In recent decades, dozens of virtual universities have been created on the five continents. The traditional universities have chosen to design programs and materials related to the new information and communication technologies. This can be seen in the universities’ web sites, now commonly used for presenting themselves to the world.

However, this diversity in the educational offer and the acquisition of computer equipment, seldom go hand in hand with the adequate training which teachers, administrators and students require to make educational programs function properly. In the case of teachers, this lack of preparation is accompanied by the administration’s imposing new methods for teaching their courses—resulting in the generation of widespread confusion in this sector.

For Delors (1996), Bates (2001), Diesbach (2002), Epper and Bates (2004), Sangrá and González (2004), Barocio (2004) and Pedró (2004), among many others, teachers are the principal conductors of institutional change, since administrative policies have little or no value if their application does not begin with the very foundation of the institution’s various branches. The use of technology should be presented as a means to an end: to improve educational processes, thus inducing changes in attitudes and teaching methods that meet the demands of today’s society.

According to Delors:

Teachers play a key role in shaping attitudes—positive or negative—concerning study. They are the ones who ought to arouse curiosity, develop independence, foster intellectual force and create the conditions necessary for the success of formal education and lifelong learning (1996, p. 157).

However, one of the major challenges has been to overcome teachers’ resistance and fear on the subject of using technology. And, as noted by Bates:

In any institution the different teachers will take different positions regarding the process of change: beginning with fear and anger, resistance, lament for the old days, the wary acceptance of the new; and, finally, coming to an absolute faith in change, or defense of it (2001, p.135).

Although it is true that it is the teacher who must set an example for the students regarding the appropriation of knowledge; reflection and analysis of information; the process of learning to learn; in the case of the technologies, teachers have lagged behind.

In some educational institutions, students of the past two decades have sought their own tools with which to facilitate their learning processes; they have developed the competencies that allow them easy access to new technologies; and thus they have “obliged” the teacher to seek continuous updating.

It is not unusual to see a whole group of students organize a chat session using some instant messaging system, create complex directories of Email accounts, and manipulate all sorts of information the Internet provides. On many occasions they have been the first to use the projector and laptop computer for their presentations in the classroom, and have been giving teachers an example of openness and availability toward the new, the recent, the practical.

In the present case, information and communication technologies were significantly introduced in the CUSUR in 2001, the year when the Department of Learning Technologies was created as a support and orientation agency for programs offered at the Center.

Also set in motion was a program of teacher training in various areas such as use and management of videoconferencing equipment, use of self-access classrooms, self-instructional materials design, learning assessment and management of the Web CT platform for teachers who wanted to develop online courses.

During the last three years, the CUSUR has offered around 47 courses and workshops related to the above areas; more than 65% of the teachers have participated in these—an important advance in updating and teacher training.

a) Scope of research

According to the classification of Danhke (quoted by Hernández Sampieri, 2003, p. 114), there are four types of investigations in accordance with the scope of the study to be made:

• Exploratory studies.
• Descriptive studies.
• Correlative studies.
• Explanatory studies.

According to Hernández Sampieri (2003), there are two factors that influence whether an investigation is initiated as exploratory, descriptive, correlative or explanatory: the current understanding of the research topic revealed by reviewing the literature, and the approach which the researcher intends to give to its study.

On the other hand none of the four types of study can be considered to be better than the others; all are equally valid and important.

After reviewing the literature existing on the subject, we found that there are similar studies, but in other contexts remote from the reality of the CUSUR, and from the reality currently experienced at the University of Guadalajara. The scope of the present research was conceived as an exploratory study that would allow us to analyze the teachers’ perspective on the use of information technology in their educational programs.

b) Focus

The methodological approach followed in the research is mixed, with different techniques having been applied. On the one hand, there was carried out a document review to rescue some statistical data concerning the origin of the implementation of various technologies in the CUSUR, as well as an analysis of official documents: reports, development plans and curricula. For quantitative analysis, we designed a questionnaire which was applied to 42 of the 320 university teachers, 22 part-time, 16 full-time and 3 academic associates.

The stratified sample was not random, because, on the one hand, teachers were selected from 10 of the 13 programs existing in the Center, and on the other hand, included both those working with online courses and those who had no previous records of the use of technology. For the purposes of this study, the questions discussed were:

• Do you think that the technological infrastructure of CUSUR is sufficient to support teachers’ demands? Why?
• Have you had enough didactic, methodological and technological support to implement ICT in your academic programs? Why?
• What was the reason why you implemented (or did not implement) ICT in your academic programs?
• Do you think that the teaching-learning process is modified by the implementation of ICT? Why?

Based on these questions and the answers the teachers gave, we obtained various categories of analysis in each; these are presented in the results section.

The method of participatory-action research guided much of the investigation, since the work involved simultaneous knowledge and intervention, and also involved the participation of the people involved (teachers and researchers) in the research program. Thus, we worked directly with teachers interested in introducing new forms of action through the use of technologies, not with those who just wanted to remain mere observers of what was already established. This phase of work is done based on the responses obtained with the application of the instrument, and as already mentioned, with a group of volunteer teachers.

At this stage, there were offered several short courses on the use of some technologies such as Internet, email and videoconferencing, and how to integrate these into the teaching process.

The results obtained are presented here, according to the four areas identified above:

• Technological infrastructure.
• Support and teacher training.
• Reasons for the implementation of technologies.
• Changing the teaching/learning process.

With reference to each of these points there will given some of the conclusions shown by direct work with the group of teachers who participated in training courses, and who were part of the action/ research process.

The question used in addressing this priority was, “Do you think that the technological infrastructure of the CUSUR is sufficient to support the teachers’ demands?” Two choices were offered: yes or no, and included both the technological equipment as well as the physical spaces that contain it: laboratories, specialized classrooms for audio and videoconferencing, and self-access classrooms. As a result, 59.5% of the teachers considered it to be sufficient, while 40.5% believed it is not. It should be noted that within this second group, most are part-time teachers, who do not have a defined physical space or computer equipment for personal use; this has caused inconvenience and dissatisfaction within the University Center.

The second part of the question asked why they thought so. The categories of analysis resulting from the responses of teachers in this section are shown in Table I.

Table I. Technological infrastructure

As already mentioned, although the CUSUR has eight laboratories equipped with 40 computers each, these spaces are for use by course instructors and students. The library has seven cubicles equipped for working, but this is not enough to meet the demand.

The lack of space and equipment has been a constant complaint, and the authorities have thought of creating specific spaces for course instructors. Because this group of teachers has participated actively in the training processes; in the design of online courses; and the implementation, in general, of information and communication technologies, thought has been given to some way of repaying their work, although this has not been carried out institutionally. By agreement of the administration, teachers who are giving online courses can suspend their in-and-out registration3 as long as they prove their constant participation in the platform. Another incentive consists of payment for Internet service in the homes of those teaching online courses, as well as providing computers specifically set aside for those giving online courses. With these measures, the lack of physical space and technological infrastructure has been partially overcome.

For this area, we used the questions, “Have you had enough didactic, methodological and technological support to implement ICT in your academic programs? Why?”

Like the previous question, it consisted of two parts, the first answered with a yes or no. As a result, we found that 62% of the teachers considered that they have indeed had the necessary support in all areas, while 26% thought they had not. Twelve percent said they had not asked for such support. For the second part of the question, the categories of responses were divided into strengths and weaknesses (see Table II).

Table II. Strengths and weaknesses

In this area, we realize that most of the teachers have had the support required for the best use of the technologies; the teachers recognize the training effort the Center is making. However, the other percentage shows that it is necessary to consider the teachers’ work load when encouraging them to expand the use of technology and to take advantage of the services offered. Once again there prevails a dearth of incentives for those who have shown interest in their training process.

It is noteworthy that some of the teachers who indicated they were unaware of courses and workshops offered at the Center, participated in the training group, and most already have some of their courses online. This has been a strength, since although progress in training has been slow, it is creating a culture oriented toward encouraging teachers to get acquainted with some technology and to introduce it into their academic programs.

For this area there was presented the question, “What was your reason for implementing (or not implementing) ICT in the academic programs?” The categories derived from responses to this question are shown in Table III.

Table III. Motives for using ICTs

As we can see, the answers the teachers gave match the previous area, where two of the reasons for not implementing ICT are the lack of time, and not knowing about the CUSUR’s project for introducing technologies.

On the other hand, we had a large group of teachers who believe that implementing the technologies could help improve students’ education. This consideration is vital because it gives teachers a motive strong enough to bring about change. Furthermore, we must not ignore the fact that teachers are more receptive if the message comes from their peers. Thus, the larger the group convinced as to the benefits of implementing technologies in their academic programs, the easier it is to convince others to become involved in that change.

The question for this area was, “Do you think the teaching-learning process is modified after the implementation of ICT? Why?”

In the first part of this question, 41 of the 42 teachers said that yes, the teaching-learning process was changed, and only 1 teacher said no. For the second part of the question, the responses obtained were classified in five categories (see Table IV).

Table IV. Modification of the teaching/learning process

This last table shows that most of the teachers are aware of the change that technologies can bring about in the teaching process. The emphasis on new ways of learning and the need for an update in teaching put teachers in a situation of obligation, search and continuous integration. In this sense, Epper and Bates (2004, p. 17), note that the last national teacher survey, conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), found that 87% of teachers believed that the use of computers improves student learning. As we can observe in the data presented here, teachers do not that this process can bring about improvement, but they still have many uncertainties as to how they can achieve it.

Barocio, R. (2004). La formación docente para la innovación educativa. Mexico: Trillas.

Bates, T. (2001). Cómo gestionar el cambio tecnológico. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Castells, M. (2002). La era de la información (Vol. I). Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

Delors, J. (1996). La educación encierra un tesoro. Mexico: Ediciones UNESCO.

Diesbach, N. (2002). Los retos de la educación en el amanecer del nuevo milenio. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: La Llave.

Duart, J. & Sangrá, A. (2000). Aprender en la virtualidad. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Epper, R. & Bates, T. (2004). Enseñar al profesorado cómo utilizar la tecnología. Barcelona: Univeristat Oberta de Catalunya.

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista, P. (2003). Metodología de la investigación (3ª. Ed.). Mexico: McGraw-Hill.

Pedró, F. (2004). Fauna académica. La profesión docente en las universidades europeas. Barcelona: Universidad Oberta de Catalunya.

Romiszowski, A. (1997). Web-based distance learning and teaching: Revolutionary invention or reaction to necessity? In B. Khan (Ed.), Web Based Instruction (pp. 24-40). Englewood Cliffs, CA: Educational Technology Publications.

Sangrá, A. & González, M. (2004). La transformación de las universidades a través de las TIC: discursos y prácticas. Barcelona: Univeristat Oberta de Catalunya.

Translator: Lessie Evona York-Weatherman

UABC Mexicali

1See Human Development Reports published annually by the United Nations Development Programme (www.onu.org).

2The metropolitan area of the state is made up of the municipalities of Guadalajara, Zapopan, Tlaquepaque, Tonalá and Tlajomulco.

3In the South University Center, as in many universities in Mexico, both part-time and full-time teachers are required to register their entry and exit of the facility. In this case, it is accomplished through a system of fingerprint identification.