Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although higher education has spent millions of dollars on instructional technologies, often higher education administration complains that instructors are not adopting them. Without a full understanding of possible barriers, higher education institutes are hard-pressed to develop either appropriate goals or sound strategies for the adoption of instructional technology. A review of the literature on barriers to instructor adoption found conflicting results, in which some issues present more of a barrier than others. These range from a lack of definition of successful adoption (how many adopting instructors are enough?) to inadequate or inappropriate professional development (meeting differing instructors’ needs) to resistance (based on self-efficacy, beliefs in pedagogy, etc.). Five categories are described based on literature researched: technology, process, administration, environment, and faculty. Within each of these categories is a description, based on the literature, of each barrier. A fish-bone diagram displaying the categories and barriers within them is presented. This review of the literature provides a framework for further research in methods for minimizing the impact of each barrier. The framework of categories of barriers presented here provides institutions with a starting point to approach adoption of instructional technology with a plan to mitigate and minimize as many barriers as possible, giving adoption a better chance of success.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelraheem, A. Y. (2004). University faculty members’ context beliefs about technology utilization in teaching. TOJET - The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(4), 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adria, M., & Rose, T. (2004). Technology, preprocessing, and resistance—A comparative case study of intensive classroom teaching. The Journal of Education for Business, 80(1), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, S. (2001). E-learning developments and experiences. Education and Training, 43(4), 240–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alstete, J.W. (2000). Posttenure faculty development: Building a system for faculty improvement and appreciation., Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104–1342. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED443370 [Accessed May 7, 2011].

  • ambouche, (2010). [Comment 12 re: Reaching the last technology holdouts at the front of the classroom]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Reaching-the-Last-Technology/123659/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • American Federation of Teachers. (2003). Fighting for the profession: A history of AFT higher education. item number 360701, American Federation of Teachers. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED497912 [Accessed May 2, 2011].

  • Amirian, S. (2007). Digital backpacks: Facilitating faculty implementation of technologies for teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 24(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backroad Connections Pty Ltd. (2002). Effective online facilitation, Australian National Training Authority. Available at: http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/guides/facilitation.html [Accessed February 16, 2011].

  • Baia, P.L. (2009). The role of commitment to pedagogical quality: The adoption of instructional technology in higher education. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED504055 [Accessed April 15, 2011].

  • Bates, H. L., & Waldrup, B. E. (2010). A court case analysis of administrative versus faculty grading rights. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(5), 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2010). Concerns, considerations, and new ideas for data collection and research in educational technology studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. (2001). Obstacle faced at various stages of capability regarding distance education in institutions of higher education: Survey results. TechTrends, 46(4), 40–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, J., & Skeff, K. M. (1988). Developing the motivation for improving university teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 12(2), 114–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bess, J. L., & Goldman, P. (2001). Leadership ambiguity in universities and K–12 schools and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 419–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bing-You, R. G., Lee, R., Trowbridge, R. L., Varaklis, K., & Hafler, J. P. (2009). Commentary: Principle-based teaching competencies. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 1(1), 100–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolkan, J. (2012). Report: Schools not Meeting Students’ Technology Needs. Campus Technology. Available at: http://campustechnology.com/articles/2012/09/13/report-schools-not-meeting-students-technology-needs.aspx?=CTNU [Accessed September 29, 2012].

  • Bousquet, M. (2009). The faculty of the future: Leaner, meaner, more innovative, less secure. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Faculty-of-the-Future-/47017/ [Accessed January 11, 2011].

  • Briggs, S. (2005). Changing roles and competencies of academics. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(3), 256–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brill, J. M., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors integration of technology in classroom-based practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britten, J.S. & Craig, P. (2006). Developing contextualized faculty training: Faculty development to support university-wide digital portfolio initiatives. College Quarterly, 9(2). Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ835401 [Accessed January 13, 2011].

  • Brown, A. H., Benson, B., & Uhde, A. P. (2004). You’re doing what with technology? An expose on “Jane Doe” college professor. College Teaching, 52(3), 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (2007). Factors motivating and inhibiting faculty in offering their courses via distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, X(II). Available at: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer102/bruner102.htm [Accessed February 16, 2011].

  • Bryan, V.C., Ariza, E.N. & Knee, R.H. (2001). The dilemma of recruiting, rewarding, and retaining technically competent faculty in higher education. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED455728 [Accessed May 7, 2011].

  • Chism, N. (2004). Using a framework to engage faculty in instructional technologies. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 27(2), 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, F.W. (2005). It’s not the change, it’s the difference: Evaluating technology on campus. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(4). Available at: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ItsNottheChangeItstheDifferenc/157365 [Accessed January 11, 2011].

  • Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Salazar, J., & Hamilton, K. M. (2005). Design of faculty development workshops: Attempting to practice what we preach. College Student Journal, 39(3), 528.

    Google Scholar 

  • dleopard59, (2010). [Comment 10 re: Reaching the last technology holdouts at the front of the classroom]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Reaching-the-Last-Technology/123659/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2010). One-to-one computing in teacher education: Faculty concerns and implications for teacher educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), 140–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers in Education, 51(1), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efaw, J. (2005). No teacher left behind: How to teach with technology. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(4), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehman, L., Bonk, C., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2005). A model of teacher professional development to support technology integration. AACE Journal, 13(3), 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrmann, S.C. (2002). Improving outcomes of higher education: Learning from past mistakes. Available at: http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/Visions/Improving_Outcomes.html [Accessed May 22, 2011].

  • Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, L. (2008). An antidote for the faculty-IT divide. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(1), 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folkestad, L.S. & Haag, S. (2002). Conflicting ideologies and the shift to e-learning. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED464102 [Accessed May 7, 2011].

  • Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch, K., & VanTyle, W. K. (2009). Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technology use. Computers in Education, 53(2), 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gannon-Cook, R., Ley, K., Crawford, C., & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 25(5), 690–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgina, D. A., & Olson, M. R. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions. Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaskin-Clay, B. (2007). Part-time instructors: Closing the quality loop. The College Quarterly, 10(3), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, K. (2011). 2010 managing online education survey. The Campus Computing Project. Available at: http://www.campuscomputing.net/2010-managing-online-education [Accessed October 30, 2011].

  • Gustafson, K. (2004). The impact of technologies on learning. Planning for Higher Education, 32(2), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K., & Kors, K. (2004). Strategic implications of an educational technology assessment. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 27(2), 71–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. L., Krause, K. C., Parish, D. C., & Smith, M. U. (2007). Academic competencies for medical faculty. Family Medicine Journal, 39(5), 343–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, T.A. (2009). Factors that predict quality classroom technology use. thesis. Available at: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=bgsu1257194863 [Accessed March 21, 2011].

  • Heijstra, T. M., & Rafnsdottir, G. L. (2010). The internet and academics’ workload and work-family balance. Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 158–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, C.L. (2006). Student perceptions of learner-centered education. In Online Submission. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED494914 [Accessed July 11, 2011].

  • Huiyu, Z., Yan, D., & Geng, C. (2005). Educational technology training for higher education teachers in China and some suggestions for improving it. Chinese Education and Society, 38(6), 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. (2008). What faculty think: A survey on electronic resources. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 20(2), 110–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarson, J. (2010). Information literacy and higher education. College & Research Libraries News, 71(10), 534–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., & Stevens, C. (2008). Creating links: An inclusive faculty development initiative. Adult Learning, 19(1/2), 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A. & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon report, New Media Consortium. 6101 West Courtyard Drive Building One Suite 100, Austin, TX 78730. Tel: 512-445-4200; Fax: 512-445-4205; Web site: http://www.nmc.org. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED515956 [Accessed April 15, 2011].

  • Judge, S., & O’Bannon, B. (2008). Faculty integration of technology in teacher preparation: Outcomes of a development model. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keengwe, J., Kidd, T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and technology: Implications for faculty training and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. & Parry, M. (2010). U. of California considers online classes, or even degrees. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/In-Crisis-U-of-California/65445/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • King, B. R. (2007). Think small! A beginner’s guide to using technology to promote learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(1), 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkup, G., & Kirkwood, A. (2005). Information and communications technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching–A tale of gradualism rather than revolution. Learning, Media & Technology, 30(2), 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlenschmidt, S. & Kacer, B. (2010). The promise of technology for college instruction: From drill and practice to avatars. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ899925 [Accessed December 4, 2011].

  • Kyei-Blankson, L., Keengwe, J., & Blankson, J. (2009). Faculty use and integration of technology in higher education. AACE Journal, 17(3), 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, P.C. (2003). From the other side of the academy to academic leadership roles: Crossing the great divide. New Directions for Higher Education. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ772996 [Accessed May 2, 2011].

  • Laughlin, G. (2000). Who owns the copyright to faculty-created web sites?: The work-for-hire doctrine’s applicability to internet resources created for distance learning and traditional classroom courses. Boston College Law Review, 41(3), 549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, D. & Jaschik, S. (2011). Perspectives on the downturn: A survey of presidents. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/president2011 [Accessed March 27, 2011].

  • Lessen, E. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments of education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Available at: http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/450374/integrating_technology_in_schools_colleges_and_departments_of_education/ [Accessed April 18, 2011].

  • Lin, C., Singer, R., & Ha, L. (2010). Why university members use and resist technology? A structure enactment perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(1), 38–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. K., & Page, C. (2009). Charting the course and tapping the community: The EDUCAUSE top teaching and learning challenges 2009. Educause Review, 44(3), 30–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, S. B., & Wright, V. H. (2009). Who am I? The influence of teacher beliefs on instructional technology incorporation. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20(3), 77–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mars, M. M., & Ginter, M. B. (2007). Connecting organizational environments with the instructional technology practices of community college faculty. Community College Review, 34(4), 324–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & Culp, K. M. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, D. (2001). Information technology user devices in higher education. New Directions for Higher Education. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ637451 [Accessed May 2, 2011].

  • McLoughlin, J. A., Wang, L.-C. C., & Beasley, W. A. (2008). Transforming the college through technology: A change of culture. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2), 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messineo, M., & DeOllos, I. Y. (2005). Are we assuming too much? Exploring students’ perceptions of their computer competence. College Teaching, 53(2), 50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • mlaumakis, (2010). [Comment 13 re: College 2.0: Teachers without technology strike back]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/College-20-Teachers-Witho/123891/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • Moerschell, L. (2009). Resistance to technological change in academia. Current Issues in Education, 11(6). Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ855802 [Accessed January 11, 2011].

  • O’Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Does it make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34(4), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osika, E.R., Johnson, R.Y. & Buteau, R. (2009). Factors influencing faculty use of technology in online instruction: A case study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(1). Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ869270 [Accessed January 11, 2011].

  • Ouzts, D. T., & Palombo, M. J. (2004). Technology in higher education: A study of perceptions of college professors. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(5), 19–24,84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R. E., Bianchi, A., & Cheah, T. Y. (2008). Perceptions of instructional technology: Factors of influence and anticipated consequences. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 274–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parthasarathy, M. & Smith, M.A. (2009). Valuing the institution: An expanded list of factors influencing faculty adoption of online education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2). Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ869276 [Accessed January 11, 2011].

  • Pasco, B., & Adcock, P. G. (2007). New rules, new roles: Technology standards and teacher education. Educational Considerations, 34(2), 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education., Institute for Higher Education Policy. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED444407 [Accessed July 23, 2011].

  • Prebble, T, Hargraves, H., Leach, L., Naidoo, K., Suddaby, G., & Zepke, N. (2005). Academic staff development: A summary of a synthesis of research on the impact of academic staff development programmes on student outcomes in undergraduate tertiary study. In J. Rivers (Ed.), Impact of Student Support Services and Academic Development Programmes on Student Outcomes in Undergraduate Tertiary Study (p. 14). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/tertiary_education/5519.

  • Raelin, J. A. (2003). Should faculty be “managed?”. Academe, 89(3), 40–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. (2007). Technology-enhanced courses and a mode iii organization of instructional work. Tertiary Education and Management, 13(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, D. (2006). Academic leadership and the restructuring of higher education. New Directions for Higher Education. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ760508 [Accessed May 2, 2011].

  • Roberts, F. D., Kelley, C. L., & Medlin, B. D. (2007). Factors influencing accounting faculty members’ decision to adopt technology in the classroom. College Student Journal, 41(2), 423–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A. (2010). Metrics matters. Training + Development, 64(3), 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, I. (2008). From the social-cognitive career theory perspective: A college of education faculty model for explaining their intention to use educational technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 51–66.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Salajan, F. D., Schonwetter, D. J., & Cleghorn, B. M. (2010). Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: Fact or fiction? Computers in Education, 55(3), 1393–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P. (2010). Conditions imposed on part-time adjuncts threaten quality of teaching, researchers say. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Conditions-Imposed-on/125573/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Educational Research, 51(4), 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simelane, S., Blignaut, S., & van Ryneveld, L. (2007). Preparing lecturers to integrate educational technology into their teaching and learning practices. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(7), 940–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, K. (2010). The Cause and Effect (a.k.a. Fishbone) Diagram. iSix Sigma. Available at: http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/cause-effect/cause-and-effect-aka-fishbone-diagram/ [Accessed September 30, 2012].

  • Simpson, C.M. (2010). Examining the relationship between institutional mission and faculty reward for teaching via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1). Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ877535 [Accessed May 2, 2011].

  • Singh, R. J. (2008). Radical change of the university classroom: The views of some academics. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(5), 1059–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Six Sigma Training Assistant. (2010). The Fishbone Diagrams. Six Sigma Online. Available at: http://www.sixsigmaonline.org/six-sigma-training-certification-information/articles/the-fishbone-diagrams.html [Accessed September 30, 2012].

  • Spodark, E. (2003). Five obstacles to technology integration at a small liberal arts university. THE Journal. Available at: http://thejournal.com/articles/2003/03/01/five-obstacles-to-technology-integration-at-a-small-liberal-arts-university.aspx [Accessed April 4, 2011].

  • Starr, L. (2010a). Applying Fair Use to New Technologies. Education World. Available at: http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr280d.shtml [Accessed November 28, 2011].

  • Starr, L. (2010b). Copyright law and new technologies. Education World. Available at: http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr280c.shtml [Accessed November 28, 2011].

  • Steinert, Y., McLeod, P. J., Boillat, M., Meterissian, S., Elizov, M., & Macdonald, M. E. (2009). Faculty development: A “field of dreams”? Medical Education, 43(1), 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, C. (2008). Are we there yet?: The power of creating an innovation configuration map on the integration of technology into your teacher education program. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(4), 143–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabata, L. N., & Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamarkin, M., & The 2010 EDUCAUSE Evolving Technologies Committee. (2010). You 3.0: The most important evolving technology. Educause Review, 45(6), 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinberg, N. (2009). A call for faculty reengagement in governance. Academe, 95(6), 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treacy, B. (2007). What’s different about teaching online? EDC/EdTech Leaders Online. Available at: http://edtechleaders.org/about/research/ [Accessed February 16, 2011].

  • Varvel, V.E. (2007). Master online teacher competencies. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, X(I). Available at: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring101/varvel101.htm [Accessed February 16, 2011].

  • waghodekar, (2010). [Comment 50 re: College 2.0: Teachers without technology strike back]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/College-20-Teachers-Witho/123891/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • walrus, (2010). [Comment 30 re: Reaching the last technology holdouts at the front of the classroom]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Reaching-the-Last-Technology/123659/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice, Jossey-Bass, 10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46256 ($33). Tel: 877-762-2974 (Toll Free); e-mail: customer@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.josseybass.com. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED468435 [Accessed August 1, 2011].

  • Wickersham, L. E., & McElhany, J. A. (2010). Bridging the divide: Reconciling administrator and faculty concerns regarding online education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilner, A. & Lee, J. (2002). The promise and the reality of distance education, National Education Association. Available at: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/PromiseRealityDistanceEd10-02.pdf.

  • Wimsatt, L., Trice, A., & Langley, D. (2009). Faculty perspectives on academic work and administrative burden: Implications for the design of effective support services. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y., & Meyer, K. A. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H., & Morris, L. V. (2007). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative Higher Education, 32(1), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J.R. (2004). When good technology means bad teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/When-Good-Technology-Means-Bad/10922 [Accessed January 26, 2011].

  • Young, J.R. (2010). College 2.0: Teachers without technology strike back. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/College-20-Teachers-Witho/123891/ [Accessed March 22, 2011].

  • Zayim, N., Yildirim, S., & Saka, O. (2006). Technology adoption of medical faculty in teaching: Differentiating factors in adopter categories. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 213–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger Moser, F. (2007a). Faculty adoption of educational technology. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(1), 66–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger Moser, F. (2007b). Strategic management of educational technology–The importance of leadership and management. Tertiary Education and Management, 13(2), 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemsky, R. & Massy, W.F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why, Available at: http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ThwartedInnovationWhatHappened/153175 [Accessed July 4, 2011].

  • Zhao, J. J., Alexander, M. W., Perreault, H., Waldman, L., & Truell, A. D. (2009). Faculty and student use of technologies, user productivity, and user preference in distance education. The Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 206–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, G., & Xu, J. (2007). Adoption of educational technology ten years after setting strategic goals: A Canadian university case. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 508–528.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pat Reid.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reid, P. Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Educ Inf Technol 19, 383–407 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9222-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9222-z

Keywords

Navigation