of use from the CBAM are also
shown:
CBAM Level Of Use Survey Terms
Level 0 Non-Use
Level 1 Orientation Non-user
Level 2 Preparation
Level 3 Mechanical Novice

55
Level 4a Routine
Advanced beginner
Level 4b Refinement
Competent user
Level 5 Integration
Proficient user
Level 6 Renewal
Expert
Finally, items inquiring about the number of years at
the institution, length of time involved with instructional
use of the Internet, prior formal training in the Internet
for instructional purposes, and recent or concurrent
involvement in some other major innovation or program were
taken from the original demographic variable sheet suggested
by Hall, et al. (1979) and contribute to the full assessment
of the "state of the user system" (p. 52).
An estimate of the completion time of the 35-item SoCQ
was ten to fifteen minutes. The additional items did not
add substantially to this range.
The questionnaire was distributed to a panel of six
experts, all members of the same group to whom it would
eventually be distributed, for comment on overall clarity of
the items and suggestions for improvement. The final
version reflected the incorporation of their suggestions.
In one case the order of the demographic variable items was
changed, and response to other comments led to naming 'the
Internet for instructional purposes' rather than relying on
'the innovation' throughout (survey found in Appendix D).

56
Data Collection
The first announcement of the study was mailed on
January 10, 1997, on a bright pink post card. Its primary
objective was to alert the faculty to the coming survey.
The text of the notice is found in Appendix E.
The questionnaire itself was duplicated front and back
on high-quality pink paper and was accompanied by a letter
of transmittal on top. The letter of transmittal was on the
letterhead of the University Center for Excellence in
Teaching and was signed by the director (see Appendix E).
The first page under the letter of transmittal was dedicated
to instructions on filling out the concerns questionnaire.
The format and wording were taken directly from Hall et al.,
1979. Specific definitions of 'Internet' and 'instructional
purpose' were included, as well as examples of the latter.
The survey began on the back of the instructions page.
The questions were numbered consecutively, and the final
page included an area for the respondent to write comments.
The return address was placed on the instruction page,
repeated again at the end of the questionnaire below the
comments area, and printed three times on the final
(outside) page. Respondents were requested to fold, close,
and return the questionnaires via campus mail.

57
To prepare the questionnaires for mailing, each
academic unit was assigned a three-digit code number, and
that same number was placed on each questionnaire destined
for that academic unit. The number of faculty indicated on
the label determined the number of questionnaires placed in
a large manilla envelope destined for that academic unit. A
cover sheet was included on top requesting the cooperation
of the recipient in distributing the questionnaires to the
faculty for whom they were intended.
The questionnaire itself was sent through campus mail
on Friday of the third week of spring semester, i.e.,
January 24, 1997. The timing of the mailing sought to
maximize the attention it might get among those on an
academic schedule with an uneven workload distribution
throughout the typical sixteen-week semester.
Simultaneous with the mailing, the questionnaire was
posted on the World Wide Web at the UCET site. Care was
taken in the design of the survey for the web site so that
responses would be comparable irrespective of which medium a
respondent used. Although all those who replied had a paper
copy of the questionnaire available to them, they did not
need any information from the paper copy to be able to
answer the form over the Internet. Links to the full text
of the letter of transmittal and to the instructions for

58
filling out the Stages of Concern Questionnaire were
included. At the end of the form the respondent activated a
"Send Form" button which transmitted the results to an email
address anonymously.
The Internet address for the site was included in the
cover letter and repeated on the questionnaire instruction
page. The electronic form had one additional demographic
item at the beginning; it requested the respondent's
departmental affiliation (either the three-digit code from
the paper copy or the name of the academic unit), since this
information was lost from the paper copy by those choosing
to submit their responses electronically.
The requested return date of the instruments was
Wednesday, February 5, 1997, or twelve days after they were
mailed out.
A follow-up mailing following the same procedure was
undertaken. The letter of transmittal included a polite
reminder and a request to complete the questionnaire. Those
who had already done so were asked to disregard the request
(see Appendix F for follow-up letter of transmittal). The
mailing of the follow-up went out on Friday, February 21,
1997, and return was requested by Wednesday, March 5, 1997,
again an interval of twelve days. This second deadline fell

59
in the middle of the week immediately prior to the week-long
spring break.
Data Analysis
Responses to the survey from the three mailings totaled
540 of a possible 1, 650 in the population. Of these, 50 (or
9%) were received electronically. The sample thus
represents a 33% response rate. This compares favorably
with the results found during a review of the literature for
similar surveys on equivalent populations (response rate
percentages in the high twenties were the rule although one
was found at 32). Furthermore, surveys within the last year
on subsets of this population, one undertaken within the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences only and another
campus-wide of new faculty after their first year at the
University of Florida, had response rates of 20% and 30%
respectively.
The survey data were entered, verified, and saved on a
3.5" disk from where they were subsequently stored on the
mainframe of the University of Florida Center for
Instructional and Research Computing Activities. Analyses
of the data were carried out using SAS run interactively
with the UNIX operating system on the mainframe.

60
Demographic information on the respondents is shown in
Table 1. Comparison of the sample to all faculty as
described in the University of Florida Affirmative Action
Plan-1996 shows that females are represented only slightly
higher in the sample than in the population (26.2% of the
sample vs 25.7% of all faculty) and that those on tenure-
track faculty lines responded in a higher proportion (85.3%
of the sample vs 74.0% of all faculty occupy faculty lines).
In order to address the research questions, a
correlational analysis and multiple regression were used.
The alpha level to test for statistical significance was set
at .05.
Summary
This section has given an overview of the study
undertaken, including the design of the study, the
variables, the instrument, and the procedures followed.
Specifically, the sample is described; the instrument is
identified and described, and its development is traced;
methods of data collection are outlined; demographic
variables are reported for the respondents; and analyses of
the data are set out.

61
Table 1
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
_£ _i
Time (H = 531)
Part-time
30
6
Full-time
501
94
Gender (H = 530)
Male
379
72
Female
151
28
Rank (M = 538)
Instruetor/Lecturer
34
6
Post-doc
2
0
Assistant Professor
106
20
Associate Professor
138
26
Professor
226
42
Other
32
6
Track (H = 534)
Tenure
456
85
Non-tenure
78
15
National Origin (U = 531)
American
457
86
Foreign
74
14

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This sections opens with a restatement of the problem
and of the research questions of interest in the study.
These are followed by the variables chosen for the study and
then a section on the findings. The data are first analyzed
descriptively one at a time. Then the bivariate
relationships are examined. Finally, the results of the
multiple regression analysis of the data are given,
specifically in relation to the research questions set out
at the beginning of the study. Also included is a
discussion of the meaning of each of the significant
findings and its relationship to findings of previous
studies.
Research Questions
Central to this descriptive correlational study were
the concerns regarding the innovation adoption of the
Internet for instructional purposes among the faculty at the
University of Florida. To explore these concerns, the
following questions were posed:
(1) What are the relationships of the levels of
62

63
Internet use for instructional purposes and the levels of
Internet use for all other purposes to the sequence of
stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
Variables
The dependent variable in the study was the peak or
most intense stage of the seven stages of concern about
adoption of the Internet for instructional purposes.
Derived from the Stages of Concern Questionnaire, each stage
score ranges from 0 to 35 on Stage 0-Awareness, Stage 1-
Personal, Stage 2-Information, Stage 3-Management, Stage 4-
Consequence, Stage 5-Collaboration, and Stage 6-Refocusing.
Although all respondents to the questionnaire have scores on
all seven stages of concern, only the peak stage of concern
of each individual was of interest in this study. When two
or more stage of concern scores shared an equal intensity
(i.e., an equal score within the 0-to-35 range), the stage
at the further (furthest) point along the developmental

64
continuum from Stage 0 to Stage 6 was chosen as the peak
stage of concern.
The independent variables were level of Internet use
for instructional purposes, level of Internet use for all
other purposes, level of attention paid to how students
learn, level of attention paid to what students learn, rank,
gender, age, and national origin.
In order to address the research questions, the alpha
level was set at .05, and a correlational analysis and
regression technique were used. Borg and Gall (1989)
mention that when dealing with "the degree of relationship
among various combinations of three or more variables"
multiple regression is a technique offering "considerable
versatility" (p. 601) in correlational studies.
Fi ndi nas
Descriptive Statistics
The greatest portion of the sample, 132 or about one-
fourth of the respondents, was found to exhibit their peak
stage of concern regarding adoption of the educational
innovation of use of the Internet for instructional purposes
at the first of the self stages, Information. Another 119
(22%) of the sample were found to be at Stage 4 -
Consequence, the first of the impact stages. The mean peak

65
stage of concern for the sample was 2.90 (£C = 1.94) (high
Stage 2 - Personal). (See Table 2 for a complete summary.)
Table 3 displays the findings on the levels of use of
the sample participants with regard to the Internet. Over
half of the sample self-reported a level of use of the
Internet for instructional purposes of non-use or novice (n
= 349). Levels of use of the Internet for all other
purposes, however, were higher. Over two-thirds of the
sample use the Internet for non-instructional purposes at
the self-reported levels of novice, advanced beginner, or
competent user. The mean for instructional use of the
Internet fell at level 1 - novice (M = 1.24, £C = 1.33),
whereas that for its use for all other purposes fell at
level 2 - advanced beginner (M = 2.28, SC = 1.30).
Responses to the survey items asking how much
participants modify their teaching on the basis of how and
what students learn are shown in Table 4. About 65% (n =
311) of the participants reported that they alter their
teaching on the basis of how students learn to an average
degree or quite a bit. Likewise 310 members of the sample
or 67% reported one of the same two categories when asked
about how much they change their teaching according to what
students learn.
A profile of the sample respondents with regard to
their rank, gender, and national origin is given in Table 5.

66
Table 2
Peak Stage of Concern
Stage (H = 540)
_£
_i
0
- Awareness
47
9
1
- Information
132
24
2
- Personal
77
14
3
- Management
53
10
4
- Consequence
119
22
5
- Collaboration
26
5
6
- Refocusing
86
16
Note. M = 2.90.
= 1.94.

67
Table 3
Levels of Use of the Internet
Level
_£
_i
Instructional purposes (Ü = 533)
0 - Non-user
207
39
1 -
Novice
142
27
2 -
Advanced beginner
81
15
3 -
Competent user
67
13
4 -
Proficient user
23
4
5 -
Expert
13
2
Non-
0 -
instructional purposes (H = 537)
Non-user
45
8
1 -
Novice
115
21
2 -
Advanced beginner
150
28
3 -
Competent user
122
23
4 -
Proficient user
84
16
5 -
Expert
21
4
Note. Instructional purposes: M = 1.24.
SC = 1.33.
Non-instructional purposes: M = 2.28.
SC = 1.30.

68
Table 4
How Much Teaching Is Modified Based on Student Learning
Degree of Modification
_i
How students learn (M =
0 - Not at all
476)
15
3
1 - Moderately
79
17
2 - Average
139
29
3 - Quite a bit
172
36
4 - A great deal
71
15
What students learn (N =
0 - Not at all
471)
11
2
1 - Moderately
70
15
2 - Average
127
27
3 - Quite a bit
188
40
4 - A great deal
75
16
Note. How: M = 2.43.
= 1.03.
What: M = 2.52.
£E = 1.00.

69
Table 5
Rank, Gender and National Origin of Respondents
Rank (H = 538)
_i
Instructor/Lecturer
34
6
Post-doc
2
0
Assistant Professor
106
20
Associate Professor
138
26
Professor
226
42
Other
32
6
Gender (N = 530)
Male
379
72
Female
151
28
National Origin (M = 531)
American-born
457
86
Foreign-born
74
14

70
One-fifth of the sample were Assistant Professors, one-
fourth (26%) Associate Professors, and just under one-half
(42%) were Professors. The sample was about three-fourths
male (72%). The age range of the respondents was from 24 to
83 years old; the mean age was 48.58 and the standard
deviation was 9.90. The participants were 86% native-born
American citizens.
Correlational Relationships
Table 6 contains a correlation matrix showing the zero-
order or Pearson product-moment correlations between all the
variables in the study. For the purposes of this part of
the analysis of the data, the respondents who held a rank
other than Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or
Professor were excluded. Lee et al. (1989) state that "no
adjustment may be necessary when a very small proportion of
cases is excluded" (p. 40)—the case here where 68 of 538,
or 12%, were excluded. In addition, the four possible
answer choices for the question of whether the respondent
was an international faculty member were reduced to a
dichotomous variable: American- or foreign-born.
Davis's taxonomy (1971) categorizes the strength of
association measured by correlations in the following
manner:

Table 6
Xnlercorrelations Between Peak Stage of Concern and Other Variables
Peak
L' iip
L' net
How
What
Rank
Sex
Age Orig
Peak
—
L' iip
0.33
—
L' net
0.17
0.65
—
How
0.10
0.10
-0.05
—
What
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.57
—
Rank
-0.05
-0.13
-0.14
-0.18
-0.09
—
Sex
0.04
-0.15
-0.24
0.17
0.11
-0.32
—
Age
-0.07
-0.16
-0.25
-0.04
0.01
0.68
-0.18
—
Orig
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.09
-0.02
-0.03
0.01
Note. Peak = peak stage of concern; L'iip = level of instructional Internet use; L'net =
non-instructional Internet use level; How = attention to how students learn; What =
attention to what students learn; Orig = national origin (American- or foreign-born).
Single underline denotes p < 0.05; double underline denotes p < 0.01.

