Tech fatigue among university teachers threatens digital learning gains

A new peer-reviewed study published in Trends in Higher Education, titled “Transitional Challenges in Technology Adoption and Continued Use in Tertiary Institutions”, investigates the deep-seated reasons why academic staff still struggle to effectively adopt and use educational technologies.

The study offers a granular look into institutional and personal barriers hindering tech integration in teaching and learning. Drawing on the widely accepted Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the research emphasizes that technological implementation in universities cannot succeed by infrastructure alone. The authors argue that understanding academics’ perceptions, readiness, and institutional support is vital to unlocking technology's true potential in higher education.

What prevents academics from embracing digital teaching tools?

Despite increased investment in learning management systems and digital platforms across tertiary institutions, adoption remains inconsistent and fragmented. The study identifies a complex matrix of factors that limit faculty engagement with educational technology, particularly in resource-constrained environments.

Using a qualitative approach rooted in interpretivist philosophy, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 15 academics from Walter Sisulu University. Their analysis revealed that most participants felt overwhelmed by the dual expectations of mastering digital systems while maintaining traditional teaching responsibilities. Many expressed frustration over limited time, lack of training, and insufficient technical support. These issues contributed to low confidence and hesitancy in embracing digital tools beyond basic use.

Moreover, the study found that resistance was not merely about reluctance to change. Academics reported feeling that educational technology was being imposed without adequate consultation, leading to perceptions of disempowerment. Some feared being evaluated or replaced by automated systems, while others questioned the pedagogical value of certain tools that appeared to prioritize efficiency over learning quality.

The findings suggest that unless these psychological, institutional, and operational barriers are addressed, adoption efforts will remain partial and unsustainable. The Technology Acceptance Model’s core elements, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, were repeatedly undermined by real-world conditions that discouraged engagement.

What role do institutional structures and support systems play?

According to the study, institutional culture and leadership significantly influence technology uptake. Many academics reported inconsistent messaging from university management regarding the strategic role of technology. While some departments advocated for digitization, others maintained traditional modes of instruction with minimal integration, leading to confusion and misalignment.

Additionally, the study highlights the lack of continuous professional development programs. Academics who initially received orientation in using learning management systems often found that support waned over time, leaving them unprepared for system updates or pedagogical innovations. The absence of refresher training and peer mentorship programs further weakened sustained engagement.

Inadequate infrastructure was another recurring concern. Although the university had deployed LMS platforms, limited internet bandwidth, outdated devices, and frequent technical glitches created ongoing frustration. These operational shortcomings discouraged even those faculty members who were initially enthusiastic about technology integration.

Another institutional failure that the study points out is the exclusion of academics from decision-making processes. Faculty members emphasized that top-down technology rollouts often ignored their practical teaching needs. For instance, systems were sometimes adopted without compatibility testing with existing coursework structures, forcing academics to redesign modules under pressure and with little support.

The researchers argue that inclusive planning, stable infrastructure, and ongoing dialogue between staff and management are indispensable for overcoming transitional hurdles. Without these, technology adoption risks being seen not as an enabler of innovation but as an administrative burden.

How can universities facilitate sustainable tech adoption?

To resolve the disconnect between digital strategy and on-the-ground adoption, the study offers a set of recommendations grounded in both empirical findings and the Technology Acceptance Model. At the heart of the proposal is the need for a culture of support that views faculty not merely as users of technology, but as co-creators of the digital learning environment.

Firstly, the study calls for mandatory, yet flexible, digital literacy programs tailored to varying levels of competence. These should be hands-on, context-specific, and supported by mentorship networks that foster community learning. Academics should not be trained solely in tool usage, but also in pedagogical strategies that enhance online engagement, assessment, and feedback.

Secondly, the authors stress the importance of aligning technological systems with real academic workflows. Universities should involve academics in the design and pilot stages of new systems to ensure relevance and buy-in. Doing so enhances perceived usefulness, a key predictor of successful adoption.

The study also underscores the value of recognition and incentive structures. Faculty members who innovate digitally or demonstrate best practices should be formally acknowledged, not only through awards but also via promotions and research opportunities. These incentives validate the time and effort invested in mastering digital tools.

Crucially, leadership must establish long-term support frameworks. These include 24/7 technical assistance, transparent feedback loops, and integration of tech adoption goals within institutional development plans. The presence of tech champions or digital learning coordinators at the department level was also identified as a best practice for fostering continuous use.