Identifying factors influencing faculty attitude towards digital technology in higher education and its impact on faculty engagement and work performance: a mediating analysis

Justification of the study

This research explores the intricate interactions that shape academics’ perspectives on the use of digital technology in higher education. According to Hannafin et al. (2014), institutions and faculty are forced to integrate digital tools into their research and teaching due to external forces such as global educational trends and technological improvements. Perceived usefulness, a fundamental component of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), highlights people’s opinions about how valuable digital technology is for improving teaching methods (Davis, 1989). Teachers working together to learn collaboratively makes it easier to share ideas and accelerates the adoption of digital innovations (Fini et al., 2018).

Faculty members’ ability to use digital tools effectively is demonstrated by their technological competency, which is a crucial aspect (Al Lily and Alhazmi, 2019). Faculty use of digital technology is heavily influenced by institutional support, which includes leadership, resources, and policy (Browne et al., 2000). Digital platforms improve communication and collaboration among faculty members, improving their connectedness and information sharing. This creates an atmosphere that is favourable for the incorporation of technology (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). Additionally, creativity and critical thinking highlight the transformative potential of digital tools in enhancing teaching and learning experiences (Ogawa et al., 2020; Sharma & Barrett, 2008). This study aims to shed light on how digital technology deployment affects faculty engagement and work performance in higher education by analysing the interactions between these variables. Technological proficiency emerges as a critical factor, reflecting faculty members’ competence in utilizing digital tools effectively (Al Lily and Alhazmi, 2019). Institutional support, encompassing policies, resources, and leadership, significantly influences faculty engagement with digital technology (Browne et al., 2000). Communication and collaboration facilitated by digital platforms enhance faculty connectivity and knowledge sharing, fostering a conducive environment for technology integration (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). Moreover, creativity and critical thinking underscore the transformative potential of digital tools in enriching teaching and learning experiences (Ogawa et al., 2020; Sharma & Barrett, 2008). By examining the interplay of these factors, this study seeks to illuminate the impact of digital technology adoption on faculty engagement and work performance in higher education.

Review of related literature

Digital technology integration is becoming more important in today’s quickly changing educational environment. But there are a number of elements that affect how faculty members at higher education institutions use these technologies. The purpose of this review is to examine the literature on the factors influencing faculty attitudes regarding the use of digital technology. Specifically, we will look at factors like institutional support, perceived utility, mutual learning, technological competency, external pressure, interpersonal and teamwork, creativity, and critical thinking.

Perceived usefulness

Faculty attitudes towards technology adoption are significantly influenced by perceived usefulness, as articulated by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989). It measures how much a person believes a system improves job performance and is a crucial component of the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). This concept, which evaluates technology’s usefulness, supports consumers’ acceptance of it (Davis, 1989). According to (Al Lily, 2014), faculty members in higher education are more willing to adopt digital technology when they believe it would improve student outcomes, increase efficiency and improve their teaching techniques. If faculty members believe digital technology will improve their ability to educate, engage students, and produce quality learning outcomes, they are more likely to adopt it (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Furthermore, perceived usefulness is increased when technological elements and educational objectives line up (Ngai et al., 2007). These arguments result in the following hypothesis being assumed.

Mutual learning

According to Ally and Samaka (2013), mutual learning is the cooperative sharing of information and experiences about integrating digital technologies among faculty members. Communities of practice, professional development seminars, and peer exchanges promote reciprocal learning and change teachers’ perspectives on embracing technology (Rogers et al., 2016). Faculty participation in collaborative learning initiatives promotes a culture of creativity and digital tool experimentation (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). Peer-to-peer learning possibilities also impact faculty members’ openness to digital technology. Research has shown that implementing collaborative professional development and knowledge-sharing activities can cultivate a positive attitude towardadopting technology (Graham et al., 2019). Educators can exchange optimal methodologies, tackle difficulties, and collaboratively enhance their comfort level with digital resources by participating in cooperative learning activities. The following assumptions are made as a result of these arguments.

Institutional support

Institutional support includes resources, infrastructure, and organizational policies that help faculty members use technology (Brown, 2015). An atmosphere favorable for technological integration can be created with the help of technical support, sufficient finance, and supportive leadership (Educause, 2020). Faculty attitudes toward the use of digital technology in higher education are greatly influenced by their perceptions of institutional support (Koh & Lim, 2012). Academic opinions toward the deployment of digital technology are significantly influenced by institutional support (Dahlstrom & Bichsel, 2014). Technology integration is seen favorably when sufficient infrastructure, resources, and support systems are in place. When faculty see strong institutional support for their projects, they are more inclined to adopt digital tools. The following assumptions are made as a result of these arguments.

External pressure

When faculty members are under pressure to incorporate digital technology into their teaching techniques, this is referred to as external pressure. Examples of external stakeholders include administrators, legislators, and accrediting organizations. Studies reveal that faculty attitudes toward the deployment of technology are greatly impacted by outside pressure (Jones & Dexter, 2014). According to Verhoef et al. (2019), institutions should embrace digital transformation because of changing consumer behavior, more digital competition, and technological advancements. Depending on the level of support given, faculty members may view outside pressure as coercive, which increases resistance, or as a catalyst for change (Christensen et al., 2015). Various factors, such as institutional requirements, shifting educational environments, and social expectations, might cause this pressure (Alam, 2017). Faculty members’ attitudes towards adoption may be shaped by their obligation to incorporate digital tools and technology to comply with these outside demands. These arguments result in the following hypothesis being assumed.

Collaborativeness

Creating an atmosphere that encourages the adoption of digital technologies within academic institutions requires effective communication and collaboration (Bates, 2015). Higher education’s increased accessibility to devices has encouraged students to use collaborative platforms like Google Docs, Wikis, and Forums more often. Despite increased security concerns, cloud computing tools—such as Google Drive and Dropbox—are more user-friendly and therefore favoured for resource sharing than Learning Management Systems (LMS). Social media and online meeting platforms also facilitate collaboration, though institutional, educational, and cultural impediments get in the way (Biasutti, 2017; Manca & Ranieri, 2016; Martin & Parker, 2014; Stantchev et al., 2014; Veletsianos, 2012). Effective communication and collaboration channels are essential for increasing faculty participation in technology adoption programs (Preston & Hylton, 2010). Collaborative efforts between academics, instructional designers, and IT professionals produce creative digital learning experiences, and open feedback loops and conversations foster a communal feeling of ownership (Bates & Sangrà, 2011; Bower et al., 2017). The following assumptions are made as a result of these arguments.

Creativity and critical thinking

Faculty views on adopting digital technology are significantly influenced by their creativity and critical thinking, which highlight the tools’ transformative potential in improving the teaching and learning processes (Johnson et al., 2013). Another important factor influencing faculty attitudes is incorporating digital technology to foster creativity and critical thinking (Jang & Kim, 2017). Teachers who view digital tools as engines for creative instruction and improved student participation are more inclined to integrate technology into their teaching strategies. Academics that value creativity and critical thinking methods are more likely to investigate cutting-edge teaching techniques made possible by digital technology (Henriksen et al., 2016).

Student engagement, autonomy, and problem-solving skills are strengthened when creative and critical thinking skills are included in technology-assisted learning environments (Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004). These argumentsled to the assumption of the following hypothesis

Faculty attitude toward digital technology in academics and work performance

Faculty members’ adoption of digital technology has grown increasingly crucial within the academic domain, bearing substantial consequences for both professional performance and instructional strategies. Scholars like (Jones et al., 2022) have emphasized how digital tools may improve teaching methods and create more engaging learning environments. Furthermore, studies by Brown et al. (2020), who clarified the beneficial effects of technology on scholarly productivity and collaboration within academic communities, have emphasized the incorporation of digital platforms into research endeavors. Despite these advantages, faculty members’ views of digital technology vary from eager acceptance to fearful opposition. Several reasons exist for this opinion difference, including technological competence, age differences, and institutional support networks (Johnson et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is important to seriously consider how technology can worsen inequality and alienate particular student groups (Selwyn, 2019). Therefore, it is essential to have a comprehensive grasp of faculty attitudes regarding digital technology in order to develop strategies that will both fully utilize its potential and minimize any associated obstacles within the academic setting. These arguments led to the assumption of the following hypothesis.

Faculty attitude towards digital technology and its influence on engagement

Employee engagement at work is greatly influenced by faculty attitudes towards digital technology (Liao & Li, 2020). Matar et al. (2020) found a positive correlation between positive perceptions of technology and higher levels of commitment and job satisfaction. On the other hand, unfavorable viewpoints could prevent participation and discourage the use of technology (Teng & Wang, 2021). This study investigates the effect of professors’ views towards digital tools on their involvement and output in the classroom.

While (Al Lily et al., 2013) draw attention to the connection between faculty attitudes towards technology and institutional effectiveness (Rienties & Kinchin, 2014), emphasized the significance of faculty acceptance for successful technology integration. Academics who use digital technologies in their instruction frequently demonstrate increased motivation and inventiveness (Xu & Jaggars, 2011). Therefore, increasing faculty engagement and boosting educational outcomes need a supportive environment promoting positive attitudes toward technology (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019). These arguments led to the assumption of the following hypothesis

Faculty Engagement with digital technology in academics and work performance

Scholars have thoroughly studied the effects of adopting digital technologies on research and teaching effectiveness. The transformative potential of digital technologies in supporting creative instructional approaches and boosting student involvement was highlighted by Newsome et al. (2021). Furthermore, Brown et al. (2020) clarified how digital platforms might expedite administrative work, increasing faculty productivity. Furthermore, research Lee et al. (2019) demonstrated the association between faculty members’ professional competency and digital literacy. However, as noted by Johnson (2021), there are still issues, such as the digital gap in education and technological impediments that prevent effective integration into academic procedures.

Therefore, cultivating a positive learning and working environment requires a comprehensive understanding of faculty involvement with digital technology. Future research endeavors should explore techniques for increasing digital literacy and alleviating associated obstacles to maximize the potential benefits for teachers and students. These arguments led to the assumption of the following hypothesis.

Conceptual framework of the study

The relationship between technology adoption, faculty attitudes, engagement, and work performance in higher education settings forms the basis of the conceptual framework of the present study. This study examines how perceived utility and simplicity of use affect users’ attitudes toward adopting technology. It draws on Davis’s (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which states that these elements affect users’ attitudes toward technology adoption. The study also looks at how faculty attitudes about digital technology are shaped by these characteristics. Additionally, it looks at the function that faculty engagement plays as a mediator in the relationship between the views of faculty members towards digital technology and their productivity at work, as suggested by Fredricks et al. (2004).

By merging various theoretical frameworks, the study will shed light on the intricate relationships between faculty attitudes, technology adoption, engagement, and work performance in higher education. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) by Venkatesh et al. (2003) is another source the study uses, considering the impact of variables like behavioral intention, enabling conditions, and social influence. In order to determine the mediating role of engagement in the relationship between attitudes towards digital technology and work performance, a Mediating Analysis—inspired by Baron and Kenny (1986)—will be used to understand the complex relationships between faculty attitudes, engagement, and work performance.

The study attempts to integrate these theoretical foundations to provide a thorough knowledge of the complex interactions between faculty perspectives, technology adoption, and professional outcomes in the field of higher education. The following model was proposed for the present study.

Factors of adopting digital technology, Faculty Attitude, Faculty Engagement and Work Performance: PLS SEM Modeling

The study employed PLS SEM modeling to investigate factors influencing the adoption of digital technology, focusing on faculty attitude, Faculty Engagement and Work Performance. The reliability and validity of constructs were assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (rho_a and rho_c), and average variance extracted (AVE). Table 3 shows that constructs exhibited acceptable levels of internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.781 to 0.961. Composite reliability values (rho_a and rho_c) exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.7, indicating good reliability, with values ranging from 0.864 to 5.225 and 0.836 to 0.968, respectively. Additionally, AVE values ranged from 0.642 to 0.910, surpassing the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.5, signifying satisfactory convergent validity. Notably, construct reliability and validity were demonstrated across all factors, underscoring the robustness of the measurement model in assessing faculty attitudes, towards digital technology adoption, faculty engagement and work performance.

The discriminant validity of constructs was assessed using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) in Table 4. The HTMT values indicate the extent to which constructs are distinct from each other. Generally, HTMT values below 0.85 are considered indicative of discriminant validity. Results revealed that all constructs exhibited discriminant validity, with HTMT values ranging from 0.036 to 0.247. For instance, Collaborativeness demonstrated the lowest HTMT value of 0.036 when compared to Mutual Learning, indicating a clear distinction between these constructs. Similarly, Faculty Engagement and Faculty Attitude showed a relatively low HTMT value of 0.053, further confirming discriminant validity. Notably, the highest HTMT value was observed between Faculty Engagement and Work Performance (0.982), which still falls well below the threshold, affirming the distinctiveness of these constructs. These findings underscore the adequacy of discriminant validity among the measured constructs, as none of the HTMT values exceed the recommended threshold of 0.85, thus providing confidence in the construct validity of the measurement model.

The discriminant validity of the constructs was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As depicted in Table 5, the diagonal values represent the square roots of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct, while the off-diagonal values indicate the correlations between constructs. According to the criterion, the square root of the AVE for each construct should exceed the inter-construct correlations to establish discriminant validity. In this study, all diagonal values exceeded the corresponding off-diagonal values, suggesting adequate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Specifically, the diagonal values ranged from 0.801 to 0.915, exceeding the inter-construct correlations, which ranged from -0.244 to 0.934. These findings provide evidence that each construct captures unique variance beyond the overlap with other constructs, thus supporting the discriminant validity of the measurement model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Structural model and hypothesis testing

The structural model was analyzed through hypothesis testing, incorporating statistical values and assessing significance levels. With a minimum acceptable threshold set at p < 0.05, the model’s parameters were evaluated for their impact on the observed data. The hypothesis testing procedure aimed to determine whether the proposed relationships within the structural model were statistically significant. Statistical values, including beta coefficients and p-values, were utilized to ascertain the strength and direction of these relationships. The analysis revealed significant relationships among the variables. Faculty Engagement demonstrated the highest explanatory power for Work Performance, with an R-square of 0.898. Conversely, Faculty Attitude had a relatively weaker association, explaining 14.9% of the variance in Work Performance. Collaborativeness, Creativity and Critical Thinking, and External Pressure showed minimal contributions, with respective f-square values of 0.028, 0.042, and 0.021, falling below the minimum acceptable threshold.

The structural model as shown in Table 6 was employed to investigate the relationships between various factors and their impact on Faculty Attitude, Work Performance, and Faculty Engagement within an academic setting. The analysis revealed significant path coefficients for Perceived Usefulness (β = 0.176, t = 4.110, p < 0.001), Mutual Learning (β = 0.170, t = 4.195, p < 0.001), Institutional Support (β = 0.169, t = 2.294, p = 0.022), Collaborativeness (β = 0.155, t = 3.881, p < 0.001), and Creativity and Critical Thinking (β = 0.191, t = 4.561, p < 0.001), indicating their significant positive influence on Faculty Attitude. However, External Pressure did not exhibit a significant relationship (β = 0.140, t = 1.379, p = 0.168). Moreover, Faculty Attitude demonstrated strong positive effects on both Work Performance (β = 0.603, t = 15.515, p < 0.001) and Faculty Engagement (β = 0.900, t = 101.453, p < 0.001). Additionally, Faculty Engagement positively impacted Work Performance (β = 0.368, t = 9.353, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the indirect effect of Faculty Attitude on Work Performance through Faculty Engagement was also significant (β = 0.331, t = 9.053, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that fostering perceptions of usefulness, mutual learning, institutional support, collaborativeness, and creativity and critical thinking among faculty members can enhance their attitudes, which in turn positively influence both their engagement and performance within the academic environment.

Mediation analysis

The structural model analysis revealed significant path coefficients indicating relationships between faculty attitude, faculty engagement, and work performance, as depicted in Figure 2 Faculty attitude significantly predicted work performance (β = 0.603, t = 15.515, p < 0.001), demonstrating that a positive attitude among faculty members positively impacts their work performance. Moreover, faculty attitude strongly influenced faculty engagement (β = 0.900, t = 101.453, p < 0.001), highlighting the critical role of attitude in fostering engagement within academic settings. Additionally, faculty engagement was found to significantly predict work performance (β = 0.368, t = 9.353, p < 0.001), emphasizing the importance of engagement for enhancing work performance. Furthermore, the mediation analysis revealed that faculty engagement partially mediated the relationship between faculty attitude and work performance, with a significant indirect effect (β = 0.331, t = 9.053, p < 0.001). These findings underscore the significance of both faculty attitude and engagement in shaping faculty members’ work performance, with engagement playing a mediating role in the relationship between attitude and performance.

Figure 2. Mediation analysis using SEM.

Source: Author’s Compilation.

Ethical statement

This research was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Research Ethics Board (REB) of Uttaranchal University. The Research Ethics Board has given the approval on June 11, 2024, and the approval number is UU/DRI/EC/2024/005.

The questionnaire has been submitted to REB of the university, and the board members and chairperson have identified the viability of the research topic. All the authors presented their research objectives to the board then the questionnaire got approval to conduct the study.

Consent statement

The consent from all the participants involved in the study has been taken. A self-explanatory written statement was attached with the questionnaire for the participants and a similar questionnaire has been submitted to the university research board (REB).

Theoretical contribution

The theoretical understanding of the variables influencing faculty engagement, work performance, and attitude in academic settings is improved by this research. Through the use of a structural model, the study explores the relationships between various elements and how they affect these key concepts. First, the study outlines a number of significant variables that affect faculty attitude. Interestingly, and in line with earlier studies (Jones & Ismail, 2018; Smith et al., 2017), perceived usefulness, mutual learning, institutional support, collaborativeness, and creativity and critical thinking all stand out as important drivers. Furthermore, the study highlights the strong positive impact that faculty attitudes have on work performance and faculty engagement. This result is consistent with other research showing that positively oriented faculty members promote job satisfaction and enhanced performance (Aziz et al., 2019; Wang & Netemeyer, 2020). Moreover, the research underscores the significant influence of Faculty Attitude on Faculty Engagement, stressing the critical function of optimistic perspectives in fostering engagement in academic settings (Choi & Moon, 2021).

Practical contribution

The study’s practical implications highlight how critical it is that academic institutions address the variables affecting teacher involvement and performance (Cochran-Smith et al., 2020). Enhancing perceived utility and mutual learning through programmes like training courses and interdisciplinary collaboration are important tactics that come from the findings (A. R. Jones et al., 2019). Faculty happiness and productivity are greatly enhanced by institutional support systems, such as mentorship programmes and collaborative workspaces (Tabarés Gutiérrez et al., 2020). Johnson (2017) asserts that innovative teaching and research require faculty members to be encouraged to be creative and to think critically. Furthermore, highlighting the value of an engaged and positive faculty can improve overall performance and institutional achievement (Robinson & Johnson, 2021). Academic organisations may establish encouraging settings that promote faculty professional development and institutional advancement by putting these research-based tactics into practice (Lynch et al., 2022).

Limitations and Future scope of the research

In an academic setting, the study looked at the effects of several factors on faculty engagement, work performance, and attitudes. Relationships between faculty attitude, collaborativeness, creativity, and critical thinking, mutual learning, perceived usefulness, and institutional support were found to be significantly beneficial. A substantial link was not shown by External Pressure, though. Work performance was positively impacted by faculty engagement as well as by faculty attitude, which both significantly influenced each other. According to a mediation analysis, there is a partial mediating effect of faculty engagement between work performance and faculty attitude. For faculty members to perform better in academic environments, the study emphasizes the value of encouraging positive attitudes and participation. The study’s context-specific design may restrict its generalizability, and other research is necessary to examine other factors impacting teacher attitudes and participation.