72
Correlation Value
Classification
.70 and above
Very strong
.50 to .69
Substantial
.30 to .49
Moderate
.10 to .29
Low
.01 to .09
Negligible
When the independent variables are viewed one at a time
for a relationship to the dependent variable peak stage of
concern, three are found to be significantly correlated with
the outcome variable. Moderately correlated with peak stage
of concern is level of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes (p = 0.33, p < .01). Level of use of the Internet
for all other purposes is also significantly related to peak
stage of concern, but this variable demonstrates only a low
level of strength of association (p = 0.17, p < .01)
according to Davis's terminology. Finally, degree to which
respondents reported that they modify their teaching based
on how students learn also showed a low level of strength of
association (p = 0.10, p < .05).
Further bivariate analysis of the data included viewing
the scatter diagrams to assure that a linear relationship
was "a reasonable approximation" (Agresti & Finlay, 1986, p.
274) of the assumed form of the relationships between peak

73
stage of concern and the independent variables. In each
case, this assumption was confirmed.
Regression Analysis
Finally, a multiple regression with all of the
variables of interest in the study was carried out to
determine the contribution of each to the prediction of peak
stage of concern when all others were controlled. Results
are given in Table 7.
Research Question 1
What are the relationships of the levels of Internet
use for instructional purposes and the levels of Internet
use for all other purposes to the sequence of stages of
concern?
Both levels of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes and levels of use of the Internet for all other
purposes are significantly correlated with peak stage of
concern. However, when controlling for other variables,
only level of use of the Internet for instructional purposes
has a significant strength of association with peak stage of
concern (£. = 7.591, p < 0.0001). All other variables being
equal, a respondent who was one level higher in use of the
Internet for instructional purposes exhibited a peak stage
of concern 0.62 stage higher.

74
Table 7
Summary of Multiple Regression for Variables Predicting Peak
Stage of Concern
Variable B SF. B
Level of use of the Internet
for instructional purposes 0.62* 0.08
Level of use of the Internet
for all other purposes -0.08 0.09
Degree of modification to teaching
based on how students learn 0.12 0.11
Degree of modification to teaching
based on what students learn -0.12 0.11
Rank 0.15 0.15
Gender 0.54* 0.21
Age -0.01 0.01
National Origin -0.02 0.24
Note
j> < . 05.

75
The findings of the significant contribution of level
of use of the educational adoption being investigated in
this study, use of the Internet for instructional purposes,
confirm the theory of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model,
which states that stages of concern about the innovation and
Levels of Use of the same "will move in nearly a one-to-one
correspondence" (Loucks & Hall, 1977, p. 20).
Research Question 2
Are there significant differences in the peak stages of
concern of the faculty members grouped by the extent to
which they modify their instructional practices based on how
or what students learn?
The degree to which participants reported that they
modify their teaching based on how students learn proved to
be significantly correlated to peak stage of concern,
although the degree to which they claimed to modify their
instruction based on what students learn did not.
This finding would lend support to the results of the
1989 study by Leong-Childs, who found that Stanford
University School of Humanities and Sciences professors who
were innovative instructional computer users differed
significantly in the amount of attention they pay to how
their students learn.

76
Nevertheless, when all other variables of the current
study were controlled, neither degree to which respondents
modify their teaching based on how students learn nor the
same based on what students learn contributed significantly
to the prediction of peak stage of concern (£ = 1.165 for
attention to how students learn and £ = -1.125 for attention
to what).
Research Question 3
Are there significant differences in the peak stages of
concern among faculty members grouped by rank, gender, age,
or national origin?
Rank was not significantly correlated to peak stage of
concern; and when all other variables were controlled, it
did not have a significant strength of association with peak
stage of concern (£ = 1.024) .
Although gender was not significantly correlated to
peak stage of concern, when all other variables were
controlled it contributed significantly to the prediction of
peak stage of concern (£ = 2.543, j> = 0.0114). When all
other variables were controlled, women respondents were
predicted to be .54 stage higher on their peak stage of
concern.
This finding for the respondents in the sample would
seem to refute the results of research reported by Hall et

77
al. (1979) reporting "no outstanding relationships between
standard demographic variables and concerns data" (p. 52)
and concurring with Rutherford (1986) that gender (and other
variables) lack any "consistent relationship" (p. 7) with
stage of concern scores.
Age was not significantly correlated to peak stage of
concern; and when all other variables were controlled, it
did not have a significant strength of association with peak
stage of concern (£ = .0832). This would validate the
findings of Hall et al. (1979) and Rutherford (1986).
National origin was not significantly correlated to
peak stage of concern; and when all other variables were
controlled, it did not make a significant contribution to
the prediction of peak stage of concern (£. = -0.071).
Although Shoemaker (1990) found significant differences in
stage of concern scores about adoption of instructional use
of computers in foreign language teaching among the five
foreign culture groups (as defined by native language and
country of birth) he investigated, his study dealt solely
with foreign culture groups. Since Shoemaker's study did
not include Americans as a cultural group and the foreign-
born respondents of this study were not further subdivided,
no direct parallel can be drawn.

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This section opens with a summary of the study
undertaken. It then moves on to reiterate the findings and
to state the conclusions which can be reasonably drawn from
those findings. Implications for the conclusions are given,
and finally recommendations for further research are
outlined.
Summary
This exploratory, descriptive correlational study set
out to measure the stages of concern of the faculty of the
University of Florida regarding adoption of the innovation
of use of the Internet for instructional purposes.
The current paradigm shift underway as institutions of
higher education break out of the constraints of the last
several hundred years of a model of same time, same place
learning has incited exploration of new modes of
instructional delivery. Recent advances in computers and
telecommunications technology have been crucial to the role
the Internet will play in this shift. Greater capacity for
storage and faster retrieval and transfer of information
78

79
have meant greater potential for this medium than could have
been conceived of only a short time ago.
Teachers, not unlike others confronted with change or
innovation, react in a number of ways to the current times.
Some avail themselves of training and informal meetings to
learn about what others have done or to share what they have
accomplished. A mid-April 1997 talk entitled "Impact of
Multimedia Lectures" given by a faculty member of the
Department of Psychology at the University of Florida and
sponsored by the University Center for Excellence in
Teaching and the Office of Instructional Resources resulted
in higher attendance than any such voluntary meeting to
date. Over 60 faculty members, administrators, and graduate
teaching assistants gathered to hear about the experience of
one of their colleagues and to learn from it.
The topic addressed at this lecture represents quite a
different orientation from that of workshops being given as
few as two years ago, where during a one-day conference
called Data Day '95 University of Florida officials
organized sessions to inform faculty and graduate students
about " Internet resources that faculty may not be aware of"
(Passarella, 1995, p. 8). At that time a member of the
organizing committee admitted to not anticipating a
sophisticated level of experience among those attending.

80
Faculty concerns over instructional use of the Internet
have become even more pertinent during the 1996-1997
academic year. As changes in access to computers and
networked resources in student computer laboratories across
campus have been put into effect, students have resisted
paying an additional fee. The administration's distinction
between essential and elective computer access has been one
with which students could not agree.
The theoretical framework for the study was the
Concerns-Based Adoption Model, which has been developed to
help facilitate change at the level of the individual
involved with innovation adoption within educational
settings. The model was developed by Gene Hall and his
associates at The Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education of the University of Texas at Austin as
part of the Procedures for Adopting Educational
Innovations/CBAM Project. The model has multiple dimensions
which serve to guide change facilitators and others for
successful implementation of educational change.
The first dimension of the CBAM involves the stages of
concern, further described as seven psychological constructs
through which an individual passes when confronted with
change. Concerns are defined as an individual's motivation,
thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.

81
The Stages of Concern Questionnaire has been developed
to measure an individual's concerns regarding an educational
innovation. Interventions designed to resolve the most
intense stage(s) of concern are thought to promote more
efficient and effective implementation of the innovation
being proposed. Moreover, arousal of concerns at higher
stages is unlikely until resolution has been achieved at
lower stages of concern. The 35-item questionnaire offers a
pencil-and-paper measure of an individual's concerns and
supplies important information for planning training
interventions.
Specifically, the research questions the study set out
to answer were:
(1) What are the relationships of the level of Internet
use for instructional purposes and the level of Internet use
for all other purposes to the sequence of stages of concern?
(2) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern of the faculty members grouped by the
extent to which they modify their instructional practices
based on how or what students learn?
(3) Are there significant differences in the peak
stages of concern among faculty members grouped by rank,
gender, age, or national origin?
In order to investigate these questions, a mailed
survey using the Stages of Concern Questionnaire was carried

82
out of 1,650 faculty members in ten colleges within the
University of Florida. A total of 540 responses (33%)
provided the data for analyzing the results.
Findings
With respect to the first research question, both
levels of use of the Internet for instructional purposes and
levels of use for all other purposes were significantly
correlated with peak stage of concern among the members of
the sample. Nevertheless, when controlling for other
variables of interest in the study, only level of use of the
Internet for instructional purposes contributes
significantly to the prediction of peak stage of concern.
Typically, the respondent who was one level of use higher
was .62 stage further along in the developmental continuum
known as stages of concern.
With regard to the second research question, only the
extent to which respondents reported that they change their
teaching based on how students learn was significantly
correlated to peak stage of concern. When the other
variables were controlled, neither the extent to which
respondents reported that they change their teaching based
on how students learn nor the same based on what students
learn showed a significant contribution to prediction of
peak stage of concern.

83
Finally, among the variables of rank, gender, age, and
national origin, none was significantly correlated to the
outcome variable. Furthermore, only gender exhibited a
significant contribution to prediction of peak stage of
concern when all other variables were controlled.
Imolications
Since instructional use of the Internet is similar to
instructional use of other computer technology in that it
often has a preceding use which may involve research or even
recreation before transfer of the power and potential of the
technology to classroom applications, the finding in this
study that level of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes will significantly contribute to predicting peak
stage of concern is not surprising. Promoting use of the
Internet for any purpose among university faculty may well
spur the user on to recognizing possible teaching
applications. In order to increase awareness of what is
available, an issue as simple as faculty member access to
network connectivity in the office first, and updated
equipment with sufficient processing speed and memory
capacity second, may well be key among the conditions that
would promote instructional applications of this medium.
Mention is made of spending future allocations from the
technology fee generated by the monies collected from

84
students on connecting every classroom to the Internet.
However, this may well be 'buying the saddle before buying
the horse.' Attention to assuring that every faculty office
is connected first and supplied with sufficient resources to
benefit from something so simple and low-tech as email first
and then from what is available on the Internet may indeed
be a more informed route.
Since gender is correlated negatively with rank (-0.32,
p < .01) as well as with age (-0.18, p < .01) in the sample,
we know that women tend to be represented more than would be
expected at the lower ranks and among the younger faculty
members. In addition, gender maintained a significant
contribution to the prediction of peak stage of concern when
all other variables were controlled. This would mean that
controlling for other variables women of the sample tend to
be further along the developmental continuum represented by
the seven stages of concern (and probably levels of use)
regarding adopting the innovation of use of the Internet for
instructional purposes. The findings place these young
women at the lower ranks in key positions to become change
agents for their colleagues.
Recommendations for Further Research
If level of use of the Internet for instructional
purposes is associated with reaching a given stage of

85
concern regarding adoption of this educational innovation
and, in turn, level of use of the Internet for all other
purposes is correlated significantly with its use in the
classroom, then further research into the components of its
use in both categories is needed. Another topic of interest
would be the progression of the interest in and use of the
Internet from non-instructional uses such as research or
recreation to interest in its teaching and learning
applications.
Simply gathering information about the numbers and
locations of faculty with networked connectivity which
permits Internet access in the office and about those who
have the appropriate equipment to make the most of the
educational potential of the medium would be of great value
in setting systematic goals for implementation of wider
faculty use of the Internet for instructional purposes
across the campus.
Whether driven by student demand, through gradual
coercion from sources in the administration, or from
colleagues who are innovators, instructional use of the
Internet is an innovation which holds promise of being
central to the changing patterns in delivery of instruction
by institutions of higher education in the United States and
throughout the world for some time to come.

