Copyright  
 
 
by  
 
 
Yonghan  Zhou  
 
 
2012  
 

   
 The  Report  committee  for  Yonghan  Zhou  

Certifies  that  this  is  the  approved  version  of  the  following  Report:    

Factors  Affecting  Faculty  Technology  Adoption  

of  Online  Teaching  in  Higher  Education  –  Literature  Review  

APPROVED  BY  

SUPERVISING  COMMITTEE:  

             

Supervisor:  ________________________________  

                Min  Liu      

                               _________________________________  

  Paul  E.  Resta  

   

   
 
 Factors  Affecting  Faculty  Technology  Adoption  

of  Online  Teaching  in  Higher  Education  –  Literature  Review  

by  

Yonghan  Zhou,  B.S.;  M.S.  

 
Report  

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  

 
of  the  University  of  Texas  at  Austin  
 
in  Partial  Fulfillment  
 
of  the  Requirements  
 
for  the  Degree  of  
 

Master  of  Arts  

The  University  of  Texas  at  Austin  

May  2012

   
 
 Factors  Affecting  Faculty  Technology  Adoption  

of  Online  Teaching  in  Higher  Education  –  Literature  Review  

By  

Yonghan  Zhou,  MA    

University  of  Texas  at  Austin,  2012  

Supervisor:  Min  Liu  

  Online  teaching  and  learning  has  grown  rapidly  in  current  educational  

contexts.  Whereas  once,  the  role  of  faculty  was  primarily  a  classroom  instructor,  in  

online  classrooms,  the  role  has  been  expanded  to  one  of  facilitator,  organizer,  and  

supporter.  The  more  efficiently  that  faculty  can  adopt  online  technology  and  apply  it  

to  their  teaching  and  instruction,  the  better  students  academic  results  will  achieve  

(Goktalay  &  Huguet,  2006).  The  purpose  of  this  literature  review  is  to  help  faculty  

members  to  adopt  new  online  technologies  more  effectively  and  successfully.  

This  literature  review  identifies  important  factors  that  contribute  to  faculty  

members’  adoption  of  technology  in  higher  education.  Among  these  factors  are:  

reliability  of  online  technology,  faculty’s  perceived  usefulness  of  technology,  

institutional  support  of  online  technology,  time  constraints  in  implementing  online  

technology  to  instructional  methods  and  developing  effective  goals  for  the  use  of  

technology,  and  then  provides  recommendations  based  on  these  affecting  factors.  

   

  iv  
 
     TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  

Chapter  1:  Introduction  ............................................................................................................  1  

Chapter  2:  Method  .....................................................................................................................  5  

Chapter  3:  Technology  Adoption  Models  ..............................................................................  7  

Chapter  4:  Key  factors  affecting  faculty  online  technology  adoption  ..........................  12  

The  Reliability  of  Technology  .........................................................................................................  12  

Faculty’s  Perceived  Usefulness  of  Technology  ...........................................................................  13  
Institutional  Support  of  Technology  .............................................................................................  15  
Time  Constraints  in  Implementing  Technological  Applications  .............................................  16  
Developing  Effective  Goal  for  the  Use  of  Technology  ...............................................................  18  
Chapter  5:  Recommendation  to  Technology  Adoption  of  Faculty  ................................  19  

Recommendation  for  the  Reliability  of  Technology  ..................................................................  19  

Recommendation  of  faculty’s  Perceived  Usefulness  of  Technology  ......................................  20  
Recommendation  for  Institutional  Support  of  Technology  and  Time  Constraints  in  
Implementing  Technological  Applications  ..................................................................................  21  
Recommendation  for  Developing  Effective  Goals  for  the  Use  of  Technology  ......................  23  
Chapter  6:  Discussion  and  Conclusion  ...............................................................................  24  

References  ................................................................................................................................  27  

                           

   

  v  
 
                                                                                                                          LIST  OF  TABLES  

Table  1:  Different  Technology  Adoption  Models  Summary  Table……………………….......8  

Table  2:  Summary  of  Total  Time  Spent  (Cavanaugh,  2005,  p5).……………………………  17  

   

  vi  
 
Chapter  1:  Introduction  

With  the  rapid  advancement  of  online  technology,  online  courses  have  

become  an  important  alternative  mode  of  teaching  and  learning  in  every  education  

space.  In  this  technological  learning  environment,  the  learning/teaching  model  has  

produced  a  fundamental  change:  teaching  methods  have  evolved  from  “teacher-­‐

centered”  to  “student-­‐centered”  pedagogy:  the  teachers’  role  has  become  

increasingly  focused  on  guidance,  and  the  students’  role  has  transformed  from  

passive  learner  to  active  collaborative  learner.  Every  year,  the  number  of  students  

who  are  enrolling  online  courses  increases(Allen  &  Seaman,  2007).  For  example,  in  

fall  2007,  over  3.9  million  college  students  enrolled  in  at  least  one  online  course,  

which  means  that  over  twenty  percent  of  all  U.S.  higher  education  students  are  

enrolling  at  least  one  online  course  (Hussar  &  Bailey,  2008).  The  2010  Analysis  of  

the  Department  of  Education  showed  that  online  learning  is  just  as  effective  as  face  

to  face  learning,  but  more  cost-­‐effective  (“National  Education  Technology  Plan  2010  

|  U.S.  Department  of  Education,”  n.d.).  A  recent  longitudinal  study  among  the  

presidents  of  1,055  two-­‐year  and  four-­‐year  private,  public  and  for-­‐profit  colleges  

and  universities,  asked  the  presidents  to  predict  growth  in  online  learning:  15%  

said  that  most  of  their  current  undergraduate  students  have  taken  a  class  online,  

and  50%  predicted  that,  10  years  from  now,  most  of  their  students  will  take  classes  

online  (Parker,  Lenhart,  &  Moore,  2011).  Based  on  the  study  of  Zemsky  and  Massy  

(2004),  a  governmental  educational  program  was  launched  in  Europe,  and  in  

  1  
 
Switzerland  in  particular,  aimed  to  exploit  the  potential  of  educational  technology  

and  keep  pace  with  developments  in  countries  where  English  is  the  main  native  

language.  From  this  study  we  can  learn  that  sustainability  of  a  pure  project-­‐funding  

approach  and  the  need  for  institutional  strategies  regarding  educational  technology  

is  very  important.  The  search  for  such  strategies  at  U.S.  research  universities  was  

the  starting  point  for  this  literature  review.  I  have  found  that  a  critical  issue  among  

the  current  research  papers  and  studies  is  the  challenges  that  faculty  face  in  

adopting  technology  and/or  resistance  of  technological  adoption  across  the  higher  

educational  institutions  (Al-­‐Senaidi,  Lin,  &  Poirot,  2009;  Gong,  Xu,  &  Yu,  2004;  G.  

Walker  &  Johnson,  2008).    

Emerging  technologies  associated  with  online  learning  and  teaching  can  offer  

educators  more  advantages  and  opportunities  to  achieve  their  teaching  goals  

through  online  instructions  and  related  educational  activities  (Wang  &  Wang,  2009).  

Online  learning  has  also  been  strongly  recommended  by  the  administrative  team,  

peer  institutions  and  colleagues,  potential  and  current  students,  because  it  can  offer  

students  another  convenient  learning  channel,  so  many  educators  are  moving  

towards  online  teaching  innovations  or  integrating  new  online  technologies  into  

their  classrooms  (Baltaci-­‐Goktalay  &  Ocak,  2002).    

On  the  other  hand,  faculty  and  staff  members’  concerns  regarding  integrating  

online  technologies  into  their  instructions  is  a  critical  condition  to  be  considered,  

and  also  adds  a  personal  dimension  to  the  variables  necessary  for  successful  

adoption  of  online  technologies  in  higher  education  settings.  Georgina  and  Olson  

  2  
 
(2008)  have  pointed  out  that  teaching  online  is  difficult  for  many  instructors,  mainly  

because  of  challenges  and  outside  society  pressures  from  the  new  online  teaching  

environment.    Since  online  technology  usually  is  implemented  into  classroom  

instruction  without  sufficient  introduction  or  training,  it  can  cause  a  lot  of  

apprehension  for  faculty  members.  It  also  creates  unnecessary  obstacles  for  using  

online  technology's  fullest  potential  to  achieve  the  best  learning  results.    The  more  

concerns  and  pressures  faculty  have,  the  more  likely  they  would  be  to  resist  

adopting  of  the  online  learning  technologies  (Al-­‐Senaidi  et  al.,  2009;  Zhen,  Garthwait,  

&  Pratt,  2008).  Therefore,  it  becomes  very  important  to  identify  the  factors  that  can  

cause  faculty  and  staff  members’  concerns  in  order  to  gain  valuable  information  to  

improve  the  quality  of  online  learning  technology  implementation  and  increase  its  

use.  

  This  literature  review  aims  to  address  the  questions:  what  are  the  key-­‐

factors  affecting  faculty’s  technology  adoption  of  online  teaching  in  higher  education?  

What  recommendations  can  be  provided  based  on  the  affecting  factors?  The  main  

theme  are  divided  into  five  key  factors:  the  reliability  of  online  technology,  faculty’s  

perceived  usefulness  of  technology,  institutional  support  of  technology,  time  

constraints  in  implementing  technological  applications  to  instructional  methods  and  

developing  effective  goals  for  the  use  of  technology.  The  literature  review  is  divided  

into  four  major  chapters  sections.  In  Chapter  2  is  the  literature  review  method  I  

have  used.  Chapter  3  presents  5  major  factors  affecting  faculty  technology  adoption.  

Chapter  4  explores  the  recommendations  for  the  5  major  factors  affecting  faculty  

  3  
 
technology  adoption.  Furthermore,  the  discussion  and  conclusion  chapter  is  

included.  

   

  4  
 
Chapter  2:  Method  

I  conducted  a  literature  review  in  order  to  identify  studies  that  examine  

faculty  and  technology  adoption,  with  a  particular  focus  on  new  online  teaching  

technology.  Therefore,  faculty  technology  adoption  is  the  major  research  interest  for  

my  study.  The  adoption  by  students  and  pupils  is  also  important  but  is  outside  of  the  

scope  of  this  literature  review.  

I  broadly  reviewed  literature  for  this  report  on  the  topic  of  faculty  online  

technology  adoption.  The  scope  of  my  literature  review  included  the  following:  the  

major  international  conferences  in  this  area,  which  including  World  Conference  on  

E-­‐Learning  in  Corporate,  Government,  Healthcare,  and  Higher  Education  (eLearn),  

Review  of  Education  Research  (RER),  Society  for  Information  Technology  &  Teacher  

Education  International  Conference  (SITE),  and  Association  for  Educational  

Communications  and  Technology  International  Convention  (AECT).  In  addition,  the  

following  professional  and  peer-­‐reviewed  electronic  journals  were  reviewed:  Online  

Journal  of  Distance  Learning  Administration  (OJDLA),  The  Journal  of  Educational  

Research,  The  Sloan  Consortium,  and  Research  in  Higher  Education  (RHEJ).  Google  

Scholar  searches  with  keywords  faculty,  online  technology  adoption,  online  teaching  

and  learning,  higher  education,  universities  and  colleges  and  combinations  of  these  

terms  were  used  as  well.  I  reviewed  conference  proceedings  and  journal  papers  that  

focused  on  or  related  to  faculty’  experiences  with  new  online  technology  adoption  

from  different  perspectives.  Among  these  perspectives  were:  faculty  members’  

  5  
 
experiences  in  the  online  classroom,  and  faculty  technology  adoption  theories  and  

models.    I  read  through  a  large  number  of  articles,  and  abstracts.  My  first  round  of  

screening  included  selecting  all  texts  that  were  published  after  2005.  There  were  

some  exceptions  if  some  papers  were  very  important  and  authoritative  in  the  

faculty  technology  adoption  field,  i.e..  books  which  introduced  the  faculty  adoption  

models  (Hall  &  Hord,  1987;  Rogers  &  Rogers,  2003).  In  my  second  round  of  

screening  I  kept  all  the  valuable  text  that  related  solely  to  the  higher  education  

environment,  and  excluded  the  others  including  K-­‐12  education  or  business  

education  and  training.  In  my  third  round  of  screening,  I  was  guided  by  the  research  

purpose  of  this  literature  review.  I  investigated  the  key  factors  with  in  the  faculty  

online  technology  adoptions  and  related  recommendations.  

One  thing  that  needs  to  be  pointed  out  is  that  the  literature  review  includes  

some  studies  that  are  not  specifically  focused  on  online  technology  user  adoption,  

but  broadly  covered  in  general  technologies  in  educational  fields.  This  literature  

search  was  not  limited  to  publication  in  peer-­‐reviewed  journals  or  conference  

papers  rather  it  was  only  limited  to  publications  dated  from  2006  until  the  present.  

The  reason  I  conducted  literature  review  in  these  areas  was  based  on  my  desire  to  

review  the  most  up-­‐to-­‐date  literature:  this  would  not  have  been  possible  to  

complete  such  a  review  if  my  literature  review  was  not  limited  to  specific  

publication  date.  

   

  6  
 
Chapter  3:  Technology  Adoption  Models  

There  is  a  long  history  of  technology  adoption  research.  Several  technology  

adoption  models  have  been  developed  in  order  to  better  understand  user  

technology  adoption  process  (Al-­‐Senaidi  et  al.,  2009;  Sahin  &  Thompson,  2007;  

Surry,  Ensminger,  &  Haab,  2005;  Yi,  Jackson,  Park,  &  Probst,  2006).  According  to  

Rogers  (2003)  research,  in  general  before  people  adopt  a  new  technology,  he/she  

needs  to  collect  necessary  information  of  the  new  technology,  practice  and  test  the  

technology,  and  then  consider  whether  it’s  worth  his/her  time  and  energy  

investment  or  not.  Similarly,  when  faculty  is  confronted  with  a  new  online  

technology  for  teaching,  he/she  basically  would  go  through  the  same  process  as  well:  

from  gathering  knowledge  of  the  new  online  technology  to  implementation  of  online  

technology  into  instruction.  Cavanaugh  (2005)  found  that  it  is  commonly  believed  

by  the  faculty  that  adoption  of  new  teaching  technology  is  equal  to  time  consuming  

and  new  skill  development.  

Some  researchers  believe  that  faculty's  technology  adoption  can  be  treated  as  an  

adoption  of  innovative  framework  (Dooley,  1999;  Rogers,  2003).  By  further  discuss  

these  technology  adoption  models,  it  would  help  to  facilitate  understanding  of  

faculty  adoption  process  and  categorizing  the  affecting  factors  addressed  later  in  

this  literature  review.  

The  following  table  was  created  based  the  table  from  Grunwald  (2008,  p.8)  

paper.  It  illustrates  that  models  are  similar  to  each  other  and  they  usually  divide  the  

  7  
 
technology  adoption  process  into  several  stages  from  the  beginning  to  the  final  

technology  adoption  stage.  Among  these  models,  Hall  and  Hords  concerns-­‐based  

model  and  Rogers  Learning/Adoption  Trajectory  model  are  most  influential  and  

popular  (Al-­‐Senaidi  et  al.,  2009;  Goktalay  &  Huguet,  2006;  Sahin  &  Thompson,  2007;  

Surry  et  al.,  2005).  Here  I  will  discuss  these  two  technology  adoption  models  in  

order  to  better  understand  the  faculty  technology  adoption  process.    

Table  1:  Different  Technology  Adoption  Models  Summary  Table    

Author Stage+1 Stage+2 Stage+3 Stage+4 Stage+5 Stage+6 Stage7

Hall+&+Hord's+ Information+
Awareness Personal+ Management Consequences Collaboration Refocusing
(1987) Gathering

Teachers+are+
Rogers+&+ Teachers+are+treated+ Teachers+are+the+ Teachers+are+the+coM Teachers+are+the+
reaffirmers+or+
Rogers(2003) as+learners learners learners leaders
rejecters

Rogers+&+
Schumacher+ Knowledge+ Persuation Decision Implementation Confirmation Reinvention
(1983,+1995)

Havelock+
Awareness Information+Seeking Evaluation Trial Adoption Integraton
(1973)
Hamelink+
Awareness Acceptance Participations Ownership
(1984)

Prochaska,+
DiClemete+&+
Precontemplation Contemplation Preparation Action Maintenance
Norcross+
(1992)

Fung+(1992) Awareness Attitude+Formation Adoption Adoption Action Application

Knuetel+(1995) Awareness Conceptualization Decision Implementation

Faculty  concerns  around  integrating  online  technology  is  one  critical  

condition  to  be  considered  among  various  personal  dimension  variables  for  

successful  adoption  of  online  technologies  in  higher  education  settings.  Hall  and  

Hord’s  (1987)  concerns-­‐based  adoption  model  (CBAM)  is  a  wildly  applied  theory  for  

  8  
 
studying  educational  change  phases.    There  are  three  phases  of  concerns:  pre-­‐

teaching  phase,  early  teaching  phase,  and  late-­‐teaching  phase.  During  the  pre-­‐

teaching  phase,  faculty  are  not  concerned  about  the  new  teaching  technology.  

During  the  early  teaching  phase,  faculty  have  concerns  about  themselves  as  

instructors,  and  during  the  last  phase,  their  concerns  are  focused  on  the  students.  

The  findings  and  results  from  this  model  are  also  clustered  into  4  categories:  

unrelated,  self,  task  and  impact.  Unrelated  concerns  focus  on  the  pre-­‐service  

teachers  who  had  no  experience  or  expectations  about  teaching,  but  they  may  focus  

more  on  the  things  going  around  them.  Self-­‐concerns  relate  to  faculty  feeling  

inadequate  to  teach.  Task-­‐concerns  characterized  teachers  who  become  more  

confident  in  the  teaching  setting  and  they  have  some  preliminary  teaching  

experiences  already.  Impact-­‐concerns  focus  on  the  students  and  teachers’  help  and  

impaction  on  the  students.  CBAM  (Concerns-­‐Based  Adoption  Model)  also  developed  

7  stages  to  describe  the  teachers’  concerns  when  they  adopt  a  new  technology:  

Awareness  (teachers  have  little  concern  or  involvement  with  the  technology),  

Informational  (teachers  have  a  general  interest  in  the  technology  and  would  like  to  

know  more  about  it),  Personal  (teachers  want  to  learn  about  the  personal  

ramifications  of  the  innovation.  They  question  how  the  technology  will  affect  them),  

Management  (teachers  learn  the  processes  and  the  tasks  of  the  technology.  They  

focus  on  information  and  resources),  Consequences  (teachers  focus  on  the  

innovation’s  impact  on  students),  Collaboration  (teachers  cooperate  with  other  

teachers  in  implementing  the  innovation)  and  Refocusing  (teachers  consider  the  

  9  
 
benefits  of  the  innovation  and  think  of  additional  alternatives  that  might  work  even  

better)  (Hall  &  Hord,  1987).  Besides  Stages  of  Concern  (SoC),  there  is  another  

concept  from  CBAM,  Level  of  Use  (LoU).  SoC  is  more  focused  on  the  teachers’  

feelings,  thoughts  and  needs  when  they  adopt  a  new  technology  into  their  

instructions,  and  LoU  is  more  focused  on  the  pattern  of  their  teaching  behaviors.  

The  first  3  levels  (0-­‐2)  are  for  non  users,  level  3-­‐6  are  for  users:  level  0  nonuse,  level  

1  orientation,  level  2  preparation,  level  3  mechanical,  level  4A  routine,  level  4B  

refinement,  level  5  integration  and  level  6  renewal  (Goktalay  &  Huguet,  2006)

The  second  adoption  model,  the  Learning/Adoption  Trajectory  Model  

(Rogers  &  Rogers,  2003),  is  similar  to  the  CBAM  model.  This  model  has  five  stages:  

in  stage  1,  teachers  are  treated  as  learners,  whose  major  responsibility  is  to  gather  

information  and  learn  the  knowledge  and  skills  in  order  to  engage  the  new  

technology  into  their  classroom;  in  stage  2  teachers  are  the  learner.  They  

experiment  with  technology,  trying  out  in  their  online  classrooms,  and  sharing  their  

experiences  with  their  colleagues;  in  stage  3  the  teachers  are  the  co-­‐learners.  They  

usually  develop  a  relationship  between  the  new  technology  and  their  own  curricula  

rather  than  concentrating  on  task  management  aspects;  in  stage  4,  teachers  are  

reaffirmers  or  rejecter.  They  have  their  own  awareness  of  intermediate  learning  

outcomes  and  try  to  evaluate  how  the  technology  would  work  for  their  students:  in  

another  words  how  the  technology  is  impacting  student  learning;  in  stage  5,  

teachers  are  the  leaders.  They  can  fully  understand  and  manage  the  technology  and  

become  leaders  where  they  are  reflecting  their  practices  and  sharing  improvement  

 10  
 
with  their  colleagues.  In  this  model,  adopting  the  new  technology  is  described  as  a  

continuous  process  for  faculty.  One  thing  I  need  to  point  out  here  is  this  technology  

adoption  model  is  referring  to  general  technology  which  teachers  are  using  in  the  

classroom,  not  specific  online  technology.  But  online  technology  should  be  able  to  be  

included  into  this  model  domain.  

   As  for  the  higher  education  field,  implementation  of  online  learning  

innovations,  introduction  of  new  teaching  initiatives,  or  integrations  of  new  

technology  into  teaching  instructions,  not  only  are  similar  to  the  concept  of  

organizational  change  but  also  are  very  likely  to  make  the  teachers  felt  challenges  

and  pressure(Al-­‐Taneiji  &  McLeod,  2008;  Georgina  &  Olson,  2008).  It  also  would  

subsequently  lead  to  teachers’  resistance  to  change  (Konings,  Brandgruwel,  &  

Vanmerrienboer,  2007;  Peck,  Gallucci,  Sloan,  &  Lippincott,  2009;  Stigmar,  2008).  

Some  research  also  further  pointed  out  that  the  teachers’  resistance  to  technology  in  

higher  education  field  would  be  one  of  the  major  obstacles  to  the  future  

development  of  online  learning  (Al-­‐Senaidi  et  al.,  2009;  Gong  et  al.,  2004;  G.  Walker  

&  Johnson,  2008).  By  discussing  the  technology  adoption  models  in  this  chapter,  it  

helps  to  ascertain  change  and  growth  of  faculty  members  through  the  process  in  

order  to  get  further  comprehensive  understanding  about  the  process.  In  next  

chapter,  I  will  categorize  the  key  affecting  factors  for  faculty  technology  adoption,  

along  with  related  recommendations  to  it.  This  result  will  be  very  necessary  and  

important  to  current  and  future  online  teaching  and  learning  in  higher  education  

field.  

 11  
 
Chapter  4:  Key  factors  affecting  faculty  online  technology  

adoption  

  Beyond  how  to  really  use  the  online  technology  in  the  classroom,  it’s  also  

very  important  to  help  faculty  members  effectively  adopt  and  integrate  online  

technology  into  their  classrooms.  One  of  the  most  important  research  areas  is  to  

identify  primary  affecting  factors  of  it  (Suebsin  &  Gerdsri,  2009).  In  this  section,  the  

five  key-­‐factors  of  faculty  online  technology  adoption  are  discussed,  which  are  

derived  from  the  review  of  studies.  They  are  reliability  of  technology,  faculty’s  

perceived  usefulness  of  technology,  institutional  support  of  technology,  time  

constraints  in  implementing  technology  applications  to  instructional  methods  and  

developing  effective  goal  for  technology  use.  

The  Reliability  of  Technology  

  Online  technology  creates  a  new  way  of  encouraging  multiple  types  of  

learning  activities  (Keengwe  &  Kidd,  2010).  Based  on  the  literature  review,  the  

following  activities  are  the  most  common  used  in  the  online  classroom:  sharing,  

offering  personalized  materials,  developing  collaboration  skills,  and  appealing  to  

digital  natives  (Georgina  &  Olson,  2008).  The  following  online  technology  are  

summarized  by  Hamid,  Chang  and  Kumin  (2005),  which  are  commonly  used  in  the  

classroom  to  support  the  variety  activates:  blog,  wiki,  photo  sharing,  video  sharing,  

 12  
 
podcast,  social  bookmarking,  online  discussion  board,  instant  messaging  and  social  

network  sites.  Some  research  reveals  that  the  reliability  of  technology  plays  an  

important  role  in  the  faculty  technology  adoption  process  and  also  is  treated  as  the  

biggest  concern  from  the  faculty’s  perspective  (Al-­‐Senaidi  et  al.,  2009).  Additional  

cited  concerns  connected  to  the  reliability  of  the  online  technology  include:  software  

incompatible  with  office  and  home,  mistakes  by  support  services,  software  

malfunctions,  slow  Internet  access  and  out-­‐of-­‐  date  software.    

Faculty’s  Perceived  Usefulness  of  Technology    

Online  technologies  that  can  potentially  support  the  learning  activities  can  be  

blog,  wiki,  photo  sharing,  video  sharing,  podcast,  social  bookmarking,  online  

discussion  board,  instant  messaging  and  social  network  sites(Georgina  &  Olson,  

2008).  For  example,  blogs  can  be  an  ideal  platform  for  students,  where  students  

easily  create  their  own  content  and  share  it  with  one  another.  Using  online  

technology  cannot  create  too  much  learning  anxiety  for  students,  because  most  

college  students  have  a  strong  familiarity  with  it  (Georgina  &  Olson,  2008;  Keengwe  

&  Kidd,  2010;  Wang  &  Wang,  2009).  But  how  the  faculty  view  this  technology,  how  

satisfied  they  are  with  the  outcomes  of  online  technologies  is  a  different  story  and  

plays  an  important  role  at  the  early  stage  of  adopting  this  technology  (Polančič,  

Heričko,  &  Rozman,  2010).  The  Technology  Acceptance  Model  (TAM)  (Davis,  

1989)was  broadly  adopted  by  several  instructional  technology  related  researches,  

 13  
 
which  are  used  by  exam  users’  technology  adoption  and  usage  (Gardner,  2011;  Gong  

et  al.,  2004;  Park,  Lee,  &  Cheong,  2007;  Roca,  Chiu,  &  Martínez,  2006;  Wang  &  Wang,  

2009).  TAM  points  out  that  there  is  a  high  and  positive  correlation  between  the  user  

awareness  and  feeling  of  ease  toward  technology  and  how  the  faculty  can  adopt  the  

technology.  Because  the  daily  teaching  and  research  workload,  the  faculty  regularly  

feel  time  pressure,  so  the  faculty  are  understandably  concerned  about  the  time  it  

takes  to  learn  new  technologies.  Based  on  previous  suggestions  and  work  by  Davis  

(1989)  and  Knezek  and  Rhonda  (2008),  a  teacher’s  perception  of  usefulness  toward  

online  technology  is  described  as  the  extent  to  which  a  teacher  believes  that  using  

online  technology  would  enhance  his  or  her  teaching  performance.  A  teacher’s  

perception  of  ease  of  use  toward  the  online  technology  is  described  as  the  extent  to  

which  a  teacher  believes  that  using  online  technology  would  be  free  of  effort.  

According  to  Gibson,  Walker  and  Park,  there  was  a  positive  association  between  the  

technology’s  perceived  usefulness,  ease  of  use,  and  teachers’  motivation  to  embed  

the  new  online  technology  into  their  instructions  (Gibson,  Harris,  &  Colaric,  2008;  

Park,  Lee,  &  Cheong,  2007;  Greg  Walker  &  Johnson,  2008).  Similarly,  Polančič  et  al.  

(2010)  found  that  if  faculty  perceives  an  increased  sense  of  usefulness  and  

awareness  of  ease  of  use  toward  online  technology,  they  could  have  higher  

motivation  to  adopt  the  online  technology  into  their  classrooms.  

  Ease  of  use  is  a  very  important  factor  that  can  deter  faculty  from  adopting  

online  technologies,  especially  when  they  have  little  experience  with  using  these  

technologies  in  their  traditional  classroom  or  they  have  figured  out  a  way  to  get  

 14  
 
around  these  technologies(Tabata  &  Johnsrud,  2008).    On  the  other  hand,  as  

mentioned  in  the  previous  section,  Davis(1989)  pointe  out  that  there  is  a  high  and  

positive  correlation  between  the  user’s  ease  of  use  and  their  technology  adoption  

process.  Some  researches  have  clearly  indicated  that  if  faculty  have  increased  

awareness  of  ease  of  use  toward  online  technology,  they  could  have  higher  

motivation  to  utilize  the  online  technology  (Gibson,  Harris,  &  Colaric,  2008;  Park,  

Lee,  &  Cheong,  2007;  Greg  Walker  &  Johnson,  2008;  Huang,  Deggs,  Jabor,  &  

Machtmes,  2011).  There  are  several  other  situations  that  could  contribute  to  

resisting  the  use  of  technology:  classrooms’  hardware  and  software  can  be  different,  

so  the  faculty  have  problem  in  adopting  them;  or  faculty  do  not  have  the  equipment  

or  technology  they  need  for  their  teaching.  

Institutional  Support  of  Technology  

  According  to  Wang  and  Wang  study  of  269  university  faculty  members,  there  

was  a  high  correlation  between  faculty  members’  online  technology  adoption  and  

institutional  support  (2009).  Furthermore,  some  researches  show  a  negative  

correlation  between  the  impact  scores  and  instructor  evaluation,  which  means  that  

the  more  students  experienced  technical  problems,  the  lower  they  rated  their  

instructors  (Davies,  Howell,  &  Petrie,  2010).  This  result  demonstrates  a  need  for  

technical  support  for  faculty  and  online  courses.  More  and  more  higher  education  

institutions  want  to  promote  and  strengthen  their  use  of  online  teaching  technology.  

