University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Intentional, pedagogically driven, and systematic use of technology in teaching practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Intentional, pedagogically driven, and systematic use of technology in teaching practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 1
Intentional, Pedagogically Driven, and Systematic use of Technology in Teaching Practice
by
Shakir Shahid Hussain
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 27, 2020
Copyright 2020 Shakir Shahid Hussain
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 2

Intentional, Pedagogically Driven, and Systematic use of Technology in Teaching Practice

By

Shakir Shahid Hussain

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
2020

_____________________________________
Tracy Poon Tambascia, Ph.D.
Committee Chair

______________________________________
Cathy Krop, Ph.D.
Committee Member

______________________________________
Ruth H. Chung, Ph.D.
Committee Member

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 3
ABSTRACT
With the ubiquitous use of technology in higher education, it is critical that instructors are
intentional, pedagogically driven, and systematic in their use of technology in teaching practice.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate how a structured educational development program
supported instructors in thoughtful use of technology in their teaching. The study applied a gap
analysis problem solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) to understand the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences contributing to instructors’ application of
technology-based tools. Assumed influences on instructors’ use of technology were formulated
through a thorough review of published literature and scanning interviews. Data were collected
in the form of semi-structured interviews with 12 instructors, along with a review of documents
such as course syllabi, courses on a learning management system, and project charters. Data
analysis validated the assumed influences and shed light upon two additional themes that
emerged from the data. Key findings from the data included the ability of instructors to
thoughtfully integrate technology in their courses, consensus among the instructors on the value
of technology use in teaching, and differences between individual consultation models applied in
the program. The study concludes with a discussion of recommended solutions along with
implementation and evaluation plans.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When life gives you wood, make ladders.
If I were to name every single person who has had a part to play in my journey towards
becoming an educator, the list would be far longer than 149 pages (the length of this
dissertation). Thank you all, and I promise to pay it forward.
Mom, thank you for being my first teacher and for continuing to show me how to be a
good student. Sana, thank you for constantly checking in. To the in-laws – thank you for your
constant support, and I hope I am more worthy now :).
The Qatar Foundation, Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, and Northwestern University
in Qatar have played a huge part in allowing a boy from Vasai to dream. Thank you for the
enormous opportunities over the past 14 years. To the QF and Warriors cricket teams, I promise
to get back to the ground now, and even go into the outfield. To my colleagues at NU-Q and NU-
E, thank you for your unwavering support. Fouad, we spent more time discussing the history and
philosophy of IRBs than my IRB application took to go through approval, and I treasure
everything I learned in those discussions.
The Global Executive EdD has been a life-changing experience, and I cannot thank the
faculty, staff, and alumni of the program enough for shaping this journey so well. Dr. Tambascia,
thank you for being the constant throughout the process, just like research questions, by
consistently refocusing my work at any sign of losing sight of the end goal. You cannot imagine
how important and pivotal our first question to me, “Why is this interesting?” was. To my other
committee members, Dr. Chung and Dr. Krop, thank you for your incredible personal and
professional mentorship. Thank you, C6, and (the other) Dr. Hussain for welcoming me to the
program that would define the rest of my life. To all C7 members, including those who will cross
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 5
the finishing line at a different time, you’re a fantastic family. Thank you for allowing me to be
vulnerable in your presence and for sharing your lives with me. Diego -- may the conversations
over Project XX never end. I could do without the ER visits though ;)
To all the ****lords I have shared the last 23 years of my life with, thank you for sticking
it out. I still don’t know why you continue to shower me with your love and friendship, and at
this point, I’m too afraid to ask. We’re all happy and I know it *clap* *clap*. To the IS & CS
class of 2010 – thank you for always being the most encouraging bunch. Krish, thanks for
keeping me honest, and all that scotch.
My teachers at CMU-Q found me worthy of sharing their love for education with me and
made the best version of a student I could be. Thank you! Marjorie – thank you for giving me my
first taste of teaching. Mark – you gave me the only D of my life, and then changed my life by
opening your world to me. Thank you for being the passionate and inspirational teacher (and
student) that you are. I’m proud to be from The School of Mark, and may I never graduate. Also,
I have more degrees than you now.
Finally, and most importantly, thank you, Guz, for pulling it through and sticking it out
with me. You have been the most amazing companion I could have ever asked for. Thank you for
being my greatest cheerleader and for showing me places I would never have ventured to myself.
I look forward to spending more time and growing old with you. Oh, and Jyoti, thank you as
well.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 6
DEDICATION

To all the educators who made me want to become an educator.

To Dad, the greatest one of them all.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 4
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. 9
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 11
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................................... 11
IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM ............................................................................ 14
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND MISSION ................................................................................ 15
ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL ................................................................................................................. 16
STAKEHOLDERS PERTINENT TO THE STUDY................................................................................ 17
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT AND QUESTIONS ................................................................................ 18
CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................. 19
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................................................... 21
TECHNOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY ...................................................................................................... 21
TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION ................................................................................................................ 27
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN TEACHING PRACTICE ...... 35
FACULTY KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES ..................... 39
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS.......................................................................................................................... 50
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.................................................................................................. 50
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................... 52
DATA COLLECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 54
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 57
CREDIBILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS ........................................................................................ 58
ETHICS ................................................................................................................................................. 59
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ............................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 63
PARTICIPANT PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 64
KNOWLEDGE FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 65
MOTIVATION FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 79
ORGANIZATIONAL FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 88
THEMES ............................................................................................................................................... 98
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 101
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 103
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 104
RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................... 106
EVALUATION PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 116
COVID-19 ............................................................................................................................................ 120
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 121
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 121
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 8
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 123
FOOTNOTES .................................................................................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................... 144
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................................... 145
APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................................... 147
APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................................................... 148
APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................................................... 149

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 9
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE INFLUENCES ......................................................................................................... 42
TABLE 2 ASSUMED MOTIVATION INFLUENCES ......................................................................................................... 46
TABLE 3 ASSUMED ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES .................................................................................................. 48
TABLE 4 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................................ 64
TABLE 5 ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE INFLUENCES ......................................................................................................... 65
TABLE 6 ASSUMED MOTIVATION INFLUENCES ......................................................................................................... 80
TABLE 7 ASSUMED ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES .................................................................................................. 89
TABLE 8 KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES ............................................................ 102
TABLE 9 KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES WITH ALIGNED RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 106
TABLE 10 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR CREATING STRUCTURE IN THE PROGRAM ....................................................... 110
TABLE 11 RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR ENHANCING STRUCTURE AROUND THE PROGRAM ..................................... 114
TABLE 12 RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR INCENTIVIZING AND RECOGNIZING ETTF PARTICIPATION ......................... 116
TABLE 13 OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION PLAN ................................................................................................... 119

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 10
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 BLENDED LEARNING OVER TIME ........................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 2 DIMENSIONS OF INTERACTION IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS ....................................................................... 26
FIGURE 3 THE TPACK FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 4 THE SAMR MODEL ................................................................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 5 THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 31
FIGURE 6 UNIFIED THEORY OF ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY ................................................................... 33
FIGURE 7 LEE AND THEIR STUDENTS ENGAGING WITH THE CULINARY THEME OF THEIR COURSE .................................... 69
FIGURE 8 LEE AND THEIR STUDENTS ENGAGING WITH THE CULINARY THEME OF THEIR COURSE .................................... 71
FIGURE 9 FRANCIS PROVIDED DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ENGAGE WITH THE TOOL ....................................... 73
FIGURE 10 FRANCIS PROVIDED DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ENGAGE WITH THE TOOL ..................................... 73

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
As technology becomes ubiquitous in our daily lives, its impact can be seen and felt in all
aspects of the human experience, and especially in education. In 2018, 98% of undergraduate
students reported regularly using a computer to assist them in their coursework (Galanek et al.,
2018), 97% of faculty were regular users of laptops and 93% of faculty used smartphones in
2017 (Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017). This ubiquitous access to technology has resulted in the use
of new tools both inside and outside of the classroom. Encouraged by the use of such tools, more
than half of undergraduate students also prefer some form of technology integration in their
learning environments (Galanek et al., 2018).
In order for teaching and learning technologies to be effective, it is essential that their use
by instructors is grounded in and aligned with pedagogy. An increasing number of institutions
encourage instructors to integrate technology in their teaching practice, and it is crucial that the
instructors develop the skillset to purposefully use technology to create a better learning
experience for their students. While instructors are using technology in their teaching practice,
these practices are often centered around “re-enactments of traditional activities in different
media formats” (Price & Kirkwood, 2014). As such, the problem of practice addressed by this
dissertation is the intentional, pedagogically grounded, and systematic integration of technology
in teaching and learning practices in higher education.
Background of the Problem
Over the last 30 years, educational delivery models have progressed from traditional,
face-to-face models to online delivery models, and more recently, a combination of online and
traditional face-to-face teaching that has been called Blended Learning
1
(Graham, 2005; Graham
et al., 2013). Blended Learning (BL) is a system that combines face-to-face instruction with
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 12
computer-mediated instruction (Graham, 2005). BL improves pedagogy, increases access and
flexibility for students, increases efficiency and efficacy in teaching practice, and is cost-
effective for institutions as compared to traditional programs (Brunner, 2006; Graham, 2005;
Graham et al., 2005). BL’s transformative potential to support deep and meaningful learning
within higher education is especially significant (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Combining both
face to face and online modalities, BL is more effective in students meeting learning outcomes
than either delivery model individually (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Weber, 2015). Furthermore,
longitudinal surveys of students show an increasing preference among students to experience
learning in a blended environment (Galanek et al., 2018).
A longitudinal survey of faculty in the United States found that 44% of the faculty taught
an online course in 2018, as compared to 30% in 2013 (Jaschik & Lederman, 2018). Moreover,
38% of them have taught a blended course (Jaschik & Lederman, 2018). In developing
countries, online education has supported massification and increased access to higher education.
In India, the online higher education market is projected to grow from $33 million in 2016 to
$184 million in 2021 (KPMG & Google, 2017). In addition to existing HEIs adopting online and
blended models, for-profit companies have propelled the growth of online and blended programs
(KPMG & Google, 2017).
While a growing number of tools are available to instructors to assist in their teaching,
the efficacy of the tools is dependent on the pedagogical knowledge of instructors and their
ability to ground technology use in pedagogical frameworks. The use of technologies in teaching
practice and the redesign of courses to effectively incorporate them offers an opportunity for a
reevaluation of the role of the instructors from content transmitters to facilitators and architects
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 13
of learning experiences (Becker et al., 2018). It is imperative that instructors are provided with
the required support and guidance in order to develop teaching practices involving technology.
Higher education institutions (HEI) have been investing in resources to encourage faculty
in enhancing their teaching practices and creating a better learning experience for students (K. H.
Gillespie & Robertson, 2010). Universities have established teaching and learning centers
focusing on faculty development, integration of technology in teaching, and evaluating and
providing feedback on instructional practices. For instance, the Searle Center for Advancing
Learning and Teaching at Northwestern University provides various programs to help instructors
create engaging courses, integrate technology into their teaching, and assess student learning
outcomes (Searle Center for Advancing Learning & Teaching, n.d.). Universities are also hiring
and developing faculty support resources in the form of instructional designers and technologists,
course designers, and learning engineers. This group of support resources helps instructors in
designing courses, managing instructional projects, training instructors on technology and
pedagogy, and providing technical support for various tools in use (Alexander et al., 2019;
Graham et al., 2013; Intentional Futures, 2016).
Although tools, resources, and professional development options are being made
available to higher educational instructors, technology is not often thoughtfully and effectively
integrated within teaching and learning practices. It is critical to find and address ways to
systematically improving pedagogy in light of technological innovations to harness the truly
transformative potential of technology in higher education (Reigeluth & Joseph, 2002; Salomon,
2002).
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 14
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of systematically integrating technology into teaching practice is vital to
address for a variety of reasons. In the larger educational context, the increase in demand for
higher and lifelong learning will be met by technology playing a key role in the development of
the delivery of programs (Bonk & Graham, 2005). Clayton Christensen, credited with the theory
of disruptive innovation, predicted in 2014 that due to the disruption from online education, half
of US colleges and universities would be bankrupt within the next decade (Christensen, 2014;
Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Institutions that offer innovative products and services will
dominate their peers in the increasingly competitive landscape (Bonk & Graham, 2005).
Traditional HEIs can meet the growing demand for higher and lifelong education successfully by
BL programs. As new blended programs emerge, new models of education have to be mindful of
pedagogical theories as they use new technologies to massify education.
Furthermore, developing countries such as China and India are investing heavily in the
massification of higher education (Altbach, 2009). The government of India, through its National
Skills Qualification Framework (Singh, 2012), paved the way for online and blended education,
leading to credentialing starting from high school and all the way to advanced graduate and
lifelong learning. The use of technological advances at such a large scale will require an
intentional effort on the part of HEI administrators and instructors in order to graduate a skillful
and employable workforce, and aligned with the 21st-century skills (P21, 2019). This problem of
practice is important to address because the quality of good educational practice has to keep up
with the disruption brought about by technology and to harness the truly transformative potential
of BL.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 15
Over the course of Spring 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced most higher educational
institutions worldwide to transition to remote teaching practices to ensure instructional continuity
(Crawford et al., 2020). The haphazard transition further highlighted the need for effective
technology use in teaching practice. While the immediate transition focused on replicating the in-
person experiences in the short term, successful remote teaching over the longer term due to
COVID-19 will require thoughtful integration of technology at scale. The effects of the COVID-
19 pandemic are also an opportunity for individual instructors and organizations to revisit their
current teaching and learning practices. A planned and systematic approach to improving
teaching and learning will require thoughtful integration of technology into teaching practice.
Organizational Context and Mission
Northwestern University is a private research university headquartered in Evanston,
Illinois, USA, with additional campuses in Chicago, Illinois, USA, San Francisco, California,
USA, and Doha, Qatar, with more than 21,000 students and 3,000 faculty members. It is home to
12 colleges and schools across its campuses. The mission of Northwestern is to be committed to
excellent teaching, innovative research, and the personal and intellectual growth of its students in
a diverse academic community. The university consistently ranks in the top 15 in the US, with
highly regarded programs in business, education, journalism, and law.
With direction from the office of the provost, the Northwestern IT Services and Support
group set up the Teaching and Learning with Technologies (TLT) team in 2012 with a goal to
foster innovative learning experiences through the exploration of effective teaching techniques
and technologies. The team is tasked with managing the Canvas learning management system
and other digital learning initiatives, providing individual consultations and workshops for
instructors, supporting instructional design for blended, fully online, and Massive Open Online
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 16
Course (MOOC) initiatives, and the development of innovative infrastructure and tools. TLT
currently employs 10 staff members that coordinates with other school-specific instructional
designers and technologists.
Northwestern currently administers 15 online and blended graduate programs through
seven schools, with the School of Professional Studies offering a majority of the programs
(Northwestern University, n.d.-d). The university also offers 37 MOOCs through the Coursera
platform (Northwestern University, n.d.-c). Northwestern’s campus in Qatar began offering
online and blended graduate programs starting in Fall 2019. The office of the provost provides
opportunities to advance these innovations through funding, structured faculty development
programs, and the Digital Learning website, a resource hub for instructors aiming to incorporate
technology into their teaching practice (Northwestern University, n.d.-e).
Organizational Goal
The goal of Northwestern University is to be a model of excellence in online and blended
teaching and learning practices. Northwestern consistently ranks in the top 15 universities in the
United States (US News and World Report, 2019; Wall Street Journal & Times Higher
Education, 2019). Excellence in online and blended programs (Northwestern University, n.d.-e)
is one of the university’s strategic priorities, aligned with the focus on excellence in teaching and
learning (Northwestern University, n.d.-f). Northwestern has invested in various programs,
including the creation of the TLT team comprised of experts in technology and pedagogy,
specifically for faculty support. The TLT team was originally created with the goal of migrating
the learning management system (LMS) to a more robust service that allows for easier
integration of innovations. The mandate of the team has subsequently evolved to include
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 17
incentivizing faculty to embrace digital learning, supporting additional technologies, and creation
of structured faculty development programs to achieve these goals.
A critical part of this investment is faculty development programs, including the
Educational Technology Teaching Fellowship (ETTF), the program being evaluated in this study.
The ETTF program was established in 2015 when Northwestern successfully completed a two-
year effort to transition the LMS from Blackboard to Canvas. The program was originally
created with the goal of providing a structure to instructors in building upon the use of the
Canvas LMS by integrating other technologies and enhancing the learning experience of the
students. ETTF runs for an academic year from September to April, resulting in a showcasing of
projects at TEACHx, the annual teaching and learning conference at Northwestern. Instructors
from all three Northwestern campuses, Evanston and Chicago in the USA, and Doha, Qatar, and
all 12 schools can apply to participate in the program. Between 20 and 30 instructors are
accepted into the program each year; 104 instructors have completed the program by the end of
the academic year 2018-19. The applicants to the program are generally self-selecting and would
be considered “early adopters” and “early majority” in using technology in their teaching
practice (Rogers, 2003). In order to justify this continued investment, it is critical to evaluate the
success of the program and ensure that the organization is on the right path.
Stakeholders Pertinent to the Study
Several stakeholder groups are crucial to the success of the ETTF program at
Northwestern. The TLT team administers the program and is responsible for attracting faculty to
enroll in the program, matching instructors with mentors and providing the technical resources
and support required for the successful completion of the projects, and administering the
program ensuring the successful graduation of all members of the cohort. The consultants who
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 18
provide one-on-one mentoring throughout the year to the instructors are another crucial
stakeholder in the success of the ETTF program. The consultants’ expertise in digital pedagogies
is crucial as they support the faculty in the program throughout the year. Finally, the faculty who
have successfully completed the ETTF program are an essential stakeholder group in evaluating
the success of the program as they demonstrate their learning from the program by employing
successful technology integration into their teaching practice.
While various stakeholders contribute to the success of the organizational goal at various
levels, it is essential to evaluate the integration of BL tools into the courses of instructors who
have successfully completed the ETTF program. This goal also directly affects the organizational
goal mission of excellence in teaching. Therefore, the stakeholder group in focus for this study
will be the faculty alumni of the ETTF program located at the Evanston and Chicago campuses
of Northwestern. The faculty ETTF alumni’s goal to employ at least two new online or blended
approaches in their classroom after graduation will be supported by the TLT team and the ETTF
consultants during and after the program.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct an evaluation of the ETTF program to
examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on faculty successfully
completing the ETTF program and using the newly acquired tools and skillsets in their teaching
practice. The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed influences on
performances that were examined systematically to focus on actual or validated influences on
performance. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder group of focus in this analysis was the instructors.
As such, the questions guiding this study were:
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 19
1. What are the instructors’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
achieving their goal of employing the newly acquired tools and skills in their teaching
practice?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic and analytical method to clarify
organizational goals and identify gaps between the actual and ideal performance levels within an
organization. This gap analysis was implemented as the conceptual framework for the study. The
methodological framework used in the study was a qualitative case study with descriptive
statistics. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact
organizational goal achievement were generated based on stakeholder knowledge, scanning
interviews, and related literature. These influences were assessed by using interviews, literature
review, and document and artifact analysis. Research- and evidence-based solutions were
recommended and evaluated comprehensively.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters. Chapter One provides the reader with key
concepts and terminologies related to a discussion around teaching practices involving
technology and theoretical and pedagogical grounds for such practices. The organization’s
missions, goals, and stakeholder groups, as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis, are
introduced. Chapter Two offers a review of the existing literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics of understanding of teaching with technology, benefits of the practice, faculty
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 20
development programs to help implement such practice and its impact on student learning
outcomes will be addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed needs for this study as well as the
methodology with respect to the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter
Four provides the data and findings assessed as part of the study. Chapter Five discusses the
findings from study, makes recommendations towards the improvement of the educational
development programs at Northwestern, and provides a recommended implementation and
evaluation plan to achieve the organizational goals.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 21
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE
This chapter begins with the review of evolving technology use in education and the
interplay between technological advances and pedagogical theories. The application of
technology use in teaching leading to BL and its pedagogical grounding in constructivism is also
discussed. Various frameworks to support integration of technology in teaching will be explored,
along with challenges instructors face in effectively incorporating technology in their teaching
practice. An examination of institutional support mechanisms to support instructors in effective
technology integration follows. The chapter concludes with a discussion of knowledge,
motivational, and institutional influences affecting effective technology integration in teaching
practice.
Technology and Pedagogy
In order to effectively integrate technology into teaching practice leading to an enhanced
learning experience for students, it is imperative that the sustained use of technology by
educators is grounded in pedagogical principles supported by frameworks to help integrate the
technology effectively into teaching practice. Kanuka and Anderson (1999) argued that the
“approach taken to the design, delivery, selection, and utilization of appropriate and effective
technologies” predict how successful technology will be at “facilitating higher order thinking
skills.” They further asserted that an educator’s philosophical and pedagogical orientation can
guide decision-making, resulting in a reflective and rational application of technology in
teaching.
Early History of Instructional Technology Use in Higher Education
Technology has played a vital role in the development of educational delivery, while also
serving as the stalwart of educational change and transformation (Selwyn, 2011). One of the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 22
early examples of technology in education was Pressey’s teaching machines, a device to
administer multiple-choice questions (Pressey, 1926). Such an approach was grounded in rote
memorization of learning and behaviorist theories of learning, which supported the view that
knowledge existed outside of the student (Daly, 2010). Skinner’s machines, an evolution over
Pressey’s machines, allowed for students to construct their own answer, allowing them to input a
number or a word as a response, but were largely based on similar behaviorist learning theories
(Fry, 1960; Skinner, 1958).
While theories of learning evolved over the mid-20th century from behaviorism to
cognitivism to sociocultural theory, the manifestations of these theories in educational
technologies resulted in a teacher-centered use of technology focused on instructivism. The core
argument of instructivism is that the instructor decides what is to be taught and how it is to be
taught (Kanuka & Anderson, 1999), thereby rooted in the objectivism in that the knowledge
exists outside of the student and in the instructor. While technology evolved rapidly in the mid-
20
th
century, leading to the development of distance education, these integrations were still
grounded in instructivism.
Distance and Online Education
While the first manifestation of learning at a distance came about through mail
correspondence, the inventions of radio and television and their use in distance education further
contributed to the evolution and acceptance of this novel modality of education (Anderson &
Simpson, 2012; Casey, 2008; Selwyn, 2011). The use of radio and television for delivery of
education led to a significant increase in access to higher education. The learning experience for
students during this period was still grounded in instructivism, illustrated by instructional
technology being defined at the time as “any device available for teachers to use in instructing
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 23
students in a more efficient and stimulating manner than the sole use of the teacher’s voice”
(Cuban, 1986, p. 4).
The invention of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1991 played a significant role in
opening up new forms of distance education, resulting in online education. Online courses were
offered as early as 1993 by Jones International University in the USA, and within a decade
universities in other countries also started offering online programs (Casey, 2008). The growth of
the WWW also allowed for tools to be developed that supported face-to-face classroom
instruction. LMS, web-based software applications accessible over the internet, were developed
to distribute reading materials to students, communicate outside the classroom, and structure the
course material for the students. Blackboard and WebCT were among the very first LMS that
allowed for instructor-student communication using technology.
Constructivism and Blended Learning
The opposite of objectivism is constructivism, with the core belief that knowledge is
constructed by the learner, and signaling a radical change in the ontological position of
objectivism (Jonassen, 1991; Kanuka & Anderson, 1999). Constructivism as a theory of learning
was first discussed by Piaget (1970), and then expanded upon by Vygotsky (1978) to include and
emphasize the role of social relationships in the construction of knowledge. Early manifestations
of constructivism in the design of instruction took the form of negotiated instructional goals and
objectives (Jonassen, 1991) resulting in instructional methods such as case studies and
brainstorming (Kanuka & Anderson, 1999).
The use of technology in education often mirrors the instructional approach in the
classroom (Zucchermaglio, 1993), which is guided by the pedagogical beliefs and ontological
and epistemological positions of the instructor. While constructivism has been discussed for
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 24
more half a century, current classroom practices still mirror instructivist practices with the
instructor occupying the role of the “sage on the stage” (King, 1993; Kramer, 2017). While
technologies such as social annotations, use of wikis, and student response systems (Han &
Finkelstein, 2013; Uskoković, 2018) are grounded in social-cognitive theories, their use is highly
dependent on the instructional approach of the instructor. The combination of constructivist
practices by instructors and development of technologies to enable such practices led to a
combination of face-to-face and online learning environments.
Over the past 20 years, technological tools have been increasingly used in conjunction
with traditional, face-to-face instruction, combining the historically separate models of teaching
and learning. The resulting form, known as Blended Learning (BL)
1
, is a continuum of education
delivery models that incorporate technology into traditional face-to-face teaching and learning
practices (Graham, 2005; Graham et al., 2013) as shown in Figure X. The combination of
delivery models allows for personalization of learning, thoughtful reflection, and differentiated
instruction (Watson, 2008). The adoption rate and promise of BL is such that it is predicted to be
“the new normal” (Dziuban et al., 2018) in educational delivery (Graham, 2005), as illustrated in
Figure 1.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 25
Figure 1

Blended Learning Over Time

Note. Progressive convergence of traditional face-to-face and distributed environments allowing
development of blended learning systems. From Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended Learning
Systems: Definition, Current Trends, and Future Directions. In The Handbook of Blended
Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.

The blending can happen over an activity in a classroom, over the delivery of a course, to
deliver a complete program, or even at the institution level (Graham, 2005). For instance, Jung
and Suzuki (2005) describe a week-long debate activity in an English course that integrated both
online and face-to-face modes for participation for mainly nonnative English speakers. Course-
level blending can take the form of pre-class readings being assigned on an online social
annotation tool that leads to a face-to-face classroom discussion (Miller et al., 2018). Program-
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 26
level blends in higher education allow students the freedom to choose between online, face-to-
face, or blended courses to complete their degree programs (Ross & Gage, 2005). Describing an
institutional-level blend, Dziuban, Hartman, Juge, Moskal, and Sorg (2005) explained how
“mixed-mode courses” at the University of Central Florida, available to all students, experienced
a 10-fold increase in enrollments over a seven year period. Graham (2005) further elaborated that
BL as a spectrum on only space and time, but also fidelity and humanness, as represented in
Figure 2. Fidelity here is in comparison to the traditional face-to-face experience and how well
BL emulates that. Another important dimension to be considered in BL is the human interaction.
Online aspects of BL experiences often include primarily virtual interactions, enabled by
communication technologies.
Figure 2

Dimensions of interaction in learning environments

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 27
Note. Four dimensions of interaction in face-to-face and distributed learning environments. From
Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends, and Future
Directions. In The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp. 3–
21). Pfeiffer.
Technology Adoption
Frameworks and Models for Technology Integration in Teaching
To effectively and thoughtfully integrate technology in their teaching, faculty can utilize a
number of frameworks that help in identifying, assessing and implementing the right tools
aligned with their pedagogical knowledge, instructional practice, learning objectives, and the
content to be taught. In addition to designing instruction and incorporating technology, these
frameworks can serve as guides for evaluating the use of technology and making improvements
to teaching practice. While there are numerous frameworks available for educators to use, a
subset of these pertinent to this study are discussed in this section.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK or TPCK) framework
developed by Koehler and Mishra (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) illustrated
in Figure 3 requires that technology to be used in the classroom be aligned with faculty pedagogy
knowledge and the content to be taught. TPCK builds on the Pedagogy Content Knowledge
(PCK) framework (Shulman, 1986), which argues that instructors’ pedagogical knowledge and
content knowledge must be thoughtfully aligned for effective instruction, which happens at the
intersection of pedagogy and content.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 28
Figure 3

The TPACK Framework

Note. From Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–
1054.
Content Knowledge (CK) is the instructor’s knowledge about the factual and conceptual
subject matter to be taught to the students. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) is the instructor’s
knowledge about methods of teaching and their internalization of their own approaches. The
TPCK framework extends the PCK framework by adding Technology Knowledge (TK),
knowledge about available technologies and the skills required to use them, and emphasizing the
“connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy,
and technology” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1025). Similar to Shulman’s (1986) assertion that
effective teaching happens at PCK, the intersection of PK and CK, TPCK asserts that effective
teaching with technology happens at the intersection of all three types of knowledge, or the
TPCK. In order to understand and reach TPCK, it is critical to understand the Technological
Content Knowledge (TCK) and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). TCK is the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 29
instructor’s knowledge of how well a particular technology-based tool can be used to teach
specific subject matter and TPK is the instructor’s knowledge of how well a particular
technology-based tool is aligned with principles of pedagogy and their own instructional
approaches.
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition Model
The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model
(Puentedura, 2006) illustrated in Figure 4, while more widely used in K-12 settings, has
significant implications in higher education as well. The SAMR model demonstrates how much
and to what extent a technology-based tool is used in the classroom, between enhancing and
transforming the students’ learning experience.
Figure 4

The SAMR Model

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 30
Note. From McNeill, S. (2013, November 19). Teaching the Teachers – Introducing the SAMR
Model. Retrieved from StAC e-Learning Stories website:
https://eblog.stac.school.nz/2013/11/19/teaching-the-teachers-introducing-the-samr-model/
At the level of Substitution, technology directly replaces face-to-face instruction or an
earlier tool without functionally changing it. At the Augmentation level, technology improves the
functionality of direct instruction or previously used tool. The Modification level of use implies
the redesigning of a task, thereby significantly changing student’s previous experiences of
learning. Finally, at the Redefinition level, technology allows for the creation of novel and
previously inconceivable tasks.
SAMR is often used in conjunction with TPCK to enhance the student’s learning
experience in the classroom, with TPCK used in identifying and analyzing the tool to be used
and SAMR utilized for identifying the level of use in instruction (Hilton, 2016; Kriek, 2016;
Puentedura, 2014).
Community of Inquiry Framework
The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 1999; Garrison & Akyol,
2013) is a conceptual framework built on the socio-constructivist theory of learning that guides
the use of “instructional technologies in creating and sustaining deep and meaningful learning
through reflection and discourse” (Garrison & Akyol, 2009, p. 23). While CoI can be used in
face-to-face and fully online environments as well, it is most effective in blended environments.
The framework, as illustrated in Figure 5, explains that a worthwhile educational experience is
comprised of three interdependent elements: teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social
presence. Teaching presence of the instructor includes design, facilitation, and direct instruction.
Cognitive presence is the core purpose of the community of learners, to engage deeply and
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 31
meaningfully leading to shared meaning making. Finally, social presence is the ability of
students to identify, communicate, and develop relationships with the rest of the community
(Garrison & Akyol, 2009).
Figure 5

The Community of Inquiry Framework

Note. Community of Inquiry model. From Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999).
Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105.

Instructors can use various technologies to create a mix of the three elements prescribed
by the CoI framework. LMS are central to teaching presence in a blended environment that
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 32
provide tools for communication and facilitation of learning activities (Rubin et al., 2013).
Cognitive presence is supported through prescribed tools, such as discussion boards, or tools that
students deem useful for their learning (Kovanović et al., 2015). Social presence is provided by
social media, personal blogs, and other web-based communication tools to keep students
engaged with each other (Garrison & Akyol, 2009). The CoI model is especially effective in
blended environments as it allows for students to demonstrate their social presence in multiple
ways. For instance, a face-to-face meeting between students at the beginning of the course may
lead to deeper, thoughtful, and trusting discussions in the asynchronous activities (Dennen, 2013;
Garrison & Akyol, 2009).
Technology Acceptance Model, and its Derivations
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) developed by Venkatesh and Davis (1996) is
a seminal framework that predicts how well a computer system will be accepted and used by
users. The framework explained that the intention and subsequent actual usage of a computer
system can be predicted by how useful and how easy the system is perceived to be by its
potential users. TAM was later expanded to include more explanations and details relating to
usage of computer systems in the form of TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM3
(Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
illustrated in Figure 6 (Venkatesh et al., 2003) was developed by studying previous theories and
has been used in various contexts, including education. UTAUT theorizes that the constructs of
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions predict
the acceptance of a computer system leading to individual’s intention to use and subsequent use
of it.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 33
Figure 6

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Note. From Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance
of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

While TAM and its derivations, including UTAUT, were not specifically developed in the
context of education, they have been used widely in understanding and evaluating the use of
technology-based tools in this domain in various parts of the world (Fathema et al., 2015;
Marques et al., 2011; Oye et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2013).
Challenges to Faculty Adoption of Technology-enhanced Teaching Practices
Kuhlenschmidt (2010) identified four major challenges that faculty face in effectively
integrating technology into their teaching practice, including remaining current in instructional
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 34
content, instructional design knowledge, understanding the technology, and integrating the three
challenges stated. Through a review of empirical literature, Brown (2016) identified six
influences that were most prominent. External factors influencing technology adoption were
faculty member’s interactions with technology, academic workload, institutional environment,
and students’ ability to use technology. Factors internal to the faculty were their attitudes and
beliefs about teaching, and their own learning practices.
Access to reliable and appropriate technology, or lack thereof, is a major factor in
technology adoption in teaching (Bates & Poole, 2003; Reid, 2014). Another technological factor
is the understanding of specific features provided by tools, the learning curve associated with it,
and the amount of time required to configure it for use in teaching (Jeffrey et al., 2014;
Schoonenboom, 2014). Faculty commitment to other aspects of their academic relationships,
such as their teaching load, research productivity, and service and administrative responsibilities,
are other major factors that affect technology adoption (Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Meyer & Xu,
2009). Since integrating technology effectively is viewed as a time-consuming task, the existence
of additional responsibilities inversely affects integration of technology-based tools (Meyer &
Xu, 2007). The institutional environment and context are other significant factors influencing
faculty adoption of technology. Graham, Woodfield, and Harrison (2013b) developed a
framework for institutional adoption around strategy, structure, and support as core factors that
could increase adoption of technology in teaching practice. They further suggested classifying
institutions into three stages based on their current level of institutional adoption: Stage 1 is an
awareness/exploration stage during which the institution lacks a formal strategy but is aware of
individual faculty integrating or looking to integrate technology in their teaching. Stage 2 is an
adoption/early implementation stage during which policies and procedures are being created or
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 35
just have been created to support widespread adoption of technology in teaching. Stage 3 is
mature implementation/growth where well-established practices and policies are internalized by
the institution. Further research by the authors showed the importance of institutional factors in
the adoption of technology by faculty (Porter & Graham, 2016; Porter et al., 2015). Finally,
interaction with students is an important external influence that plays a part in faculty adoption
of technology. Lack of technology skills or access to computing resources is a major inhibitor of
technology adoption from the faculty’s perspective, but can also be used to develop the
technological skills in the students (Tshabalala et al., 2014; Wach et al., 2011). Feedback from
the students is also crucial in sustaining the use of technology in teaching practice (Calderon et
al., 2012).
As part of his theory of diffusion of innovation, Rogers (2003) classified adopters of new
innovation into five types: (a) Innovators, (b) Early Adopters, (c) Early Majority, (d) Late
Majority, and (e) Laggards. This classification can serve a framework to view adoption of
technology within faculty through a different lens. While innovators and early adopters score
high on the adoption, they can also provide modeling (Bandura, 1988) and serve as influencers in
the rest of the individuals adopting technology.
Institutional Support for Technology Integration in Teaching Practice
Effective and sustainable use of BL approaches and tools by instructors requires
institutional support, in addition to instructors’ own motivation and pedagogical training. In
creating an institutional framework of adoption of BL, Graham et al. (2013b) identified strategy,
structure, and support as the key markers in driving strategic adoption of BL practices at an
institutional level. Specifically, technical support and pedagogical support were highlighted as
key factors in supporting faculty adoption of BL practices. Another study identified pedagogy
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 36
and learning technology support as one of six key factors of a holistic framework to support
adoption of BL practices at an institutional level (Adekola et al., 2017). Empirical studies have
further substantiated the role of technical and pedagogical support as key institutional support
factors leading to successful and effective integration of technology in teaching practice (Porter
& Graham, 2016; Porter et al., 2015). The following sections discuss avenues where faculty can
seek out technical and pedagogical support at an institutional level.
Instructional Design and Technology Support
Redesigning and redeveloping courses to include blended approaches and tools is a time-
consuming process and requires faculty to gain additional pedagogical and technical expertise.
Learning engineers
2
are hired by institutions to support faculty in incorporating new tools in their
courses. As experts in designing learning experiences, the core responsibility of learning
engineers is to collaborate with faculty and provide support with the design of instructional
materials, manage projects throughout the course redesign and redevelopment process, train
faculty to effectively use technology, and provide troubleshooting and technical support (Berrett,
2016; Dede et al., 2018; Intentional Futures, 2016; Milosch, 2018; Seeto & Herrington, 2006).
Learning Engineers are the conduits between the information technology services provided by a
university, a school, or a department and the faculty, specifically focusing on instructional
technology. Learning Engineers play the critical role of providing faculty with both technical and
pedagogical support.
Centers for Teaching and Learning
Professional development centers such as centers for teaching and learning (CTL) have
played a central role in supporting teaching excellence at universities for more than half a
century. Since the establishment of the first such center in the US, the Center for Research on
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 37
Learning and Teaching at the University of Michigan in 1962, more than a 1400 such centers (at
the time of writing this) exist throughout the world to assist faculty in developing their
pedagogical and teaching skills (K. H. Gillespie & Robertson, 2010; POD Network, n.d.). The
Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD Network)
maintains a searchable directory of these 1400 centers and programs engaged in educational
development at various levels (POD Network, n.d.).
CTLs provide faculty, instructional, and organizational development opportunities
through consultations, funding, workshops, and institutes (K. H. Gillespie & Robertson, 2010;
Sorcinelli, 2002). A survey of POD Network members identified a single, centralized unit
responsible for educational development as the most common form of a CTL (Sorcinelli et al.,
2005). Other forms taken by CTLs include an individual faculty member leading the effort with
or without a physical center, a committee supporting faculty development, a clearinghouse of
programs and offerings, and system-wide structures responsible for a larger number of CTLs
(Robertson, 2010). While the appointments and staffing levels vary greatly between CTLs, these
are usually led by a faculty member with some background and interest in faculty development
(K. H. Gillespie & Robertson, 2010). Graduate students and teaching assistants may also be
employed to support the mission of the CTL (Rudenga & Lampert, 2018). Professional and
pedagogical development programs most commonly take the forms of workshops, individual and
departmental consultations, and classroom observations (Aitken & Sorcinelli, 1994; Lee, 2010).
Other program offerings may include orientations at the beginning of a term or a semester, grants
provided to faculty members to support course or curriculum development, and creation and
management of teaching circles of faculty learning communities (Kuhlenschmidt et al., 2010;
Lee, 2010).
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 38
The evolution of CTLs has more recently included close collaboration with other
institutional structures such as libraries, administrative departments, global offices, academic
units, and information technology groups (M. K. Brown et al., 2015). Increasing use of
technology in teaching and learning has paved the way for an emerging model of CTLs
combined with or closely aligned with instructional technology units (Lee, 2010). Some CTLs,
such as the Searle Center for Advancing Teaching and Learning at Northwestern University,
work closely with instructional technology units to provide opportunities for faculty and develop
programming such as internal conferences focused on teaching with technology (TEACHx, n.d.).
Other CTLs, such as the Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship at Georgetown
University, were established with the explicit mission of bridging pedagogy and technology
(CNDLS, n.d.). Such partnerships are critical to the future of faculty development in
technologically focused higher education paradigms (Schumann et al., 2013).
Faculty Development Programs
Another avenue for faculty to develop their technological skills is through faculty
development programs or institutes, ranging in duration from a single day to a year,
incorporating a mix of discussion and hands-on projects (Cagle & Hornik, 2001; Garrison &
Vaughan, 2007). In order to promote real change, professional development must be an ongoing
activity that takes into account faculty’s personal beliefs, needs, and characteristics (Slavit et al.,
2003). Such programs provide faculty with “time to clearly link theory to practice and to also
create a sense of community,” including interaction with fellow participants in the program
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2007, p. 51). Using the CoI framework illustrated in Figure 5 (Garrison et
al., 1999; Garrison & Akyol, 2013), Garrison and Vaughan (2007) advocated for a blended
faculty CoI that allows faculty to engage in reflection and discourse about their teaching
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 39
practices over time, with a focus on how faculty teaching practices affect student learning.
Faculty development programs can also lead to Faulty Learning Communities that allow faculty
to “create connections for isolated teachers, establish networks for those pursuing pedagogical
issues, meet early-career faculty expectations for community, foster multidisciplinary curricula,
and begin to bring community to higher education.” (Cox, 2004, p. 5).
The ETTF at Northwestern University (Northwestern University, n.d.-b) is an example of
a year-long cohort-based faculty development program focused on exploring the use of BL
approaches in courses. Each faculty member partners with a mentor from the TLT team, who
provides technical and pedagogical support. The cohort regularly meets as a community multiple
times a semester to discuss ideas and experiences, and individually with the mentors to meet the
specific needs for their courses. At the end of the program, participants are encouraged to share
their work and experience at a teaching and learning conference attended by faculty at
Northwestern University and other peer institutions.
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
In order to successfully achieve the goal of employing at least two technology-based
teaching and learning tools in their classroom, it is imperative that the faculty knowledge and
skills, as it pertains to technology integration, are understood. The exploration of such
knowledge needs to be multi-faceted. Incorporating all aspects of teaching and learning,
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) provide a taxonomy to support thinking about the different
types of knowledge and how the different types of knowledge can be combined for a holistic
understanding of the knowledge and skills. Factual knowledge, the knowledge of “discrete,
isolated content elements” (L. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 27) is the most basic form of
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 40
knowledge that individuals must be acquainted with in a domain. Conceptual knowledge is the
knowledge that helps the individual understand the “interrelationships among the basic elements
within a larger structure” (L. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 29), enabling abstractions and a
deeper understanding of the content. Procedural knowledge provides individuals with the
knowledge of how to go about a given task. Finally, metacognitive knowledge is the knowledge
about “one’s own cognition” that allows individuals to engage in self-reflection leading to
improvements in their skills and abilities (L. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 55).
To successfully integrate technology-based tools into teaching practice and create an
enhanced learning experience for their students, faculty must be able to bring together their
knowledge about all aspects of teaching and learning, along with technology. The TPACK
framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) serves as a guide for faculty and designers to effectively
integrate technology, pedagogy, and content to create a meaningful learning experience for
students. Using Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) taxonomy, the factual knowledge here would
be the faculty knowledge about the names and functions of different technologies available to
them, such as the LMS, plagiarism detection systems such as TurnItIn, and online assessment
systems, such as the LockDown Browser. Knowledge of how specific tools can be used for
specific activities and the tools’ alignment with pedagogical practices would be an example of
conceptual knowledge. An example of procedural knowledge in action would be faculty's ability
to seek out support from technology and design teams. Finally, the reflective element of
engaging in such an exercise of incorporating BL tools leading to improvements in their teaching
would be an example of the metacognitive knowledge in action.

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 41
Knowledge of Aligning the Tool with Pedagogy and Content
Shulman (1986) asserted that for faculty to be effective instructors, they must combine
CK, i.e., knowledge of the subject matter to be taught, with PK, i.e., knowledge of how to teach
into Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). In light of new educational technologies, Mishra
and Koehler (2006) extended PCK to include TK, leading to the development of the TPACK
framework. In order to successfully and meaningfully use technology to enhance learning, it is
imperative that faculty consider the content to be taught, the teaching methods best suited to the
context, and the affordances of the specific technology to be used. For instance, an online
discussion board would be best suited to expand on student’s understanding of the concepts but
not to assess factual knowledge. This conceptual knowledge is critical for faculty to employ new
technologies in their teaching practice. This study will explore how faculty who have completed
the ETTF program select and align tools they use with their instructional approach and the
content to be taught.
Ability to Integrate the Tool in the Course
A crucial aspect of using BL tools in a course is the faculty ability to provide easy access
to the tool for the students, to communicate the importance of using the tool to the students, and
to directly connect the tool with the course objectives and student learning outcomes (Bonk &
Graham, 2005; Davis & Fill, 2007; Garrison & Vaughan, 2007). Access to the tool is usually
provided using a hyperlink prominently placed in the course on the LMS, which serves as a hub
for course communication and distribution of course materials. If an LMS is not utilized,
instructions on how to access the tool can be provided via an email at the beginning of the
course. Faculty must also introduce the tool to students early in the term, and potentially model
the expected use of the tool. For example, if an online discussion board is to be used in the class
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 42
for asynchronous discussions outside the classroom, examples posts can be provided along with
the rubrics that will be used to assess the participation of the students. It is also important to tie in
the use of the tool with the course objectives and student learning outcomes of the course, while
specifically stating which of these will be augmented by the use of the tool (Davis & Fill, 2007).
In addition to explaining these connections to the objectives and outcomes explicitly in the
syllabus, faculty can also elaborate on these in a class session early in the course term.
In addition to communicating the importance of the tool to the course, faculty must also
make available support resources to the students (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007). These resources,
such as the IT department, or an online support resource, can help students troubleshoot technical
issues and help them better understand how to go about using the tool in the way it is intended
for the course. Specific access and contact details can be made available via the syllabus and
during the introduction of the course. Faculty members may also invite learning engineers to
demonstrate the use of the tool, who may have deeper knowledge of the technical and
pedagogical aspects of the tool.
Table 1 presents the assumed knowledge influences of the instructors as they incorporate
technology in their teaching practice. While there are numerous types of knowledge and skills
instructors need to have to successfully use technology to enhance learning, two specific
influences that were essential to the study are listed.
Table 1

Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Knowledge of how to select and align blended
learning tools with pedagogy and content.
Declarative (Conceptual)
Ability to integrate blended learning tools in
the course.
Procedural

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 43
Motivation
In addition to knowledge and skills, motivation to improve teaching by incorporating
technology-based tools has a critical influence on faculty performance. Mayer (2011) defined
motivation as “an internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior” (p. 39). While
engaging in performance, motivation can be examined through three motivational indices,
namely active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Active choice is the
decision of an individual to move from intention to action. Persistence is the individual’s ability
to continue to engage in their work towards the intended outcome while faced with other goals
and distractions. Mental effort is the investment of the individual towards meeting the intended
outcome.
Motivational influences can be examined through various theoretical motivational constructs.
These are the underlying factors that cause us to take action, persist in the task, and apply the
appropriate amount of mental effort leading to the successful execution of the task. The
expectancy value theory focuses on the questions around whether the task can be performed and
whether the individual wants to carry out the task (Eccles, 2010; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Responses to the constructs above are strong predictors of the three indices of motivation.
Attribution theory of motivation is centered around the perception of causes of events, including
performance successes and failures (Anderman & Anderman, 2010; Linnenbrink & Pintrich,
2002). The attributions made about the perceived reasons behind the success or failure of the
performance predict investment into the motivational indices in future performances
(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Weiner, 1982).
Self-efficacy motivational theory explains the relationship between an individual's self-
judgments about their capabilities to succeed in specific tasks and their motivation to engage in a
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 44
performance (Pajares, 2010). Another social-cognitive theory of motivation, goal orientation
theory examines the reasons behind why individuals engage in a task (Yough & Anderman,
2010). Mastery goals are those in which individuals intend to master tasks, and performance
goals are those in which individuals intend to demonstrate their competencies in comparison to
that of others. Goal orientation theory examines the relationship between motivation and the
achievement of the individual’s goals.
While various motivational theories and constructs can be employed to explore and examine
the motivations behind the faculty use of BL tools, this study will focus on the utility value of
using such tools to the faculty and their attributions of the successful or unsuccessful integration
of the tools in their teaching. These constructs can help explain whether or not faculty intend to
use such tools, explaining active choice, how likely they are to continue using the tools,
explaining persistence, and how much cognitive investment they are willing to make to ensure
the success of the use of online and blended tools in their teaching, suggesting the magnitude of
mental effort.
V alue for Technology-based Teaching and Learning Tools
In order to effectively incorporate technology-based teaching and learning tools in their
teaching practice, it is imperative that faculty see the utility of using blended or online tools in
their teaching. From a teaching perspective, technology can improve instructional efficiency
(Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). For instance, the use of LMS provides an efficient way for faculty to
disseminate materials and interact with the students (Assaf Alfadly, 2013; Atkinson & Lim,
2013; Yadova et al., 2016). Online assessment systems can save a significant amount of grading
time, while also providing efficient ways to provide feedback on assessments (Atkinson & Lim,
2013; Lothridge et al., 2013). Another potential value of using technology in teaching is to
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 45
engage students in the classroom. Multiple studies have shown that engagement tools used in the
classroom, such as clickers or polling devices, support active learning experiences (Han &
Finkelstein, 2013; Lane & Harris, 2015). Using the expectancy value theory of motivation,
instructors are likely to be motivated to use technology-based tools in their teaching if they see
the utility value in using these tools. This study will explore the degree to which faculty perceive
technology to be valuable for their instructional practices.
Perception of Attribution for Success or Failure of Technology-based Tools in Teaching
In order for faculty to be motivated to start and continue to use technology tools, it is critical
that they perceive that the success or failure of their use is due to the effort applied rather than an
innate ability to use technology. Faculty members often claim to be “technologically challenged”
and may have had negative experiences with technology use in the past (Georgina & Hosford,
2009; Georgina & Olson, 2008). Even when faculty have positive experiences with the general
use of technology in their personal and professional contexts, their perceptions of the use of
technology for pedagogical use may vary greatly (Georgina & Olson, 2008; Kopcha et al., 2016).
If the reasons for success or failure are attributed to their level of effort, they are more likely to
invest an adequate amount of effort in ensuring the success of the tool.
Table 2 presents the motivation influences of the instructors as they incorporate technology-
based tools in their teaching practice. While there are various constructs that can help with
faculty motivation, three specific influences that were essential to the study are listed.

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 46
Table 2

Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation Influence
Utility Value Faculty need to perceive using blended learning tools in their teaching
practice as facilitating increased student engagement or their efficiency.
Attributions Faculty should attribute their level of success in employing at least two new
blended learning tools is due to their efforts rather than an inherent
technological ability or lack thereof.

Organizational Influences
In addition to knowledge, skills, and motivation, organizational processes, resources, and
culture play a significant role in faculty integrating technology-based teaching and learning tools
in their teaching practice. Clark and Estes (2008) argued that even for those individuals who
have a high level of knowledge and skills and are motivated to achieve their performance goals,
the organizational setting can sometimes be a hindrance in their achieving said goals. Ambrose et
al. (2010) add that an individual’s learning and development is affected by the social, emotional,
and intellectual environment around them. In the context of higher education in general, and
specifically this study, it is vital to understand how the organizational and cultural environment
affects faculty ability to engage in enhancing the learning experience for students.
Sociocultural theory (SCT) provides a framework to identify, analyze, and evaluate the
role of social interactions in the learning and development of an individual (S. Scott & Palincsar,
2010). Specifically, the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) is key to
understanding the role of context in learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD is the difference
between what an individual can learn independently and learning that requires guidance or peer
interaction. An example of ZPD in action is the ability of individuals to engage in “just-in-time”
learning with the help of training or coaching provided by their organization (Hung, 2001).
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 47
In the context of this study, it is important that faculty are provided an appropriate
amount of resources and support to enable them to effectively incorporate technology-based
teaching tools in their practice. This can be accomplished by implicit organizational influences
such as cultivating a culture of experimentation for teaching effectiveness, and more visible
support structures such as encouragement of learning communities and providing scaffolding.
Time and Support Resources
Once faculty have the knowledge, skills, and motivation to begin using technology-based
tools, it is critical that the institution supports them in actually materializing the development of
their teaching practice. This support must be a combination of time provided to the faculty,
access to support resources and other material resources, such as the actual technology-based
tools that are best aligned with their Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Support for time can come
in the form of a reduced teaching load, administrative responsibilities, research requirements, or
a combination of these activities. Pedagogical and technological support includes instructional
support resources, centers for teaching excellence, and educational resources to integrate
technology-based tools. Finally, it is imperative that the institution strives to provide the
monetary and material resources to the faculty to use the tool that best aligns with their
instructional approach and the content to be taught. This study will explore the extent to which
Northwestern faculty are provided with adequate time and support resources to effectively
integrate BL tools in their teaching practice.
Learning Communities
A concrete implementation of SCT is demonstrated in the participation of faculty in
learning communities related to enhancing their teaching practice. The CoI framework asserts
that a rich educational experience comprises of cognitive, social, and teaching presence
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 48
(Garrison & Akyol, 2013). While this framework was developed primarily in the context of
blended and online education with students in mind, it has significant implications in the context
of faculty development as well. Cognitive presence reflects the ability and effort of faculty to
internalize the use of technology-based tools in their practice to create a better learning
experience for students. Social presence allows faculty to discuss their practices and learn from
each other. Finally, the teaching presence is reflected by facilitators of a faculty development
program by leading faculty to and supporting them in their ZPD (Vaughan et al., 2013).
Table 3 presents the organizational influences of the instructors as they incorporate
technology-based tools in their teaching practice. While there are various categories that can help
with organizational culture, three specific influences that were considered to be essential to the
study are listed.
Table 3

Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence
Category
Assumed Organizational Influence
Cultural Setting Influence The university needs to provide adequate time, support, and resources to
assist faculty in integrating technology-based tools into teaching practice.
Cultural Setting Influence The university needs to encourage learning communities within the
institution to support the integration of technology-based teaching and
learning tools in faculty teaching practice.

Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the evolution of technology use in education, heuristics instructors
can use to aid in technology integration, and institutional support mechanisms available to
instructors to support effective technology use in education. Specific knowledge, motivational,
and organizational influences to guide the study were also analyzed. Chapter Three discusses the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 49
methodological approach the study will followed by an examination of the findings in Chapter
Four and a detailed discussion of the results in Chapter Five.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
factors affecting faculty integration of technology-based teaching and learning tools in their
teaching practice at Northwestern University. These factors were examined in the context of the
ETTF, a faculty development program at Northwestern that will had more than 100 graduates by
Fall 2019, when the study was conducted. The research questions guiding this study are:
1. What are the instructors’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
achieving their goal of employing at least two technology-based teaching and learning tools
in their teaching practice?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
This chapter discusses the methodological framework for the study, including the
rationale behind employing a qualitative methodology, the characteristics of the participants for
the study and the sampling strategies involved, and the instruments used in the data collection
and analysis. This is followed by a discussion of the credibility and trustworthiness of the
qualitative methods used. The potential ethical concerns surrounding the study will be followed
by a discussion of the limitations and the delimitations of the study.
Methodological Framework
This study employed a qualitative methodology. Rooted in the constructivist worldview, a
qualitative approach emphasizes on the diversity, subjectivity, and multiplicity of meanings
constructed socially and historically through the participants’ experiences (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specifically, this study primarily employed a basic qualitative
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 51
research design, combined with aspects of narrative inquiry and qualitative case study. The core
characteristic of a basic qualitative research design is the importance placed on understanding
“how people make sense of their lives and their experiences” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 24)
from the responses of the participants. Narrative inquiry involves the use of participants’ first-
person accounts of their experiences as data in the form of a story. With the unit of data in this
study being a faculty member at Northwestern, a case-study approach further allowed for the
study of their specific experiences in their courses and the ETTF program as a “bounded system”
for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 37).
Relationship with Conceptual Framework(s)
The overarching conceptual framework guiding this study is the gap analysis model
developed by Clark and Estes (2008) that examines the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences on an individual’s performance. The three dimensions of the
KMO framework in the context of this study are inherently individual, the understanding of
which requires a constructivist worldview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Every faculty member
has an individual pedagogical approach and incorporates specific instructional and content-
oriented practices that best fit their worldview, training, and meets the needs of their students.
Incorporating technology to this approach adds to the individual nature and as such cannot be
assessed merely through surveys. As a qualitative method, interviews provide rich, descriptive
data, are inductive, and provide an opportunity to focus on “process, understanding, and
meaning” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 15). Therefore, interviews were used for the assessment
of KMO influences.
Another essential framework contributing to the design and strength of the study was the
TPACK framework. Developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009), TPACK helps in understanding
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 52
how well technology use in teaching is aligned with the pedagogical approach of the faculty and
the content to be taught. The TPACK framework is central to the design of the interview
questions in this study. Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model (J. D. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is
a seminal framework used for program evaluations and therefore also contributed to the study as
the evaluation framework for the recommended practices.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus for the study was all faculty members at
Northwestern who have completed the ETTF program. At least 100 faculty members had
completed the program by the end of the academic year 2018-19. Data collection and analysis
was conducted during the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 terms.
As part of the qualitative research design, interviews and documents served as the
primary instruments for data collection and analysis. Mixed Purposeful sampling (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton,
2014) was employed for the qualitative data collection methods. The interviews employed
maximum variation sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to
incorporate a variety of perspectives.
Interview Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Recruitment for the interviews was primarily carried out in partnership with the TLT
team, which administers the ETTF program. Preliminary interviews were first conducted with
members of the TLT team and those who served as consultants in the ETTF program. Program-
specific documents were collected and analyzed to identify participants eligible for the study.
The interview recruitment process involved emailing a listserv of all alumni of the program
through the TLT program director to avoid direct solicitation. Participants who provided a
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 53
positive response to the email and reminders were recruited for the study. Furthermore, in an
effort to ensure representation of gender, experience with teaching, including teaching at
Northwestern, and the ETTF cohort, the TLT team further recruited additional participants for the
study. Respondents for the interviews were selected to ensure representation of a wide number of
departments, schools, and programs, including both undergraduate and graduate programs. In
addition to instructors who specifically incorporated at least two BL tools in their teaching
practice, the interviews also included faculty members who completed the program but did not
start integrating BL tools in their regular teaching practice, thereby incorporating extreme-case
sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2014) resulting in maximum variation in the participants.
Participants who either had a negative experience during the program, whose expectations were
not met and those who did not complete the program were also recruited to incorporate negative-
case sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2014) and enrich the variability of perspectives in the
study.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Interview participants must be faculty employed at Northwestern University
who have completed the ETTF program. The scope of the study is limited to the evaluation of
the ETTF program, which provides a natural restriction on the participants.
Criterion 2. Interview participants identified must be available for a 45-minute to one-
hour online interview during the data collection period in Fall 2019.
Criterion 3. Two or three participants were selected from each school or department at
Northwestern to help in the recruitment of a maximum variation sample.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 54
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The primary instruments for data collection and analysis for the study were individual
interviews and documents. In addition to interviews with the faculty, which were central to the
study, scanning interviews with the TLT team and faculty consultants provided important context
for the study. Documents and artifacts were collected early in the field research, were analyzed
throughout the process, and informed the broader study-wide analysis. Details of each data
collection method are provided in this subsection.
Interviews
Interviews are an important data collection method in qualitative studies that allow
researchers to view the world from the participant's perspective and help understand "how people
interpret the world around them" (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 108). Interviews are a source of
rich, descriptive data and are especially useful when feelings or behaviors cannot be directly
observed, and to gather a historical perspective from the participants, and the interaction between
the two (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2014; Weiss, 1993).
The primary objective behind conducting interviews in the study was to assess the
knowledge influences on faculty integrating technology-based teaching and learning tools in
their teaching practice. In addition to this, the interview also contained questions about the
motivation and organizational influences, and some questions around the ETTF program.
Interview questions were designed in the context of Clark and Estes' gap analysis framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008), the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), and Anderson and
Krathwohl’s taxonomy of the knowledge dimension (L. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001),
specifically around the conceptual and procedural knowledge. The interview protocol was finally
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 55
created using the research questions guiding this study as the filter and a realignment tool
(Maxwell, 2013).
The interviews in the study were semi-structured, with the ability to contextualize further
questions and probes based on the direction of the conversation with the participant. The semi-
structured nature of the interviews allowed for the focusing of the interview questions during the
interview, change their order, or probe in different ways to gather rich, descriptive data and truly
capture the participant's perspectives (Bryman, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews were scheduled for time slots of 45 minutes to one hour, scheduled at the
participant’s convenience, and were conducted once per participant. The interview protocol is
provided in Appendix B.
Online Interviews. In recognition of the geographical distances between the participants
and myself, interviews were conducted online over a video conferencing platform. Bryman
(2016) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss various limitations of online interviews that were
incorporated while planning and scheduling interviews. Primarily, technical issues were avoided
on both ends of the interview by providing specific and detailed instructions to the participants.
Furthermore, rich observations, comments and memos were used during the interviews to
document the non-verbal cues in the online environment.
In contrast to the limitations, online interviews also provide certain benefits over face-to-
face interviews. Online interviews have the advantage of flexibility in scheduling, rescheduling,
and last minute-adjustments in order to be more accommodating with the participants. Bryman
(2016) also argued that convenience of online interviewing may encourage increased
participation in the interview process. Another significant benefit of engaging in online
interviews was the ease of recording and transcription.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 56
Documents
In addition to interviews, documents were an essential and indispensable source of
information in my study. Existing documents, those not created for a study, can be of vital
importance in qualitative research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006; Bryman, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Since the quality of documents within a context can vary, Scott (1991) recommends
evaluating documents based on their authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaning.
Since documents played a critical role in my research process, these lenses provided me with a
way to filter documents down to ones that were core to my study.
Official documents were the largest category of documents that were collected, analyzed
and included in the study. These primarily included course syllabi, courses on LMS, individual
project charters, program management documentation, and other documents of a similar nature
that provided insights into the ETTF program implementation and instructors’ teaching practices.
The documents provided the context and background to the study, in addition to informing the
knowledge influences. These documents were primarily provided by the TLT team. Instructors
were also asked for permission to access their course sites and syllabi to gain a better
understanding of their teaching practice. Confidentiality and security of these documents were
paramount, specific steps taken to safeguard these are discussed in the Ethics subsection later in
this chapter.
Documents primarily served to assess knowledge and organizational influences for my
study. Evidence of language, instructions, and purpose of technology use in course syllabi and
courses on the LMS shed light on the level of integration and use of technology-based tools in
courses. In addition to this, documents about policies and support structures helped in the
understanding and analysis of critical organizational influences that affected the integration of
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 57
technology by faculty. In addition to assessing knowledge and motivational influences,
documents also provided background information to the study and helped triangulate data from
the interviews.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of eliciting meaning out of the data collected. In a mixed-
methods study, while data analysis is conceptually similar in meaning making, different
strategies were used to analyze the qualitative components of the data (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2017). Data analysis in the study also involved consolidating the analyses from both components
coherently.
In the qualitative paradigm, data analysis involves “consolidating, reducing, and
interpreting what people have said and what the researcher has seen and read” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 202). Keeping in mind that rich, descriptive data can be quickly generated, it
was critical that the data analysis process began early in the data collection process (Bryman,
2016; Corbin & Strauss, 2007; Harding, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thematic analysis was
employed as the core data analysis strategy with coding playing a critical role in this inductive
process. In addition to data collected by way of documents and interviews, memos and
observer’s comments recorded during data collection also played a central role in analysis.
A four-stage process for thematic analysis was used to iterate from the raw data to
assertions, supported by the use of the atlas.ti software. A priori codes developed from the
conceptual frameworks, such as knowledge, motivation, organizational influence, instructional
approach, and technological fit, along with open coding formed the first stage of the analysis for
both interview data and documents. To help with this, analytic tools such as questioning and
making comparisons proved essential (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). The next stage of analysis built
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 58
upon the discrete codes to identify axial codes in the data. Building upon these, the third stage
led to consolidation of themes and patterns. Finally, the themes and patterns were analyzed and
consolidated leading to assertions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative study are essential for it to have an impact
on the theory or practice in the domain (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The demonstration of these
constructs in a study is a representation of the rigor with which it was carried out, both
methodological and interpretive. Since qualitative research is inherently interpretive, establishing
the validity of credibility of the outcomes of a qualitative study is relative and is dependent on
the ontological and epistemological worldviews of the researcher and the consumers of the
research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The strategies used in
establishing the credibility, trustworthiness, dependability, transferability, and confirmability of
the study included triangulation, reflecting on my reflexivity, and peer-review, as recommended
by seminal methodologists (Bryman, 2016; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2014).
Triangulation served as my principal strategy to demonstrate the credibility and
trustworthiness of my study. The study used multiple methods, in the form of interviews and
documents, to establish the validity of my research. These multiple methods and sources of data
were used to justify the themes and results, thereby ensuring that the research is not restricted by
a single method or source (Patton, 2014).
Furthermore, I engaged in the data collection process adequately to achieve saturation.
Interviews were conducted until such time when the responses are saturated in the attempt to
amass all possible perspectives on the topic. Extending this strategy, the study also strived to
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 59
purposefully seek out data that may disconfirm my expectations as part of a negative or
discrepant case analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), which was also
supported by the sampling strategy for interviews.
Another strategy used to demonstrate the credibility and confirmability of the research is
to not allow the researcher’s "personal values and theoretical inclinations" to affect the
conclusions (Bryman, 2016, p. 386). By being explicit about their biases in the dissemination of
the findings and by being mindful of my reflexivity during data collection and analysis, the
researcher ensured that the study’s confirmability is well established. To ensure dependability
and trustworthiness of the research, an audit trail was kept, meticulously documenting every step
of the data collection and analysis process, rechecking transcripts for errors, ensuring consistency
on coding, and using memos and observer’s comments during data collection and analysis.
Finally, the dissertation proposal defense and the final dissertation defense served as a
review process of the highest rigor to establish the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
This was complemented by the constant review during discussions with the dissertation chair and
with other members of the program cohort.
Ethics
The focus of this study is to understand the context and interactions between faculty at
Northwestern and their implementation of pedagogically grounded practices in teaching with
technology aligned with the content to be taught, to analyze these by way of mixed-methods
research, and to effectively communicate this to those interested. While planning the study,
interacting with the participants during the data collection process, and analyzing data thereafter,
well-established ethical practices laid out by scholars on the topic rooted in the principles of
respect, beneficence, and justice were followed (Creswell, 2014; Glesne, 2011; Merriam &
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 60
Tisdell, 2016; Orb et al., 2001).
Permission was sought from the TLT team and Northwestern IT leadership to conduct the
study as part of the planning and designing the study. This study, especially the evaluation
aspect, will be beneficial to the TLT team and the ETTF program in making improvements. This
purpose was also be communicated clearly to the participants of the study. As part of putting
general ethical principles around human subjects research into practice, approval was sought for
the study protocol from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern
California (USC). While enlisting participants for interviews and before engaging with them for
data collection, participants were provided with information sheets that spoke to the details of the
study, voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw from the study at any point,
the study's benefits to them and the broader community, and how the data would be analyzed and
finally presented as part of the dissertation. During interviews, permission was sought from the
participants to record the interview for the purposes of transcription. Furthermore, confidentiality
of all data collected was ensured by storing digital data on a password protected and encrypted
computer and physical documents and recordings in a locked storage compartment. Furthermore,
pseudonyms were used for all participants and personally identifiable information was not used
in the data analysis or the communication of the findings. Finally, instructors were asked to
submit redacted versions of their course documents to avoid exposure to protected data. Having
completed a series of trainings in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974
(FERPA), the researcher was also aware of their responsibilities and bound by law to protect
personally identifiable information of the students.
In the interest of transparency, the researcher clearly spelled out their affiliation with
Northwestern University and ensured the participants that participation, or lack thereof, in this
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 61
study will not affect any future engagements or opportunities and that my role in the context of
this study is that of a researcher and not a Northwestern staff member. In the same vein, it was
also made clear that the participants of the study would not be favored in future programs of a
similar nature.
While there is not a specific set of rules to be followed in the collection and analysis of
data in a qualitative study due to its descriptive and inductive nature, it was necessary to
acknowledge the researcher’s own assumptions, biases, power structures, and relationships with
the study and its participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Patton, 2014). Specific importance was placed on not disclosing information collected by
documents that could potentially harm any direct or indirect participants of the study.
As a practitioner of instructional design and learning engineering, the researcher was also
cautious and mindful of their values and principles and considered ethical sensitivities to ensure
that their notions did not interfere with the data collection or analysis. In order to accomplish
this, the researcher was diligent during the interviews to not lead the participants to a personal
worldview and conducted the interview in the role of a researcher and not as an instructional
designer. Furthermore, during the analysis of data, the coding process focused on the responses
and the interpretations of what was answered rather than interpreting responses in the context of
what were considered to be promising practices. Glesne’s (2011) discussion of the various
interactions of the roles between the researcher and the researched served as a guiding light as
the findings of the study were collected, analyzed, and communicated.
Limitations and Delimitations
An important part of designing a study is to understand the inherent limitations and
delimitations that interact with the various components and processes of the study. One limitation
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 62
of the study was the truthfulness of the participants. While it is expected that the respondents
were truthful in their responses, this cannot be taken for granted. Another potential limitation is
the recruitment of participants for interviews, especially during the semester when they have
multiple responsibilities and priorities.
A significant delimitation of my study is centered around the use of specific research
methods. Although class observations could potentially have been a rich source of data, it was
decided to use interviews and document analysis in the interest of time constraints, potential
disruptions in the classroom, and being cognizant of the geographical distances between the
participants and the researcher. While there could have been several assumed KMO influences
drawn from the conceptual frameworks, the scope of these were restricted to those most pertinent
to effective technology integration.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the methodological components of the study including the
description of the stakeholders, specific qualitative methods that were used for data collection
and analysis, and a discussion of ethical considerations surrounding the study and the role of the
researcher. Chapter Four will provide an overview of the findings, including an assessment of the
KMO influences. Chapter Five will discuss the findings and provide recommendations for future
iterations of the ETTF program.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 63
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to examine the KMO influences affecting faculty integration
of technology-based teaching and learning tools in their teaching practice through the ETTF
program at Northwestern University. Chapter One introduced the problem of practice and laid
out the following research questions for the study:
1. What are the instructor knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
achieving their goal of employing at least two technology-based teaching and learning
tools in their teaching practice?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Chapter Two provided a review of pertinent literature and identified assumed KMO influences to
be studied as part of the study. Chapter Three discussed the methodology and research plan
guiding the study.
Chapter Four presents the findings from the data that were collected through semi-
structured interviews and analysis of documents such as course syllabi, courses on the Canvas
LMS, and ETTF program-specific documents. Data collected were coded, analyzed, and
triangulated to evaluate the impact of the ETTF program on assumed KMO influences using the
gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Assumed influences were determined to be
validated as a continuing need if 55% or more participant responses, through interviews or
document analysis, addressed the respective assumed KMO influence, and validated as a current
asset if 80% of more participant responses addressed the respective assumed KMO influence. In
the context of this study, validation of an influence as a continuing need suggests that there is a
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 64
need to address the influence as part of an intervention, whereas validation as a current asset
suggests that there is less need to address the respective influence as part of an intervention.
This chapter is organized into sections discussing the profile of the study participants,
followed by the presentation of findings corresponding to each aspect of the KMO influences.
The themes section following the KMO findings discusses findings that were discovered from
the data collected that transcended the KMO influences and were not a direct response to specific
questions.
Participant Profile
The participants for the study were instructors from Northwestern University who had
completed the ETTF. A total of 12 participants were interviewed from the participant pool. In
order to protect their identity, participants have been assigned pseudonyms and are referred to
with gender-neutral pronouns. The participants represent six of the 12 Northwestern University
schools and each of the ETTF cohorts from the past five academic years is represented in the
participant pool. Nine of the 12 participants also provided access to their syllabi and Canvas
course as part of the document analysis for the study. Table 4 presents the characteristics of the
study participants along with the domain of their teaching, mode of instruction, the primary
technology-based tools and pedagogical approaches utilized by them, and a breakdown of the
extent of their participation in the study.
Table 4