REFERENCES
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1986). Statistical methods
for the social sciences (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Dellen.
Albright, M. (1996, February 5). Instructional
technology and higher education: Rewards, rights and
responsibilities. Keynote address of the Southern Regional
Faculty and Instructional Development Consortium, Baton
Rouge, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 392 412)
Aneke, N. (1996). Teachers' stages of concern about a
school-wide educational reform (Doctoral dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1996).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 57(3). 934A.
(University Microfilms No. 9624162)
Borg, W., & Gall, M. (1989). Educational research (5th
ed.). New York: Longman.
Cicchelli, T. (1990). Concerns theory in liberal arts
related to preservice education of undergraduate and
graduate students. Educational Research Quarterly, 14(4).
41-48.
Cicchelli, T., & Baecher, R. (1987). The use of
concerns theory in inservice training for computer
education. Computers in Education. 11(2). 85-93.
Cicchelli, T., & Baecher, R. (1990). Theory and
practice: Implementing computer technology in a secondary
school. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 059)
Clement, J., & Abrahams, J. (1994). Networking in 1993
Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 1994, 20. 106-119
86

87
Chandler, J. (1994). Stages of concern expressed by
selected North Carolina community college faculty and staff
about the adoption of institutional effectiveness criteria
(Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University,
1994). (University Microfilms No. 9425455) Pissertation
Abstracts International. 55(4). 843A. (University Microfilms
No. 9425455)
Dankel, D., Jr. (1996). The use of the World Wide Web
in distance education. Paper presented at Computer Expo
1996, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Davis, J. (1971). Elementary survey analysis.
Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dreyfus, H., s Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine:
The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the
computer. New York: The Free Press.
Falvo, J. (1990). An analysis of language teachers'
concerns regarding new technologies: The case of Minnesota
teachers of Spanish assessing satellite video technology to
deliver authentic cultural materials (Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1990). Pissertation
Abstracts International. 52(3). 827A.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A
developmental conceptualization. American Educational
Research Journal. 6(2). 207-226.
Fuller, F., & Brown, 0. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In
K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: The seventy-fourth
yearbook of the national society for the study of education.
Part II (pp. 25-52). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Green, K. (1996). Campus computing 1995. Encino, CA:
Campus Computing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
394 383)
Hall, G. (1976). The study of individual teacher and
professor concerns about innovations. Journal of Teacher
Education. 27(1). 22-23.
Hall, G. (1979). The concerns-based approach to
facilitating change. Educational Horizons. 57(4). 202-208.

88
Hall, G. (1985) . A..at-aa.es .of. concern approach to
teacher preparation (Report 3213) . Austin, TX: The Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 265 126)
Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1977).
Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual
for use of the stages of concern questionnaire. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 342)
Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1979).
Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual
for use of the stages of concern questionnaire. (R & D
Report No. 3032). Austin, TX: The Research and Development
Center for Teacher Education.
Hall, G., S Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools:
Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a
basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development.
Teachers College Record. 8 0(1 I . 36-53.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1981). Program definition and
adaptation: Implications for inservice. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 14(2). 46-58.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S., Rutherford, W., & Newlove, B.
(1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for
analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education.
26(1), 52-56.
Hall, G., Newlove, B., George, A., Rutherford, W., &
Hord, S. (1991). Measuring change facilitator stages of
concern—A manual for the use of the CFSoC questionnaire.
Greeley, CO: Center for Research on Teaching and Learning,
University of Northern Colorado. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 353 307)
Hall, G., & Rutherford, W. (1976). Concerns of teachers
about implementing team teaching. Educational Leadership.
21(3), 227-233.
Hall, G., Wallace, R., Jr., & Dossett, W. (1973). A
developmental conceptualization of the adoption process
within educational institutions. Austin, TX: The Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 095 126)

89
Hickox, C. (1994). Training for the Internet: Stages of
concern among academic library staff in the Amigos
Consortium (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State
University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International.
55(11), 3383A. (University Microfilms No. 9510955)
Hord, S., & Loucks, S. (1980). A concerns-based model
for the delivery of inservice. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 206 620)
Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.
(1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
King, K. (1990). Information technologies in support of
teaching and learning. Higher Education Management. 2(3).
294-298.
Kugel, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers.
Studies in Higher Education, 18(3). 315-328.
Lee, E., Forthoffer, R., & Lorimer, R. (1989).
Analyzing Complex Survey Data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lee-Kang, D. (1993). Factors affecting the adoption of
instructional use of computers in undergraduate textiles,
clothing, and merchandising programs (Doctoral dissertation,
The Ohio State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts
International. 54(11). 4009A. (University Microfilms No.
9412003)
Leong-Childs, D. (1989). Professors' use of computers
for innovative instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International.
5Q(7), 1961A. (University Microfilms No. 8925907)
Lewis, D. (1994). Concerns and characteristics
affecting the adoption of computer based instruction by
diabetes educators (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia
University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International.
55(6), 1535A. (University Microfilms No. 9427972)
Loucks, S., & Hall, G. (1977). Assessing and
facilitating the implementation of innovations: A new
approach. Educational Technology, 17(2). 18-21.
Maddux, C. (1994). The Internet: Educational prospects
and problems. Educational Technology. 34(7). 37-42.

90
Malernee, J. (1997, January 27). Regents approve
tuition increase, $50 technology fee. The Independent
Florida fll1igatorâ–  pp. 1, 5.
Marsh, D., & Penn, D. (1988). Engaging students in
innovative instruction: An application of the stages of
concern framework to studying student engagement. Journal of
Classroom Interaction. 23(1), 8-14.
Matthews, R. (1993). Using concerns data to design a
staff development program. Journal of Staff Development.
14(3), 52-55.
McCarthy, B. (1982). Improving staff development
through CBAM and 4mat. Educational Leadership. 40(1). 20-25.
McCollum, K. (1997, February 21). A professor divides
his class in two to test value of on-line instruction. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A23.
McQuain, G. (1995). A study examining teacher concerns
regarding the implementation of technical preparation
programs in the Blue Ridge Community College Service Area.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1995).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 56(4). 1224A.
(University Microfilms No. 9525968)
Oblinger, D. (1992). Understanding the Internet. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 861)
Passarella, M. (1995, March 14). UF workshops to teach
basic on-line skills. The Independent Florida Alligator, p.
8.
Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York:
The Free Press.
Rouzie, A. (1995). The new computers and writing course
at the University of Texas at Austin: Context and theory.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384 895)
Rudenstine, N. (1997, February 21). The Internet and
education: A close fit. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
41(24), p. A48.
Rutherford, W. (1986) Teachers' contributions to school
improvement: Reflections on fifteen years of research. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271 462)

91
Salant, p. (1994). Hc>M__t.Q .conduct your own survey. New
York: Wiley.
Schwartz, S. (1996, November). Good ideas for teaching
large classes. Innovator. 2(3). 2.
Shehan, C. (1994). The mission of the University Center
for Excellence in Teaching. CLAS Notes. 8(8).
Shehan, C. (1995, Fall). The UCET mission. Innovator.
1, 4.
Shoemaker, C. (1990). A study of culture as a
determinant in the acceptance of innovative instructional
computer use in foreign language instruction for adults
(Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, 1990).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(7). 2242A.
Smith, R. (1995). Teaching physics on line. American
Journal of Physics, 63(12). 1090-1096.
Warnock, J. (1996). Exploring education's digital
toolkit for the 21st century. Syllabus. 10(4). 14, 16, 37.
Wedman, J., & Strathe, M. (1985). Faculty development
in technology: A model for higher education. Educational
Technology, 25(2), 15-19.
Wells, J., & Anderson, D. (1995). Teachers' stages of
concern toward Internet integration. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 389261)
Yessayan, S. (1991). A study of the adaptation to
technological innovation in higher education (Doctoral
dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1991). Pissertation
Abstracts International. 52(2). 518A.

APPENDIX A
STUDENT SENATE PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO ALL UF FACULTY

UNIVERSITY OF
^FLORIDA
Office of the Senate President
300-54 JWRU
PO Box 118505
November 19, 1996
Gainesville. FL 32611-8505
(352) 392-1665, ext 308
Fax:(352)392-8072
To All University of Florida Faculty:
As you may be aware. CIRCA has recently implemented a S20.00 fee to students for the
use of computers. The University of Florida Student Senate, representing the university’s
40.000 students, finds this policy unacceptable. We are asking for your help in providing
students access to computers and the Internet in their educational endeavors.
The attached Student Body Resolution 96-107 was passed unanimously by the Student
Senate on October 29. 1996. The resolution gives the “statement of purpose and mission”
for the State University System as stated in Florida Statutes 240.105 as well as the
“Institutional Purpose” stated in the 1996-97 University Catalog. The costs of ail essential
elements of fulfilling these purposes are provided through a combination of State
Revenues and Student Tuirion.
The students of the University of Florida see the use of computers as an essential, rather
than elective, element of fulfilling educational goals. For this reason, we arc asking each
faculty member to include the following on the syllabi for all courses they teach:.
It is the formal policy of this class that in order to fully and properly fulfill
the requirements of this course some use of and proficiency in the use of
computers, including access to and use of the Internet (e-mail and World
Wide Web), will be required.
With your help in requiring the use of computers for educational purposes, we hope
CIRCA will discontinue this policy of charging students for computer use, and address
other means of meering their financial needs.
The student body thanks you for your coopcradon in this effort. If you have questions, or
would like further information, please contact the Student Senate office. You may e-mail
me directly at senpres@sg.ufl.edu.
Student Senate President
Equ»l Opporrunjrv t Atfirmaav* Action i
93
attachment: SBR96-107

94
UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Student Senate 300-54 JWRU
PO Box 118505
Gainesville, FL 32611-8505
(352)392-1665. ext 308
Student Body Resolution: 96-107 Fax; (352)392-8072
We, the students of the University of Florida, hereby resolve:
TITLE; Student Body Opposition to Charges for Access to Computing Facilities and
Request for Faculty to Formally Declare Computer Access as Essential
AUTHOR: Charles Grapski
Chris Dorwonh. Student Senate President
WHEREAS: Student Government is established for the express purpose, as set forth in the
preamble to the Consututton. to:
1. "Develop better educational standards, facilities, and teaching methods:"
2. “Provide a forum for the expressions of student views and interests;”
3. "Maintain ... academic responsibility, and student rights;"
4. "Foster the recognition of the rights and responsibilities of students to the school, the
community, and humanity;"
AND WHEREAS: The University of Florida publicly states in its official 1996-97 Catalog in reference
to its “InsutuUonal Purpose" that the faculty and staff are dedicated to leaching which the University
declares to be the “fundamental purpose of the university;"
AND WHEREAS: The University of Florida publicly sutes in its official 1996-97 Catalog in reference
to ns "Mission and Goals" that its mam goal is "(t]he formation of educated people, the transformation of
mind through learning and the bunching of a lifetime of intellectual growth:"
AND WHEREAS: The University of Florida publicly states in its official 1996-97 Caulog in reference
to its "Mission and Goals" that it is “a major, public, comprehensive, land-grant, research university;”
AND WHEREAS; The University of Florida publicly states in its official 1996-97 Caulog in reference
to its "Programs." through numerous ciutions of its public standing in the academic world, that it is
among the best insuiuuons of higher educauon in the United Slates. Additionally the University claims
that "UF is one of the nation's top three universities;”
AND WHEREAS: The State of Florida publicly sets forth in 240.105 Florida Statutes its “Statement of
purpose and mission" for the Slate University System and its member institutions that;
“(1) The Legislature finds it in the public interest to provide a system of higher education which
is of the highest possible quality; which enables students of ail ages, backgrounds, and levels of
income to participate in the search for knowledge and individual development: which stresses
undergraduate teaching as ns mam priority; which offers selected professional, graduate, and
research programs with emphasis on sute and national needs; which fosters diversity of
educational opportunity; which promotes service to the public; which makes effective and
efficient use of human and physical resources: which functions cooperatively with other
educational insuiuuons and systems; and which promotes internal coordination and the wisest
possible use of resources.
(2) The mission of the state system of postsecondary educauon is to develop human resources, to
discover and disseminate knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond the
boundaries of its campuses, and to serve and stimulate society by developing in students
heightened intellectual, cultural, and humane sensitivities: scientific, professional, and
Eatui Oooomjrurv I Affirnuav* Action I

THEREFORE BE rT RESOLVED:Thai the Student Senate, as representative of the Student Body,
formally declares tts opposition to the “elecuve access” policy implemented on behalf of the University of
Florida by CIRCA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Student Body formally states tha*. it believes that, as an essential
component of the educational process, access to these computers and computing facilities has already been
paid for through State Revenues and Tuition.
BE FT FURTHER RESOLVED: That through the assessment of additional tuition charges through the
differential tuition program the Student Body of the University of Florida has directly paid for access to
the computers and computing facilities controlled by CIRCA beyond the essential level of access.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Student Body reasserts with vigor that access to computers and
computing facilities, including but not limited to the use of software packages such as word processing,
spreadsheets, databases and access to the Internet, including access to e-mail and the World Wide Web are
essential:
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Student Body requests that all members of the University
of Florida faculty formally insert the following lines into all future syllabi, or something to this effect, as
well as amend the cunent syllabi for all courses they teach:
It is the formal policy of this class that in order to fully and properly fulfill the requirements
of this course some use of and proficiency in the use of computers, including access to and
use of the Internet (e-mail and World Wide Web), will be required.
By formally declaring the necessary and essential nature of such access and officially submitting it to the
Director of CIRCA, according to CIRCA's publicly stated policy regarding “elecuve access” to computers,
all students enrolled in those classes shall be granted access to UFs computers and compuung facilities at
no additional cost for that semester.
Copies to:
University Vice President
Student Body President
Student Body Vice President
Student Body Treasurer
Student Honor Court
Passed 10/29/96
SBR 96-107

APPENDIX B
PERMISSION TO USE STAGES OF CONCERN QUESTIONNAIRE

FFQII COL OF CDVC'frIAM'f OFF ICK~VM1V. OF TE::»5
COLLECE OF EDUCATION
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Office of 'h* Otan • Cfoige /. Sánchez Building 210 • Annin, Texas 79712
(S¡2) 471-7255 ■ FAX (512) 471-0846
November 1, 1996
Constance L. Shehan. Ph.D.
Director and Professor of Sociology
University of Florida
109 Rolfs Hall
P.O. Box 112030
Gainesville. FL 32611-2030
Dear Dr. Shehan:
1 write in response to your request of October 31, 1996. On behalf of
the copyright holder. The University of Texas at Austin College of
Education grants you permission to use the "Stages of Concern
Questionnaire". This publication was prepared as an activity of the
University's Center for Research and Development in Teacher
Education. The Center lost their federal funding over eight years ago
and is no longer in operation.
With regard to credits, please include the appropriate copyright
notice (Center for Research and Development in Teacher Education.
University of Texas at Austin) on duplicates of the instruments and
otherwise use the credit formal standard for academic publications.
Administrative Associate
rl
97

APPENDIX C
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

university of
.'FLORIDA
114 Psychology Bldg.
PO Box 112250
Gainesville. FL 32611-2250
Phone: (352)392-0433
Fax: (352)392-0433
Institutional Review Board
December 12, 1996
TO:
FROM:
Sue Anne Toms
2402 NRN .
C. Michael Levy, Chair: \ v v
University of Florida Institutional
Review Board \j
SUBJECT: Approval of Project #96.613
Instructional use of the internet: stages of concern among UF
faculty
Funding: Unfunded
I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional
Review Board has recommended approval of this project. Based on its
review of your protocol, the UFIRB determined that this research presents
no more than minimal risk to participants and, based on 45 CFR 46.117(c),
authorizes you to administer tne informed consent process as specified in
the attached description.
If you wish to make any changes in this protocol, you must disclose your
plans before you implement them so th2t the Board can assess their impact
on your project. In addition, you must repon to the Board any unexpected
complications arising from the project which affect your panicipants.
If you have not completed this project by December 11. 1997, please telephone
our office (392-0433) and we will tell you how to obtain a renewal.
It is important that you keep your Depanment Chair informed about the status
of this research project.
CML/h2
cc: Vice President for Research
Dr. Clemens Hallman
Eifual Oppomir
99

APPENDIX D
STAGES OF CONCERN QUESTIONNAIRE

CONCERNS QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine what people
who are using or thinking about using the Internet for
instructional purposes are concerned about at various times during
the innovation adoption process. The items were developed from
typical responses of university and school teachers who ranged
from no knowledge at all about various innovations to many years
experience in using them. Therefore, a good part of the items mav
appear to be of little relevance or irrelevant to you at this
time. For the completely irrelevant items, please circle "O' on
the scale. Other items will represent those concerns you do have,
in varying degrees of intensity, and should be marked higher on
the scale.
For example:
This statement is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
0 1 2 3 0 5 6 7
0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very true of me now.
somewhat true of me at this time,
not at all true of me now.
irrelevant to me.
Please respond to the items in terms of vour present
concerns. or how you feel about your involvement or potential
involvement with use of the INTERNET for instructional purposes.
The following definitions will be used:
Internet-the international network linking smaller networks
providing access to- information (text/graphics/audio/video)
throughout those networks and capabilities for electronic
mail and file transfer.
Instructional purpose-a use (either required or optional)
to support classroom routines, e.g., course announcements,
distributing hand-outs, sending or receiving assignments,
research for term projects.
Your participation in responding to this questionnaire is
both voluntary and anonymous. Please do not write your name
anywhere on it.
Thank you for taking time to complete this task by Friday,
March 5, 1997. If you prefer, you may respond on-line by going
to the form at .
Alternatively, you can fax the completed document to 846-1576 or
return it folded and closed via campus mail to:
University Center for Excellence in Teaching
P.O. Box 112030
Please continue on back >
Procedures for Adopting Educacional Innovations/CSAM Project
R&D Center for Teacher Education. University of Texas at Austin
Copyright, 1974. Reprinted with permission.
101

102
PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF:
1. % What percent time are you teaching this semester?
2 . Are you working
0. Part-time
1.Full-time
3. What is your gender?
0. Male
- 1. Female
4. How old are you?
5. What is your rank?
0. Instructor/Lecturer
1. Post-doc
2. Assistant Professor
3. Associate Professor
4. Professor
5. Other (please specify)
6. Which type of faculty line are you on?
0. Tenure track
1.Non-tenure track
7. How many years (incl. this one) have you been on the UF faculty?
8. Are you an international faculty member?
0. I am a native-born U.S. citizen.
1. I am a naturalized U.S. citizen.
2. I am a permanent U.S. resident.
3. I am here on a visa.
9. How long have you been involved with instructional use of the Internet?
0. Never
years
10. Using the Internet for instructional purposes, do you consider yourself
0. a non-user
1. a novice
2. an advanced beginner
3. a competent user
4. a proficient user
5. an expert
11. Using the Internet for all other purposes, are you
0. a non-user
1. a novice
2. an advanced beginner
3. a competent user
4. a proficient user
5. an expert
Have you had formal training in the Internet for instructional purposes
0. No
1. Yes
12.

103
Are
you currently in the first or second year
of use of some
other major
innovation or program?
0.
No
i #
Yes
How
much do you modify your teaching
based on
what students
learn?
0.
Not at all
i_ _
Moderately
2.
Average
3.
Quite a bit
4.
A great deal
How
much do you modify your teaching
based on
how students learn?
0.
Not at all
1.
Moderately
2.
Average
3.
Quite a bit
4 .
A great deal
NOV.1, PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT:
Irr
0 1
elevant
2 3 4 5
Not true
6 7
2 3 4
Somewhat true of me now
5 6 7
Very true of me now
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
(16) I am concerned about students' attitudes toward
instructional uses of the Internet.
67 (17) I now know of some other approaches that might work
better.
67 (18) I don't even know what using the Internet for
instructional purposes would be.
67 (19) I am concerned about not having enough time to
organise myself each day.
67 (20) I would like to help other faculty in their
instructional Internet use.
6 7 (21) I have a very limited knowledge of instructional uses
of the Internet.
67 (22) I would like to know the effect of using the Internet
for instructional purposes on my professional status.
67 (23) I am concerned about conflict between my interests and
my responsibilities.
67 (24) I am concerned about revising my instructional use of
the Internet.
01234567 (25) I would like to develop working relationships with
both our faculty and outside faculty using the
Internet for instructional purposes.
Procedures for Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM Project
RAD Center for Teacher Education. University of Texas at Austin
Copyright. 1974. Reprinted with permission.

104
o i
Irrelevant Not true
01234567 (26)
2 3 4 5 6 7
Somewhat true of me now Very true of me now
I am concerned about how instructional use of the
Internet affects students.
01234567
01234567
01234567
01234567
01234567
01234567
01234567
01234567
01234567
(27) I am not concerned about use of the Internet for
instructional purposes.
(28) I would like to know who will make the decisions
regarding use of the Internet for instruction.
(29) I would like to discuss the possibility of using the
Internet for instructional purposes.
(30) I would like to know what resources are available if
we decide to adopt instructional use of the Internet.
(31) I am concerned about my inability to manage all that
instructional Internet use requires.
(32) I would like to know how my teaching or administration
is supposed to change.
(33) I would like to familiarize other departments or
persons with our progress in using the Internet.
(34) I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.
(35) I would like to revise the instructional approach to
use of the Internet.
01234567 (36) I am completely occupied with other things.
01234567 (37) I would like to modify our instructional use of the
Internet based on the experiences of our students.
01234567 (38) Although I don't know about instructional Internet
use, I am concerned about issues in this area.
01234567 (39) I would like to excite my students about their part in
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
01234567 (40) lam concerned about time spent working with
non-academic problems related to using the Internet
for instructional purposes.
01234567 (41) I would like to know what instructional use of the
Internet will require in the immediate future.
01234567 (42) I would like to coordinate my effort with others to
maximize the effects of instructional Internet use.
01234567 (43) I need more information on time and energy commitments
required by instructional Internet use.
Procedures for Adopting Educational Innovations/CHAM Project
R&D Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin
Copyright, 1974. Reprinted with permission.

105
o
Irrelevant
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not true Somewhat true of me now Very true of me now
6 7 (44) I would like to know what other faculty are doing in
this area.
6 7 (45) At this time, I am not interested in learning about
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
6 7 (46) I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance,
or replace instructional use of the Internet.
6 7 (47) I would like to use feedback from students to change
use of the Internet for instruction.
6 7
(48) I would like to know how my role will change when I am
using the Internet for instructional purposes.
(49)
(50)
Coordinating tasks/people takes too much of my time.
I would like to know how instructional use of the
Internet is better than what we are doing now.
Procedures for Adopting Educational Innovations/CHAM Project
RAD Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin
Copyright, 1974. Reprinted with permission.
Your comments will be appreciated.
Thank you for your help. Please fold, close, and return.
University Center for Excellence in Teaching
P.O. Box 112030

APPENDIX E
TEXT OF INITIAL SURVEY MAILING
Dear UF Faculty Member,
The University Center for Excellence in Teaching
is working to improve teaching and learning at the
University of Florida. Accurate information about
current practices and future needs is essential to
this effort. As a faculty member you are asked to
contribute to its success.
Within the next week you will receive a
questionnaire in campus mail about use of the Internet
for instructional purposes. Please take a few minutes
to complete the questionnaire as soon as it arrives.
Your information will be valuable in helping UCET as
it works to improve teaching and learning at the
University of Florida.
Sincerely,
Constance L. Shehan, Ph.D.
Director
106

APPENDIX F
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL: FIRST MAILING OF QUESTIONNAIRE

W FLORIDA
UNIVERSITY OF
University Center for Excellence in Teaching
109 Rolfs Hall
PO Box 112030
Gainesville, FL 32611-2030
(904) 846-1574 Fax (504) 846-1576
January 23, 1997
flew Area Cod-.*: ¿T2
The University Center for Excellence in Teaching is undertaking a
survey to collect data on faculty development concerns and needs
for use in programming its activities in the coming years.
As a member of the faculty during Spring Semester 1997, your input
is essential. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire.
Estimated time required is 15 minutes.
Your participation in responding to this questionnaire is both
voluntary and anonymous. You do not have to answer any questions
you do not wish to answer. Please do not write your name
anywhere. The questionnaire has a departmental identification
number to enable recording the number of responses by department.
If you prefer, you may respond to the questionnaire on-line and
submit your answers anonymously by going to the form on the UCET
web site at .
Alternatively, vcu may fax the completed document to 846-1576 or
return it folded and closed via campus mail to UCET, P.0. Box
112030. We are requesting responses by Wednesday, February 5,
1997 .
If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to
email the center at or call 846-1574.
Thank you for your participation. We look forward to your input.
Sincerely,
Constance L. Sheha:
Director
Equal Opportunity / Ammunve At nun liunmnon
108

APPENDIX G
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL: FOLLOW-UP MAILING OF QUESTIONNAIRE

.¿4% UNIVERSITY OF
: FLORIDA
University Center for Excellence in Teaching
109 Rolfs Hall
PO Box 112030
Gainesville FI 32611-2030
(352) 846-1574 Fax (352) 846-1576
February 21, 1997
About a month ago we mailed you a questionnaire for the study
of faculty concerns and development needs, especially in
relation to instructional use of the Internet. In case the
first copy was lost, we have enclosed another with this
letter.
Your response will contribute to the success of the project.
Please complete and return the questionnaire by Friday, March
7, 1997. If you wouid like to respond to the on-line version,
you may do so at
http://www.ucet.ufl.edu/internet.html
Your response in this study is voluntary and anonymous; you do
not need to answer any questions you do not want to.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and support. If you
have recently returned the questionnaire, please disregard
this letter.
Sincerely,
Constance L. Shehan
Director
E4u.11 Opportunity Atfírituare Action Institution
110

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Sue Anne Toms was born in Mansfield, Ohio, and grew up
in Columbus where she attended The Ohio State University and
earned a Bachelor of Science degree in education. She also
holds a Master of Arts in English as a foreign language from
Southern Illinois University. A speaker of eight languages,
she has traveled to over 75 countries, studied in Mexico,
and lived and worked in Spain, Poland, Puerto Rico, the
People's Republic of China, and Thailand. She has held two
Fulbrights, one in (the former) Yugoslavia and the other in
India. She has been on the faculty of Southern Illinois
University, The Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto
Rico, and The Ohio State University. She is married to T.C.
Chotigeat, and they make their home in Thibodaux, Louisiana.
Ill

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Clemens L. Hallman, Chair
Professor of Instruction and Curriculum
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
,-QPq
L
Jpjes J. A1
Professor
I Foundations of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree^bf Doctor of Philosophy.
¿fichará D. Downie
Lecturer of Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the^degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Sebastian L. Foti
Assistant Professor of Instruction
and Curriculum

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1997
Déan, College of Education
Dean, Graduate School

LD
1780
1997
♦ Tí¿2
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08555 0084