 15  
 
In  order  to  achieve  this  goal,  a  satisfactory  framework  for  educational  technology  

support  is  very  necessary,  because  faculty  usually  do  not  only  rely  on  specific  

instructional  technology  support  teams,  but  also  rely  on  the  work  of  IT  units,  

teaching  and  learning  centers,  and  libraries  (Moser,  2007).  Therefore,  the  efficient  

and  real-­‐time  technology  support  should  be  provided  from  variety  fields  and  

locations  all  across  the  campus.  Al-­‐Senaidi  and  Lin’s  (2009)  research  conducted  a  

faculty  survey  and  found  that  they  complained  that  there  was  no  sufficient  

technology  support  from  the  campus  side.  The  report  also  showed  that  the  reason  

why  some  faculty  members  are  unsatisfied  with  technologies  is  due  to  the  

technological  problems  not  being  fixed  in  a  timely  fashion.  Others  said  that  the  

support  personnel  behaved  nonchalantly  and  did  not  take  the  problem  seriously,  or  

that  support  personnel  only  sometimes  fixed  the  problem  (Surry,  Grubb,  Ensminger,  

&  Ouimette,  2009).  As  a  result,  many  faculty  members  treated  slow  response  time  to  

technology  difficulties  as  a  sign  of  lack  of  institutional  support.  According  to  

Cavanaugh  (2005)  many  faculty  members  would  use  online  technologies  into  their  

classrooms  if  they  can  get  necessary  and  appropriate  technology  training  and  

support.  

Time  Constraints  in  Implementing  Technological  Applications  

  Another  major  concern  that  faculty  and  staff  member  noted  was  a  lack  of  

time  in  incorporating  technology  into  their  instructional  practices  (Cavanaugh,  2005;  

 16  
 
Huang  et  al.,  2011;  Zhen  et  al.,  2008).  In  Surrey’s  survey  study,  lack  of  time  was  the  

first  concern  of  236  faculty  members  (2009).  In  Cavanaugh’s  (2005)  case  study,  a  

group  of  experienced  teachers  compared  traditional  teaching  and  online  teaching  in  

order  to  investigate  the  time-­‐consuming  issue.  Four  themes  emerged  in  the  study  

and  a  summary  table  showed  the  details:    

1.  Course  preparation  time  (including  technology  adoption  time)    

2.  Time  spent  on  teaching  

3.  Office  hours  

4.  Final  tasks  

Table2:  Summary  of  Total  Time  Spent  (Cavanaugh,  2005,  p5)  

Summary of Total Time Spent (Hrs.)

Activity Online In-class

Preparation 35 3

Teaching 73 27

Office Hours 44 32

Final Tasks 3 0

Total 155

 17  
 
 This  study’s  finding  clearly  indicated  that  generally  the  teachers  spent  150%  

more  time  preparing  for  the  online  classroom  than  the  traditional  face-­‐to-­‐face  

classroom.  Furthermore,  the  time  faculty  spent  on  adopting  these  online  

technologies,  or  developing/teaching  the  online  courses  was  not  as  highly  regarded  

as  it  was  then  it  was  spent  in  the  face-­‐to-­‐face  classrooms.  According  to  Kim  and  

Bonk  (2006),  62%  of  faculty  indicated  that  “the  main  obstacle  to  using  the  web  

interacting  was  the  reparation  time  required.”

Developing  Effective  Goal  for  the  Use  of  Technology  

  Online  technology  has  great  potential  and  ability  to  help  educators  create  

interactive,  real-­‐world  learning  environment,  which,  in  turn,  respect  students’  needs,  

foster  collaboration,  promote  engagement,  and  support  higher  order  thinking  of  the  

students  and  enhance  the  course  quality  (Stigmar,  2008).  But  the  technology  cannot  

be  transformative  on  its  own.  It  requires  faculty  to  fully  understand  the  technology  

and  master  it  before  it  can  be  used  effectively.  According  Ertmer  (2005),  most  

faculty  member,  regardless  of  their  own  computer  experiences,  have  limited  

understand  and  experience  of  how  to  use  the  online  technology  to  facilitate  their  

teaching,  enhance  students’  learning,  and  then  cannot  achieve  their  learning  goals.  

Therefore,  the  faculty  need  to  set  up  an  appropriate  and  effective  teaching  goals  

based  on  a  full  understanding  of  both  the  teaching  material  and  the  technological  

capability.  

 18  
 
Chapter  5:  Recommendation  to  Technology  Adoption  of  Faculty  

  In  order  to  help  faculty  members  effectively  integrate  online  technologies  

into  classrooms,  I  group  recommendations,  based  on  the  primary  five  affecting  

factors,  from  the  literature  review  in  this  chapter.  

Recommendation  for  the  Reliability  of  Technology    

  There  are  some  recommendations  here  in  order  to  achieve  reliability  of  the  

technology  used  to  support  faculty’s  online  teaching  classrooms.  

1. Appropriate  online  teaching  technology  training  workshops  for  faculty  

should  be  set  up.  These  workshops  should  help  the  faculty  familiarize  

themselves  with  technology,  address  their  questions  and  build  their  

confidence  and  improve  their  motivation  regarding  the  application  of  

online  technology  (Al-­‐Senaidi  et  al.,  2009;  Georgina  &  Olson,  2008).  

2. High  reliable  software  that  has  high  reliability  should  be  first  priority  

when  higher  education  institutions  select  software  for  faculty  (Keengwe  

&  Kidd,  2010).  We  cannot  always  pick  up  the  cheap  software.  The  cheap  

software  always  would  need  more  expensive  maintenance,  frequent  

repair  and  so  on.  As  a  result,  the  cheaper  with  lower  reliability  software  

would  easily  kill  the  faculty’s  enthusiasm  of  using  it.  

3. Routine  and  more  frequent  technology  equipment  checking  and  

maintenance  should  be  set  up  in  order  to  avoid  unexpected  situations  in  

 19  
 
 online  classrooms.  The  regular  checking  and  maintenance  should  be  as  

detailed  as  possible,  such  as  checking  the  batteries  in  the  remote  controls,  

software  upgrades,  light  bulbs,  and  so  on.  It  is  especially  important  to  

inform  faculty  of  where  they  can  seek  technological  support  (Georgina  &  

Olson,  2008;  Goktalay  &  Huguet,  2006;  Sahin,  2006).  

Recommendation  of  faculty’s  Perceived  Usefulness  of  Technology  

  Perceived  usefulness  of  technology  plays  an  important  role  of  successfully  

technology  integration  (Roca  et  al.,  2006).  Several  research  studies  emphasize  

faculty’s  perceptions  of  the  usefulness  of  technology  and  aim  to  give  

recommendations  to  faculty  members  in  order  to  help  them  achieve  more  efficient  

online  technology  adoption  (Goktalay  &  Huguet,  2006;  Huang  et  al.,  2011;  Polančič  

et  al.,  2010;  Sahin,  2006;  Wang  &  Wang,  2009).  This  factor  represents  two  important  

questions  for  faculty  members:  why  do  I  need  this  online  technology  to  support  my  

teaching?  How  am  I  going  to  use  this  technology  in  my  classroom  and  in  the  future?  

Gardner  (2011)  showed  that  faculty  acceptance  of  technology  use  significantly  

increased  after  faculty  participated  in  specially  designed  technology  training  

courses  to  demonstrate  them  what  they  could  do  with  the  online  technology  in  their  

classroom.  Therefore,  special  training  courses  or  workshops  are  highly  

recommended  at  the  beginning  stages  of  introducing  the  technology  to  the  faculty.  

In  addition,  based  on  several  studies,  before  the  faculty  technology  training,  the  

 20  
 
individual  department  cultures  should  be  indispensable,  and  most  effective  training  

would  happen  when  it  becomes  collaborative  and  cooperative  among  the  faculty  

((Ertmer,  2005;  Mayo,  Kajs,  &  Tanguma,  2005).  Some  research  suggests  that  the  

university  should  set  up  computerized  classrooms  as  consistently  as  possible.  Roca  

et  al.  (2006)  indicated  that  faculty  member  prefer  reliable,  user-­‐friendly,  ease  of  use  

and  visually  appealing  technologies  during  technology  adoption  process.  According  

to  other  studies,  if  the  classrooms  have  to  be  different  and  then  they  should  be  

simply  and  well  designed  and  tested  (Davis,  1989;  Gibson  et  al.,  2008;  Sahin,  2006;  

Zhen  et  al.,  2008).    In  addition,  according  to  Ertmer  and  Mayo  (2005),  faculty  

members  should  participate  more  on  technological  infrastructure  in  order  to  be  

more  motivated  and  get  ownership  in  the  technology  adoption  process,  and  then  

better  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  new  technology.    

Recommendation  for  Institutional  Support  of  Technology  and  Time  Constraints  in  

Implementing  Technological  Applications  

  Universities  should  pay  more  attention  to  the  faculty  concerns  regarding  

insufficient  technological  support  (Georgina  &  Olson,  2008;  Huang  et  al.,  2011).  First,  

universities  need  to  identify  those  attitudes  and  behaviors  that  are  seen  as  poor  or  

inadequate  support,  and  closely  work  with  technology  staff  to  reduce  these.  A  

survey  can  be  conducted  to  investigate  faculty’s  perceptions  of  new  online  

technology.  Second,  universities  should  restructure  institutional  support  programs  

 21  
 
on  campus  to  make  them  as  responsive  and  effective  as  possible  in  order  to  support  

online  classrooms  (Al-­‐Senaidi  et  al.,  2009).  Park  et  al.(2007)  highlighted  the  

importance  of  institutional  support  in  his  research  “in  other  words,  the  more  

instructors  believe  that  school/departmental  policy  is  an  important  reason  to  adopt  

electronic  courseware,  the  more  likely  they  are  to  highly  evaluate  the  functions  of  

the  system.  This  means  that  electronic  courseware  could  be  considered  a  valuable  

system  insofar  as  it  is  beneficial  for  instructors  to  manage  classes  and  perform  their  

teaching,  regardless  of  whether  the  adoption  of  the  technology  is  driven  by  their  

own  desire  or  pressure  from  administration”(p.179).  

A  rapid  response  system  must  be  in  place  that  can  deal  with  a  wide  range  of  

problems  for  faculty  (Maguire,  2005).  Monetary  incentives  can  offer  incentives  and  

may  serve  as  another  effective  type  of  institutional  support.  According  to  Schifter  

(2002)  research,  monetary  support,  including  stipends,  continuing  education,  

increased  salaries,  or  overload  pay,  can  motivate  faculty  desire  to  adopt  technology.  

Cavanaugh  (2005)  claims  that,  the  recommendation  for  the  “lack  of  time”  issue  

would  be  relieved  by  institutional  support  as  well,  because  the  institutional  has  the  

ability  to  set  up  the  release  schedule  for  development  and  maintenance  of  online  

courses.  Faculty  and  staff  members  would  be  better  appreciated  if  the  supervisor  or  

administrative  team  could  understand  their  pressure  and  job  requirements,  and  

then  be  willing  to  offer  them  more  time  when  initiating  the  new  online  technology  in  

their  classrooms.  In  addition,  if  faculty  have  tight  time  constraints,  institutions  

 22  
 
should  offer  in-­‐time  instructional  design  and  development  support  for  them  (Huang  

et  al.,  2011;  Maguire,  2005;  Sahin,  2006).  

Recommendation  for  Developing  Effective  Goals  for  the  Use  of  Technology  

  In  order  to  help  faculty  achieve  effective  goals  for  technology  use  (instead  of  

focusing  on  isolated,  skills-­‐based  uses  of  technology)  higher  education  institutions  

and  organizations  should  promote  the  use  of  various  technologies  for  sophisticated  

problem-­‐solving  and  information-­‐retrieving  purposes  (Gahala,  2001).  Since  

advanced  online  technologies  can  be  a  very  appropriate  vehicle  to  achieve  

meaningful  and  engaged  learning,  it  has  the  potential  to  build  up  authentic,  

meaningful,  and  challenging  problems  that  are  similar  to  tasks  performed  by  

professionals  in  various  disciplines  (Zhen  et  al.,  2008).  Therefore,  an  efficient,  well-­‐

supported  technology  plan  is  very  important,  as  it  could  ensure  that  faculty  realize  

the  full  potential  of  new  technology,  and  actually  use  it.    

This  chapter  detailed  lists  the  recommendations  for  faculty  technology  

adoption  process  based  on  the  five  affecting  factors  I  have  grouped  from  the  

literature  review  in  the  previous  chapter.  As  a  new  online  technology  is  integrated  

in  to  faculty’s  instruction  there  is  a  variety  of  needs    have  to  be  considered  in  order  

to  make  this  happened  effectively.  

 
   

 23  
 
Chapter  6:  Discussion  and  Conclusion  

Higher  education  institutions  and  organizations  must  integrate  new  online  

technologies  to  support  faculty  teaching.  If  faculty  do  not  successfully  adopt  new  

online  technology,  it  does  not  matter  how  great  the  technology  is  unless  it  can  have  

tangible  results  in  the  online  classroom.  Furthermore,  the  more  quickly  faculty  

adopt  the  online  teaching/learning  technology,  the  better  they  will  be  able  to  use  it  

to  facilitate  their  teaching.  In  the  online  technology  embedded  classroom,  whether  

pure  online  teaching  or  within  a  face  to  face  blended  teaching  environment,  the  

faculty  member  play  an  essential  role  in  the  teaching  process:  not  only  because  

faculty  performance  is  highly  associated  with  the  quality  and  final  success  of  online  

learning,  but  also  because  provide  fresh  impetus  to  the  implementation  of  teaching  

innovations,  introduction  of  new  teaching  initiatives,  and  integration  of  new  online  

technology  into  instruction  (Bakkenes,  Vermunt,  &  Wubbels,  2010;  Chen,  2008;  

Tabata  &  Johnsrud,  2008;  Wang  &  Wang,  2009).  

The  literature  review  is  focus  on  the  process  of  faculty  technology  adoption  

as  an  individual/personal  development  process  rather  than  on  special  properties  of  

development  of  socialization  or  cultural  influences  regarding  faculty  online  

technology  adoption.  Peng  and  Mu  (2011)  researched  the  impact  of  social  network  

structures  on  online  technology  adoption.  They  argued  that  the  social  network  

centrality  and  network  brokerage  can  contribute  positively  to  online  technology  

adoption,  and  the  closure  of  an  ego  network  has  the  negative  impact.  I  did  not  

 24  
 
include  this  within  my  literature  review  because  the  studies  in  this  area  were  

limited.  

Another  area  worthy  of  more  attention  is  the  extrinsic  motivators  or  

pressures  for  faculty  online  technology  adoption.  For  example,  universities  and  

colleges  administrators  are  key  players  in  efficiently  helping  faculty  and  staff  

members  to  adopt  online  teaching  technology.  Further,  the  long-­‐term  direction  of  IT  

in  education  development  needs  to  be  addressed,  make  specific  planning  and  the  

determination  priority,  and  then  collaborating  with  faculty  to  make  appropriate  

changes  in  new  teaching  trends.  In  addition,  peer  pressure  and  student  pressure  

should  be  taken  into  serious  consideration  as  well,  which  can  be  a  motivator  or  

barrier  for  faculty  online  technology  adoption.  Because  limited  researches  can  be  

located,  these  issues  have  not  been  included  into  this  literature  review.    

Based  on  Zhen  (2008)  research,  faculty  members  would  be  more  motivated  

to  adopt  the  new  technologies  for  their  classrooms  if  they  have  strong  beliefs  about  

the  unique  advantages  of  online  teaching  and  are  confident  using  them.  In  order  to  

achieve  this  goal,  besides  faculty  new  technology  training,  it’s  also  important  to  help  

faculty  members  build  their  beliefs  about  effective  technology  integration,  effective  

online  teaching  and  learning,  and  appropriate  curriculum  design  for  new  technology  

integrated  online  classroom  (Chen,  2008).  By  grouping  the  variety  factors  that  can  

affect  faculty  technology  adoption  for  online  teaching  in  higher  education,  I  learned  

that  there  are  always  barriers  to  overcome  within  faculty  online  technology  

adoption  processes  in  higher  education  institutions  and  organizations  in  general,  

 25  
 
since  integrating  a  new  technology  into  existing  instruction  and  pedagogy  is  very  

challenge  and  requires  a  lot  of  time,  effort,  changes  and  updates  for  the  faculty  

members.  How  to  motivate  them  to  effectively  and  efficiently  adopt  the  new  

technology,  understand  their  concerns  and  barriers  in  order  to  help  them  is  the  goal  

for  this  literature  review.  It  is  very  useful  for  now  and  for  the  future:  since  as  long  as  

online  technology  keeps  developing,  improving,  and  advancing,  as  well  as  online  

teaching  instruction  and  curricula,  there  will  always  be  new  challenges  emerged  for  

faculty  and  students  to  conquer  and  digest.  

In  addition,  successful  online  education  actually  deeply  relies  on  computer  

hardware,  software,  faculty  and  staff  member  training,  student  training  and  

computer  system  security  and  college  administrative  policies  to  be  fully  integrated.  

Every  part  is  very  important  affecting  faculty’s  willingness  to  adopt  new  technology  

into  their  online  classrooms.  In  this  literature  review  five  factors  affecting  faculty  

online  technology  adoptions  and  related  recommendations  for  them  have  been  

summarized,  including  the  reliability  of  technology,  faculty’s  perceived  usefulness  of  

technology,  institutional  support  of  technology,  time  constraints  in  implementing  

technological  applications,  developing  effective  goals  for  the  use  of  technology.  This  

literature  review  can  help  higher  education  institutions  and  organizations  improve  

faculty  and  students  technology  use  within  online  classroom.  

   

 26  
 
References  

Al-­‐Senaidi,  S.,  Lin,  L.,  &  Poirot,  J.  (2009).  Barriers  to  adopting  technology  for  teaching  

and  learning  in  Oman.  Computers  &  Education,  53(3),  575–590.  

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.015  

Al-­‐Taneiji,  S.,  &  McLeod,  L.  (2008).  Towards  Decentralized  Management  in  United  

Arab  Emirate  (UAE)  Schools.  School  Effectiveness  and  School  Improvement,  

19(3),  275–291.  

Allen,  E.,  &  Seaman,  J.  (2007).  Online  nation.  Five  Years  of  Growth  in  Online  learning.  

Needham,  Mass.:  Sloan  Consortium.  

Bakkenes,  I.,  Vermunt,  J.  D.,  &  Wubbels,  T.  (2010).  Teacher  learning  in  the  context  of  

educational  innovation:  Learning  activities  and  learning  outcomes  of  

experienced  teachers.  Learning  and  Instruction,  20(6),  533–548.  

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.09.001  

Baltaci-­‐Goktalay,  S.,  &  Ocak,  M.  A.  (2002).  Faculty  adoption  of  online  technology  in  

higher  education.  TURKISH  ONLINE,  37.  

Cavanaugh,  J.  (2005).  Teaching  Online  -­‐  A  Time  Comparison.  Online  Journal  of  

Distance  Learning  Administration,  8(1).  Retrieved  from  

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/cavanaugh81.htm  

Chen,  C.  H.  (2008).  Why  Do  Teachers  Not  Practice  What  They  Believe  Regarding  

Technology  Integration?  The  Journal  of  Educational  Research,  102(1),  65–75.  

 27  
 
Davies,  R.  S.,  Howell,  S.  L.,  &  Petrie,  J.  A.  (2010).  A  review  of  trends  in  distance  

education  scholarship  at  research  universities  in  North  America,  1998-­‐2007.  

The  International  Review  of  Research  in  Open  and  Distance  Learning,  11(3),  

42–56.  

Davis,  F.  D.  (1989).  Perceived  Usefulness,  Perceived  Ease  of  Use,  and  User  

Acceptance  of  Information  Technology.  MIS  Quarterly,  13(3),  319–340.  

doi:10.2307/249008  

Dooley,  K.  E.  (1999).  Towards  a  Holistic  Model  for  the  Diffusion  of  Educational  

Technologies:  An  Integrative  Review  of  Educational  Innovation  Studies.  

Educational  Technology  &  Society,  (2(4)),  35–45.  

Ertmer,  P.  (2005).  Teacher  pedagogical  beliefs:  The  final  frontier  in  our  quest  for  

technology  integration?  Educational  Technology  Research  and  Development,  

53(4),  25–39.  doi:10.1007/BF02504683  

Gahala,  J.  (n.d.).  Critical  Issue:  Promoting  Technology  Use  in  Schools.  Retrieved  from  

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te200.htm  

Gang  Peng,  &  Jifeng  Mu.  (2011).  Network  Structures  and  Online  Technology  

Adoption.  IEEE  Transactions  on  Engineering  Management,  58(2),  323–333.  

doi:10.1109/TEM.2010.2090045  

Gardner,  K.  (2011).  Helping  Experienced  Professionals  Become  Tech  Savvy  for  

Lifelong  Learning.  Transformative  Dialogues:  Teaching  &  Learning  Journal,  

5(2).  

 28  
 
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.  

Gibson,  S.  G.,  Harris,  M.  L.,  &  Colaric,  S.  M.  (2008).  Technology  Acceptance  in  an  

Academic  Context:  Faculty  Acceptance  of  Online  Education.  Journal  of  

Education  for  Business,  83(6),  355–359.  

Goktalay,  S.  B.,  &  Huguet,  M.  P.  (2006).  Faculty  Concerns  about  Online  Technologies  

in  a  Developing  Country.  Management,  2,  17–7.  

Gong,  M.,  Xu,  Y.,  &  Yu,  Y.  (2004).  An  Enhanced  Technology  Acceptance  Model  for  

Web-­‐Based  Learning.  Journal  of  Information  Systems  Education,  15(4),  365.  

Hall,  G.  E.,  &  Hord,  S.  M.  (1987).  Change  in  Schools:  Facilitating  the  Process.  SUNY  

Press.  

Huang,  R.-­‐T.,  Deggs,  D.  M.,  Jabor,  M.  K.,  &  Machtmes,  K.  (2011).  Faculty  Online  

Technology  Adoption:  The  Role  of  Management  Support  and  Organizational  

Climate.  Online  Journal  of  Distance  Learning  Administration,  14(2).  Retrieved  

from  http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ941250  

Hussar,  W.  J.,  &  Bailey,  T.  M.  B.  (2008).  Projections  of  Education  Statistics  to  2017  

(NCES  2008-­‐078)  (  No.  36).  Washington,  DC.:  U.S.  Department  of  Education.  

Retrieved  from  http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008078  

Keengwe,  J.,  &  Kidd,  T.  T.  (2010).  Towards  best  practices  in  online  learning  and  

teaching  in  higher  education.  MERLOT  Journal  of  Online  Learning  and  

Teaching,  6(2),  533–541.  

 29  
 
Kim,  K.-­‐J.,  &  Bonk,  C.  J.  (2006).  The  Future  of  Online  Teaching  and  Learning  in  Higher  

Education:  The  Survey  Says…  (EDUCAUSE  Quarterly)  |  EDUCAUSE.  Educause  

Quarterly,  29(4).  Retrieved  from  

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMaga

zineVolum/TheFutureofOnlineTeachingandLe/157426  

Konings,  Brandgruwel,  S.,  &  Vanmerrienboer,  J.  (2007).  Teachers’  perspectives  on  

innovations:  Implications  for  educational  design.  Teaching  and  Teacher  

Education,  23(6),  985–997.  doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.004  

Maguire,  L.  L.  (2005).  Literature  Review  –  Faculty  Participation  in  Online  Distance  

Education:  Barriers  and  Motivators,  VIII(1).  Retrieved  from  

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/maguire81.htm  

Mayo,  N.  B.,  Kajs,  L.  T.,  &  Tanguma,  J.  (2005).  Longitudinal  Study  of  Technology  

Training  to  Prepare  Future  Teachers.  Educational  Research  Quarterly,  29(1),  

3–15.  

Moser,  F.  Z.  (2007).  Faculty  Adoption  of  Educational  Technology  (EDUCAUSE  

Quarterly)  |  EDUCAUSE.  Educause  Quarterly,  30(1).  Retrieved  from  

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMaga

zineVolum/FacultyAdoptionofEducationalTe/157436  

National  Education  Technology  Plan  2010  |  U.S.  Department  of  Education.  (n.d.).  

Retrieved  May  1,  2012,  from  http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-­‐2010  

Park,  N.,  Lee,  K.  M.,  &  Cheong,  P.  H.  (2007).  University  Instructors’  Acceptance  of  

Electronic  Courseware:  An  Application  of  the  Technology  Acceptance  Model.  

 30  
 
 Journal  of  Computer-Mediated  Communication,  13(1),  163–186.  

doi:10.1111/j.1083-­‐6101.2007.00391.x  

Parker,  K.,  Lenhart,  A.,  &  Moore,  K.  (2011).  The  Digital  Revolution  and  Higher  

Education:  College  Presidents,  Public  Differ  on  Value  of  Online  Learning.  Pew  

Internet  &  American  Life  Project,  29.  

Peck,  C.  A.,  Gallucci,  C.,  Sloan,  T.,  &  Lippincott,  A.  (2009).  Organizational  Learning  and  

Program  Renewal  in  Teacher  Education:  A  Sociocultural  Theory  of  Learning,  

Innovation  and  Change.  Educational  Research  Review,  4(1),  16–25.  

Polančič,  G.,  Heričko,  M.,  &  Rozman,  I.  (2010).  An  empirical  examination  of  

application  frameworks  success  based  on  technology  acceptance  model.  

Journal  of  Systems  and  Software,  83(4),  574–584.  

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2009.10.036  

Roca,  J.  C.,  Chiu,  C.-­‐M.,  &  Martínez,  F.  J.  (2006).  Understanding  e-­‐learning  

continuance  intention:  An  extension  of  the  Technology  Acceptance  Model.  

International  Journal  of  Human-­‐Computer  Studies,  64(8),  683–696.  

doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003  

Rogers,  E.  M.  (2003).  Diffusion  of  Innovations,  5th  Edition.  Simon  and  Schuster.  

Rogers,  E.  M.,  &  Rogers,  E.  (2003).  Diffusion  of  Innovations,  5th  Edition  (5th  ed.).  Free  

Press.  

Sahin,  I.  (2006).  Literature  review  on  major  factors  that  affect  COE  faculty  use  of  

instructional  technology.  TECHNOLOGY  AND  TEACHER  EDUCATION  ANNUAL,  

3,  2039.  

 31  
 
Sahin,  I.,  &  Thompson,  A.  (2007).  Analysis  of  predictive  factors  that  influence  faculty  

members’  technology  adoption  level.  Journal  of  Technology  and  Teacher  

Education,  15(2),  167.  

Schifter,  C.  (2002).  Perception  Differences  About  Participating  in  Distance  

Education.  Online  Journal  of  Distance  Learning  Administration,  5(1).  Retrieved  

from  http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/schifter51.html  

Stigmar,  M.  (2008).  Faculty  Development  through  an  Educational  Action  

Programme.  Higher  Education  Research  and  Development,  27(2),  107–120.  

Suebsin,  C.,  &  Gerdsri,  N.  (2009).  Key  factors  driving  the  success  of  technology  

adoption:  Case  examples  of  ERP  adoption.  Management  of  Engineering  

Technology,  2009.  PICMET  2009.  Portland  International  Conference  on  (pp.  

2638  –2643).  doi:10.1109/PICMET.2009.5261818  

Surry,  D.  W.,  Ensminger,  D.  C.,  &  Haab,  M.  (2005).  A  model  for  integrating  

instructional  technology  into  higher  education.  British  Journal  of  Educational  

Technology,  36(2),  327–329.  doi:10.1111/j.1467-­‐8535.2005.00461.x  

Surry,  D.  W.,  Grubb,  A.  G.,  Ensminger,  D.  C.,  &  Ouimette,  J.  (2009).  Implementation  of  

web-­‐based  learning  in  colleges  of  education:  Barriers  and  enablers.  Canadian  

Journal  of  Learning  and  Technology  /  La  revue  canadienne  de  l’apprentissage  

et  de  la  technologie,  35(3).  Retrieved  from  

http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/543/266  

 32  
 
Tabata,  L.  N.,  &  Johnsrud,  L.  K.  (2008).  The  Impact  of  Faculty  Attitudes  Toward  

Technology,  Distance  Education,  and  Innovation.  Research  in  Higher  

Education,  49(7),  625–646.  doi:10.1007/s11162-­‐008-­‐9094-­‐7  

Walker,  G.,  &  Johnson,  N.  (2008).  Faculty  intentions  to  use  components  for  Web-­‐

enhanced  instruction.  INTERNATIONAL  JOURNAL  ON  E  LEARNING,  7(1),  133.  

Walker,  Greg,  &  Johnson,  N.  (20080100).  Faculty  Intentions  to  Use  Components  for  

Web-­‐Enhanced  Instruction.  International  Journal  on  E-­‐Learning,  7(1),  133–

152.  

Wang,  W.-­‐T.,  &  Wang,  C.-­‐C.  (2009).  An  empirical  study  of  instructor  adoption  of  web-­‐

based  learning  systems.  Computers  &  Education,  53(3),  761–774.  

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.021  

Yi,  M.  Y.,  Jackson,  J.  D.,  Park,  J.  S.,  &  Probst,  J.  C.  (2006).  Understanding  information  

technology  acceptance  by  individual  professionals:  Toward  an  integrative  

view.  Information  &  Management,  43(3),  350–363.  

doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.08.006  

Zemsky,  R.,  &  Massy,  W.  F.  (2004).  Thwarted  Innovation:  What  Happened  to  e-­‐

learning  and  Why.  A  learning  Alliance  Report  for  Higher  Education.  

Zhen,  Y.,  Garthwait,  A.,  &  Pratt,  P.  (2008).  Factors  Affecting  Faculty  Members’  

Decision  to  Teach  or  Not  to  Teach  Online  in  Higher  Education.  Online  Journal  

of  Distance  Learning  Administration,  11(3).  Retrieved  from  

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall113/zhen113.html  

 33