Content uploaded by Eric Belt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Belt on Apr 17, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 1
Developing Faculty to Teach with Technology: Themes from the Literature
Eric Belt*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1211-369X
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Patrick Lowenthal
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9318-1909
Boise State University
*Corresponding author
Preprint: “Developing Faculty to Teach with Technology: Themes from the Literature” to appear in
TechTrends
Belt, E. & Lowenthal, P. (2020). Developing faculty to teach with technology: Themes from
the literature. TechTrends, 64(2).
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 2
Abstract
Technology has changed higher education; yet, many faculty are still hesitant to teach with
technology. Faculty development might help change this, but questions remain on the best ways
to help faculty teach with technology. Given this problem, we conducted a review of the
literature to identify some best practices on how to develop faculty to teach with technology in
the literature. The purpose of this paper is to present themes of faculty development research in
higher education published from 2013 to 2018 where teaching with technology is a central
component of the study. The results suggest that mentorship and faculty-teaching-faculty are
effective strategies, that online delivery methods continue to grow, that teaching with technology
warrants cross-disciplinary collaboration and that faculty motivations vary across rank and
discipline.
Keywords: faculty development, higher education, teaching with technology
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 3
Developing Faculty to Teach with Technology: Themes from the Literature
Technology continues to drastically change the world we live in. For instance, wearable
technologies are enhancing approaches to modern medicine (Park & Jayaraman, 2003; Pevnick,
Birkeland, Zimmer, Elad, & Kedan, 2018), 3D printers are disrupting manufacturing to eliminate
inventory overhead (Berman, 2012) and augmented reality is blending digital information with
the real world across the entertainment industry (Kipper & Rampolla, 2012). However, in many
ways (except for perhaps the growth of online learning), teaching and learning at colleges and
universities have not changed that much compared to the technological advances of modern life
(Kukulska-Hulme, 2012). Recognizing this problem colleges, universities and faculty developers
have increasingly focused on developing workshops, programs and other forms of support to
teach faculty not only how to use specific types of technology but more importantly how and
why they might effectively integrate technology into their teaching (Bates & Sangra, 2011;
Epper & Bates, 2001; Mishra, Koehler, & Zhao, 2007).
Advances in technology coupled with diverse faculty backgrounds and needs, confronts
faculty developers with decisions about how to approach technology-focused faculty
development. Previous efforts have focused on using technology-enhanced classrooms (see
Fairchild, Meiners, & Violette, 2016), incorporating mobile devices in instruction (see Power,
Cristol, Gimbert, Bartoletti, & Kilgore, 2016), leveraging learning management systems (see
Baran, 2016; Sinclair & Aho, 2018), developing accessible course content (see Paskevicius &
Bortolin, 2016; Wynants and Dennis, 2018) and so on. However, despite these efforts, research
suggests that faculty still do not integrate technology into their teaching as much as they could
and many argue they should (Bates & Poole, 2003; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Kukulska-Hulme,
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 4
2012). We contend that part of this problem could be due to the faculty development programs
being offered.
Faculty development programs focused on teaching with technology are often short-
lived, isolated activities centered on technical proficiency as opposed to informing pedagogical
change. Research suggests one-time technology workshops have minimal effect on long-term
sustained development (Bickerstaff & Cormier, 2015; Bose & Lowenthal, 2018) even though
research also suggests that faculty tend to prefer one-hour and online training formats more than
other formats (Lowenthal, Wray, Bates, Switzer, & Stevens, 2013). Thus, questions remain as to
the best ways to teach faculty to teach with technology. The purpose of this review was to
synthesize evidence-based practices from the literature that could help other faculty developers
teach faculty to teach with technology at their colleges and universities.
Background
Faculty development is not new; institutions have been offering various forms of faculty
development for decades (Lewis, 1996). However, the increased push for faculty to teaching
with technology and the corresponding faculty development programs focused on teaching with
technology are relatively new. Advances in technology, though, create new challenges for
faculty developers across nearly all educational institutions and organizations.
Problems Facing Faculty Developers
Faculty developers face a considerable number of challenges when rolling out faculty
development programs focused on teaching with technology. Most prevalent are competing
interests of faculty, concerns and priorities amongst senior leadership and institutional strategic
plans (Sorcinelli & Austin, 2010). Rollover in academic leadership and in turn changes to faculty
development initiatives further complicates faculty development initiatives (Donnelly, 2018).
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 5
Such change combined with differing perspectives on how best to use technology creates a
constant push-pull situation for faculty developers. Bates and Poole (2003) described this push-
pull tension between various stakeholders as the “technological imperative” (i.e., arguments for
and against teaching with and in turn investing in technology in higher education). As a result,
faculty developers are often tasked with advocating for using certain technologies in the
classroom to not only the senior leadership, but also pitching the use of those technologies to
faculty while also incentivizing and training faculty to use those technologies. Despite their best
efforts, disagreement among stakeholders can hinder any faculty development initiative.
Defining Terms
There are various terms used to describe faculty development throughout the literature
(e.g., faculty development, instructional development, organizational development, academic
development, professional development, educational development and so on). Not surprisingly,
there does not appear to be a universally agreed-upon definition of faculty development (Taylor
& Colet, 2010). This is likely due to the fact that faculty development is both highly
individualized and extremely localized across institutions. In other words, different institutions
and organizations define faculty development in different ways.
The Professional Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education
positions faculty development as one of three clusters that fall under the umbrella of educational
development: faculty development, instructional development and organizational development.
According to Gillespie and Robertson (2010), faculty development emphasizes the individual
instructor, instructional development emphasizes the course and curriculum and organizational
development emphasizes administration and leadership.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 6
There is an important distinction, sometimes blurred in the literature, regarding teaching
with technology and faculty development research that warrants further explanation. There is a
difference between using technology for faculty development (e.g., online faculty development
initiatives where technology, such as a learning management system, is used to support faculty at
a distance) versus faculty development focused on teaching faculty how to teach with
technology. Some research focuses on the ways in which faculty development is being offered
via technology (see Cohn, Stewart, Theirsen, & Comins, 2016; Liu & Alexander, 2017;
Mckenna, Johnson, Yoder, Guerra, Rocio, & Pimmel, 2016), while other research focuses on the
technology being taught (see Power, Cristol, Gimbert, Bartoletti, & Kilgore, 2016; Sinclair &
Aho, 2018; Strawser, Apostel, O’Keefe, & Simons, 2018). In this paper, we are focused on the
latter approach, though findings in both types of research are subsequently discussed because the
lines of research often overlap.
Method
To conduct this review, we searched the ERIC database using the keywords “teaching
with technology,” “faculty development” and “higher education.” The initial search focused on
finding peer-reviewed studies published from 2013 to 2018 that contained a methods section and
were conducted at higher education institutions. Each article was then reviewed to determine that
it focused on “technology use in teaching” or on“technology use in faculty development.” This
resulted in a total of 25 studies. These 25 studies were entered into Google Scholar to identify the
number of times each study had been cited by others in an attempt to gauge its relevance within
the field. We found that only seven studies had been cited in double-digit figures, thus
suggesting that this field of inquiry is nascent. To broaden our search beyond subscription-based
library databases, we used Google Scholar to conduct an additional search using the same
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 7
keywords and process; this resulted in an additional 20 articles to include in this review. In the
end, a total of 45 articles were read and analyzed. To identify common themes in this literature,
the first author used a type of memoing to code recurring findings throughout each article (i.e.,
incentives, mentorship, time, preferences, etc.). The codes were examined and grouped into
common areas or themes. In the end, four themes emerged as a result of the analysis. The first
and second author discussed and came to a consensus that these four themes represent the major
themes in this literature. Additional literature published before 2013 was used to support,
confirm or dispute the more recent research.
Results of the Review
Four main themes resulted from this review: the role of faculty as learners, delivery
methods, the call for increased collaboration and motivations to participate in faculty
development. Each theme is discussed in detail in the following section.
Theme 1: The Role of Faculty as Learners
Across every institution, the primary role of most faculty is to teach. However, with
faculty development, faculty find the role shifts from being the teacher to being the student or
learner. This transition from teacher to student creates a different dynamic in that the perceived
balance of power between subject and discipline changes. Faculty developers consider this
dynamic by giving special care to the shift of classroom control with faculty as learners. As a
result, researchers continue to explore how to leverage different roles in faculty development,
such as staff-teaching-faculty, students-teaching-faculty and faculty-teaching-faculty. Further,
some faculty developers have used differentiated approaches to support and develop early-career
faculty vs. more experienced faculty.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 8
Staff-teaching-faculty. Staff-teaching-faculty is by far the most common approach to
train faculty to teach with technology throughout the literature (see Castleberry, Haines, Stein,
Van Amburgh, & Persky, 2018; Englund, Olofsson, & Price, 2017; Fairchild, Meiners, &
Violette, 2016; Parker, Morrell, Morrell, & Chang, 2016; Wu, Hu, Gu, & Lim, 2016).
Oftentimes, centers for faculty development (sometimes also referred to as teaching and learning
centers) employ staff proficient with technology who conduct workshops on how to teach with
technology. Depending on the size of an institution, this responsibility may fall on a dedicated
department (whether within the center for faculty development or maybe the office of
information technology) or be tasked to a particular individual (e.g., an instructional designer or
technology trainer).
The advantages to staff-teaching-faculty are the areas of technical expertise amongst staff
(Mohr & Shelton, 2017), and centralization (Wright, Lohe, & Little, 2018). Staff provide unique
insight to technology-focused faculty development as their backgrounds, daily tasks and
professional networks expose them to technology from different viewpoints. Simply put, a main
part of their job is to research how to use new technologies in the classroom. They are also
usually aware of their institution’s long term strategic plans and how technology fits into that.
Further, these staff members (e.g., instructional designers) can often provide one-on-one support
to faculty through drop-in or scheduled meetings, either on campus or virtually.
Disadvantages of staff-teaching-faculty typically are the lack of teaching experience the
staff members usually have (i.e., they are often experts with technology but not necessarily with
teaching) and their ability to contextualize teaching with technology across multiple and often
diverse disciplines. Despite these disadvantages, staff-teaching-faculty remains the most
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 9
researched and documented form of faculty development (see Castleberry et al., 2018; Englund
et al., 2017; Fairchild et al., 2016; Parker et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2016).
Faculty-teaching-faculty. Faculty-teaching-faculty occurs in a variety of ways across
institutions. For instance, it occurs in informal ways (e.g., interdepartmental onboarding and
communities of practice) and more formal ways (e.g., classroom observations and through
courses, workshops and faculty development programs). Other ways include using early adopters
(i.e., those more proficient in teaching with technology) to teach the late majority or laggards
(i.e., those more weary of the technological imperative in teaching) as technology facilitators or
ambassadors (see Strawser et al., 2018).
Advantages to faculty-teaching-faculty include perpetuating teaching with technology
among colleagues in professional development (Castleberry et al., 2018), placing emphasis on
individual understanding as well as group learning (Davis, Clevenger, Posnock, Robertson, &
Ander, 2015) and promoting inclusive technology-focused faculty development (Strawser et al.,
2018). Faculty-teaching-faculty encourages active participation among facilitators and helps
combat resistance from faculty participants. However, there are some drawbacks.
Disadvantages to faculty-teaching-faculty are a subjective teaching approach,
decentralization and varying levels of technical expertise. Faculty facilitators leading
technology-focused faculty development can be subjective in their approach, due to the
individual contexts in which they have come to understand the use of technology in their own
teaching (Outlaw, Rice, & Wright, 2017). Informal ways of faculty-teaching-faculty can also
lead to decentralization from institutional strategic plans related to technology adoption (i.e.,
formal approaches stemming from teaching and learning centers). For example, faculty may
encourage other faculty to use different syllabus software than the contracted software solution
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 10
acquired by the institution. Lastly, faculty-teaching-faculty have different technology
backgrounds, and Shagrir (2017) found faculty participants prefer to work with more
experienced colleagues regarding technology. While facilitators may have experience in teaching
with technology, they may be less versed in the technology itself. Davis et al. (2015) noted the
importance of training the faculty as facilitators before these faculty teach other faculty. This is a
subtle but important distinction for faculty developers because faculty-teaching-faculty can
support organizational development efforts, but may ultimately require more support from
technology staff.
Despite these disadvantages, faculty-teaching-faculty continually resurfaces throughout
the literature (see Castleberry et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2015; Georgina & Hosford, 2009;
Georgina & Olson, 2008). One assumption could be an overarching faculty need and desire for
situational context to incorporate technology in teaching and faculty may find learning from
fellow faculty more relatable than learning from internal staff (e.g., instructional designers,
faculty developers or technology trainers). In other words, the subjectivity of faculty teaching
faculty perpetuates the drive for greater faculty acceptance and adoption.
Students-teaching-faculty. Students-teaching-faculty to integrate technology in teaching
is less common but does occur in higher education. When it does happen, it tends to happen
through mentorship models. In one study, Baran (2016) detailed a brief history of faculty
development focused on students and mentoring faculty to use technology. In another study,
Koehler and Mishra (2005) showcased how graduate students can serve as catalysts within
faculty development.
The advantages to students-teaching-faculty are the potential for experiential learning in
sharing the classroom experience, the contextualization of student understanding and forming a
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 11
bigger picture understanding of technology use or disuse in the modern classroom. Experiential
learning provides a way for students and faculty to approach teaching with technology
collectively, giving students’ insight, voice, and experience in the teaching and learning process
(see Hickcox, 2002). By engaging students in technology-focused faculty development, faculty
can pinpoint common challenges faced by students that may have otherwise gone overlooked.
Lastly, students become active participants in the technology and curriculum of their classroom
(see Gebre, Saroyan, & Bracewell, 2014; Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009).
The disadvantages to students-teaching-faculty are the motivations for students to
actively participate and the hesitation from faculty to learn from less experienced mentors. While
some students may find becoming active participants in the technology of their classroom
beneficial, others may first require direct instruction to learn how to use technology (see
Keengwe, 2007). Additionally, faculty may have reservations about non-traditional approaches
to teaching with technology (see Sogunro, 2017). Despite these disadvantages, students-
teaching-faculty has merit in the appropriate settings with close supervision and helps bridge the
gap between formal and informal learning amongst student facilitators and faculty participants.
Early-career faculty. Faculty new to higher education often come to the profession with
very little teaching experience (Van Waes, Van den Bossche, Moolenaar, De Maeyer, & Van
Petegem, 2015); instead faculty are typically hired more for their content area expertise than
their teaching experience. As such, early-career faculty, often lacking any formal training in how
to teach, often revert to teaching the ways in which they were taught (Englund et al., 2017;
Oleson & Hora, 2014; Richardson, 1996). The exponential rise in technology over the years
presents another challenge for early-career faculty, because many of their teaching exemplars
over the years likely did not integrate technology into their classrooms, thus leaving early-career
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 12
faculty without any positive role models. Given this problem, the literature recommends faculty
developers to incorporate faculty development interventions very early on with early-career
faculty for the most sustained impact (Englund et. al., 2017; Wu et al., 2016). This practice
suggests that new faculty have the most potential to change or even conform to the institutional
culture early on in their career.
More experienced faculty. Across the faculty development literature, there tends to be
certain assumptions regarding experienced faculty teaching with technology. One assumption is
that technology-focused faculty development interventions will have minimal impact on
experienced faculty. However, Sinclair and Aho (2018) found that more experienced faculty can
serve as catalysts and innovation exemplars in effecting change in teaching with technology
across an institution. Thus suggesting that while more experienced faculty may be resistant, they
also represent an institutional demographic with tremendous potential for influencing and
encouraging others to teach with technology, typically through some type of mentorship.
Therefore, technology-focused faculty development efforts should often include some form of
mentorship (Baran, 2016; Behar-Horenstein, Garvan, Catalanotto, & Hudson-Vassell, 2014;
Shagrir, 2017). Forms of mentorship can include multiyear faculty development programs,
pairing new faculty with experienced faculty or certifying adjunct faculty (see Borowicz, 2015).
Such mentorship seems obvious but is far less realized across educational development
initiatives, often reverting to staff taught one-off technology workshops.
Faculty developers need to remain cognizant of the unique dynamic at play as it relates to
the roles of faculty as learners. To date, students teaching faculty may be the most innovative
faculty development effort to emerge in teaching with technology, however, the approach could
be considered one with high-risk, but possible high-reward. Staff teaching faculty has and will
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 13
most likely continue to be the most prevalent approach to faculty development. Faculty teaching
faculty poses the greatest potential for developing faculty in the most meaningful ways and
mentorship amongst more experienced faculty and early-career faculty may have the most
sustained impact over time.
Theme 2: Delivery Methods
Most faculty development workshops and programs are short (as in an afternoon).
Technology, though, enables faculty developers to extend faculty development beyond a day.
Some faculty development can last weeks, months, a semester or even a year. However, lack of
time is often the most common barrier to faculty development echoed across all institutions
(Lowenthal et al., 2013). As a result, faculty developers continue to explore the efficacy of using
different methods to deliver faculty development, including in-person, hybrid and online as well
as month, semester or even academic year-long faculty development initiatives.
In-person. The most preferred delivery method of technology-focused faculty
development at higher education institutions are in-person sessions (Cook & Steinert, 2013;
Rienties, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker, 2013; Wynants & Dennis, 2018). This method requires a set
time and place for subject matter experts and attendees to meet. Traditionally, in-person sessions
are held in a classroom on campus, though there are exceptions (e.g., faculty attending off-
campus conferences would be considered in-person faculty development). In-person faculty
development sessions range from vetting different technologies for teaching (see Liu &
Alexander, 2017) to the pedagogy of technology adoption (see Jääskelä, Häkkinen, & Rasku-
Puttonen, 2017). Research suggests that faculty have mixed feelings on the time and modality of
in-person sessions. Some faculty prefer to have a scheduled meeting time and place for all
faculty development; others find a scheduled meeting time to be more of a burden on an already
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 14
busy schedule (Lowenthal et al., 2013; Lucas & Murray, 2011). This is not that surprising given
that general perceptions of teaching with technology also vary between faculty (Azlim, Amran,
& Rusli, 2015). Further, some faculty simply place more value on learning in-person than others
do.
Hybrid. While not that common, some faculty developers have experimented with using
a hybrid approach to faculty development, using both an in-person session and online
components. Hybrid delivery methods should not be confused with the practice of providing
supplemental resources before, during or after a development session. Hybrid faculty
development sessions, according to the literature, are one-time workshops where the online
components (i.e., an online course, website or online resource) are purposefully integrated into
the design of the in-person session (see Paskevicius & Bortolin, 2016). Hybrid sessions can
involve learning-by-design where the subject being taught is modeled in the delivery method of
the session, faculty can then model their experiences when teaching using a hybrid method (see
Wu et al., 2016). Combining the tangibility of in-person sessions with the technology of the
online classroom yields longer-lasting faculty development. The prolonged faculty commitment
either before or after the in-person session creates a challenge. As a result, more and more
faculty development efforts use purely online approaches.
Online. Online faculty development continues to grow as the delivery method provides
opportunities to expand development efforts over longer periods of time and to larger faculty
groups (see Chen, Lowenthal, Bauer, Heaps, & Nielsen, 2017; Lowenthal, 2008). There are two
common approaches used in online faculty development: self-study and instructor-led. Self-study
online faculty development typically includes sessions designed to allow participants to complete
a training without an instructor being present. Instructor-led online faculty development typically
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 15
includes sessions led by a faculty developer. The scope of online sessions can vary from
promoting awareness (see Wynants & Dennis, 2018) to providing certification (see Teräs, 2016)
to analyzing the impact of mobile technology in instructional design (see Power et al., 2016).
Faculty perceptions of online sessions will vary (see Englund et al., 2017), but the approach is
growing. Wynants & Dennis (2018) noted the advantages of online faculty development as larger
enrollment, pacing, organization, ease of access, clear time commitment and flexibility in timing.
Conversely, some disadvantages are the absence of meaningful collaboration online (Good &
Schumack, 2013; Wynants & Dennis, 2018) and the inherent reliance on technology, which
some faculty may see as a deterrent to active participation or may lack the technical prowess to
take part. Despite these potential setbacks, online faculty development continues to emerge
across all institutions.
Interventions. Some approaches to faculty development do not necessarily fall within
one of the aforementioned delivery methods. In other words, some approaches combine various
delivery methods over time; that is, the sessions are strategically placed as a small part of a
bigger development effort or the sessions are more informal. As a result, this faculty
development represents a more nuanced approach to teaching faculty to teach with technology.
Interventions can range from a monthly five-minute video series detailing practical teaching
development issues (see Castleberry et al., 2018) to a team training day focused on improving
communication among healthcare professionals (see Davis et al., 2015) to a dedicated website
focused on developing an online learning community (see Cohn et al., 2016) to micromessaging
(see Parker et al., 2016). Interventions are in some ways highly innovative but may inherently
lack the ability to measure successes compared to traditional delivery methods.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 16
Time. Each of the aforementioned delivery methods and interventions vary in their
length of time. For instance, faculty development can be asynchronous and/or synchronous
(Premkumar, Moshynskyy, Sakai, & Fong, 2017). Regardless of the format, time continually
emerges as a detriment to faculty participation and commitment (Castleberry et al., 2018;
Lowenthal et al., 2013; Parker et al., 2016; Paskevicius & Bortolin, 2016; Strawser et al., 2018;
Wynants & Dennis, 2018). The various approaches to faculty development suggest a best
practice is to situationally contextualize teaching with technology in terms of modality and
incorporate the approach across all educational development contexts (i.e., the instructor, the
course and the institution).
Throughout the literature no one modality supersedes another in terms of effectiveness.
However there are two key considerations: faculty preferences toward one modality over another
will vary, and when faculty developers model training in the intended modality (e.g., a training
on developing hybrid courses offered as a hybrid course) the training can be more impactful to
teaching and learning among faculty participants. Attempting to analyze the effectiveness of
technology interventions in faculty development in one modality or another is essentially a
media comparison study that would elicit a finding of no significant differences. However,
further research is needed to better understand each modality in the context of faculty
development and teaching with technology. Time tends to be a recurring limitation to faculty
development because teaching with technology fails to move beyond the individual. When such
approaches move beyond the individual into a larger community of practice, into a larger drive
for course design and curriculum change or into a larger commitment from senior leadership
time becomes less of a hindrance.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 17
Theme 3: The Call for Increased Collaboration
Effectively teaching with technology generally requires support and collaboration from
various stakeholders. While learning how to use new technology is a highly individualized
activity, teaching with technology requires interaction and support from faculty, students, staff
and administration. Therefore, while faculty developers often intentionally design faculty
development as one-on-one (Wynants & Dennis, 2018) or pairing faculty with a mentor (Baran,
2016), there are inherent limitations to the one-on-one approach. For instance, while learning
how to use a specific technology may be relatively straightforward and easy to do one-on-one,
faculty operating in a bubble may not see different ways of using the technology in their
teaching. As a result, greater collaboration is needed to explore new and different ways of using
technology as a catalyst toward more interactivity and engagement (see Madson, Trafimow, &
Gray, 2017). Consequently, the literature details a pattern of faculty desire to collaborate with
other faculty as a way to share ideas, demonstrate principles in practice and form communities.
A resounding sentiment in many faculty development studies is a desire from participants for
greater collaboration with the larger community (see Davis et al., 2015; Paskevicius & Bortolin;
2016; Wu et al., 2016; Wynants & Dennis, 2018). The larger community is used loosely to
represent any entity, local or abroad, larger than the study population in which the participants
took part such as other departments, other institutions and different disciplines.
Preferences. Preferred collaborations with different communities vary from institution to
institution due in part to the preexisting teaching culture of each institution. However,
preferences from the literature are an important consideration for faculty developers. Price and
Kirkwood (2014) found faculty prefer conferring with fellow practitioners or faculty developers
for guidance in teaching with technology over reading journal articles. Shagrir (2017) found
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 18
faculty prefer departmental staff meetings and informal hallway conversations more than internal
professional development courses or workshops. Similarly, faculty prefer collaborating with
colleagues abroad on academic research and publications more than taking part in activities
centered around an external professional association (Shagrir, 2017). While faculty tend to resist
collaboration, many find collaboration to be an effective tool to conduct professional
development (Teräs, 2016). Thus, faculty developers may consider offering guidance in small
groups, presenting at departmental meetings or collaborating with faculty on academic research.
Purposefully embedding scholarship in faculty development efforts may be a best practice.
Faculty developers should strive for a reconceptualization of teaching among faculty participants
as opposed to technical competency (see Kirkwood & Price, 2013), and embedded scholarship
represents one way to collaboratively develop faculty to teach with technology, though there are
other ways.
Learning communities. Professional and virtual learning communities tend to be
common approaches to encourage cross-disciplinary collaboration (see Cohn et al., 2016; Liu &
Alexander, 2017; Mckenna et al., 2016; Parker et al., 2016). Trust, Carpenter, and Krutka (2017)
found professional learning networks support growth in teaching and learning among higher
education faculty, and Bostancioglu (2018) found faculty participation and collaboration in
online communities of practice to ultimately support teaching with technology in professional
development. Collaboration across communities help faculty answer important questions about
teaching with technology and stress a desire to conceptualize how others are approaching the
incorporation of technology in their teaching; however, cross-disciplinary collaboration is an
important, differentiated finding. The finding suggests using technology in teaching is not
discipline-specific, rather contextual.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 19
Faculty developers should expand upon collaborative approaches to teaching with
technology. While one-on-one approaches have merit, faculty may not prefer such isolated
activities. Professional learning communities and networks provide an avenue for larger faculty
development across institutions and disciplines. As a result, faculty motivation to participate in
technology-focused faculty development is threaded throughout the literature.
Theme 4: Motivations to Participate
Faculty participate in faculty development for different reasons. The motivation to
participate can include a willingness to learn new technology (Niebuhr, Niebuhr, Rudnicki, &
Urbani, 2018), collaborate with colleagues (Shagrir, 2017) or to receive some form of
compensation (Phuong, Cole, & Zarestky, 2018). Other motivations may stem from wanting to
do a good job by lending a helping hand, meeting a top-down administrative mandate or being
volunteered to participate. Whatever the reason, participation in technology-focused faculty
development has shown to positively influence pedagogy (Holmes & Kozlowski, 2015) and
technology adoption (Hirsh, 2001; Kenney, Banerjee, & Ellen, 2010). Faculty developers should
be familiar with such varying motivations because knowing an audience will ultimately serve
faculty developers in the long term.
Incentives. Institutions have experimented with different ways to incentivize and
motivate faculty to participate in faculty development. Voluntary participation in technology-
focused faculty development initiatives was noted in several studies as a differentiating
characteristic (see Baran, 2016; Davis et al., 2015; Jääskelä et al., 2017; Teräs, 2016; Wynants &
Dennis, 2018). Involuntary participation was noted less frequently (see Wu et al., 2016).
Conversely, feedback from participants suggests volunteering is somewhat of short-lived activity
and faculty would require incentives for continued participation. Various incentives and reward
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 20
structures are threaded throughout all educational development initiatives including stipends,
course release, grants, scholarships, certifications, professional development credit and so on.
Lowenthal et al. (2013) found receiving a stipend was the most motivating incentive for faculty
to attend formal faculty development.
Grassroots efforts. A common theme throughout the literature is the lack of bottom-up
approaches to teaching faculty to teach with technology. A bottom-up approach is one where a
faculty member, or a faculty collective, elects to incorporate technology into their teaching that
encourages innovation and pervasive use across an institution (Singh & Hardaker, 2017). The
bottom-up approach to faculty development emerges when no formal training on the technology
tool is offered by the institution and faculty lead the tool adoption organically (see Pacansky-
Brock, 2017). It could be though that bottom-up, grassroots efforts, are happening more than we
realize but that these experiences are not captured in the literature. Either way, faculty and
faculty developers should continually search for new and innovative ways to incorporate
technology in teaching and in-turn share their experiences with others.
New tools. The decision to procure new technology often fails to incorporate faculty
early on in the process and is fueled more by operational business decisions (i.e., contract terms
and cost) as opposed to benefits to teaching. Data analytics help decision-makers better
understand usage though falls short of recognizing considerations such as: marketing the tool
across the institution, effective communication of the affordances of the technology and
sustained faculty training and development. The impact of technology tools revolves around
relevance and frequency within everyday work and some technologies are more impactful than
others in higher education. Using a specific web browser (e.g., Chrome, Edge, Firefox, etc.) may
be considered less impactful in faculty development compared to using a different learning
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 21
management system (e.g., Blackboard, Canvas, Desire2Learn, etc.) though both may be used
every day. Including faculty from start-to-finish in the procurement of new technology is easier
said than done, but efforts should be made as faculty voice is paramount to rolling out
technology effectively (Fathema, Shannon, & Ross; 2015; Sinclair & Aho, 2018; Strawser et al.,
2018).
Teaching with technology initiatives need to move away from carrots and sticks. Faculty
developers should be sensitive to different power dynamics at play and recognize the inherent
value of providing incentives, but should also be wary not to provide these at a detriment to the
development endeavor. By far, the most motivating factor is stipend provision (Lowenthal et al.,
2013). While exploring emerging technology (Pacansky-Brock, 2017) and collaboration amongst
colleagues (Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Strawser et al., 2018) are common motivations, improving
the student experience by teaching with technology is not the most motivating factor and, while
highly idealistic, it should be.
Discussion
The aforementioned themes from the literature provide faculty developers opportunities
to expand upon teaching with technology in faculty development. While these themes provide a
general overview of more recent technology-focused faculty development, there are also more
nuanced approaches requiring greater research. As a result, we present an analysis of the situated
learning context, the cross-section of technology and pedagogy and the gaps in the literature.
Contextualization
Faculty development efforts focused on teaching with technology require context. Far too
often there is a disconnect between the technology, theory and practice. The disconnect occurs
because “many teacher educators seem to forget that educational knowledge cannot be simply
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 22
‘transmitted’ to teachers, and thus improve their actions” (Korthagen, 2010, p. 99). Research
efforts should continue to explore situated learning theory, as collaboration and context are key
components of teaching with technology. Lave and Wegner (1991) defined situated learning as
legitimate peripheral participation where learning stems from the social context in which the
learning takes place. In situated learning theory, participants move from novice to expert by
assimilating to a community of practice. Thus, the situational context should be emphasized
throughout faculty development where teaching with technology is the ultimate goal. Throughout
the literature, contextualization of technology in teaching is key to long-term sustained
development (Bostancioglu, 2018; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Fairchild et al., 2016; Parker et al.,
2016). Faculty development needs to remain relevant. Communities of practice, collaboration
and developing expertise can perpetuate the relevance of teaching with technology. Since
technology continues to evolve, such social approaches to technology adoption may serve to
support the individual as part of a larger group.
Where Technology and Pedagogy Intersect
Research suggests that faculty development focused on teaching with technology has a
limited-to-no impact if pedagogy is not considered. Kirkwood (2014) differentiated technology-
focused faculty development as either supplementing existing practices via technology or as
advancing teaching approaches with technology, and the latter is scarce. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-
Leftwich (2010) posited self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs and culture are key variables to faculty
development and technology reform. Faculty developers should recognize that building
confidence is an important consideration when teaching with technology because uncertainty is
an unfamiliar space for faculty (see Holmes & Kozlowski, 2015).
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 23
In addition, faculty developers should provide ways to achieve individual mastery, foster
collaboration and group learning and showcase technology being used in relatable contexts.
Studies that indicate a change in pedagogy are few and far between though Castleberry et al.
(2018) detailed how faculty indicated a change in teaching practice through a professional
development video series. Other research has shown when teaching with technology, faculty
either tried new things or reverted to old and familiar ways of using the technology, and
resistance to change yields little change (Fairchild et al., 2016). Conversely, Teräs (2016) found
that overcoming technology obstacles potentially yields the most impactful changes in faculty
development and faculty naturally resist collaboration but feel it is an effective professional
development tool. Faculty development studies rarely, if ever, indicate a change in participant
pedagogy. As a result, faculty developers should broaden the scope of teaching with technology
to be fewer nuts-and-bolts and more hands-on group experiences detailing the principles in
practice.
Gaps in the Literature
Some more prominent and recurring gaps in the teaching with technology literature are
needs assessments (i.e., pretests), closing the loop (i.e., posttests), and holistic approaches to
faculty development. Faculty development research would benefit from the inclusion of needs
assessments as faculty input creates a professional dialogue vital to enacting change (Behar-
Horenstein et al., 2014). Further, faculty development efforts often fail to close the loop by not
analyzing approaches after faculty have had time to integrate technology in teaching (Beach,
Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016). While Kirkwood (2014) suggested evaluating the intended
use of learning assessments as meeting acceptable standards, other researchers suggested a need
for longer lasting and sustained faculty development to truly study the impact of technology in
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 24
teaching (see Bali & Caines, 2018; Liu & Alexander, 2017; Wynants & Dennis, 2018). In either
case, faculty development research would benefit from greater follow up with participants to
close the loop.
Holistic approaches in teaching with technology that encourage synergies across the
individual, the course and the institution are also lacking. Lockhart and Stoop (2018) found
including scholarship and strategic planning to be more holistic ways to approach faculty
development. Currently, most individual or group faculty development sessions are highly
localized activities (see Baran, 2016; Davis et al., 2015; Fairchild et al., 2016; Parker et al.,
2016; Paskevicius & Bortolin, 2016). Broadening the scope to instructional development by
focusing on the course or curriculum can also be an isolated activity (see Koehler & Mishra,
2005). Going further, organizational development focusing on the roles of senior leadership may
be too disparate an inclusion (see Sinclair & Aho, 2018; Strawser et al., 2018) though findings
differ across studies regarding the need for senior leadership support with technology adoption.
Azlim, Amran, and Rusli (2015) found faculty did not perceive administrative support as a
barrier to adopting technology, whereas Shagrir (2017) found faculty required administrative
support. Since these approaches are often considered separate to one another (i.e., the individual,
the course and the organization), a best practice would be to incorporate teaching with
technology across all areas of educational development as part of a comprehensive strategic plan.
Implications for Practice
Faculty developers can incorporate these findings into faculty development initiatives
across all institutions--though special attention should be given to advancing approaches, the
feedback received, the culture of an institution and future research efforts.
Advancing Approaches
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 25
Research surrounding teaching with technology provides faculty developers opportunities
to advance faculty development beyond familiar constructs. This review detailed themes from
the literature that open up opportunities for both expansive and focused studies. Faculty
developers and researchers can narrow the focus to the situational context of faculty-teaching-
faculty as a “process of attuning, constructing, and negotiating” (Baker et al., 2018, p.271) at
their respective institutions, or explore faculty-teaching-faculty through cross-disciplinary
collaboration over time (see Beaumont, 2018). Further, faculty developers should cross-examine
different faculty populations, institution types and demographics against these themes as results
may vary. Lastly, the student experience should be purposefully integrated in faculty
development efforts regarding teaching with technology (e.g., the intersection of professional
learning networks among online students and faculty).
The Devil’s Advocate Paradox
Participant feedback in faculty development efforts tends to counter the delivery method
used to conduct a study and should be carefully considered as an implication for future practice.
Within the limitations, discussion of findings, implications or conclusions presented in the
studies reviewed it is common for participants of an online faculty development workshop to
suggest online workshops would be better served as in-person and vice versa. Faculty developers
should give special care when disseminating these findings as to avoid biases and present
misleading information about one modality over another.
Institutional Culture
Faculty developers need to consider the campus culture surrounding technology. Every
institution has a unique faculty body and technological history. There will be nuanced
differences, from the terminology and acronyms to broader differences such as position
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 26
responsibilities, educational development approaches and technologies in use. What may work
well for one institution may not work well for another and it is important to gauge the climate
before rolling out new technology or new teaching with technology initiatives. Incorporating
needs assessments, developing communities of practice and continued follow-up can help faculty
developers better understand the institutional culture. In addition, the current technology used
around campus may have resulted from decisions previously made many years ago and the
justification (i.e., cost-benefit analysis) of such tools may have since changed.
Research Efforts
Further research is needed to explore faculty development focused on teaching with
technology. Studies should explore institutional roles (i.e., staff-led versus faculty-led
development) as many faculty prefer working with colleagues compared to institutional staff
regarding technology (Shagrir, 2017). Moreover, additional research should place a greater
commitment to conducting studies over longer periods of time (see Englund et al., 2017; Jääskelä
et al., 2017) as most faculty development is short-lived. Going further, researchers should
explore the social dynamics at play in situated learning theory through more qualitative and
mixed methods research as teaching with technology is a social science focused on human
behavior. Lastly, researchers should avoid comparing delivery methods and continue to explore
online faculty development as there are apparent opportunities for innovative approaches to
addressing time constraints.
Conclusion
Teaching with technology will continue to evolve in higher education and faculty
development should support the progression in equally innovative ways. The following review
highlighted four emergent themes in the literature for faculty developers to consider in their
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 27
development efforts. Faculty-teaching-faculty may have the greatest potential for high impact
practices though research on faculty developers (i.e., staff-teaching-faculty with teaching
experience) could spark academic debate. Mentorship is a highly effective practice, especially
between more experienced faculty and early-career faculty, and one-on-one technology teaching
may be more appropriate in certain situations but less effective overall. Further, teaching with
technology is not discipline-specific as varying applications can be applied in different ways
across disciplines.
Faculty developers should continue to explore new ways of approaching technology in
teaching. Striving for greater collaboration between larger communities of practice while
encouraging grassroots efforts and enhancing the student experience while maintaining faculty
motivation are different approaches worth exploring. Further, when technology and pedagogy
intersect in relevant ways for faculty the student experience will ultimately improve. There are
many potential solutions for the problems faced by faculty developers throughout the literature,
but there is no catchall solution.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval: This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of
the authors.
Informed Consent: This article does not require informed consent.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 28
References
Azlim, M., Amran, M., & Rusli, M. R. (2015). Utilization of educational technology to enhance
teaching practices: Case study of community college in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1793-1797. doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.385
Baker, L., Leslie, K., Panisko, D., Walsh, A., Wong, A., Stubbs, B., & Mylopoulos, M. (2018).
Exploring faculty developers’ experiences to inform our understanding of competence in
faculty development. Academic Medicine, 93(2), 265-273.
Bali, M., & Caines, A. (2018). A call for promoting ownership, equity, and agency in faculty
development via connected learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, 15(1), 1-24.
Baran, E. (2016). Investigating faculty technology mentoring as a university-wide professional
development model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 45-71.
doi:10.1007/s12528-015-9104-7
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education:
Foundations for success. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
Bates, A. T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for
transforming teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the
age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Beaumont, J. (2018). Cross-disciplinary professional development at community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1-18.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2018.1558134
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 29
Behar-Horenstein, L., Garvan, C., Catalanotto, F., & Hudson-Vassell, C. (2014). The role of
needs assessment for faculty development initiatives. The Journal of Faculty
Development, 28(2), 75-86.
Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55(2), 155-
162.
Bickerstaff, S., & Cormier, M. S. (2015). Examining faculty questions to facilitate instructional
improvement in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 74–80. doi:10.
1016/j.stueduc.2014. 1 1.004
Borowicz, S. (2015). A model for faculty development that promotes quality. In D. Rutledge &
D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference 2015 (pp. 877-882). Chesapeake, VA: Association
for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Bose, D., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). E-Portfolios, course design, and student learning: A case
study of a faculty learning community. The Online Journal of New Horizons in
Education, 8(4). 50-62.
Bostancioglu, A. (2018). Online communities of practice in the service of teachers’ technology
professional development: The case of webheads in action. The Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology, 17(2), 97-110.
Castleberry, A. N., Haines, S. L., Stein, S. M., Van Amburgh, J. A., & Persky, A. M. (2018). 5-
minute university: A description and discussion of 5-minute faculty teaching training
videos. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(2), 67-74.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 30
Chen, K-Z., Lowenthal, P. R., Bauer, C., Heaps, A., & Nielsen, C. (2017). Moving beyond smile
sheets: A case study on the evaluation and iterative improvement of an online faculty
development program. Online Learning, 21(1), 85-111. doi:24059/olj.v21i1.810
Cohn, J., Stewart, M. K., Theisen, C. H., & Comins, D. (2016). Creating online community: A
response to the needs of 21st century faculty development. The Journal of Faculty
Development, 30(2), 47-57.
Cook, D. A., & Steinert, Y. (2013). Online learning for faculty development: A review of the
literature. Medical Teacher, 35(11), 930–937. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.827328
Davis, B. P., Clevenger, C. K., Posnock, S., Robertson, B. D., & Ander, D. S. (2015). Teaching
the teachers: Faculty development in inter-professional education. Applied Nursing
Research, 28(1), 31-35.
Donnelly, R. (2018). Surviving, and indeed thriving in faculty development: A reflective
commentary on values informing professional practice [PDF File]. Retrieved from
https://arrow.dit.ie/ltcoth/62/
Epper, R. M., & Bates, A. W. (2001). Teaching faculty how to use technology: Best practices
from leading institutions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education:
Understanding conceptual change and development in practice. Higher Education
Research & Development, 36(1), 73-87.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 31
Fairchild, J. L., Meiners, E. B., & Violette, J. L. (2016). "I tolerate technology-I don't embrace
it": Instructor surprise and sensemaking in a technology-rich learning environment.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(4), 92-108.
Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher
education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 210-232.
Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Bracewell, R. (2014). Students’ engagement in technology rich
classrooms and its relationship to professors’ conceptions of effective teaching. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 83–96.
Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology
integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690-696.
Georgina, D. A., & Olson, M. R. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review
of faculty self-perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 1-8.
Gillespie, K. J. & Robertson, D. L. (2010). A guide to faculty development (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
Hickcox, L. K. (2002). Personalizing teaching through experiential learning. College Teaching,
50(4), 123-128.
Hirsh, S. (2001). We’re growing and changing. Journal of Staff Development, 22(3), 255-258.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 32
Holmes, C. M., & Kozlowski, K. A. (2015). “Tech support”: Implementing professional
development to assist higher education faculty to teach with technology. Journal of
Continuing Education and Professional Development, 2(1), 9-20.
Jääskelä, P., Häkkinen, P., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Teacher beliefs regarding learning,
pedagogy, and the use of technology in higher education. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 198-211.
Kenney, J. L., Banerjee, P., & Newcombe, E. (2010). Developing and sustaining positive change
in faculty technology skills: Lessons learned from an innovative faculty development
initiative. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 89-102.
Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions
of computer technology to improve student learning. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 6(1), 169-180.
Kipper, G., & Rampolla, J. (2012). Augmented reality: An emerging technologies guide to AR.
Waltham, MA: Elsevier.
Kirkwood, A. (2014). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education: Blended and
distance education needs ‘joined-up thinking’ rather than technological determinism.
Open Learning, 29(3), 206-221. doi:10.1080/02680513.2015.1009884
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and
learning with technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 327-
337.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational
technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 33
Korthagen, F. A. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education:
Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(1), 98-106.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements
in technology for teaching and learning? Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 247-254.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, K. G. (1996). Faculty development in the United States: A brief history. The
International Journal for Academic Development, 1(2), 26-33.
Liu, J. C., & Alexander, R. (2017). Factors affecting faculty use of video conferencing in
teaching: A mixed-method study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and
Exchange, 10(2), 37-54.
Lockhart, M. S., & Stoop, C. (2018). Assessing a faculty development program in a changing
environment. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(2), 13-22.
Lowenthal, P. R. (2008). Online faculty development and storytelling: An unlikely solution to
improving teacher quality. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 349-356.
Lowenthal, P. R., Wray, M. L., Bates, B., Switzer, T., & Stevens, E. (2013). Examining faculty
motivation to participate in faculty development. International Journal of University
Teaching and Faculty Development, 3(3), 149-164.
Lucas, C. J., & Murry, J. W. (2011). New faculty: A practical guide for academic beginners.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan
Madson, L., Trafimow, D., & Gray, T. (2017). Faculty members' attitudes predict adoption of
interactive engagement methods. The Journal of Faculty Development, 31(3), 39-50.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 34
Mckenna, A., Johnson, A. M., Yoder, B., Guerra, C., Rocio, C., & Pimmel, R. (2016).
Evaluating virtual communities of practice for faculty development. The Journal of
Faculty Development, 30(1), 31-40.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Zhao, Y. (Eds.). (2007). Faculty development by design:
Integrating technology in higher education. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Mohr, S. C., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional
development: A Delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123-140.
Niebuhr, V., Niebuhr, B., Rudnicki, A., & Urbani, M. J. (2018). Technology courage:
Implications for faculty development. MedEdPublish, 7(3), 1-10.
Oleson, A., & Hora, M. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of
teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices.
Higher Education, 68(1), 29-45.
Outlaw, V., Rice, M. L., & Wright, V. H. (2017). Exploration of faculty's perceptions on
technology change: Implications for faculty preparedness to teach online courses. In K.
Shelton & K. Pedersen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building, Growing, and
Sustaining Quality E-Learning Programs (pp. 175-190). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Pacansky-Brock, M. (2017). Best practices for teaching with emerging technologies (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Park, S., & Jayaraman, S. (2003). Enhancing the quality of life through wearable technology.
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 22(3), 41-48.
Parker, C., Morrell, C., Morrell, C., & Chang, L. (2016). Shifting understandings of community
college faculty members: Results of an equity-focused professional development
experience. The Journal of Faculty Development, 30(3), 41-48.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 35
Paskevicius, M., & Bortolin, K. (2016). Blending our practice: Using online and face-to-face
methods to sustain community among faculty in an extended length professional
development program. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(6), 605-
615.
Pevnick, J. M., Birkeland, K., Zimmer, R., Elad, Y., & Kedan, I. (2018). Wearable technology
for cardiology: An update and framework for the future. Trends in Cardiovascular
Medicine, 28(2), 144-150.
Phuong, T. T., Cole, S. C., & Zarestky, J. (2018). A systematic literature review of faculty
development for teacher educators. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2),
373-389.
Power, R. L., Cristol, D., Gimbert, B., Bartoletti, R., & Kilgore, W. (2016). Using the mTSES to
evaluate and optimize mLearning professional development. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4). 350-385.
Premkumar, K., Moshynskyy, A., Sakai, D. H., & Fong, S. F. (2017). Faculty's perception of
faculty development. The Journal of Faculty Development, 31(3), 15-24.
Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2014). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher
education: A critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher
Education Research & Development, 33(3), 549-564.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education, 2, 102-119.
Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional
development on higher education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 36
facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 122–131.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.002
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (2010). Educational developers: The multiple structures and
influences that support our work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (122), 25-
36.
Shagrir, L. (2017). Collaborating with colleagues for the sake of academic and professional
development in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development,
22(4), 331-342.
Sinclair, J., & Aho, A. M. (2018). Experts on super innovators: Understanding staff adoption of
learning management systems. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 158-
172.
Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2017). Change levers for unifying top-down and bottom-up
approaches to the adoption and diffusion of e-learning in higher education. Teaching in
Higher Education, 22(6), 736-748.
Sogunro, O. A. (2017). Quality instruction as a motivating factor in higher education.
International Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 173-184.
Strawser, M. G., Apostel, S., O'Keefe, M., & Simons, C. (2018). Implementing innovation: An
exploration of a learning management system transition. The Journal of Faculty
Development, 32(2), 37-43.
Taylor, K. L., & Colet, N. R. (2010). Making the shift from faculty development to educational
development. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher
education (pp. 139-167). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
DEVELOPING FACULTY TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY 37
Teräs, H. (2016). Collaborative online professional development for teachers in higher
education. Professional Development in Education, 42(2), 258-275.
Trust, T., Carpenter, J., & Krutka, D. (2017). Moving beyond silos: Professional learning
networks in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 35, 1-11.
Van Waes, S., Van den Bossche, P., Moolenaar, N. M., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P.
(2015). Know-who? Linking faculty’s networks to stages of instructional development.
Higher Education, 70(5), 807-826.
Wright, M., Lohe, D., & Little, D. (2018). The role of a center for teaching and learning in a de-
centered educational world. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(6), 38-44.
Wu, B., Hu, Y., Gu, X., & Lim, C. P. (2016). Professional development of new higher education
teachers with information and communication technology in shanghai: A Kirkpatrick’s
evaluation approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(4), 531-562.
Wynants, S., & Dennis, J. (2018). Professional development in an online context: Opportunities
and challenges from the voices of college faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1).
Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1168955
