Content uploaded by Patrick R. Lowenthal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrick R. Lowenthal on Oct 05, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
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.
ORGANIZATIONAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE
Developing Faculty to Teach with Technology:
Themes from the Literature
Eric Belt
1
&Patrick Lowenthal
2
Published online: 10 December 2019
#Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019
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
Technology continues to drastically change the world we live
in. For instance, wearable technologies are enhancing ap-
proaches to modern medicine (Park and Jayaraman 2003;
Pevnick et al. 2018), 3D printers are disrupting manufacturing
to eliminate inventory overhead (Berman 2012) and augment-
ed reality is blending digital information with the real world
across the entertainment industry (Kipper and Rampolla
2012). However, in many ways (except for perhaps the growth
of online learning), teaching and learning at colleges and uni-
versities have not changed that much compared to the techno-
logical advances of modern life (Kukulska-Hulme 2012).
Recognizing this problem colleges, universities and faculty
developers have increasingly focused on developing work-
shops, 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 and Sangra 2011;
Epper and Bates 2001;Mishraetal.2007).
Advances in technology coupled with diverse faculty back-
grounds and needs, confronts faculty developers with deci-
sions about how to approach technology-focused faculty de-
velopment. Previous efforts have focused on using
technology-enhanced classrooms (see Fairchild et al. 2016),
incorporating mobile devices in instruction (see Power et al.
2016), leveraging learning management systems (see Baran
2016; Sinclair and Aho 2018), developing accessible course
content (see Paskevicius and Bortolin 2016; Wynants and
Dennis 2018) and so on. However, despite these efforts, re-
search suggests that faculty still do not integrate technology
into their teaching as much as they could and many argue they
should (Bates and Poole 2003; Koehler and Mishra 2005;
Kukulska-Hulme 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 and Cormier 2015; Bose and Lowenthal 2018)
even though research also suggests that faculty tend to prefer
one-hour and online training formats more than other formats
(Lowenthal et al. 2013). Thus, questions remain as to the best
*Eric Belt
eric.belt@umaryland.edu
Patrick Lowenthal
patricklowenthal@boisestate.edu
1
University of Maryland, Baltimore, 620 West Lexington Street,
Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
2
Boise State University, 1910 West University Drive,
Boise, ID 83725, USA
TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00447-6
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 offer-
ing 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 inter-
ests of faculty, concerns and priorities amongst senior leader-
ship and institutional strategic plans (Sorcinelli and Austin
2010). Rollover in academic leadership and in turn changes
to faculty development initiatives further complicates faculty
development initiatives (Donnelly 2018). Such change com-
bined with differing perspectives on how best to use technol-
ogy creates a constant push-pull situation for faculty devel-
opers. Bates and Poole (2003) described this push-pull tension
between various stakeholders as the “technological impera-
tive”(i.e., arguments for and against teaching with and in turn
investing in technology in higher education). As a result, fac-
ulty 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, instruc-
tional development, organizational development, academic
development, professional development, educational develop-
ment and so on). Not surprisingly, there does not appear to be
a universally agreed-upon definition of faculty development
(Taylor and Colet 2010). This is likely due to the fact that
faculty development is both highly individualized and ex-
tremely 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 educa-
tional development: faculty development, instructional devel-
opment and organizational development. According to
Gillespie and Robertson (2010), faculty development empha-
sizes the individual instructor, instructional development em-
phasizes the course and curriculum and organizational devel-
opment emphasizes administration and leadership.
There is an important distinction, sometimes blurred in the
literature, regarding teaching with technology and faculty de-
velopment research that warrants further explanation. There is
a difference between using technology for faculty develop-
ment (e.g., online faculty development initiatives where tech-
nology, such as a learning management system, is used to
support faculty at a distance) versus faculty development fo-
cused 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 et al. 2016; Liu and
Alexander 2017; Mckenna et al. 2016), while other research
focuses on the technology being taught (see Power et al. 2016;
Sinclair and Aho 2018; Strawser et al. 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 develop-
ment”and “higher education.”The initial search focused on
finding peer-reviewed studies published from 2013 to 2018
that contained a methodssection and were conducted at higher
education institutions. Each article was then reviewed to de-
termine 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 key-
words 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 litera-
ture, 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
TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259 249
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 liter-
ature 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 collabora-
tion 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 learn-
er. This transition from teacher to student creates a different
dynamic in that the perceived balance of power between sub-
ject and discipline changes. Faculty developers consider this
dynamic by giving special care to the shift of classroom con-
trol with faculty as learners. As a result, researchers continue
to explore how to leverage different roles in faculty develop-
ment, 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.
Staff-Teaching-Faculty Staff-teaching-faculty is by far the
most common approach to train faculty to teach with technol-
ogy throughout the literature (see Castleberry et al. 2018;
Englund et al. 2017; Fairchild et al. 2016;Parkeretal.2016;
Wu et al. 2016). Oftentimes, centers for faculty development
(sometimes also referred to as teaching and learning centers)
employ staff proficient with technology who conduct work-
shops 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 develop-
ment 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 and Shelton 2017),
and centralization (Wright et al. 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 technol-
ogies 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 de-
signers) 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 researched and documented form of faculty develop-
ment (see Castleberry et al. 2018; Englund et al. 2017;
Fairchild et al. 2016; Parker et al. 2016;Wuetal.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 com-
munities of practice) and more formal ways (e.g., classroom
observations and through courses, workshops and faculty de-
velopment programs). Other ways include using early
adopters (i.e., those more proficient in teaching with technol-
ogy) to teach the late majority or laggards (i.e., those more
weary of the technological imperative in teaching) as technol-
ogy facilitators or ambassadors (see Strawser et al. 2018).
Advantages to faculty-teaching-faculty include perpetuat-
ing teaching with technology among colleagues in profession-
al development (Castleberry et al. 2018), placing emphasis on
individual understanding as well as group learning (Davis
et al. 2015) and promoting inclusive technology-focused fac-
ulty 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 ap-
proach, due to the individual contexts in which they have
come to understand the use of technology in their own teach-
ing (Outlaw et al. 2017). Informal ways of faculty-teaching-
faculty can also lead to decentralization from institutional stra-
tegic plans related to technology adoption (i.e., formal ap-
proaches stemming from teaching and learning centers). For
example, faculty may encourage other faculty to use different
syllabus software than the contracted software solution ac-
quired by the institution. Lastly, faculty-teaching-faculty have
different technology backgrounds, and Shagrir (2017)found
faculty participants prefer to work with more experienced col-
leagues regarding technology. While facilitators may have ex-
perience in teaching with technology, they may be less versed
in the technology itself. Davis et al. (2015) noted the impor-
tance of training the faculty as facilitators before these faculty
teach other faculty. This is a subtle but important distinction
250 TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259
for faculty developers because faculty-teaching-faculty can
support organizational development efforts, but may ultimate-
ly require more support from technology staff.
Despite these disadvantages, faculty-teaching-faculty con-
tinually resurfaces throughout the literature (see Castleberry
et al. 2018; Davis et al. 2015;GeorginaandHosford2009;
Georgina and Olson 2008). One assumption could be an over-
arching faculty need and desire for situational context to in-
corporate technology in teaching and faculty may find learn-
ing 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 fac-
ulty acceptance and adoption.
Students-Teaching-Faculty Students-teaching-faculty to inte-
grate 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)de-
tailed 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 poten-
tial for experiential learning in sharing the classroom experi-
ence, the contextualization of student understanding and
forming a bigger picture understanding of technology use or
disuse in the modern classroom. Experiential learning pro-
vides 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 commonchallenges
faced by students that may have otherwise gone overlooked.
Lastly, students become active participants in the technology
and curriculum of their classroom (see Gebre et al. 2014;
Harris et al. 2009).
The disadvantages to students-teaching-faculty are the mo-
tivations 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 re-
quire 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 et al. 2015); instead faculty are typically hired
more for their content area expertise than their teaching expe-
rience. 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 and Hora
2014; Richardson 1996). The exponential rise in technology
over the years presents another challenge for early-career fac-
ulty, because many of their teaching exemplars over the years
likely did not integrate technology into their classrooms, thus
leaving early-career faculty without any positive role models.
Given this problem, the literature recommends faculty devel-
opers to incorporate faculty development interventions very
early on with early-career faculty for the most sustained im-
pact (Englund et al. 2017;Wuetal.2016). This practice sug-
gests 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 regard-
ing experienced faculty teaching with technology. One
assumption is that technology-focused faculty develop-
ment interventions will have minimal impact on experi-
enced 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 fac-
ulty development efforts should often include some
form of mentorship (Baran 2016; Behar-Horenstein
et al. 2014;Shagrir2017). Forms of mentorship can
include multiyear faculty development programs, pairing
new faculty with experienced faculty or certifying ad-
junct 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 tech-
nology, however, the approach could be considered one with
high-risk, but possible high-reward. Staff teaching faculty has
and will most likely continue to be the most prevalent ap-
proach to faculty development. Faculty teaching faculty poses
the greatest potential for developing faculty in the most mean-
ingful ways and mentorship amongst more experienced facul-
ty and early-career faculty may have the most sustained im-
pact over time.
TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259 251
Theme 2: Delivery Methods
Most faculty development workshops and programs are short
(as in an afternoon). Technology, though, enables faculty de-
velopers 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 con-
tinue 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 and Steinert 2013;Rientiesetal.
2013; Wynants and 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 attend-
ing off-campus conferences would be considered in-person
faculty development). In-person faculty development sessions
range from vetting different technologies for teaching (see Liu
and Alexander 2017) to the pedagogy of technology adoption
(see Jääskelä et al. 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 busy
schedule (Lowenthal et al. 2013; Lucas and Murry 2011).
This is not that surprising given that general perceptions of
teaching with technology also vary between faculty (Azlim
et al. 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 devel-
opment, using both an in-person session and online compo-
nents. Hybrid delivery methods should not be confused with
the practice of providing supplemental resources before, dur-
ing or after a development session. Hybrid faculty develop-
ment sessions, according to the literature, are one-time work-
shops 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 and
Bortolin 2016). Hybrid sessions can involve learning-by-
design where the subject being taught is modeled in the deliv-
ery method of the session, faculty can then model their expe-
riences 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 develop-
ment efforts over longer periods of time and to larger faculty
groups (see Chen et al. 2017;Lowenthal2008). There are two
common approaches used in online faculty development: self-
study and instructor-led. Self-study online faculty develop-
ment typically includes sessions designed to allow partici-
pants to complete a training without an instructor being pres-
ent. Instructor-led online faculty development typically in-
cludes sessions led by a faculty developer. The scope of online
sessions can vary from promoting awareness (see Wynants
and 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 and Dennis (2018) noted the advantages
of online faculty development as larger enrollment, pacing,
organization, ease of access, clear time commitment and flex-
ibility in timing. Conversely, some disadvantages are the ab-
sence of meaningful collaboration online (Good and
Schumack 2013; Wynants and Dennis 2018) and the inherent
reliance on technology, which some faculty may see as a de-
terrent to active participation or may lack the technical prow-
ess to take part. Despite these potential setbacks, online fac-
ulty 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 strategi-
cally placed as a small part of a bigger development effort or
the sessions are more informal. As a result, this faculty devel-
opment represents a more nuanced approach to teaching fac-
ulty 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.
Time Each of the aforementioned delivery methods and inter-
ventions vary in their length of time. For instance, faculty
development can be asynchronous and/or synchronous
(Premkumar et al. 2017). Regardless of the format, time con-
tinually emerges as a detriment to faculty participation and
252 TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259
commitment (Castleberry et al. 2018; Lowenthal et al. 2013;
Parker et al. 2016; Paskevicius and Bortolin 2016;Strawser
et al. 2018; Wynants and Dennis 2018). The various ap-
proaches to faculty development suggest a best practice is to
situationally contextualize teaching with technology in terms
of modality and incorporate the approach across all education-
al development contexts (i.e., the instructor, the course and the
institution).
Throughout the literature no one modality supersedes an-
other 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 inter-
ventions in faculty development in one modality or another is
essentially a media comparison study that would elicit a find-
ing 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 be-
cause teaching with technology fails to move beyond the in-
dividual. 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 commit-
ment from senior leadership time becomes less of a hindrance.
Theme 3: The Call for Increased Collaboration
Effectively teaching with technology generally requires sup-
port and collaboration from various stakeholders. While learn-
ing 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 and Dennis
2018) or pairing faculty with a mentor (Baran 2016), there
are inherent limitations to the one-on-one approach. For in-
stance, while learning how to use a specific technology may
be relatively straightforward and easy to do one-on-one, fac-
ulty operating in a bubble may not see different ways of using
the technology in their teaching. As a result, greater collabo-
ration is needed to explore new and different ways of using
technology as a catalyst toward more interactivity and engage-
ment (see Madson et al. 2017). Consequently, the literature
details a pattern of faculty desire to collaborate with other
faculty as a way to share ideas, demonstrate principles in prac-
tice 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 and Bortolin 2016;Wuetal.2016;
Wynants and 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 communi-
ties 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 fac-
ulty prefer conferring with fellow practitioners or faculty de-
velopers for guidance in teaching with technology over read-
ing journal articles. Shagrir (2017) found faculty prefer de-
partmental staff meetings and informal hallway conversations
more than internal professional development courses or work-
shops. Similarly, faculty prefer collaborating with colleagues
abroad on academic research and publications more than tak-
ing part in activities centered around an external professional
association (Shagrir 2017). While faculty tend to resist collab-
oration, 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 fac-
ulty on academic research. Purposefully embedding scholar-
ship 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 and Price 2013), and embedded
scholarship representsone way to collaboratively develop fac-
ulty to teach with technology, though there are other ways.
Learning Communities Professional and virtual learning com-
munities tend to be common approaches to encourage cross-
disciplinary collaboration (see Cohn et al. 2016;Liuand
Alexander 2017; Mckenna et al. 2016; Parker et al. 2016).
Trust et al. (2017) found professional learning networks sup-
port growth in teaching and learning among higher education
faculty, and Bostancioglu (2018) found faculty participation
and collaboration in online communities of practice to ulti-
mately support teaching with technology in professional de-
velopment. Collaboration across communities help faculty an-
swer 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 find-
ing. The finding suggests using technology in teaching is not
discipline-specific, rather contextual.
Faculty developers should expand upon collaborative ap-
proaches to teaching with technology. While one-on-one ap-
proaches have merit, faculty may not prefer such isolated ac-
tivities. Professional learning communities and networks pro-
vide an avenue for larger faculty development across institu-
tions and disciplines. As a result, faculty motivation to
TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259 253
participate in technology-focused faculty development is
threaded throughout the literature.
Theme 4: Motivations to Participate
Faculty participate in faculty development for different rea-
sons. The motivation to participate can include a willingness
to learn new technology (Niebuhr et al. 2018), collaborate
with colleagues (Shagrir 2017) or to receive some form of
compensation (Phuong et al. 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 pos-
itively influence pedagogy (Holmes and Kozlowski 2015)and
technology adoption (Hirsh 2001;Kenneyetal.2010).
Faculty developers should be familiar with such varying mo-
tivations 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;Jääskeläetal.2017; Teräs 2016; Wynants and Dennis
2018). Involuntary participation was noted less frequently (see
Wu et al. 2016). Conversely, feedback from participants sug-
gests volunteering is somewhat of short-lived activity and
faculty would require incentives for continued participation.
Various incentives and reward 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 litera-
ture 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
and Hardaker 2017). The bottom-up approach to faculty
development emerges when no formal training on the tech-
nology 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 hap-
pening more than we realize but that these experiences are
not captured in the literature. Either way, faculty and fac-
ulty developers should continually search for new and in-
novative 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 de-
velopment compared to using a different learning manage-
ment 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
et al. 2015; Sinclair and Aho 2018;Strawseretal.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
and Mishra 2005; Strawser et al. 2018) are common motiva-
tions, improving the student experience by teaching with tech-
nology 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 tech-
nology in faculty development. While these themes provide a
general overview of more recent technology-focused faculty
development, there are also more nuanced approaches requir-
ing 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 tech-
nology 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 ‘transmitted’to
teachers, and thus improve their actions”(Korthagen 2010,
254 TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259
p. 99). Research efforts should continue to explore situated
learning theory, as collaboration and context are key
components of teaching with technology. Lave and Wenger
(1991) defined situated learning as legitimate peripheral par-
ticipation 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 litera-
ture, contextualization of technology in teaching is key to
long-term sustained development (Bostancioglu 2018;
Koehler and Mishra 2005; Fairchild et al. 2016;Parkeretal.
2016). Faculty development needs to remain relevant.
Communities of practice, collaboration and developing exper-
tise 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 teach-
ing 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 and Kozlowski 2015).
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)detailedhow
faculty indicated a change in teaching practice through a pro-
fessional 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 tech-
nology obstacles potentially yields the most impactful chang-
es in faculty development and faculty naturally resist collab-
oration 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 et al. 2016). While Kirkwood (2014) suggested eval-
uating 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 teaching (see Bali and
Caines 2018; Liu and Alexander 2017; Wynants and 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 en-
courage 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 holis-
tic 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;Parkeretal.2016; Paskevicius and
Bortolin 2016). Broadening the scope to instructional devel-
opment by focusing on the course or curriculum can also be an
isolated activity (see Koehler and Mishra 2005). Going fur-
ther, organizational development focusing on the roles of se-
nior leadership may be too disparate an inclusion (see Sinclair
and Aho 2018; Strawser et al. 2018) though findings differ
across studies regarding the need for senior leadership support
with technology adoption. Azlim et al. (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 con-
sidered 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 de-
velopment 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 feed-
back received, the culture of an institution and future research
efforts.
TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259 255
Advancing Approaches
Research surrounding teaching with technology provides fac-
ulty 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 negotiat-
ing”(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 popula-
tions, institution types and demographics against these themes
as results may vary. Lastly, the student experience should be
purposefully integrated in faculty development efforts regard-
ing teaching with technology (e.g., the intersection of profes-
sional 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, impli-
cations 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 sur-
rounding technology. Every institution has a unique faculty
body and technological history. There will be nuanced differ-
ences, from the terminology and acronyms to broader differ-
ences such as position responsibilities, educational develop-
ment 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 tech-
nology or new teaching with technology initiatives.
