Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative analysis shows how digital self-efficacy drives technology adoption and integration in higher education, implying significant productivity gains.
This study investigated the intricate interplay among digital self-efficacy, technology integration, and technology adoption practices within higher education institutions, examining their influence on faculty behaviors and overall productivity. Employing a quantitative approach utilizing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the research assessed various facets of digital competency. Findings revealed faculty possess a commendable level of digital self-efficacy, particularly in safety (composite mean=3.34) and communication. While strong confidence exists in technology's potential to enhance student learning (highest performance expectancy=3.67), significant barriers were identified in facilitating conditions, notably unreliable internet connectivity (lowest=2.35) and institutional support. Regarding technology integration, faculty generally demonstrate an agreeable level of skill, valuing its role in career advancement (highest=3.30), though expressing least contentment with digital content quality (lowest=2.75). Crucially, the analysis confirmed robust interconnections: digital self-efficacy directly and substantially influences both technology adoption practices (estimate=0.782) and technology integration skills (estimate=0.782). Furthermore, technology adoption practices directly and positively affect technology integration skills (estimate=0.252), establishing a significant mediating role for adoption in the self-efficacy-integration relationship (indirect effect=0.129). The proposed model demonstrated a good fit (cfi=0.938, tli=0.916). In conclusion, faculty digital self-efficacy is a pivotal driver of technology engagement and integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Briones et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: