Chiropractic institutions face the challenging quandary of how to prepare future doctors for entry into a society completely transformed by technology. At an increasing rate, the incoming student profile is representative of a digital generation with a high affinity for technology use. The aim of this study was 2-fold: (1) outline the basic elements of a technology integration program at our institution and (2) determine if a potential relationship exists between ongoing training and acceptance of such a programmatic shift among faculty and students.
At each phase of technology integration, electronic survey instruments were deployed to participating students and faculty members. Survey instruments included question items assessed through Likert-type scales and open-ended questions to provide students and faculty members with a vehicle for providing specific feedback. To ensure anonymity of student and faculty survey respondents, the response collection source was a different department than the deployment of the survey emails. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to complete the surveys.
Analysis of survey responses generally found increases in overall participant satisfaction and acceptance of the technology integration with the provision of ongoing support systems.
As suggested in similar scholarship in the field, the results of this study underscored the value of support systems for faculty members and students in an academic community. The systems that provided ongoing training and other support mechanisms seemed more accepted when tailored to myriad skill levels. Creating a culture in which faculty members and students felt adequately supported fostered the acceptance necessary for forward momentum of a campus initiative of significant change.
Billie Harrington (corresponding author) is the director for the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning and an associate professor at Sherman College of Chiropractic (2020 Springfield Rd, Boiling Springs, SC 29316; email@example.com). This article was received May 26, 2021, revised August 30, 2021, February 21, 2022, July 29, 2022, and August 18, 2022, and accepted September 17, 2022.
Concept development: BGH. Design: BGH. Supervision: BGH. Data collection/processing: BGH. Analysis/interpretation: BGH. Literature search: BGH. Writing: BGH. Critical review: BGH.