Incorporating needs assessments, developing communities
of practice and continued follow-up can help faculty devel-
opers 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 jus-
tification (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 develop-
ment) as many faculty prefer working with colleagues com-
pared 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;Jääskeläetal.2017)asmostfaculty
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 pro-
gression in equally innovative ways. The following review
highlighted four emergent themes in the literature for faculty
developers to consider in their development efforts. Faculty-
teaching-faculty may have the greatest potential for high im-
pact 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 over-
all. 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 en-
hancing the student experience while maintaining facul-
ty motivation are different approaches worth exploring.
Further, when technology and pedagogy intersect in rel-
evant ways for faculty the student experience will ulti-
mately 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.
256 TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259
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.
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. https://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. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12528-015-9104-7.
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in
higher education: Foundations for success. Indianapolis: Jossey-
Bass.
Bates, A. T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher edu-
cation: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning.San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016).
Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, fu-
ture imperatives. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Beaumont, J. (2018). Cross-disciplinary professional development at
community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice,1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1558134.
Behar-Horenstein, L., Garvan, C., Catalanotto, F., & Hudson-Vassell, C.
(2014). The role of needs assessment for faculty development ini-
tiatives. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
stueduc.2014.11.004.
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:
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 dis-
cussion of 5-minute faculty teaching training videos. The Journal of
Faculty Development, 32(2), 67–74.
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 pro-
gram. Online Learning, 21(1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.24059/
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 develop-
ment: A review of the literature. Medical Teacher, 35(11), 930–937.
https://doi.org/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 develop-
ment: A reflective commentary on values informing professional
practice [PDF File]. Retrieved from https://arrow.dit.ie/ltcoth/62/
.14 November 2018.
Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technol-
ogy in higher education: Understanding conceptual change and de-
velopment in practice. Higher Education Research and
Development, 36(1), 73–87.
Epper, R. M., & Bates, A. W. (2001). Teaching faculty how to use tech-
nology: Best practices from leading institutions. Westport:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
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.
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 man-
agement systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.
Gebre, E., Saroyan, A.,& Bracewell, R. (2014). Students’engagement in
technology rich classrooms and its relationship to professors’con-
ceptions 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: Jossey-Bass.
Good, J., & Shumack, K. (2013). If you can't beat them, join them:
Emphasizing writing instruction and online learning in faculty pro-
fessional development. The Journal of Faculty Development, 27(2),
5-10.
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 throughexperiential learn-
ing. College Teaching, 50(4), 123–128.
Hirsh, S. (2001). We’re growing and changing. Journal of Staff
Development, 22(3), 255–258.
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.
TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259 257
Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction
and students’perceptions of computer technology to improve stu-
dent learning. Journal of Information Technology Education:
Research, 6(1), 169–180.
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.
Kipper, G., & Rampolla, J. (2012). Augmented reality: An emerging
technologies guide to AR. Waltham: Elsevier.
Kirkwood, A. (2014). Teaching and learning with technology in higher
education: Blended and distance education needs ‘joined-up think-
ing’rather than technological determinism. Open Learning, 29(3),
206–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1009884.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly
approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher educa-
tion. 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 peda-
gogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32(2), 131–152.
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 de-
velopment. 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: 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.
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 develop-
ment by design: Integrating technology in higher education.
Charlotte: 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 pre-
paredness 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: IGI Global.
Pacansky-Brock, M. (2017). Best practices for teaching with emerging
technologies (2nd ed.). New York: 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 under-
standings of community college faculty members: Results of an
equity-focused professional development experience. The Journal
of Faculty Development, 30(3), 41–48.
Paskevicius, M., & Bortolin, K. (2016). Blending our practice: Using
online and face-to-face methods to sustain community among fac-
ulty 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 and 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 pro-
fessional 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 and
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 facilitation and technology. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 29,122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2012.09.002.
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 and 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.
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.
Strawser,M.G.,Apostel,S.,O'Keefe,M.,&Simons,C.(2018).
Implementing innovation: An exploration of a learning management
258 TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259
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: Stylus Publishing.
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’snetworksto
stages of instructional development. Higher Education, 70(5), 807–
826.
Wright, M., Lohe, D.,& Little, D. (2018). The role of a center forteaching
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.
Publisher’sNoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
TechTrends (2020) 64:248–259 259
