Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An exploration of factors that predict higher education faculty members’ intentions to utilize emerging technologies

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Higher education faculty members incorporate technologies into their teaching and learning practices in higher education for the benefit of their learners. Hence, general technologies, such as presentation software, online classrooms, and learning management systems are ubiquitous in higher education teaching practices. However, emerging technologies (i.e., augmented reality, virtual reality, robotics, tangible user interfaces, wearable technologies, and mixed reality) are not currently in wide use in higher education. As emerging technologies can broaden access to content and increase accessibility for all learners, investigating faculty members’ intention to incorporate these technologies was explored in this study. Faculty participants from higher education institutions (N = 174) completed a 33-item survey, based on the theoretical framework of the decomposed theory of planned behavior. A path analysis of factors that influence faculty members’ intention to integrate emerging technologies in teaching and learning were conducted. Results indicated that attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are indicators of intention to use emerging technologies in teaching and learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available upon reasonable request and obtaining the requisite Institutional Review Board permissions.

References

  • Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alzahrani, N. M. (2020). Augmented reality: A systematic review of its benefits and challenges in e-learning contexts. Applied Sciences, 10(16), 5660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbetta, P. M. (2022). Technologies as Tools to Increase Active Learning During Online Higher-Education Instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395221143969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J. (2018). NMC horizon report: 2018 higher education edition. Educause.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, D., & Burnett, B. (2009). Bringing academics on board: Encouraging institution-wide diffusion of e-learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Sturman, D., & Alvarez, V. (2016). Perceived utility and feasibility of wearable technologies in higher education. In L. E. Dyson, W. Ng, & J. Fergusson (Eds.), Mobile learning futures – sustaining quality research and practice in mobile learning: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, mLearn 2016 (pp. 47–56).

  • Chien, S. P., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2014). An investigation of teachers’ beliefs and their use of technology-based assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 198–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. L., Garcia, B. M., & Rani, N. (2022). Research on Wearable Technologies for Learning: A Systematic Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11878.

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePape, A. M., Barnes, M., & Petryschuk, J. (2019). Students’ experiences in higher education with virtual and augmented reality: A qualitative systematic review. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 3(3). http://journals.staffs.ac.uk/index.php/ipihe/article/viewFile/189/286

  • Doerner, R., & Horst, R. (2022). Overcoming challenges when teaching hands-on courses about virtual reality and augmented reality: Methods, techniques and best practice. Graphics and Visual Computing, 6, 200037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gvc.2021.200037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A., Beaudin, L., Shah, M., Altan, T., Corbat, J., Lennex, L., et al. (2018, March). Emergent Pedagogies—What is an Emerging Technology? The SITE Community’s Perspective. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1441–1444). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182717/

  • Fabris, C. P., Rathner, J. A., Fong, A. Y., & Sevigny, C. P. (2019). Virtual reality in higher education. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.27.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follmer, D. J., Sperling, R. A., & Suen, H. K. (2017). The role of MTurk in education research: Advantages, issues, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 329–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goff, E. E., Mulvey, K. L., Irvin, M. J., et al. (2018). Applications of augmented reality in informal science learning sites: A review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9734-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halaweh, M. (2013). Emerging technology: What is it. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 8(3), 108–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9023-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, T., Huang, Q., Yu, X., & Li, S. (2021). Exploring students’ digital informal learning: The roles of digital competence and DTPB factors. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(13), 1406–1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawai, J., Mitsuhara, H., & Shishibori, M. (2015). Tsunami evacuation drill system using smart glasses. Procedia Computer Science, 72, 329–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafhaj, Z., Al Balkhy, W., & Linner, T. S. (2022). Teaching construction robotics for higher education students: “Imagine and Make”. In ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (Vol. 39, pp. 47–54). IAARC Publications.

  • Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established and emerging technologies in higher education: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who and how? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., Polly, D., Coles, S., & Wang, C. (2020). Examining higher education faculty use of current digital technologies: Importance, competence, and motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 32(1), 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercader, C., & Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: The importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misirli, A., & Komis, V. (2023). Computational thinking in early childhood education: The impact of programming a tangible robot on developing debugging knowledge. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 65, 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1195–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mystakidis, S., Christopoulos, A., & Pellas, N. (2022). A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 1883–1927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimmer, C., Mateescu, M., & Grohbiel, U. (2016). Mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher education settings. A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 490–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, J. K., Stimpson, I. G., Jeffery, A. J., Wisniewski, K. D., Grossey, T., Hobson, L., Heaton, V., Zholobenko, V., & Rogers, S. L. (2022). Extended reality (XR) virtual practical and educational eGaming to provide effective immersive environments for learning and teaching in forensic science. Science & Justice, 62(6), 696–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rani, N., & Chu, S. L. (2022). Wearables can help me learn: A survey of user perception of wearable technologies for learning in everyday life. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3381–3401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renda dos Santos, L. M., & Okazaki, S. (2016). Planned e-learning adoption and occupational socialization in Brazilian higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 1974–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827–1843.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadaf, A., & Gezer, T. (2020). Exploring factors that influence faculty’ intentions to integrate digital literacy using the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(2), 124–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sáez-López, J. M., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & Gómez Carrasco, C. J. (2020). Augmented reality in higher education: An evaluation program in initial teacher training. Education Sciences, 10(2), 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, H., Martínez, L. S., & González, J. D. (2019). Educational robotics as a teaching tool in higher education institutions: A bibliographical analysis. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1391, No. 1, p. 012128). IOP Publishing.

  • Schreiber, D., & Hyatt, L. (2018). Smart glasses as digital strategy for learning in higher education. In E. Jean-Francois (Ed.), Transnational Perspectives on Innovation in Teaching and Learning Technologies (pp. 242–261). Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G. (2010). Emerging technologies in distance education. Athabasca University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watty, K., McKay, J., & Ngo, L. (2016). Innovators or inhibitors? Accounting faculty resistance to new educational technologies in higher education. Journal of Accounting Education, 36, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ZamoranoUrrutia, F., Cortés Loyola, C., & Herrera Marín, M. (2019). A Tangible User Interface to Facilitate Learning of Trigonometry. Kassel, Germany: International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(23), 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. Samantha Heller for her help in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning Sciences and Educational Research, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

    Laurie O. Campbell

  2. Counselor Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

    Caitlin Frawley

Authors
  1. Laurie O. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caitlin Frawley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurie O. Campbell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campbell, L.O., Frawley, C. An exploration of factors that predict higher education faculty members’ intentions to utilize emerging technologies. Education Tech Research Dev (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10321-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10321-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation