Local applied universities educate a large share of undergraduates, yet their teachers' digital literacy is uneven and professional development is usually designed for an imagined average. Existing frameworks specify what teachers should know but not how training should be differentiated; research on professional development identifies general features of effectiveness but not how those features should be calibrated to different teachers. This conceptual paper addresses that gap. Drawing on multidimensional accounts of digital literacy, cognitive load theory, the zone of proximal development, situated learning, and self-determination theory, it develops a configuration-based typology of university teachers along two dimensions—technological fluency and pedagogical integration—yielding four archetypes: Cautious Novices, Tool-Oriented Practitioners, Pedagogy-Led Integrators, and AI-Empowered Designers. It then proposes a three-alignment framework—diagnostic, curricular, and relational—that specifies how content, task demand, and social support should be matched to each configuration, and articulates seven design principles and six testable propositions. The paper contributes a theory-driven alternative to one-size-fits-all training and offers practical guidance for institutions seeking to implement national digital literacy standards without reducing them to attendance requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: