Digital Literacy, Technology Acceptance, and Teaching Innovation in Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework

Dan Lin; Siew Ping Wong

doi:10.63646/ZHOT5417

Authors

Dan Lin^1,* https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7552-1375
- Conceptualization
- Formal Analysis
- Methodology
- Visualization
- Writing – Original Draft Preparation
Siew Ping Wong¹ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3096-3276
- Methodology
- Validation
- Writing – Review & Editing
- Investigation

¹ Faculty of Business, Information and Human Sciences, Kuala Lumpur University of Science & Technology, Kajang, Malaysia 43000

Corresponding author: 243925319@s.klust.edu.my

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63646/ZHOT5417

Keywords:

Digital literacy; Teacher digital competence; Technology acceptance; Teaching innovation; Higher education; TAM; UTAUT; Pedagogical innovation

Abstract

Digital transformation has made lecturer digital literacy a strategic requirement for higher education, yet competence alone does not guarantee pedagogical innovation. Research on digital competence, technol- ogy acceptance, and innovative teaching has developed in partly separate traditions, making it difficult to explain why technically capable lecturers sometimes reproduce conventional instruction with new tools while others redesign learning, assessment, and participation. This article systematically integrates these traditions and proposes a conceptual framework for the conversion of digital capability into teaching inno- vation. A protocol-led narrative review of peer-reviewed higher-education literature published from 2010 to June 2026 produced an analytical corpus of 54 publications. The synthesis shows that university teach- ers report stronger competence in information retrieval, communication, and routine platform use than in digital assessment, learning analytics, ethical governance, and artificial-intelligence-supported design. Perceived usefulness or performance expectancy was the most recurrent acceptance mechanism, followed by effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and self-efficacy; yet technology use was an unreliable proxy for innovation, which required instructional redesign, experimentation, evidence-informed refinement, and diffusion beyond isolated courses. The proposed Can-Will-Transform framework positions technology ac- ceptance as a mediating translation mechanism between digital literacy and teaching innovation capability, with institutional and task conditions operating as boundary conditions. The review contributes an inte- grated vocabulary, eight testable propositions, and a measurement agenda, and recommends connecting tool mastery to pedagogical value, protected experimentation, and organisational learning.

How to Cite

Lin, D., & Wong, S. P. (2026). Digital Literacy, Technology Acceptance, and Teaching Innovation in Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework. Trends and Reviews of Technological Engineering in Education, 2(3), 57-78. https://doi.org/10.63646/ZHOT5417

Download Citation

References

A. Pilav-Velić, M. Černe, P. Trkman, S. I. Wong, and A. Kadić Abaz, ”Digital or Innovative: Un- derstanding the ’Digital Literacy-Practice-Innovative Work Behavior’ Chain,” South East European Journal of Economics and Business, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 107-119, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeb-2 021-0009

C. Redecker, European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. Lux- embourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770

UNESCO, AI Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2024.

M. Spante, S. S. Hashemi, M. Lundin, and A. Algers, ”Digital competence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of concept use,” Cogent Education, vol. 5, no. 1, art. 1519143, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1519143

G. Falloon, ”From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 68, pp. 2449-2472, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

J. M. Fernández-Batanero, P. Román-Graván, M. Montenegro-Rueda, E. López-Meneses, and J. Fernández-Cerero, ”Digital teaching competence in higher education: A systematic review,” Edu- cation Sciences, vol. 11, no. 11, art. 689, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110689

V. Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos, M. Matarranz, L.-A. Casado-Aranda, and A. Otto, ”Teachers’ digital competencies in higher education: A systematic literature review,” International Journal of Educa- tional Technology in Higher Education, vol. 19, art. 8, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-0 0312-8

F. D. Davis, ”Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information tech- nology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319-340, 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, ”User acceptance of information technol- ogy: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425-478, 2003. https://doi.org/10.2 307/30036540

A. Granić and N. Marangunić, ”Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 2572-2593, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864

R. Scherer, F. Siddiq, and J. Tondeur, ”The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in edu- cation,” Computers & Education, vol. 128, pp. 13-35, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018 .09.009

M. Thurlings, A. T. Evers, and M. Vermeulen, ”Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 430-471, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314557949

M. S. Palmer and J. A. Giering, ”Characterizing pedagogical innovation in higher education,” Inno- vative Higher Education, vol. 49, pp. 453-473, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09681-6

M. Liesa-Orús, R. Lozano-Blasco, and L. Arce-Romeral, ”Digital competence in university lecturers: A meta-analysis of teaching challenges,” Education Sciences, vol. 13, no. 5, art. 508, 2023. https: //doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050508

C. Mercader and J. Gairín, ”University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technolo- gies: The importance of the academic discipline,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 17, art. 4, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0182-x

J. Tondeur, S. Howard, M. Van Zanten, I. Van der Neut, P. Gorissen, D. Uerz, and M. Kral, ”The HeDiCom framework: Higher Education teachers’ digital competencies for the future,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 71, pp. 33-53, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-0 23-10193-5

P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, ”Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge,” Teachers College Record, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017-1054, 2006. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, and X. Xu, ”Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 157-178, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

L. Xue, A. M. Rashid, and S. Ouyang, ”The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology in higher education: A systematic review,” SAGE Open, vol. 14, no. 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.117 7/21582440241229570. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241229570

I. Ajzen, ”The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179-211, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

J. P. J. de Jong and D. N. den Hartog, ”Measuring innovative work behaviour,” Creativity and Innova- tion Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 23-36, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x

A. Kottmann, K. Schildkamp, and B. van der Meulen, ”Determinants of the innovation behaviour of teachers in higher education,” Innovative Higher Education, vol. 49, pp. 397-418, 2024. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09689-y

M. J. Page et al., ”The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, art. n71, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

C. Englund, A. D. Olofsson, and L. Price, ”Teaching with technology in higher education: Under- standing conceptual change and development in practice,” Higher Education Research and Develop- ment, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 73-87, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300

A. Kirkwood and L. Price, ”Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is enhanced and how do we know?” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 6-36, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404

B. Philipsen, J. Tondeur, N. Pareja Roblin, S. Vanslambrouck, and C. Zhu, ”Improving teacher pro- fessional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review,” Ed- ucational Technology Research and Development, vol. 67, pp. 1145-1174, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1 007/s11423-019-09645-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8

C. Rapanta, L. Botturi, P. Goodyear, L. Guàrdia, and M. Koole, ”Online university teaching dur- ing and after the COVID-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity,” Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 2, pp. 923-945, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y

A. Pilav-Velić, M. Černe, P. Trkman, S. I. Wong, and A. Kadić Abaz, ”Digital or Innovative: Un- derstanding the ’Digital Literacy-Practice-Innovative Work Behavior’ Chain,” South East European Journal of Economics and Business, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 107-119, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeb-2 021-0009