Participant Characteristics
Pseudonym Domain of
Instruction
Mode of
Instruction
Primary
Tools/Approaches
Participation
Interviews Document
Analysis
Alex Journalism Face to face Experiential
Learning
Ö Ö
Bobby Language Face to face Flipped Classroom Ö Ö
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 65
Charlie Language Face to face Flipped Classroom Ö Ö
Drew Language Face to face Flipped Classroom Ö Ö
Eli Language Online Experiential
Learning
Ö Ö
Francis Education Online Online discussions Ö Ö
Glen Communication Face to face Video conferencing Ö
Harley Political Science Face to face Interaction in a large
class
Ö
Indiana Language Face to face &
online
Online discussions Ö
Jesse Journalism Face to face Alexa Ö Ö
Kim Engineering Face to face Video-based tools Ö Ö
Lee Language Face to face Video conferencing Ö Ö

Knowledge Findings
The knowledge section of the study focused on examining how the participants of the
ETTF program selected technology-based tools or approaches and aligned these with the content
to be taught using their own instructional approach. This section also explored participants’
ability to effectively integrate these tools and approaches in their courses and provide scaffolding
and support to their students, leading to an enhanced learning experience. The two knowledge
influences were identified as conceptual and procedural based on Anderson and Krathwohl’s
(2001) taxonomy of knowledge types, which includes factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. No new influences were discovered. Table 5 presents the two assumed knowledge
influences of the participants and whether these were validated.
Table 5

Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Validation
Knowledge of how to select and align
technology-based tools with pedagogy and
content.
Conceptual Continuing Need
Ability to integrate technology-based tools
in the course.
Procedural Current Asset

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 66
Each of the participants made significant use of the university-provided LMS, Canvas.
This included the use of Canvas to share course material, post the syllabus, communicate with
students, deliver and grade assessments, provide feedback on assessments, verify attendance, and
conduct class-wide discussions. For the ETTF projects, the participants worked with their
consultants, comprising of instructional design practitioners primarily from the TLT team, on
identifying and functionalizing an advanced Canvas feature or an external complementary tool.
While some of the participants entered the program with a specific tool in mind, nine of the 12
participants approached the program with a problem they faced or an opportunity to enhance the
learning experience of the students and decided on a specific tool or approach in collaboration
with their ETTF consultant. Interview data revealed that participants were evenly split between
those wanting to attempt something novel using technology in their courses and those going
through an iterative development in enhancing the students’ learning experience through
technology-based tools.
Selection and Alignment of Tools and Approaches with Pedagogy and Content
The first assumed knowledge influence, “Knowledge of how to select and align
technology-based tools with pedagogy and content” was assessed through a combination of
interviews and the analyses of course syllabi and Canvas courses. The interview questions that
supported the validation of the assumed influence were:
• Would you please tell me about your ETTF project and discuss some of your
reasons for integrating a new tool in your teaching practice?
• How did you go about selecting this tool?
• What role do learning objectives and outcomes play in the selection and
integration of blended learning tools in your courses, if any?
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 67
The participants were further probed on the details of each of these questions to further
understand the depth of their responses.
A majority of the participants successfully selected tools that were well-aligned with the
content they taught and their pedagogical approach. As explained in Chapter Two, the TPACK
framework explains that meaningful use of technology rests on the alignment between the
content to be taught, the pedagogical approaches of the instructors and the feature set of the
technology to be used (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Participants used textual, audio and video-
based tools to provide experiential learning opportunities, video conferencing tools to enhance
students’ learning, discussion tools for reflective opportunities, and various thoughtful
approaches for effective language instruction. In cases where such alignment was missing,
participants often intentionally made such choices in the interest of efficiency or future
enhancements to the courses.
Experiential Learning
Six of the 12 participants had experiential learning at the core of their ETTF projects and
made use of technology-based tools to mobilize the goal. Experiential learning is a form of
learning in which the student is in contact the realities of lived experiences as opposed to
classroom learning from lectures, books, and other course material (Keeton & Tate, 1978; Kolb,
2014). The participants provided students the experience of situating themselves in authentic
environments through class work and providing a platform for reflection through technology-
based tools. In one of their courses, Alex’s students were engaged in a term-long internship at the
time of the course and were asked to reflect weekly on their ongoing experiences through
directed questions in a discussion-based format. Lee, a language instructor, brought in chefs, who
were also native speakers of the target language, through video conferencing technology for
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 68
authentic exchanges. These interactions were well-aligned and complemented by the culinary
theme of the course. Lee’s students also engaged in cooking and discovering food of different
regions where the target language was the most commonly spoken language. Figure 7 shows
Lee’s students in one of the course sessions engaging with the culinary theme of the course. Kim
provided opportunities for students to prepare for video-based job interviews by supporting them
in practicing such interviews and providing detailed and specific feedback to ensure success in
their actual interviews. Jesse brought in Alexa, a voice-based assistant, as a marketing
technology tool that was being studied in class for students to interact with and build upon. In
addition to interacting with the tool, Jesse also led the students through the creation of ways to
create conversational frameworks for Alexa. Eli, another language instructor, included museum
visits as part of their course work and required students to reflect on their experiences through
web pages created on Canvas. Reflecting on the outcome of the students’ reflections, they
explained that the course site “also became kind of like its own type of museum for the class
because all of their little projects, you they could go back and see what others had posted, see the
websites. The web page is created by students. So then it was like the mini museum for that
class. That was the experience.”
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 69
Figure 7

Lee and their students engaging with the culinary theme of their course

Analysis of course syllabi and the actual Canvas courses shed further light on the
alignment of the tool, pedagogy, and content for experiential learning. Eli structured their Canvas
course using modules to highlight the different forms of art the students were expected to engage
with during their museum visits throughout the course. This allowed the students to engage use
the digital courseware without additional cognitive load. Alex’s use of social media was front
and center on their Canvas course, highlighting how all students were expected to engage with
the tool. In addition to this, they gave detailed instructions to the students on how to engage with
each other on a weekly basis and encouraged the students to use media as part of their reflections
in addition to text-based responses. Francis structured their course in a way such that their
students were able to bring in their learning experiences from their life experiences, discuss and
reflect on these experiences, and think about how their practice would change with the help of
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 70
what they learned in the course. Kim’s assignments provided students with opportunities to
engage with their assignments through video-based interviews as preparation for the authentic
experiences the students would experience outside the classroom. They also provided detailed
feedback to students on their submissions both on the content and the delivery of their video-
based submissions. Through an analysis of interviews and documents, experiential learning as a
pedagogical approach was well supported by modern technology and the examples above
demonstrate a strong alignment between the pedagogical approach and the use of technology.
Video Conferencing Tools
A number of participants made use of video conferencing tools for different purposes.
Participants Alex and Lee, internship supervisor and language instructor respectively, used
videoconferencing to bring in expert guests to their courses. Alex wanted to provide students an
opportunity to interact with experts in their field and better prepare for their upcoming
experiential opportunities. Lee set up a time with experts in their field who were also native
speakers in the target language from a number of different countries to provide an opportunity
for students to ask questions and improve on their language skills. Lee preceded this activity with
a preparation opportunity, during which students individually came up with questions and further
curated them to be asked to the expert guest. Figure 8 shows Lee’s students in one of the course
sessions engaging with the guest chef, who is also a native speaker of the target language. Glen
taught a communications course and wanted to provide a more organic experience to their online
students. In addition to requiring them to use video conferencing to meet synchronously, they
further asked the students to record these meetings and included a reflective assessment in which
the students critiqued and evaluated their own communication approaches in group settings.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 71
Jesse, who also teaches online courses, used videoconferencing for synchronous sessions and to
discuss case studies.
Figure 8

Lee and their students engaging with the culinary theme of their course

While the participants who used video conferencing tools in their courses made it easy
for the students to access the tool through their Canvas courses, the tool itself served in an
auxiliary function to enhance the course. Francis, who taught their course online asynchronously,
held optional synchronous sessions through video conferencing on a regular basis during which
the students could interact with each other and the instructor to clarify concepts being taught.
Online Discussions
Ten of the 12 participants used the discussions tool within Canvas to provide an
opportunity for students to reflect on their learning and experiences. Class-wide asynchronous
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 72
discussions are frequently used as an interactive pedagogical activity to complement live in-
classroom discussions. These asynchronous interactions can also serve as an important reflective
and metacognitive tool through deeper, thoughtful and trusting discussions (Dennen, 2013). Glen
allowed their students to contribute to discussion in a textual, voice, or video-based format to
“get a little bit more involved.” Francis incorporated a gamification-based approach where they
used game elements to make the discussions more fun and incentivize participation. Indiana used
an external tool for their students’ discussion that provided for a more social media-like
experience and as a brainstorming space, which was then used for an in-class activity moderated
by student groups. In Kim’s course, attendance was mandatory and essential, but they were not
happy with the existing attendance tracking tools. They used the discussions feature as an
attendance tracking mechanism, where students were required to respond to a prompt provided at
the end of the class in a discussion format. In addition to tracking attendance, this further allowed
the students to reflect on their learnings from the class.
Participants who used online discussions as a core tool in their course provided detailed
instructions and expectations within their syllabi and on their Canvas courses. Francis provided
their students with “Discussion Board Etiquette Guidelines” as part of scaffolding students
experience and encouraging inclusive and interactive discussions. Furthermore, since Francis
used a gamification-based approach to their discussions through a custom-built tool, they
provided a detailed introduction to the tool on how to engage with it. Examples of these
instructions can be seen in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Alex laid out what the students had to turn in
as part of the weekly logs and provided an example of a “well-written weekly log.”
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 73
Figure 9

Francis provided detailed instructions on how to engage with the tool

Figure 10

Francis provided detailed instructions on how to engage with the tool

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 74
Language Instruction
Six of the 12 participants in the study were language instructors and used a variety of
tools and innovative approaches to provide their students with multiple opportunities to engage
in language learning and practice at different levels of their language education. Participants
Bobby, Charlie, and Drew worked together on a project to create short videos to allow students
to learn and practice skills in a flipped classroom format. This allowed the students to work
through the content at their own pace and in a comfortable setting. The participants explored
multiple tools with their ETTF staff consultant to find the best fit to meet their objectives and
decided on one that effectively combined ease of use for both themselves and the students. Two
other instructors approached language instruction from an experiential learning perspective. Eli
required students to visit museums as part of their class and reflect on their visits through
discussions in the target language. Lee invited guest speakers located across the world in the
target language speaking countries to interact with the students around a common theme. All six
participants explored ways to best align their pedagogical approaches with a variety of tools that
allowed them to innovatively enhance students’ learning experiences.
While all the participants who were engaged in language instruction created a syllabus in
English, their Canvas courses were primarily in the target language, providing an opportunity to
students to immerse themselves in the language learning experience. Participants Bobby, Charlie,
and Drew structured their Canvas courses in such a way that highlighted and emphasized their
flipped classroom approach. Drew’s Canvas course structure reflected the timeline and the
content of the target language-based art that the students were expected to engage with as they
progressed in the course.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 75
While a majority of participants demonstrated the knowledge of selecting a tool and
aligning it with pedagogy and content, the interviews also shed light upon some examples where
such alignment was missing or unclear, and those in which the participants decided not to use a
tool that was best aligned with the pedagogy and content. In one such instance, a participant
wanted to involve the entire class in a thought experiment and used a built-in Canvas assessment
tool to carry out the experiment. While various purpose-built polling tools exist for such a
function, the participant asserted that such tools “weren’t suiting my purposes” and had too many
features for a simple experiment and found the built-in tool to be “kind of like it's a workaround,
it ends up working well.” In another instance, one of the participants went over the course
material and structure in detail with their consultant to explore what enhancements could be
made and finally decided to work on the course design and decided against using any
technology-based tools. Even though a technology-based tool was not used in this case, such a
decision demonstrates the participant’s knowledge of the importance of alignment of the tool
with pedagogy and content.
Integration of Tools and Approaches in the Course
The second assumed knowledge influence, “Ability to integrate technology-based tools in
the course” was also assessed through a combination of interviews and the analyses of syllabi
and Canvas courses sites. As part of the interview, the participants were asked to walk through
the integration of the technology-based tools that they used with the help of the following
probes:
• How do you introduce the tool to students, if at all?
• How do you discuss these in your syllabus, if at all?
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 76
• How did the ETTF program and mentor help you, if at all, in the integration of the
tool in your class?
As highlighted in Chapter Two, the instructors’ ability to effectively integrate technology-
based tools in the course entails ensuring easy and sustained access to the tool, communicating
the importance of the tool and its usage to the students, and connecting the use of the tool to
learning objectives in the course (Bonk & Graham, 2005; Davis & Fill, 2007; Garrison &
Vaughan, 2007). Additionally, Davis and Fill (2007) placed special emphasis on the instructor’s
ability to tie the use of technology-based tools to specific course objectives and communicating
this to the students. Each of the participants made use of the Canvas LMS for their courses,
ensuring simple and sustained access of course material to the students. Furthermore, a majority
of the participants emphasized the importance of an organized Canvas course during the
interview. Alex, Glen, and Kim explained that effective organization of their Canvas courses was
one of their primary goals for participating in the ETTF program and that their consultants had
supported them in achieving this goal. Alex explained that through Canvas, they had a “living,
breathing syllabus” that could be adjusted as the class progressed. For the participants who used
advanced Canvas features, these features were made easily accessible either through the course
navigation, course modules, assignments, and sometimes in multiple ways through all of these.
Participants who used tools beyond the Canvas in-built features ensured access to these tools
from within Canvas as links or the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard, which allows
various educational technology tools to interact with each other. For instance, the
videoconferencing tool used by five of the 12 participants was made available through the LTI
connected into the Canvas LMS.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 77
Document analysis of the actual Canvas courses and syllabi provided by the participants
further demonstrated the participants’ ability to effectively integrate the technology-based tools
in their courses. While most of the course syllabi discussed the use of the tool, none of them
provided any instructions on how to contact support in case of technical issues. Although
students can easily approach the information technology team for technical support related
issues, providing such information explicitly in the syllabus can potentially save the students
time, especially since every course invariable uses some form of technology-based tool in the
form of the Canvas LMS or external tools. It is also important to note that Canvas-specific
support can also be accessed from within the LMS itself.
In addition to making the tools easily accessible, a majority of the instructors discussed
how it would be used in the course and demonstrated the use of the tool to the students. Nine out
of the 12 participants discussed the tools that will be used in the course at the beginning of the
semester. Interview participants Bobby, Charlie, and Drew accompanied their students to a
computer lab for the introduction and the first demonstration of the tool, with technical support
present in the lab in case of any issues. Jesse walked through an example of the use of the tool
before having the students pair up and use the tool themselves:
I'll walk through live, actually creating along with a very simple one. Show them how it
works and then say, Okay, now pair up in groups of two and go off and create this one
and then send it to me. And then the way it works is you can you can share one with
somebody else. And then I'll say, Okay, let's play a couple who want to volunteer, and
have them come up and explain what they were trying to do. And then they'll show off
the thing. And it takes them, you know, the simple thing they could do in 15 minutes or
less or its not a long time.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 78
Indiana invited their ETTF consultant for a quick demonstration of the tool before opening it up
to the students who “caught on very quickly.” Francis discussed the purpose of the tool and
engaged in a conversation about the importance of tool in an attempt to “engage them
authentically.” Harley projected a PowerPoint slide with explicit instructions whenever the
students needed to the use the tool to engage with class material.
Analysis of the Canvas KPMG & Google courses provided further evidence supporting
participants’ ability to effectively integrate the tools and approaches in their courses. While all
participants who provided access to their Canvas courses used a robust combination of various
Canvas features to structure their courses chronologically or thematically, some courses were
observed to be more structured than others. In Francis’ course, each module was comprised of a
video introduction followed by materials to read and analyze. The modules ended with an
assessment that the students were expected to submit to successfully complete the module. Kim
structured their Canvas course chronologically, with each module providing information on the
materials and assessments for that week. Alex’s course, centered around an internship, and took a
simpler approach to Canvas providing simply a syllabus and the assignments for the students.
Since the students were primarily engaged in work outside the classroom, this practice helped
reduce their cognitive load and engage with the course easily. In general, the participants
demonstrated good design practices in structuring their Canvas course, thereby validating the
knowledge influence regarding their ability to effectively integrate the technology-based tools
and approaches in their Canvas courses.
Connection to Learning Objectives
Almost all the participants were able to explicitly or implicitly connect the use of the
technology-based tool to their learning objectives. In the case of two participants, the tool in
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 79
question was explicitly what was being learned and therefore had specific learning objectives
associated with it within a specific module of the course. For a majority of the participants, the
use of the tool was implicit in the learning objectives. One of the language instructors explained
that they don’t see “don't see how the tools help us match the objective except that they allow for
independent learning like autonomous learning.” Another participant rationalized that “there
wasn't a specific objective that said that [use of tool], but there was a broader objective about
being able to analyze effective teamwork.” Half of the participants had a course objective that
involved discussion in the class for which they all used a technology-based discussion tool in
addition to in-class discussions.
In general, participants were able to demonstrate their knowledge of selecting appropriate
tools and aligning them to their own pedagogical approach and the content to be taught to the
students in a direct and precise manner. They further appreciated the support provided to them by
their ETTF consultants on helping them think through the use of technology. Participants were
also able to demonstrate their ability to effectively integrate the tools in their courses through the
interviews and through an examination of their course syllabi and actual Canvas courses.
Additionally, the support from their ETTF consultant was deemed to be essential to the success
of their ETTF consultants.
Motivation Findings
The motivation section of the study probed the participants on why they decided to use
the technology-based tool or approach in their teaching practice and examined influences that
encouraged the sustained use of the tool, or the lack thereof. The interview questions in this
section of the study also sought to understand the confidence of the participants in using a given
tool and how they went about troubleshooting technological issues they may have faced during
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 80
the program. Table 6 presents the motivational influences of the participants and whether these
were validated.
Table 6

Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Influence Motivation Construct Validation
Faculty need to perceive using blended
learning tools in their teaching practice as
facilitating increased student engagement or
their efficiency.
Utility Value Current Asset
Faculty should attribute their level of success
in employing at least two new blended
learning tools is due to their efforts rather
than an inherent technological ability or lack
thereof.
Attributions Continuing Need

Faculty Value for Technology-based Teaching and Learning Tools
The first assumed motivational influence, “Faculty need to perceive using BL tools in
their teaching practice as facilitating increased student engagement or their efficiency” was
assessed and validated primarily through interview questions with support from document
analysis. The specific question that supported the validation was:
• Would you please tell me about your ETTF project and discuss some of your
reasons for integrating a new tool in your teaching practice?
This was followed by context-specific probes. Participants’ Canvas courses, syllabi, and project
charters and timelines were also part of document analysis to examine their role in this influence.
The salient finding from the questions probing participants’ motivation in using a
technology-based tool or approach was the ability of the tool or the approach to add value to
their teaching practice. Chapter Two discussed how important it is that the instructor believe in
the technology-based tools’ ability to add value to their courses. This additional value can be in
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 81
the form of instructors’ added efficiency by using tools (Atkinson & Lim, 2013; Garrison &
Kanuka, 2004; Yadova et al., 2016) and by supporting the creation of an active learning
environment by engaging students more (Han & Finkelstein, 2013; Lane & Harris, 2015). All but
one participant asserted that technology was key to their course and they would not have been
able to teach the course in the same if they did not have access to or did not use technology in the
way they did. Interview participant Harley used the technology-based tool as an interactive
system for a class-wide activity that could have been done without the tool, but would have been
more time consuming or logistically difficult. All participants described at least one example in
which the tool or approach supported the students in engaging with their instructor, their peers,
or the course material. A majority of the participants also explained that they used various
features of the tools they used to improve their teaching efficiency in processes such as
communication, grading, distribution of course material, gathering student input, and in
preparing for future courses. Other factors that participants listed as motivations for using a tool
included reducing the monetary burden on students, improving their pedagogical approach,
learning a new technological skill themselves, bringing out shared values among the students,
and iteratively improving upon their courses.
Engagement
There was consensus among all the participants that the use of technology-based tools
aided in engaging the students with their peers, instructor, the course material, and, in some
cases, guest speakers and experts invited to the class to interact with the students. Alex explained
that they break their long class into smaller pieces and use different ways to engage students
using technology-based tools. Often, this included inviting guests using video conferencing and
administering quizzes to break the monotony of the class. They added that it is difficult to keep
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 82
students engaged for the entire duration of the class and they “didn’t care if it’s Oprah Winfrey
[lecturing], someone’s not going to listen.” One participant engaged a large lecture-based class
by “doing things like poll the audience and show results of a poll in a visually accessible way.”
Interview participant Francis used a gamified discussion in an online course as part of
incentivizing students to “engage more authentically” with each other. Explaining that “it
changes the dynamic between the students,” they explained that the “student to student learning
changes most dramatically” and the “student to teacher may change a little bit” resulting in peer
interaction and peer instruction. Glen, who also taught online using video conferencing tools,
asserted that it made the class “feel more organic, like an on-ground classroom to a certain
degree” to avoid the feeling of being “put off by an online course.”
Six participants were engaged in language instruction and each one of them used
technology-based tools in a different way to engage their students and support the pedagogy of
language instruction. Indiana used a social media-like discussion board to enhance their face-to-
face classroom to have students “engage with the material in a more thoughtful and reflective
manner.” Using cultural diversity as the theme, they added that,
…students led a portion of the instruction for the given day, the “cultural ambassadors”
for the week led their fellow students in a reflection of the culture they were studying.
They posted relevant videos and articles on the course-specific social discussion board.
They then led the class in a discussion around their topic, how the culture influences the
topic, and how it was similar or different from their own cultural experiences.
Lee invited chefs to the course, who were also native speakers of the target language for
an authentic conversation in an interview format around the theme of food. Lee’s students could
“interact with their classmates, but [they] wanted to go a little farther.” As preparation for the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 83
interaction, students curated questions for the interview with the native speaker and even
participated in a mock interview with the Lee as the interviewee. Bobby, Charlie, and Drew
created interactive videos for students to engage with as they practiced the target language in
their own time as part of a flipped classroom approach (Gilboy et al., 2015). Students could
access these instructional materials on their own time, practice as many times as they would like,
and proceed at their own pace. Another participant taught language using a historical perspective
and required their students to visit museums as field trips. Students were expected to create
multimedia documents during and about their visit and would use Canvas as an organization
tool, thereby creating a “mini class museum within Canvas itself.”
Analysis of documents in the form of ETTF program applications and project charters
shed further light on the importance of engagement through technology-based tools. Eight of the
12 participants made direct references to the engaging nature of technology in their teaching
practice. Lee said that students often learn about new cultures and languages from text and the
internet, “but first-hand experience or learning about the culture from the native [language
speaking] people can provide a richer learning experience.” Another language instructor, Indiana,
wanted “the students to engage with the material in a more thoughtful and reflective manner”
and they wanted to achieve this by supporting students in posting “relevant videos and articles on
the course-specific social discussion board. This would help the students in their preparation for
leading a portion of the class instruction for a given day, during which they would “lead their
fellow students in a reflection of the culture they are currently studying.” Interview participant
Eli took a similar approach in a language instruction class, in which they wanted to “give
students a platform outside of the classroom to share their work and experiences.” While Kim
was not sure about what specific tool they were going to use at the beginning of the project, they
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 84
felt that “there [were] instructional tools/technologies that [they] could incorporate to make the
class more engaging, and which could help individualize some of the concepts better for
students.”
Efficiency
A number of participants provided examples where the use of technology-based tools
made them more efficient. These examples primarily revolved around the use of Canvas as a
system that aided teaching and allowed them to reclaim time to be used for other purposes. While
all participants used Canvas for course management, communication with students, and to
administer and grade assignments, five participants placed special emphasis on the
organizational features of Canvas and explained that the ability to share course materials easily
and quickly was extremely important to them. Referring to their Canvas course as a “living,
breathing thing,” Alex said that sharing up-to-date PDFs was among the most important priorities
and they often updated their courses with fresh material on a weekly basis. Reflecting on using
Canvas as a common space for all students, Eli said,
…certainly on the days when students would present everything was already there, they
had posted it to, let's say, this discussion board. So then I didn't have to have wait for each
student to come up and hook up their own computer and get to their Google page or
whatever or their email. It was all right there, which made that day that we were sharing
much easier and even the for the final project. You know, time is always of the essence…
and if we didn't finish, I could even say, well, you guys are up next time and they
wouldn't have to worry about that they would forget to bring it or you know, it was all
there.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 85
Glen spoke highly of the analytical data available in Canvas that helped to ensure that the
students were engaging with the course material. With the help of student data on what was
accessed on Canvas and when Glen was able to monitor and potentially intervene in cases where
students may have fallen behind. Harley used the quiz feature on Canvas as a makeshift
replacement for a student polling system since the tool recommended by their consultant
“seemed too complicated” and students “are all familiar with Canvas and know where to go. It
just seem[ed] simpler.” Several participants also spoke highly of the ability to embed multimedia
content within Canvas, thereby removing the need to share links to external resources through an
alternative communication medium. For Kim’s course, attendance was crucial for the students’
success in the course and they were able to devise a way to use Canvas discussion boards as an
attendance tool for students.
In addition to the interviews, analysis of ETTF program applications and project charters
received from the participants further supported the use of technology-based tools in increasing
instructor efficiency. Documents from eight of the 12 participated referenced the use of Canvas
explicitly as a tool for efficiency in classroom management, course material management,
grading, and attendance. Francis used multiple Canvas provided features “such as quizzes,
assignments, custom learning outcomes, and third-party LTIs” to develop a gamified approach to
online discussions. This allowed them to focus on the interaction between the students more than
the creation of new features. Bobby, Charlie, and Drew utilized a flipped approach to their
language instruction to “allow [their] students to get more exposure to the language outside of
the classroom while [they] devoted class time solely to communication purposes.” Alex used
Canvas as a central hub where students “turned in all their academic assignments and I can read
and comment on everything.” Harley decided against a purpose-built engagement tool in favor of
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 86
a workaround on Canvas, primarily for efficiency with the aim of “minimizing confusion with
process and time spent struggling with technology.”
Reasons for Success or Failure
Faculty self-efficacy with technology use for pedagogical innovation is critical to their
sustained use of technology-based tools and approaches. While participant involvement in the
ETTF program through an application implies that they have confidence in the value of
technology in teaching practice, their sustained utility of technology-based tools and approaches
depend on how successful they are, what they attribute their success or failure to, and the quality
of support and guidance they receive from their ETTF consultants. Moreover, technological
proficiency in personal or professional contexts may not directly translate to the successful use of
technology in pedagogical practice (Georgina & Olson, 2008; Kopcha et al., 2016). The second
assumed motivational influence, “Faculty should attribute their level of success in employing at
least two new BL tools is due to their efforts rather than an inherent technological ability or lack
thereof” was validated primarily through interviews and an analysis of documents acquired from
the ETTF program and the participants themselves. The specific question that was central to the
assessment of this influence were:
• How would you characterize your comfort level with technology in general?
o Did you face any technological hurdles during the project?
o How did you go about solving them?
• What support did you have from the mentor in solving these?
All participants interviewed were proficient in their general use of technology,
demonstrated through their extensive use of Canvas and their participation in the video
conferencing-based interviews for the study. As discussed in Chapter Two, instructors’ previous
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 87
experiences with use of technology may impact their motivation in using the tools in their
teaching practice (Georgina & Hosford, 2009; Georgina & Olson, 2008). Eight participants
provided specific examples of technological proficiency over the course of their ETTF projects.
Alex explained that they were an early adopter of Canvas when the tool was introduced at
Northwestern and was able to significantly improve skills in using it and other instructional
technology services provided by the university. Jesse demonstrated awareness of a learning curve
and had internalized a process for “adaptation and refinement” of tools that they would want to
use in their teaching practice. With specific examples, they demonstrated a pattern of picking the
right tools and services that met the teaching objective and discarding ones that did not. Charlie
explained that they had to switch the tool they used mid-way during the semester due to the
discontinuation of the previously selected tool. While the new tool was identified with the
support of their consultant, they individually taught themselves the tool through practice, online
resources and the documentation provided by the vendor. Jesse said they approached the ETTF
program with a goal rather than a specific tool in mind and were open to learning whatever tool
met the needs of the project. Harley said that they “always approach any piece of technology
assuming that [they are] going to be able to figure it out,” demonstrating self-efficacy.
There was a general consensus among the participants that their ETTF consultants were
critical to the success of their projects. Eli “had a couple ideas … that [they] weren’t sure how to
implement those” and through the course of the ETTF program, they “worked with someone
who had that technical knowledge to help” them and achieve the “kind of project based learning
that was going to happen in this class.” A number of participants had a preliminary conversation
about the tools with their consultants and were confident in their ability to proceed without any
support. They only reached out to their consultant when they ran into an issue they could not
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 88
solve their problems with basic troubleshooting. Three participants asserted that while they could
use technology, they required continuous support from their consultant when it came to
implement the idea or the design of their projects. Four participants stated that while their
consultants were supportive in their ETTF projects, they did not necessarily feel like their
consultants were more knowledgeable in regard to that specific technology.
Analysis of documents and Canvas courses demonstrated the successful use of
technology-based tools but did not provide any insight into the process of setting those tools up.
Moreover, the process of troubleshooting by the instructors, either individually or with support
from their consultant, was not documented in a formal manner. While the use of the tools
suggests successful use of the technology, it was not possible to triangulate this specific finding.
In conclusion, participants were able to express and demonstrate their motivations behind
using technology-based tools in their teaching practice. Several participants asserted that
technology-based tools added value to their teaching experience and their students’ learning
experience. Using technology-based tools also provided a means of being efficient for several
participants. Participants also showed a willingness to troubleshoot problems by themselves and
ask for help from their consultants and other technology experts.
Organizational Findings
The organization section of the study concentrated on understanding how the ETTF
program supported the participants through interaction with the consultants and providing them
with technical support, scaffolding, and resources. The participants were also probed on the what
pedagogical and technological support resources they were aware of and had utilized outside the
framework of the program to understand the organizational setting from a departmental or
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 89
university-wide perspective. Table 7 presents the organizational influences of the participants and
whether these were validated.
Table 7

Assumed Organizational Influences
Organization Influence Category Validation
The university needs to provide adequate
time, support, and resources to assist faculty
in integrating technology-based tools into
teaching practice.
Cultural Setting Continuing Need
The university needs to encourage learning
communities within the institution to support
the integration of technology-based teaching
and learning tools in faculty teaching
practice.
Cultural Setting Current Asset

Interaction with the Consultants
While the depth of interactions with the consultants varied widely, all participants
asserted that they had a positive working relationship with their ETTF consultant. Each of the
interview questions in the protocol built around the knowledge and motivation influences probed
the participants on how the ETTF program or the consultant influence their decisions. While the
interactions between the participants and the consultants were guided by a “Working
Relationship” document (see Appendix C), individual participant-consultant paid interactions
varied widely. The importance of these interactions and the ensuing relationship between the
participants varied from long-lasting relationships in some cases to purely task-focused in others.
The frequency of the interactions with the consultant varied widely among the participants and
included scheduled face-to-face meetings, impromptu conversations with the participant
dropping by the consultant’s office, and asynchronous conversations over email.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 90
Seven of the 12 participants explained that they worked closely with their consultant on
exploring ideas for their courses and thinking about instructional approaches that would best suit
the needs of the course. Glen described the initial interactions with their consultant as
overarching conversations during which they “went through each module” and explored “areas
where they could strengthen [the course].” Charlie explicated that their consultant “helped in
finding what [tool] was available on the market” to meet the project objectives and also “helped
set up meetings with the people from the company to really ask them if it could be a long-term
solution for us and also what was in development on their side to see how much more
interactivity we could get in the future.” They further explained that they had been using a tool
earlier that was discontinued, and the consultant took this into account to ensure a long-term
solution for the project that would continue beyond the scope of the ETTF. Reflecting on the
search for the right tool to engage students in her large lecture class, Harley said that their
consultant “talked about a number of options” during the early conversations. While Harley
ended up using the quiz feature in Canvas as a workaround, it was helpful to go through the
exercise to look at different tools in depth. Another participant, Kim, said their consultant “was
super helpful in terms of bouncing ideas back and forth.”
Over the course of the project, different participants took different approaches in
interacting with their consultants. While all the participants were assigned a consultant, some of
the participants also involved other resources that were available to them through a previous
engagement or from the school or unit they were a part of. Interview participant Francis had been
discussing ideas about engaging online students with a faculty colleague, and collaborated with
both their consultant and colleague over the course of the project. They enjoyed working with the
consultant, who brought “great contacts, great resources, great ideas to the projects,” but their
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 91
interaction with the consultant was limited to “two or three times over the course [of the
project].” They elucidated that “it seemed like [the consultant] was always running, had a lot on
their plate” and therefore chose not to “harass or bother” them. Jesse also explained that they
missed out on developing a strong relationship with the consultant due to a variety of reasons
that included missing some of the meetings and that the consultant left the organization towards
the end of the program. Through the program, they started working with a colleague who was not
the ETTF consultant but a dedicated resource for the school. Another participant, Kim, only had
“a couple of meetings” with her consultant in addition to “one or two video calls,” and further
added that they “felt that [the consultant] was very accessible.”
Project charters provided by the TLT team suggested several meetings between the
participants and their consultants throughout the ETTF year. The length, frequency, and content
of these meetings were determined primarily by the participants, the details of which were
available for analysis. Participants often engaged with their consultants over email, the contents
of which were also not available for analysis.
Support from the Organization
The assumed organizational influence, “The university needs to provide adequate time,
support, and resources to assist faculty in integrating technology-based tools into teaching
practice” was assessed through an interview question, with probes, and an analysis of publicly
available institutional resources. The interview question and probes that were used to validate the
influence were:
• What kinds of support are provided by Northwestern, both technological and
pedagogical, that you are aware of?
o Which of these have you utilized?
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 92
o (Probe) What did the ETTF mentor primarily support you with?
In addition to the ETTF program, there are a number of other resources available to the
instructors at Northwestern to support pedagogical and technological needs. Interview
participants were probed on their knowledge of the existence of these resources and to what
extent they engaged with these before, during, or after their ETTF engagement. Participants
identified the Searle Center, the TLT team, the technology support team within their units, and
the digital learning website as resources.
The Searle Center for Advancing Teaching and Learning is a university-wide resource
dedicated to pedagogical support available to the whole Northwestern community. While the
ETTF program does not directly involve interactions with the Searle Center, the team that runs
the program collaborates with the center frequently. The center independently consults with
Northwestern faculty on an individual basis and runs a number of events throughout the year
around faculty development, academic support, and assessment, evaluation, and education
research. Five of the interview participants made direct references to engaging with the Searle
Center when asked about other pedagogical resources provided by the university. Harley
explained that they had participated in another program run by the Searle Center and found that
while it was helpful, it had “a number of external requirements” while put a lot of demands on
their time and contrasted this experience with the ETTF program which was relatively less time
consuming. Interview participant Jesse said that they had independently reached out to the Searle
Center when his class size changed and had attended at least five of their workshops. Kim was
aware of the Searle Center and had participated in the piloting of another tool with them but did
not engage with them much over a longer period. Francis used the resources provided by the
Searle Center as a complement to the ETTF program:
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 93
…the other thing that I really paid a lot of attention to was Searle. I went to a number of
workshops over at Searle … so I used to go to a number of a number of workshops there,
that was a great resource. … during the ETTF, I would regularly visit Searle's website,
and I would look at how they, you know, would prepare rubric models, for example,
assignment rubric models, and we ended up using the Searle model essentially for the
rubric design, as part of [the tool used in ETTF] just because it was, you know, solid I
mean they they've got a lot of really good material on this site as well.
An additional important source of ongoing pedagogical and technological support for the
interview participants was the centralized TLT team and the IT teams in each school or unit. Alex
had developed a personal relationship with a number of people in the TLT team and always “felt
just so comfortable walking over and asking them a question” and that “they're so unscary and
they never ever made me feel technically inept or anything, they just would help me figure out
how to build it.” Glen had developed a similar relationship with the TLT team and explained,
I feel very comfortable, like calling up and asking questions, if I need to. That, and I feel
like it's sort of an infinite resource because they're people I have relationships with,
though, you know, so I can just say, hey, can you help me with this? Or can you help me
with that? And they do. I don't know if that's how other people feel. But that's how I feel
about it.
Harley also engaged often with the TLT team and utilized a mix of “Canvas walk in hours” made
available by the team and scheduled consultations.
In addition to the central TLT team, different schools or units have their own dedicated
teams that provide technological support to the students, faculty and staff. Six of the 12
participants described awareness or engagements with their own unit’s dedicated teams. Francis
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 94
and Glen explained that their school had dedicated learning designers to support faculty teaching
online. In addition to the human resources, their school also had a blog offering examples,
suggestions, and recommendations around promising practices in effectively using technology in
teaching practice. Describing the ease of soliciting support from their IT support team, Eli
explained:
…there are people right in the building if you have day to day little issues in the active
classroom, so like when the light bulbs would burn out, or you have a mouse, I had a
mouse the other day that was doing really weird things like it just wasn't working. And it
turned out though, the cord was frayed. So, you know, it was just doing crazy things. And
so there's that first line of defense is that there's you can pick up the phone in the
classroom, and you can call someone.
Learning Communities
The second assumed organizational influence, “The university needs to encourage
learning communities within the institution to support the integration of technology-based
teaching and learning tools in faculty teaching practice.” was assessed through an interview
question, with probes, and an analysis of publicly available institutional resources. The interview
question and probes that were used to validate the influence were:
• What are some avenues where you are able to discuss challenges around
integrating technology into teaching in an ongoing manner, if any?
o In what ways do you participate, if at all, in the community of current and
former ETTF awardees?
o In what ways do you participate, if at all, in a department, school, or
university-wide communities to discuss these challenges?
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 95
Participants identified three examples of learning communities (LCs) at Northwestern in
which they participated. Chapter Two discussed the importance of cognitive, social, and teaching
presences provided by a community in enriching educational experiences through the CoI
framework (Garrison & Akyol, 2013). The LC that was directly connected to ETTF involved
regular meetings in which the cohort came together to discuss their projects, learnings, and
challenges. These meetings often involved a speaker in the form of an expert or an ETTF
alumnus sharing their experiences. Another example that was closely connected with the ETTF
program was TEACHx, an annual teaching and learning-themed conference organized by the
TLT team in collaboration with the Provost’s office. Finally, a number of participants also
participated in conversations with other members from their unit or department, or the university,
outside of the ETTF context.
Regular ETTF Meetings
While all ETTF fellows were required to attend the ETTF kickoff meeting and other
meetups over the course of their participation, participants explained that the interest and
participation in these meetings tapered off as the year progressed. Over the course of years in
which ETTF has run, the structure of the program has changed to accommodate the varied
participant schedules and has moved away from numerous all-cohort meetings towards smaller
group meetings. Five of the 12 participants provided examples of these meetings, which helped
them in successfully completing their projects and learning about technology-based tools and
approaches that supported them in improving their instructional approach. Describing the ETTF
meetings, Eli said that they enjoyed participating in the “demonstrations of different
possibilities” that could “incorporate in their classroom.” Alex further added that they “felt
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 96
inspired” by what was shown and discussed in these meetings. Jesse reflected on the first ETTF
meeting,
The ETTF meetings were wonderful. I met so many colleagues, you know, when I went
to my first ETTF meeting, I really didn't know anybody you know. I was just, it was like,
my first time getting to know the community there at Northwestern. And people were so
friendly. People were so inviting you know, showed me different resources.
Kim said that they weren’t aware that the ETTF meetings were required, but they did
attend “some lectures about Universal Design for Learning and these kind of concepts.” Jesse
elaborated that while they were aware of the cohort meetings, they felt the meetings were “pretty
inactive” and did not serve as “an ongoing, vibrant resource” that they expected but did develop
a relationship with some individuals within the cohort “for help with some particular thing.”
The ETTF application clearly specified that attendance to regular cohort-wide meetings
were required for all participants of the program. When the specific dates were known, these
were made available to the participants at the beginning of the program. Other dates were made
available as they were confirmed. Records of these meetings were not made available to me and
therefore I am unable to confirm the participants’ frequency of attendance to these meetings.
TEACHx
TEACHx is an annual teaching and learning focused conference organized at
Northwestern by the TLT team in collaboration with the Provost’s office towards the end of each
academic year. TEACHx began in 2016 as a showcase for ETTF projects and quickly evolved
into a larger gathering for the entire Northwestern community as an avenue to discuss
opportunities, challenges, and promising practices around teaching and learning, usually
involving technology. While presenting at TEACHx was a requirement of the early ETTF
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 97
cohorts, now they are only required to attend TEACHx, with a recommendation to make a
presentation.
Of the 12 participants interviewed, eight participants have presented at TEACHx, with
some participants presenting on multiple topics over multiple years. One additional participant
explained that they attended TEACHx but did not present. Francis said that they have attended
TEACHx every year and “it’s just been fantastic … finding out what people are doing and how.”
Kim added that they “love TEACHx” and it’s one of their “favorite conferences.”
TEACHx program details and presentation information from the past four years
supported the validation of the participants’ presentation and attendance (TEACHx, n.d.).
Other Learning Communities
In addition to ETTF meetings and TEACHx, participants also provided examples of
participating in other structured or unstructured LCs within their units or schools, across
Northwestern, and even outside the university. Alex, who ran an internship program, shared their
experiences with another internship program that later adopted the use of Canvas within their
program. They described the increased use of Canvas in this way as “more bang for the buck”
since “a ton of students now use it for these for-credit internship experiences and not just for
traditional classes.” Six of the 12 participants interviewed were language instructors in a variety
of languages and explained their participation in the “council of language instruction” as a
learning community for all language instructors. Eli explicated on her interaction with the
council and cross-pollination between the LCs that they participate in,
… council is open to anyone who's faculty or teaching faculty in languages and we meet
a couple times a quarter. And once a quarter, usually we have what's called a breakfast
meeting where people can share if, you know we're if we're teaching... And so, I did put
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 98
together a talk called curating, about, you know, this course essentially that highlighted
this course. And all the different parts of it, saying look, this was made possible by ETTF
and I encourage you all to apply. But it was also kind of looking at the pedagogy of this
course and how I designed the course and looking at it from a language perspective, a
third year university level bridge course, what kinds of source texts that I use all of that,
but the technology was certainly one aspect of that presentation. … it was TEACHx that
inspired me to even take it one step further and say I'd like all my language teaching
colleagues to do a project like this too, because I found it so fulfilling, and it's great for
our curriculum.
One participant reflected critically on their experiences and said that they felt that the unit could
do more in terms of innovating within language instruction. They added that some of the students
discussed the pedagogical approaches within different classes, but the culture within the
university did not support innovation in teaching practices.
Participants were generally appreciative of the support and resources made available by
the program and the university to support the use of technology-based tools in their teaching.
They asserted that the ETTF program was a good start and can potentially be expanded upon to
cast a wider net to include more instructors in future instances. Reflecting on additional support
that the university can provide, interview participants expressed the need for incentives,
recognition, and developing a culture of experimentation in teaching across the university.
Themes
In addition to validating the assumed influences, interviews and document analyses also
provided insight into themes that transcended the KMO paradigms. While the interview and
document analysis protocols primarily included items focused on validating the assumed
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 99
influences, responses from the participants shed light on themes that were not originally
assumed. The two themes that resonated across the participant group revolved around the use of
technology to reduce the monetary cost of education for students and to engage in self-directed
learning to improve their own teaching practices.
Monetary Cost to Students
The increasing cost of higher education participation and the inequity resulting from such
high costs, and the benefits derived from participation in tertiary education is well documented
(Abel & Deitz, 2014; Clotfelter, 2014; Webber, 2016). Instructional materials, such as textbooks
and case packets, represent a substantial share of the cost of higher education, especially in the
United States (Hilton et al., 2014). More than half the students opt to not buy textbooks in any
given semester, which can cost about $1,200 per year (Open Textbook Alliance, n.d.; Ozdemir &
Hendricks, 2017). At Northwestern, students are expected to budget more than $1600 per year
for books and supplies (Northwestern University, n.d.-a).
Participants in the study discussed reducing the monetary costs for students as a
motivation behind their use of technology-based tools and approaches. Five participants
defended the use of technology-based tools as crucial in supporting students by making resources
available to them at no cost. While Bobby, Charlie, Drew, and Eli used their tools to supplement
readings with the end goal of eliminating the need for students to buy textbooks, Alex had
succeeded in making the course textbook free and was proud of having achieved that. Explaining
that they “tried very hard to make [their] classes cost no money,” Alex made resources available
to the students in the form annotated PDF. This further allowed them to curate and update
resources every time they taught the class. Charlie explained that they hoped their ETTF project
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 100
would result in a “great quality tools for students” and that “they wouldn’t have to pay $180 to
get a book every quarter.”
Open Educational Resources (OER) are free, easily available and distributable
instructional materials that instructors can use in lieu of traditional expensive textbooks to help
reduce the monetary burden on students. Open source textbooks are “faculty-written, peer
reviewed textbooks that are published under an open license” and are increasingly preferred by
both faculty and students due to their accessibility, customizability, and high quality (Martin et
al., 2017; Open Textbook Alliance, n.d.; Ozdemir & Hendricks, 2017). From an institutional
perspective, Northwestern supports the use of OER by its instructors and even provides
incentives to instructors in the form of grants under the Affordable Instructional Resources (AIR)
program (Northwestern University, n.d.-a). While none of the participants made a direct
reference to the AIR grant at Northwestern, scanning interviews with the TLT team suggested an
increased focus on OER for future cohorts in partnership with the library.
Self-Directed Learning
Another theme emerged from the interviews and document analyses in the form of
participant’s practice of engaging in self-directed learning (SDL). A central paradigm in
andragogy, SDL is the centered around an individual’s ability in exercising “independence in
deciding what is worthwhile to learn and how to approach the learning task, regardless of
entering competencies and contextual contingencies” (Garrison, 1997, p. 18). In the context of
the study, a significant motivation behind instructors’ use of technology-based tools and
approaches in their teaching was to improve their own teaching practices through SDL.
While the ETTF program does involve regular check-ins with consultants and cohort-
wide meetings, participants were expected to engage in a significant amount SDL. While
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 101
participants did not use the terms “self-directed learning” or “SDL” in their responses, all
participants demonstrated their use of SDL principles in learning new pedagogical approaches
and familiarizing themselves with new technologies. Jesse used ETTF as an opportunity to
themselves learn about the voice-based assistants, the tool they used in teaching. Describing their
motivations behind participating in the ETTF program, Francis reflected,
I've always, you know, liked to approach, you know, technology with a very open mind.
Also, … I'm always looking for different ways to approach online learning, I think that,
you know, that there's much that we need to learn much that we need to discover much
that we need to, you know, to try out and, and so this was just a logical step for me to
approach this.
Glen, who taught online, said,
I was really interested in learning any sort of new methods or new ways of doing things
online that I might not have learned about. And second of all, teaching is my focus as far
as like, I get really interested in talking about teaching and learning about teaching and
finding new ways to do things. So anytime something presents itself where I can learn
more about pedagogy, I'll do it I'll usually apply for it.
As students and instructors engage with more technology-based tools in their learning
and teaching experiences, the ability to quickly and independently learn the features of the tool is
critical to success. While institutions and service providers can provide technical support, the
integration of the tool in the learning environment is primarily up to the instructor.
Conclusion
This chapter presented findings from the interviews and document analysis carried out as
part of the study. These findings validated the assumed KMO influences identified in Chapter
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 102
Two. In addition to the assumed influences, two themes were identified that emerged from the
data and transcended the KMO influences. Table 8 provides an overarching list of the assumed
KMO influences and their validation status.
Table 8

Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences
Influence Category Validation
Knowledge of how to select and align
technology-based tools with pedagogy and
content.
Knowledge –
Conceptual
Continuing Need
Ability to integrate technology-based tools in
the course.
Knowledge –
Procedural
Current Asset
Faculty need to perceive using blended
learning tools in their teaching practice as
facilitating increased student engagement or
their efficiency.
Motivation –
Utility Value
Current Asset
Faculty should attribute their level of success in
employing at least two new blended learning
tools is due to their efforts rather than an
inherent technological ability or lack thereof.
Motivation –
Attributions
Continuing Need
The university needs to provide adequate time,
support, and resources to assist faculty in
integrating technology-based tools into
teaching practice.
Organizational –
Cultural Setting
Continuing Need
The university needs to encourage learning
communities within the institution to support
the integration of technology-based teaching
and learning tools in faculty teaching practice.
Organizational –
Cultural Setting
Current Asset

Chapter Five will focus on the recommendations. implementation plans, and evaluation
plans to support Northwestern University’s mission of excellence in teaching and how
technology-based tools can play a part in achieving the mission.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 103
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the KMO influences affecting faculty
integration of technology-based teaching and learning tools in their teaching practice through the
ETTF program at Northwestern University. Chapter One introduced the problem of practice and
situated the study with the following research questions:
1. What are the instructors’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
achieving their goal of employing at least two technology-based teaching and learning
tools in their teaching practice?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Chapter Two explored existing literature focused on the topics of technology use for
teaching and educational development practices, and identified assumed KMO influences to be
studied. Chapter Three detailed the methodology and research plan guiding the study. Chapter
Four presented the findings analyzed through interviews and an analysis of documents.
The purpose of this chapter is to recommend practices that Northwestern University can
implement to support excellence in teaching, one of the key pillars of its mission. These practices
are synthesized from a combination of the findings from the study, and an analysis of promising
practices in other similar organizations. The chapter also provides an implementation plan for
these practices, followed by an evaluation plan modeled on Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s
framework (2006). The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the COVID-19 pandemic has
highlighted the use of technological tools for teaching and make suggestions for future research
in the domain.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 104
Discussion of Findings
Of the six assumed influences posited by the literature review in the domains of KMO
influences, three influences were validated as current assets, and three were validated as
continuing needs. Validation of an influence as a continuing need suggests a higher need for
intervention as compared to the low need for intervention for influences validated as a current
asset. Additionally, two themes were identified from the interviews and document analysis that
transcended the KMO influences.
In the knowledge domain, participants’ ability to select and align technology-based tools
with their content and pedagogy was studied, along with their skills in integrating the tools in
their courses. While participants demonstrated thoughtfulness in selecting and using tools in their
courses, the alignment with pedagogical theory was ambiguous. With the support of their ETTC
consultants, participants were able to enhance their students’ learning experiences through
practices such as experiential learning and online discussions through effective use of the LMS
and associated technology-based tools. While all courses had explicit learning objectives, the
connections between these learning objectives and the technology-based tools were implicit at
best. Keeping in mind that this study interviewed past participants in the program, who can be
considered to be self-selecting and early adopters, support for large-scale adoption of
technology-based tools for other faculty at the university will need to be intentional, structured,
and systematic.
From a motivational perspective, the study sought to understand how much value
technology-based tools added to the participants’ teaching practice and the self-efficacy of the
participants in using these tools. All but one participant explained that their courses would not be
the same without the technology-based tools that they used. The use of these tools made
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 105
participants more efficient and increased engagement between the instructor and the students,
within the students, and between the students and the content being taught. While all participants
demonstrated general proficiency with technology, they explained that interactions with the
ETTF consultants were crucial to their success in the program, and some of them would have
preferred even more engagement with their consultants than what the program provided.
Problem solving with technology involved participants finding solutions on their own through
searching the internet, exchanges with the consultants, and through other school, department, and
university-provided resources.
From an organizational perspective, all participants demonstrated knowledge of the
school, department, and university-provided pedagogical and technological resources, such as
the Searle Center for Advancing Learning and Teaching, school-specific information technology
teams, and other LCs. While all participants were aware of the existence of these resources, only
a few of them engaged proactively with these resources. Participants also highlighted the
importance of time required in redesigning courses and incorporating technology in their
teaching, and explained that prioritizing learning and using technology-based tools was not
trivial.
In addition to the findings aligned with the KMO influences, participants also highlighted
how technology-based tools supported reducing the monetary burden on students and the role of
technology in improving their own teaching practice through SDL. Several participants
explained that sharing freely available resources through the LMS helped students save textbook
costs and allowed participants to keep their materials current. Participation in the ETTF program
also allowed several participants to engage in SDL as they researched the best technology-based
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 106
tools for their courses and studied resources that would help them effectively use these tools in
their teaching practice.
Recommended Practices and Implementation Plan
Following the analysis of key findings and further literature review on faculty
development programs and technology integration in teaching practice, several recommendations
are proposed that can be grouped into three categories. The first category addresses
recommendations to strengthen the structure within the ETTF program. Next, recommendations
that address structure around the ETTF program are proposed. Finally, recommendations focused
on incentives and recognition to increase participation and success in the program are offered.
Each recommended practice is accompanied by a potential implementation plan and timeline that
the organization can implement. Table 9 provides an overview of the validated KMO influences
along with the aligned recommended practice.
Table 9

Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences with aligned recommended practice
Influence Category Validation Aligned
Recommended
Practice
Knowledge of how to select and
align technology-based tools with
pedagogy and content.
Knowledge –
Conceptual
Continuing Need Structure in the
program

Structure around
the program
Ability to integrate technology-
based tools in the course.
Knowledge –
Procedural
Current Asset Structure in the
program

Structure around
the program
Faculty need to perceive using
blended learning tools in their
teaching practice as facilitating
increased student engagement or
their efficiency.
Motivation –
Utility Value
Current Asset Structure in the
program

Structure around
the program
Faculty should attribute their level
of success in employing at least two
Motivation –
Attributions
Continuing Need Structure in the
program
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 107
new blended learning tools is due to
their efforts rather than an inherent
technological ability or lack thereof.

Incentives and
Recognition
The university needs to provide
adequate time, support, and
resources to assist faculty in
integrating technology-based tools
into teaching practice.
Organizational –
Cultural Setting
Continuing Need Structure around
the program

Incentives and
Recognition
The university needs to encourage
learning communities within the
institution to support the integration
of technology-based teaching and
learning tools in faculty teaching
practice.
Organizational –
Cultural Setting
Current Asset Structure around
the program

Incentives and
Recognition

Structure in the Program
The ETTF program accepts a diverse group of instructors each academic year. The
diversity is observed in the teaching experience, technological understanding, pedagogical
understanding, and the objectives of the instructors. In order to increase the chances of each
project’s success, more structure in the program is required to better understand and incorporate
the diversity of the individual members in each cohort. This structure can be achieved by
revisiting the current practices around the grouping of instructors in the program, standardization
of processes in the program while keeping individual consultations personalized, and by
increasing scaffolding and accountability through better enforcement of individual project
charters.
Grouping
An effective way to improve the chance of success in the program is to divide the cohort
into smaller groups based on individual instructors’ prior knowledge, technological expertise
levels, or even the specific tool they are looking to implement in their projects. Grouping within
the program will provide both cohort-based and topic-based benefits (Lee, 2010). Furthermore,
such groups can take advantage of peer-learning within the groups and benefit from collegiality
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 108
and community, and overcoming “pedagogical solitude” (Ellis & Ortquist-Ahrens, 2010;
Shulman, 1986).
The implementation of this recommendation would begin when the applications are
received by the ETTF program committee. Once the ETTF applications are evaluated and
successful applications are invited to participate in the program, the program committee can
divide the applications by a common theme, technology or approach, or the technical expertise of
the instructors. Each of these groups can be assigned to a specific consultant who can then plan
out the upcoming year in the ETTF journey. This will also allow a standardized approach across
groups while allowing for personalized interactions between the consultant and the instructors.
Standardization
The ETTF program can also benefit from increased standardization of processes among
the consultants while keeping the personalized interactions between the instructor and the
consultants intact. Interviews with the participants revealed several differences across consultants
in the frequency of consultations, the context of the meetings, and the engagement between the
instructor and the consultant over the program. This standardization could include practices such
as regular check-ins at the beginning of the month or communication going out at the beginning
of the week. Standardizing process across the group on consultants will provide a consistent
experience to the instructors and support the continuity of the program in case of a disruption.
Two standard practices that the program can implement in the immediate term are (a) starting the
consultation process with pedagogical alignment between the instructors and the consultants and
(b) including the Searle Centre for Advancing Teaching and Learning, Northwestern’s teaching
and learning center, in early consultations. The recommendation of standardizing processes does
not suggest adopting a standardized way to engage in the consultation, which should be avoided
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 109
as the focus should be on the instructor’s needs and expectations and not on that of the
consultant’s (Stanley et al., 1997).
Project Charters
Project charters are documents that outline the plan, implementation details, and the
timeline of the projects in the ETTF program (see Appendices D and E for the last two
iterations). While each instructor is required to submit a project charter as part of their
application into the program, these charters aren’t always revisited as discovered during the
document analysis in the study. These charters can be given more importance in future iterations
by projecting them as the working contracts between the instructor and the consultant. In
addition to increasing accountability, the charters can also serve as an essential tool for
scaffolding throughout the program.
From an implementation perspective, the project charter included in the ETTF application
can be reviewed by each instructor-consultant pair in the first one-on-one meeting, and this will
become the working agreement for the remainder of the project. The consultant should hold the
instructor accountable for the charter and the timeline. Instructors and consultants should meet
one-on-one at least once a month for consultations and check-ins, with the possibility of
increased frequency depending on the respective schedules. The consultant group should also
meet as a group once a month to discuss the progress of their instructors and support each other.

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 110
Table 10

Implementation plan for creating structure in the program
Recommended
Practice
Specific
Recommendation
Timeframe (relative
within the year of ETTF)
Action Steps
Structure in the
program
Grouping of
instructors by prior
knowledge,
technological
ability, or theme.
As part of the
application evaluations.
Program Committee decides on
groups for a given year.
After acceptance
decisions are made and
before decisions are
communicated.
Consultants are surveyed and
assigned to specific groups.
Standardization of
consulting
processes
Yearly, prior to the
beginning of the cohort.
Program Committee decides on
frequency, modality, and group-
wide communication standards.
Soon after the first
meeting between
instructor and
consultant.
Required consultation with the
Searle Center for Advancing
Learning and Teaching (example
standard process)
Focused
implementation of
Project Charter
Part of the application
process
Applicants submit proposed
Project Charter as part of the
application
First individual meeting
between the consultant
and the instructor.
Accepted instructors and assigned
consultant review Project Charter.
Throughout the program.
Project Charter is used as the
working agreement for the year
and serves as a scaffolding and
accountability instrument.

Structure Around the Program
Educational development within an institution can and should take a variety of forms,
including workshops, individual consultations, institutes, classroom observations, and symposia
or conferences (Ellis & Ortquist-Ahrens, 2010; Lee, 2010). While instructors at Northwestern
have access to several avenues for educational development, as understood from the interviews,
these opportunities are scattered across the university. With teaching as a critical part of the
mission, educational development at the university must be a strategic endeavor. A strategic plan
focused on educational development can bring together different avenues across the university.
The ETTF program, a part of the strategic plan, will also need a mission statement to better focus
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 111
its activities. The development of such a plan will require forging partnerships across the
university focused on educational development. The strategic plan and the partnerships can result
in a structured educational development program at Northwestern that incorporates the efforts of
the individual schools and departments and places the ETTF program as a mid-tier opportunity
for instructors to improve their efficacy of technology use in teaching.
Strategic Planning
Strategic planning is a critical management tool employed by universities for long-term
planning. Northwestern University’s mission statement emphasizes teaching, and therefore it is
imperative that educational development be a vital part of the university’s culture. Programs such
as ETTF that focus on digital pedagogy and the promotion of technology use in education are
critical to educational development programs. The TLT team, the administrative owners of the
ETTF program, will also benefit from engaging in a smaller scale strategic planning of how their
efforts support the larger university-wide educational development. The ETTF program would
benefit from a mission statement and specific targets to be met over the short, medium, and
longer terms. To truly develop a holistic plan, the TLT team will also need to reengage their
current partners and build new partnerships across the university.
Partnerships Across the University
Educational development programs need to engage with several partners across the
university to be successful. These partnerships include centralized administrative units focused
on academics, such as the office of the provost and the library, individual schools and
departments, and university-wide departments such as marketing, facilities, and technology
services. At Northwestern, the TLT team has engaged regularly with the Provost’s office and the
Searle Center for its programming. While the partnerships with the individual schools and
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 112
departments are not focused on programming, the TLT team serves as a centralized avenue for
communications between professionals engaged in instructional design and technology across
the different schools. A strategic initiative focused on educational development will require a
number of these partnerships to be activated and result in holistic programming that will utilize
resources across the university.
The ETTF program can benefit from numerous other resources available at Northwestern.
This may include partnerships and consultations with the Searle Center for Advancing Learning
& Teaching (Searle Center), the office of the provost, and individual schools and units.
Structured opportunities for instructors to consult with the Searle Center, as a formal component
of the ETTF program, will allow the projects to be more pedagogically grounded and student-
centered. Such an enhancement in the ETTF program also brings in the central pedagogical
resource of the university as a stakeholder in the project. Additionally, partnerships with the
Provost’s office or individual school administrations can provide a path for promising projects to
be continued beyond the academic year and improved upon with additional incentives such as
funding, course reduction, research publications, and potential recognition.
Multi-Tiered Programming
The ETTF program will benefit greatly from a more focused positioning within the
broader educational development programming across Northwestern. The program currently
accepts applications from all instructors, which results is a broad spectrum of instructor abilities,
motivations, and resources. Interviews in the study highlighted a large variance in technological
ability and efficacy, pedagogical grounding, and aspirations within instructors engaged in the
program. Programming around educational development could be increased both in the number
of opportunities available and the level of engagement in the individual programs. One-off
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 113
workshops, which are already provided both by the TLT team and individual schools, could be
provided as part of larger educational programming at the university. The ETTF program would
serve as a mid-tier, year-long opportunity. More involved, multi-year projects could be provided
for those interested in a more involved program with a specific focus. As such, the program will
benefit from a tighter set of applicants filtered from a larger pool. A multi-tiered program is also
better positioned to support instructors across different stages of their careers (Austin, 2010).
From an implementation perspective, programming aimed at a wider audience can take
the form of regular workshops delivered centrally by the TLT team or individual schools. The
ETTF program can require completion of such programming as a pre-requisite to applying for
the program. Existing programming such as the recently instituted Advanced Digital Learning
Certificate Series would make for an ideal candidate as a steppingstone to a structured program
such as the ETTF (Digital Learning, n.d.). In such workshops or workshop series, which would
be open to all instructors regardless of their prior experience or technological ability, instructors
can move at their own pace depending on their schedules, motivations, and aspirations. The
ETTF program could be positioned as requiring more time and resource commitment for
instructors than individual workshops, but less than a higher tiered funded grant that requires or
looks favorably upon participation in the ETTF.
One of the ways for instructors to expand on their ETTF projects may be to apply for
funding through the Provost’s office or their individual schools. The previously active Provost’s
Digital Learning Fellowship, a funded fellowship opportunity, can be reviewed and resuscitated
to advance excellence in digital learning at Northwestern in partnership with the TLT team and
individual schools and departments. Funding sources will need to be identified from the TLT
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 114
office, the Provost’s office, individual schools, or a combination of these. Over the longer term,
external funding agencies can also be identified to apply for grants for promising projects.
Table 11

Recommended practices for enhancing structure around the program
Recommended
Practice
Specific
Recommendation
Timeframe Action Steps
Structure
around the
program
Develop a
strategic plan
focused on
educational
development
Academic Year 2021-22
TLT develops a mission statement
and strategic plan around the ETTF
program
Senior administration develops an
educational development strategic
plan
Revisit existing
partnerships and
create new
partnerships
During and after the
strategic planning
process
TLT team and Searle Center
engage with individual school,
departments and central units at the
organization to collaborate on
building educational development
programming
Design a multi-
tiered education
development
program
Academic Year 2021-22
Design and Develop open
workshop series for all instructors
regardless of prior experience or
technological ability
Redesign ETTF to focus on
projects with instructors who have
consistently participated on
introductory workshop series or
those with prior experience
Revisit the Provost’s Digital
Learning Fellowship as a potential
continuation program to promising
projects from the ETTF

Incentives and Recognition
Incentives and recognition are powerful ways to increase participation and the quality of
the ETTF projects. While there is not a monetary incentive to participate in the ETTF, non-
monetary incentives such as the ability to publish the work in a journal can be promoted within
the cohorts. More substantial incentives, such as grants or reduced course loads, can be provided
for more involved projects graduating from the ETTF. Formal public recognition of the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 115
participants may also increase the motivation of the participants. Completion of the program can
be recognized in the form of a physical or digital certification that will become a part of the
instructor’s teaching record and can be used as part of evaluations, reappointments, and
promotions (Austin, 2010). The year-end TEACHx summit, where several ETTF fellows
disseminate their project experiences, provides an opportunity for the participants to be
recognized by a senior leader in a purposeful session carved out as part of the program.
Incentives such as the ability to publish a study as part of the ETTF can be advertised in
promotional material and information sessions. Further incentives can be identified as part of the
strategic plan development around educational development at the university. The ability to
include the completion of the program can serve as both incentive and recognition for instructors
across different stages of their careers.
Recognition of successful completion of projects can be implemented through the
issuance of digital credentials and acknowledging the participants at year-end events, such as the
annual TEACHx conference (TEACHx, n.d.). The ETTF committee will need to identify a
service provider to issue physical certificates and digital credentials to successfully completed
projects. This recognition can become a part of the instructor’s record of excellence in teaching
and can be a part of the evaluation and promotion dossiers. The same platform can also be used
to recognize the participation of faculty in other educational development programs such as the
Advanced Digital Learning Certificate (Digital Learning, n.d.). Since the annual TEACHx
conference is also organized by the TLT team, it can invite the Provost or another senior
academic officer to recognize the successfully completed ETTF projects as part of the TEACHx
program. The TEACHx program can also include a session dedicated to the discussion of the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 116
previous year’s ETTF projects allowing participants to reflect on their journey and be recognized
by the invited academic officer.
Table 12

Recommended practices for incentivizing and recognizing ETTF participation
Recommended
Practice
Specific
Recommendation
Timeframe Action Steps
Incentivize and
Recognize
ETTF
participation
Incentives
Throughout the ETTF
program and immediately
after it
Instructor and consultant design a
study to accompany the ETTF
program leading to a publication
of the work done in the project.
After the ETTF program
TLT team, Provost’s office and
individual schools partner to
provide additional incentives such
as course load reduction and
monetary grants to promising
ETTF projects
During instructors’
performance evaluation
Instructor adds the ETTF program
to their dossier as part of their
application for reappointment or
promotion
Recognition

During TEACHx
The Provost or a senior academic
officer formally recognizes ETTF
participants

Evaluation Plan
Evaluation is a critical process in determining the effectiveness of plans, programs, or
interventions. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006) provide a comprehensive framework to evaluate
training programs. While initially designed to evaluate corporate training programs, the
framework is transferable to many other contexts and will form the primary evaluation
framework for the practices recommended in this study. The framework is centered around four
dimensions of evaluation—Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results—representing a sequential
method of evaluating with increasing complexity. Since the ETTF program is relatively new and
has not been evaluated in the past, this study can serve as a baseline in future evaluations of the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 117
program. The evaluation plan suggests methods to evaluate each recommended practice across
all four levels, followed by an overview of the plan in Table 13.
Level 1: Reaction
The first level of evaluation in Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s framework (2006) measures
the immediate reaction of participants in a program, also a measure of customer satisfaction. A
positive reaction to a program increases the likelihood of participants’ motivation to learn. In the
context of the study, a positive reaction to individual consultations is critical to the success of the
program. An enhanced structure within the program is expected to provide for a more consistent
experience to instructors, thereby contributing to a positive reaction. In creating structure around
the program, the different levels of programming will provide an opportunity for workshop
leaders to assess the reaction of participants. A positive reaction to the early programs increases
the likelihood of instructors to engage with future workshops and potentially future levels of
educational development available to them. Finally, reaction to incentives and recognition of
participants can be measured during information sessions and TEACHx, respectively.
Level 2: Learning
The second level in Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s framework (2006) measures learning
through changes in attitude, knowledge, and skill. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006) define
learning as “the extent to which participants change attitudes, improve knowledge, and/or
increase skill” (p. 22) as a result of a program or intervention. While the reaction is measured
immediately after a program, learning is measured after the participants have had a chance to
reflect and apply the outcomes from the program. In the ETTF program, learning can be
described as the instructors’ increase in knowledge and skills required to use the technological
tools they have acquired in their contexts. This may include actions such as building out the rest
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 118
of the course independently after a course design consultation or running a class with an
engagement tool after practicing the usage with the consultant. Evaluating learning for the
structure around the program would result in instructors’ ability to understand how the different
options available to them support their educational development journey through different levels
of programming and by taking advantage of partnerships developed by the TLT team. Learning
can also be assessed by a change in instructors’ attitudes through incentives and recognition built
around the program.
Level 3: Behavior
The third level of evaluation measures the extent to which participants transfer learning
to their contexts through sustained behavior. More complex than learning, the behavior should be
measured after the participants have had time to consistently demonstrate their learning over
time or in multiple contexts. In the context of this study, behavior can be measured by
instructors’ ability to apply the knowledge and skills gained in the program in different courses
and contexts after the completion of the program. A well-structured program will provide the
instructors’’ with various tools allowing them to bring about a behavioral change in their
teaching practice. With a good structure around the ETTF program, instructors’ participation in
other programs and partnerships continuing their educational development journey will also
signify a behavioral change. Successful incentives will result in a behavioral change when they
succeed in drawing instructors to the program being incentivized. Instructors’ actual usage of
digital credentials as part of their evaluation and promotion dossiers and job applications will
also demonstrate a behavioral change.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 119
Level 4: Results
The most important dimension of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) framework
evaluates the impact that the program or intervention has on the participants’ work or practice.
Results are the most difficult to measure as several different factors, including those outside the
context of the program or intervention, may lead to a significant impact on the participants’
work. The most significant indication of results from the ETTF program will be an enhancement
in students’ learning experience as a result of improved teaching practice through technology.
Grouping of instructors, standardization in processes, and successful implementation of the
project charter should result in instructors’ ability to use technology in their teaching practice
effectively. The structure around the ETTF program will also contribute to instructors’ increased
efficacy in using technological tools through sustained participation in increasing levels of
education development. Successful use of incentives and recognition will finally result in
instructors’ motivation to engage with education development with the final goal of impacting
students’ learning experience.
Table 13

Overview of the Evaluation Plan
Recommended
Practice
Level 1:
Reaction
Level 2: Learning Level 3: Behavior Level 4: Results
Build more structure
in the ETTF
program through
grouping
participants,
standardizing
processes, and
enforcing the Project
Charter
Verbal reactions
at the end of
each group
meeting and
consultation

Observation of
group
discussions
Regular check-in
by the consultant

Class observation
Survey or
interview one year
after the
completion of the
program

Future
consultations
outside the
program

Class observation
Student
evaluations

Class
Observation

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 120
Enhance the
structure around the
ETTF program by
developing a
strategic plan for
educational
development,
creating multi-tiered
programming, and
engaging in
university-wide
partnerships
Reactions sheets
for pre-ETTF
workshops
Survey to assess
potential
participation
Returning
participants in
different programs

Engagement data
from partners
Participation
across all
educational
development
programs
Providing incentives
for participation and
recognizing the
completion of the
program
Reaction sheets
at the end of
information
sessions

Session
evaluation at the
end of TEACHx
session
Repeat
participation in
educational
development
programs

Acceptance and
usage of digital
credentials
Questions in the
pre-program
survey focused on
incentives

Use of digital
credentials in
evaluation dossier
Career growth

Recognition of
participants’
teaching

COVID-19
During the course of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic had forced most educational
institutions to transition to remote teaching due to global school and university closures.
Instructors and students all over the world, including those at Northwestern University, were
forced to rapidly transition to technology-based tools to continue their education. Due to lack of
time and resources, this rapid transition took the shape of replicating face-to-face courses to an
online environment, and has resulted in disengagement, fatigue, and lack of satisfaction from
both instructors and students (Gardner, 2020; Mcmurtrie, 2020a, 2020b). While several
universities, associations, publications, and individuals have quickly provided resources to
support instructors and students through these difficult times, the pandemic has put a spotlight on
technology use in teaching (ACUE, n.d.; Darby, 2020; Supiano, 2020).
While the COVID-19 pandemic is a crisis, it is also an opportunity for instructors to
rethink their pedagogical practices going forward. The use of technology in teaching provides
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 121
value by allowing instructors and students to engage in teaching and learning practices that are
simply unavailable in the traditional face-to-face classroom. While the use of tools such as the
LMS is increasing, this crisis provides an opportunity for instructors to rethinking the blend of
technology use in their teaching practice (Bonk & Graham, 2005). Asynchronous teaching
practices allow for deeper learning, and technology-based tools allow for an increased focus on
asynchronous learning while reserving the precious face-to-face time for shared meaning making
(Bruff, 2019; Dennen, 2013; Stanford, 2020). In light of this opportunity, the practices
recommended in this study provide one potential pathway for institutions to support their
instructors through thoughtful educational development.
Suggestions for Future Research
As the use of technology becomes more ubiquitous in teaching and learning practices,
institutions should explore meaningful opportunities for instructors to engage in educational
development. While the use of technology is specific domains is well documented, further
research could explore ways in how these practices can be scaled to an institutional level
effectively. The role of instructional designers and technologists in these contexts should also be
studied to provide institutions clear paths for implementation. Longitudinal studies focusing on
the development of programs within institutions and comparative studies on the efficacy of
structured educational development programs across institutions will support effective
programming for institutions.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of the ETTF program at
Northwestern University. The case-study approach explored the KMO influences on instructors’
use of technology in their teaching practice. Through interviews and document analyses, the
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 122
KMO influences were validated, and practices were recommended to further strengthen the
educational development programming at Northwestern.
With an increasing number of students participating in tertiary education, technology is
key to make higher education more available and accessible to all those who want to pursue it. It
is imperative that instructors understand the importance of technology in this pursuit and are
provided with the right training to make effective use of the various affordances of various
technological tools. The increasing rise in online education and recent global events such as the
COVID-1 9 pandemic has demonstrated that while technology is ubiquitously available, its
effective use requires intentionality and pedagogical training. Through effective educational
development and structured support, instructors can engage in intentional, pedagogically driven,
and systematic use of technology in their teaching practice.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 123
References
Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2014). Do the benefits of college still outweigh the costs? (SSRN
Scholarly Paper ID 2477864). Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2477864
ACUE. (n.d.). Coronavirus updates. ACUE Coronavirus Response Page. Retrieved May 1, 2020,
from https://acue.org/coronavirus/
Adekola, J., Dale, V. H. M., & Gardiner, K. (2017). Development of an institutional framework
to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. Research in
Learning Technology, 25(0). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1973
Aitken, N. D., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Academic leaders and faculty developers: creating an
institutional culture that values teaching. To Improve the Academy, 13(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1994.tb00257.x
Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M.,
Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019
Higher Education Edition (p. 44).
Altbach, P. G. (2009). One-third of the globe: The future of higher education in China and India.
PROSPECTS, 39(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9106-1
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Mayer, R. E.
(2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching (1st
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2010). Attribution Theory.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12sakQcFXcR6iQV2M6kY2yZ4DcXsmvA18/view
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 124
Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2012). History and heritage in distance education. Journal of
Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 16(2), 1–10.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete edition).
Pearson.
Assaf Alfadly, A. (2013). The efficiency of the “learning management system (LMS)” in AOU,
Kuwait, as a communication tool in an E-learning system. International Journal of
Educational Management, 27(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297577
Atkinson, D., & Lim, S. (2013). Improving assessment processes in higher education: Student
and teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of a rubric embedded in a LMS. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/148111/
Austin, A. E. (2010). Supporting faculty members across their careers. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L.
Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 363-378). Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education:
Foundations for success (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J.
(2018). 2018 NMC horizon report: Higher education edition. EDUCAUSE.
https://library.educause.edu/resources/2018/8/2018-nmc-horizon-report
Berrett, D. (2016, February 29). Instructional design. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Instructional-Design/235425
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 125
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs (1st ed.). Pfeiffer.
Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on
instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and
Higher Education, 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001
Brown, M. K., Ralston, P. A. S., Baumgartner, K. B., & Schreck, M. A. (2015). Creating a
supportive teaching culture in the research university context: Strategic partnering and
interdisciplinary collaboration between a teaching center and academic units. To Improve
the Academy, 34(1–2), 234–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20018
Bruff, D. (2019). Intentional tech: Principles to guide the use of educational technology in
college teaching (1st ed.). West Virginia University Press.
Brunner, D. L. (2006). The potential of the hybrid course vis-à-vis online and traditional courses.
Teaching Theology & Religion, 9(4), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9647.2006.00288.x
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford university press.
Cagle, J. A. B., & Hornik, S. (2001). Faculty development and educational technology: Xavier
University-General Electric partnership encourages instructional technology in the
classroom. T H E Journal, 29(3), 92.
Calderon, O., Ginsberg, A. P., & Ciabocchi, L. (2012). Multidimensional assessment of pilot
blended learning programs: maximizing program effectiveness based on student and
faculty feedback. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 23–37.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 126
Casey, D. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education
through Technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0135-
z
Christensen, C. M. (2014, April 14). The innovative university. Retrieved from
https://livestream.com/colgateuniversity/innovationdisruption
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of
higher education from the inside out. John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Clotfelter, C. T. (2014). Buying the best: Cost Escalation in elite higher education. Princeton
University Press.
CNDLS. (n.d.). CNDLS: About the center. Retrieved May 28, 2019, from
https://cndls.georgetown.edu/about/
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 2004(97), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.129
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Glowatz, M., & Al, E. (2020). COVID-19: 20
countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied
Teaching and Learning (JALT), 3(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. SAGE.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 127
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(3rd ed.). SAGE.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. Teachers
College Press.
Daly, E. (2010). Behaviorism.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12yh3Szc4Bdu1jbGFh2Dv0jvKE41HQ5A_/view
Darby, F. (2020, March 24). How to recover the joy of teaching after an online pivot. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Recover-the-
Joy-of/248314
Davis, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended learning in a university’s teaching culture:
Experiences and reflections. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 817–828.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00756.x
Dede, C., Richards, J., & Saxberg, B. (Eds.). (2018). Learning engineering for online education:
Theoretical contexts and design-based examples. Routledge.
Dennen, V. P. (2013). Activity design and instruction in online learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.),
Handbook of distance education (pp. 282–298). Routledge.
Digital Learning. (n.d.). Canvas Workshops. Digital learning | Educational innovation across
northwestern. Retrieved April 29, 2020, from
https://digitallearning.northwestern.edu/canvas/canvas-workshops
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 128
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use
ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51(1), 187–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning:
The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5
Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. D., & Sorg, S. (2005). Blended learning enters the
mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons.
Eccles, J. S. (2010). Expectancy V alue Motivational Theory. Retrieved from
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Ellis, D. E., & Ortquist-Ahrens, L. (2010). Practical suggestions for programs and activities. In
K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp.
117-132). Jossey-Bass.
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), 23.
Fry, E. (1960). Teaching machine dichotomy: Skinner vs. Pressey. Psychological Reports, 6(1),
11–14.
Galanek, J. D., Gierdowski, D. C., & Brooks, D. C. (2018). ECAR Study of Undergraduate
Students and Information Technology, 2018 (p. 47).
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 129
Gardner, L. (2020, March 20). Covid-19 has forced higher ed to pivot to online learning. Here
are 7 takeaways so far. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Covid-19-Has-Forced-Higher-Ed/248297
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education
Quarterly, 48(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369704800103
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of
higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9014-7
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In
Handbook of distance education (Vol. 3, pp. 104–120). Routledge
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer Conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2),
87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential
in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2007). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework,
Principles, and Guidelines (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology
integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690–696.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.004
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 130
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.11.002
Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the
flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1), 109–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008
Gillespie, K. H., & Robertson, D. L. (2010). A guide to faculty development (2nd ed.). Jossey-
Bass.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future
directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning:
Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning
environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and
Technology, (1st ed., pp. 253–259). IGI Global. https://www.igi-
global.com/chapter/benefits-challenges-blended-learning-environments/14246
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013a). A framework for institutional adoption
and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 18, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
Han, J. H., & Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical
development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on
students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 65, 64–
76.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 131
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish (1st ed.). SAGE.
Hilton J. L. III, Robinson, T. J., Wiley, D., & Ackerman, J. D. (2014). Cost-savings achieved in
two semesters through the adoption of open educational resources. International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2), 67–84.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1700
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on
technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–
73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
Hung, D. (2001). Design principles for web-based learning: Implications from Vygotskian
thought. Educational Technology, 41(3), 33–41. JSTOR.
Intentional Futures. (2016). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the role,
workflow, and experience of instructional designers. https://intentionalfutures.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/Instructional-Design-in-Higher-Education-Report.pdf
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2018). Faculty attitudes on technology. Inside Higher Ed and
Gallup.
Jeffrey, L., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: How teachers
balance the blend of online and classroom components. Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research, 13, 121–140. https://doi.org/10.28945/1968
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 132
Jung, I., & Suzuki, K. (2005). Blended learning in Japan and its application in liberal arts
education. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of Blended Learning:
Global Perspectives, Local Designs. John Wiley & Sons.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning:
Constructing order out of the chaos in the literature. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2).
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html
Keeton, M. T., & Tate, P. J. (1978). Learning by experience–what, why, how. Jossey-Bass.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd
ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. FT Press.
Kopcha, T. J., Rieber, L. P., & Walker, B. B. (2016). Understanding university faculty
perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 47(5), 945–957.
Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Hatala, M., & Adesope, O. (2015). Analytics of
communities of inquiry: Effects of learning technology use on cognitive presence in
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 133
asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 74–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.002
KPMG, & Google. (2017). Online Education in India: 2021.
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2017/05/Online-Education-in-India-
2021.pdf
Kramer, M. W. (2017). Sage on the stage or bore at the board? Communication Education, 66(2),
245–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1272129
Kriek, J. (2016). A modified model of TPACK and SAMR in teaching for understanding. 23–28.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/171644/
Kuhlenschmidt, S. (2010). Issues in technology and faculty development. In K. J. Gillespie & D.
L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 259–274). Jossey-Bass.
Kuhlenschmidt, S., Weaver, S., & Morgan, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for the center. To
Improve the Academy, 28(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2010.tb00594.x
Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in
large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 83–91.
Lee, V. S. (2010). Program types and prototypes. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A
guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 21–34).
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success.
School Psychology Review, 313–327.
Lothridge, K., Fox, J., & Fynan, E. (2013). Blended learning: Efficient, timely and cost effective.
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(4), 407–416.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2013.767375
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 134
Marques, B. P., Villate, J. E., & Carvalho, C. V. (2011). Applying the UTAUT model in
engineering higher education: Teacher’s technology adoption. 6th Iberian Conference on
Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI 2011), 1–6.
Martin, M., Belikov, O., Hilton, J., Wiley, D., & Fischer, L. (2017). Analysis of student and
faculty perceptions of textbook costs in higher education. Open Praxis, 9(1), 79–91.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Mcmurtrie, B. (2020a, March 20). The Coronavirus has pushed courses online. Professors are
trying hard to keep up. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Coronavirus-Has-Pushed/248299
Mcmurtrie, B. (2020b, April 6). Students without laptops, instructors without internet: How
struggling colleges move online during Covid-19. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Students-Without-Laptops/248436
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, K. A., & Xu, Y. J. (2007). A Bayesian analysis of the institutional and individual factors
influencing faculty technology use. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 184–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.06.001
Meyer, K. A., & Xu, Y. J. (2009). A causal model of factors influencing faculty use of
technology. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 57–70.
Miller, K., Lukoff, B., King, G., & Mazur, E. (2018). Use of a social annotation platform for pre-
class reading assignments in a flipped introductory physics class. Frontiers in Education,
3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00008
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 135
Milosch, T. (2018, January 17). Building a collaborative instructor-instructional designer
relationship. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-
learning/views/2018/01/17/building-collaborative-instructor-instructional-designer
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Northwestern University. (n.d.-a). AIR – Guidelines for improving student access to course
materials. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from https://air.northwestern.edu/
Northwestern University. (n.d.-b). Educational technology teaching fellows. Digital learning |
Educational innovation across Northwestern. Retrieved May 28, 2019, from
https://digitallearning.northwestern.edu/canvas/educational-technology-teaching-fellows
Northwestern University. (n.d.-c). MOOCs. Digital learning | Educational innovation across
Northwestern. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
http://digitallearning.northwestern.edu/moocs
Northwestern University. (n.d.-d). Northwestern online programs. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
https://www.northwestern.edu/provost/initiatives/teaching-and-learning/online-and-
blended-learning/northwestern-online-programs.html
Northwestern University. (n.d.-e). Online Learning Initiatives. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from
https://www.northwestern.edu/provost/initiatives/teaching-and-learning/online-and-
blended-learning/
Northwestern University. (n.d.-f). Teaching and learning. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from
https://www.northwestern.edu/provost/initiatives/teaching-and-learning/
Open Textbook Alliance. (n.d.). Open textbook alliance. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from
https://opentextbookalliance.org/
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 136
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96.
Oye, N. D., A.Iahad, N., & Ab.Rahim, N. (2014). The history of UTAUT model and its impact
on ICT acceptance and usage by academicians. Education and Information Technologies,
19(1), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9189-9
Ozdemir, O., & Hendricks, C. (2017). Instructor and student experiences with open textbooks,
from the California open online library for education (Cool4Ed). Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 29(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9138-0
P21. (2019). Framework for 21st Century Learning.
http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_Brief.pdf
Pajares, F. (2010). Self-efficacy theory. Education.com
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice (4th ed.). SAGE.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Viking Press.
POD Network. (n.d.). Centers & Programs. POD network: Professional and organizational
development network in higher education. Retrieved May 27, 2019, from
https://podnetwork.org/centers-programs/
Pomerantz, J., & Brooks, D. C. (2017). ECAR Study of Faculty and Information Technology,
2017 (p. 43).
Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of
blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4),
748–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12269
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 137
Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R. G., & Sandberg, D. S. (2015). A qualitative analysis of
institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 28, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
Pressey, S. L. (1926). A simple device for teaching, testing, and research in learning. School and
Society, 23, 373–376.
Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2014). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher
education: A critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher
Education Research & Development, 33(3), 549–564.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841643
Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education.
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
Puentedura, R. R. (2014). SAMR and TPCK: A hands-on approach to classroom practice.
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000140.html
Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Education and
Information Technologies, 19(2), 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9222-z
Reigeluth, C. M., & Joseph, R. (2002). Beyond technology integration: The case for technology
transformation. Educational Technology, 42(4), 9–13.
Robertson, D. L. (2010). Establishing an educational development program. In K. J. Gillespie &
D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 35–52).
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2005). Insight from WebCT and our customers in higher education. In C.
J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs. 155-168. John Wiley & Sons.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 138
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2).
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192
Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the
Community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher
Education, 17, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.006
Rudenga, K., & Lampert, J. (2018). Mentoring graduate student staff in a center for teaching and
learning: Goals and aligned practices. To Improve the Academy, 37(2), 257–270.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20085
Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution?
Educational Technology, 42(2), 71–75. JSTOR.
Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain
why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools
more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247–256.
Schumann, D. W., Peters, J., & Olsen, T. (2013). Cocreating value in teaching and learning
centers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(133), 21–32.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20043
Scott, J. (1991). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research (1st ed.). Polity.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2010). Sociocultural theory. Education.com
Searle Center for Advancing Learning & Teaching. (n.d.). Faculty. Retrieved February 2, 2019,
from https://www.northwestern.edu/searle/initiatives/faculty/index.html
Seeto, D., & Herrington, J. A. (2006). Design-based research and the learning designer. 6.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 139
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Continuum.
http://125.234.102.146:8080/dspace/handle/DNULIB_52011/5116
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Singh, M. (2012). India’s national skills development policy and implications for TVET and
lifelong learning. In M. Pilz (Ed.), The future of vocational education and training in a
changing world (pp. 179–211). Springer.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977.
Slavit, D., Sawyer, R., & Curley, J. (2003). A professional development model for teaching with
technology. TechTrends, 47(4), 35–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763510
Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002). Ten principles of good practice in creating and sustaining teaching and
learning centers. In K. H. Gillespie (Ed.), A guide to faculty development: Practical
advice, examples, and resources (pp. 9–23). Jossey-Bass.
Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2005). Creating the future of faculty
development: Learning from the past, understanding the present (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Stanford, D. (2020, March 16). Videoconferencing alternatives: How low-bandwidth teaching
will save us all. https://www.iddblog.org/videoconferencing-alternatives-how-low-
bandwidth-teaching-will-save-us-all/
Stanley, C. A., Porter, M. E., & Szabo, B. L. (1997). An exploratory study of the faculty
developer-client relationship. Journal of Staff Program and Organizational Development,
14, 115–126.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 140
Supiano, B. (2020, April 30). Why you shouldn’t try to replicate your classroom teaching online.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-You-
Shouldn-t-Try-to/248664
TEACHx. (n.d.). About TEACHx – TEACHx. Retrieved May 28, 2019, from
https://www.teachx.northwestern.edu/about/
Thomas, T., Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining
mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of
Education and Development Using ICT, 9(3). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/130274/
Tshabalala, M., Ndeya-Ndereya, C., & van der Merwe, T. (2014). Implementing blended learning
at a developing university: Obstacles in the way. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 12(1),
101–110.
Uskoković, V. (2018). Flipping the flipped: The co-creational classroom. Research and Practice
in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0077-9
US News and World Report. (2019). The 10 Best Universities in America. US News & World
Report. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning
environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University
Press.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.2008.00192.x
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 141
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use:
Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.1996.tb00860.x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. JSTOR.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wach, H., Broughton, L., & Powers, S. (2011). Blending in the Bronx: The dimensions of hybrid
course development at Bronx Community College. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 15(1), 87–94.
Wall Street Journal & Times Higher Education. (2019). Wall Street Journal/Times Higher
Education College Rankings 2019. Times Higher Education.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019
Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education.
Promising practices in online learning. North American Council for Online Learning.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509636
Webber, D. A. (2016). Are college costs worth it? How ability, major, and debt affect the returns
to schooling. Economics of Education Review, 53, 296–310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.04.007
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 142
Weber, E. (2015). Innovation, blended programs and leadership development: Key success
factors. In Shaping Entrepreneurial Mindsets (pp. 158–171). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137516671_9
Weiner, B. (1982). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. Series in Clinical &
Community Psychology: Achievement, Stress, & Anxiety.
Weiss, R. S. (1993). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
Studies. Free Press.
Yadova, E. N., Bubnov, G., & Pluzhnik, E. (2016). Efficient implementation of high technologies
in educational process. SHS Web of Conferences, 29, 02046.
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162902046
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2010). Goal orientation theory. Education.com
Zucchermaglio, C. (1993). Toward a cognitive ergonomics of educational technology. In
Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 249–260). Springer.

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 143
Footnotes
1
Blended Learning (BL) is often used interchangeably with Hybrid Learning (HL). In the
context of this study, I use BL to discuss the spectrum of learning environments which combine
face-to-face instruction with online tools. HL would be a specific example of a BL where the
instruction is delivered primarily online with a co-location requirement in the program.
2
Learning engineers are a family of professionals with expertise in different facets of
pedagogy and technology. Instructional designers, instructional technologists, learning
experience designers, learning designers, etc. are terms used interchangably in the industry to
refer to these professionals.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 144
Appendix A
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall

Intentional, Pedagogically Driven, and Systematic use of Technology in Teaching Practice

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand how faculty at Northwestern University who have
completed the Education Technology Teaching Fellowship (ETTF) program integrate
technology into their teaching practice.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an hour-long recorded
interview over a video conferencing platform. You do not have to answer any questions you
don’t want to answer.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation; however, if you are interested, the
researcher will share with you the results of the study once completed.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The data will be stored on a password protected computer until after the study has been
completed and the researcher has graduated, at which point the data will be destroyed.
Additionally, your responses will be aggregated with other participant responses and your name
will not be attached to any quotations used in the final report. In general, your responses will be
made anonymous through pseudonyms and removing identifiable characteristics.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator, Shakir Hussain shakir.hussain@usc.edu or +97455856274.
Faculty Advisor, Tracy Tambascia tpoon@rossier.usc.edu or +1(213)740-9747

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street,
Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 145
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
• How did you hear about the ETTF program?
o What motivated you to apply for the program?

• Please discuss some of your reasons for integrating new technology in your teaching
practice.
o (Probe) Please provide me with an example of a time when you felt integrating
technology helped to engage students.
o (Probe) Please provide me with an example of a time when you felt integrating
technology made you more efficient.
o (Probe) How did the ETTF program help you, if at all, in thinking through your
original motivations?

• How do you select a technological learning tool to use in your teaching?
o (Probe) How does your teaching style affect the tool selection, if at all?
o (Probe) How does the content you are teaching affect the tool selection, if at all?
o How did the ETTF program and mentor help you, if at all, in the selection of the
tool?

• What role do learning objectives play in the selection and integration of blended learning
tools in your courses, if any?
• What role do learning outcomes play in the selection and integration of blended learning
tools in your courses, if any?

• Walk me through how you integrate technological learning tools in your class.
o (Probe) How do you introduce the tool to students, if at all?
o (Probe) How do you discuss these in your syllabus, if at all?
o How did ETTF program and mentor help you, if at all, in the integration of the
tool in your class?

• Redesigning a course to include technology takes a significant time commitment. What
are your thoughts on this statement?
o (Probe) How do you go about prioritizing the redesign of courses to include
blended learning tools?
o How did the ETTF program and mentor help you, if at all, in the time
management around the integration of the tool in your class?

• Some faculty members claim they are “technologically challenged.” What are your
thoughts on this?

• What kinds of support are provided by Northwestern, both technological and
pedagogical, that you are aware of?
EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 146
o Which of these have you utilized?
o (Probe) What did the ETTF mentor primarily support you with?

• What are some avenues where you are able to discuss challenges around integrating
technology into teaching in an ongoing manner, if any?
o In what ways do you participate, if at all, in the community of current and former
ETTF awardees?
o In what ways do you participate, if at all, in a department, school, or university-
wide communities to discuss these challenges?

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 147
Appendix C
Educational Technology Teaching Fellows Program:
Our Working Relationship

Consultant Responsibilities:

• Your consultant will meet with you at least once per month to provide advice,
assistance, and feedback.
• Your consultant will help with researching and implementing pedagogical best
practices.
• Your consultant will serve as a technical advisor for Canvas and facilitate technical
support as needed.
• Your consultant will recommend other educational technologies as applicable.
• Your consultant will connect you with other individuals internally and externally who
may be able to provide insight and guidance.
• Your consultant and at least one additional consultant will attend class and/or
observe online interactions during the pilot implementation of the project and
provide feedback.

Faculty Responsibilities:

• Faculty will build their Canvas sites and implement other educational technologies
with consultant guidance.
• Faculty will attend all meetings and will present at the final showcase.
• Faculty will participate in milestone setting and actively work to achieve those
milestones.
• Faculty will share their experiences (both successes and challenges) and outcomes
with the other Educational Technology Teaching Fellows and the broader
Northwestern community.

Going Beyond Educational Technology Teaching Fellows (optional):

• Based on faculty and consultant interest, there may be opportunities to collaborate
on research and conference presentations related to projects.
• After participating in the program, fellows will be given priority in piloting new
learning technologies and learning apps.
• Educational Technology Teaching Fellows will be provided with access to the alumni
listserv to stay connected after the program.
• After completing the program, fellows may be given opportunities to present in
future years at Educational Technology Teaching Fellows meetings and events and/or
appear in Northwestern Information Technology promotional materials.

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 148
Appendix D
Educational Technology Teaching Fellows
Project Charter

Draft v. X

Project Name:

Project Owner(s): Today’s
Date:
Problem / Opportunity:

Goal:

Objectives:
1.
Success Criteria:
1.
Deliverables:
1.
Assumptions, Risks, Obstacles:
1.

EFFECTIVE TECH USE IN TEACHING 149
Appendix E
Educational Technology Teaching Fellows
Project Charter & Timeline

Today’s Date: ENTER DATE HERE

Project Owner: ENTER YOUR NAME HERE

PROJECT CHARTER:

Project Name: ENTER PROJECT NAME HERE

Project Description, Problem, or Opportunity: DESCRIBE YOUR PROJECT HERE

What does success look like for your project? DESCRIBE WHAT YOU THINK SUCCESS
WILL LOOK LIKE HERE

Potential Obstacles: IDENTIFY ANY POTENTIAL OBSTACLES HERE

PROJECT TIMELINE:

Enter the milestones for your project, along with their anticipated dates of completion, in the table
below. Add more rows as needed.

Project Milestone Anticipated Date of Completion
Sample: Complete planning 12/15/2017
Sample: Pilot in winter course 3/5/2018
Sample: Evaluate pilot and update for full
launch in spring
4/1/2018

Abstract (if available)

Abstract With the ubiquitous use of technology in higher education, it is critical that instructors are intentional, pedagogically driven, and systematic in their use of technology in teaching practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how a structured educational development program supported instructors in the thoughtful use of technology in their teaching. The study applied a gap analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) to understand the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences contributing to instructors’ application of technology-based tools. Assumed influences on instructors’ use of technology were formulated through a thorough review of published literature and scanning interviews. Data were collected in the form of semi-structured interviews with 12 instructors, along with a review of documents such as course syllabi, courses on a learning management system, and project charters. Data analysis validated the assumed influences and shed light upon two additional themes that emerged from the data. Key findings from the data included the ability of instructors to thoughtfully integrate technology in their courses, consensus among the instructors on the value of technology use in teaching, and differences between individual consultation models applied in the program. The study concludes with a discussion of recommended solutions along with implementation and evaluation plans.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

PDF

Faculty internationalization at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST): a promising practice study

PDF

Leading the country in TVET: Don Bosco Technical Vocational Education and Training Center

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

Intercultural integration of students at a Sino-foreign cooperative university in China: an evaluation study

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

Enhancing the international student experience through graduate employment preparedness

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

Making a case for teaching religious literacy in Ethiopian schools: an innovation study

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Creating "excellent" learning experiences: a gap analysis of a university extension program

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

Optimal applications of social and emotional learning paradigms for improvements in academic performance

PDF

Preparing students for the 21st century labor market through liberal arts education at a Chinese joint venture university

PDF

Chinese students’ preparedness for university studies in the United States

PDF

The Cambodian American college experience: intergenerational transmission of trauma, intergenerational conflict, and multiple worlds and identities

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at public research universities: a gap analysis

PDF

Diversity initiatives in a California independent school: from plans to reality

PDF

Girls in STEM: the underrepresented trajectory in Tennessee: an innovation study

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator Hussain, Shakir Shahid (author)

Core Title Intentional, pedagogically driven, and systematic use of technology in teaching practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 06/12/2020

Defense Date 05/27/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag blended learning,digital pedagogy,educational development,faculty development,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching and learning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee chair), Chung, Ruth H. (committee member), Crop, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email shakir.hussain@usc.edu,shakir@shakir.me

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-319074

Unique identifier UC11665992

Identifier etd-HussainSha-8587.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-319074 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HussainSha-8587.pdf

Dmrecord 319074

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hussain, Shakir Shahid

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA