Designing faculty standards for technology integration in higher education institutions: a design-based research study

Synthesis: Crompton, Burke, and Nickel (2026) use design-based research across two iterative macro cycles and 114 participants to develop a framework of six faculty technology standards covering the full teaching/research/service scope of higher education work: Instructor, Coordinator, Leader, Researcher, Learner, and Contributor. Each standard is paired with practical indicators for effective, ethical, and contextually relevant technology use. The study addresses a genuine gap — existing frameworks (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), RAT, SAMR, SETI) and standards (ISTE, UNESCO, DigCompEdu) target K-12 educators or only the teaching portion of faculty roles. The standards are meant to guide faculty development, inform institutional planning, and align with accreditation.

Core Finding

Higher education faculty lack a comprehensive set of technology standards that cover all three of their core responsibilities — teaching, research, and service — and this design-based research study produces one, consisting of six standards (Instructor, Coordinator, Leader, Researcher, Learner, Contributor) with practical indicators. Existing frameworks and standards are inadequate: theoretical frameworks provide overarching guidance but no granular Benchmarks, while extant educator standards (ISTE, UNESCO, DigCompEdu, HeDiCom, Quality Matters) target K-12 teachers or address only the teaching dimension. The new framework fills this gap and is usable by faculty, administrators, and academic support staff (Deans, Provosts, accreditation leads, instructional designers, researchers, curriculum developers) to guide Educational Development, institutional planning, and accreditation alignment.

The Six Faculty Standards

The framework spans teaching, research, and service, reordered to mirror a faculty member's responsibilities:

1. Instructor — designing, implementing, and evaluating teaching with technology (revised to include "implementing," which was initially absent).
2. Coordinator — managing programs and courses; renamed from "Administrator" after participants noted the term was confused with Deans and other non-faculty leadership roles.
3. Leader — leading technology integration and innovation.
4. Researcher — using technology in scholarly inquiry and research.
5. Learner — engaging in ongoing professional learning about technology.
6. Contributor — contributing to the university, profession, and community through technology.

Each standard carries practical indicators illustrating examples of effective implementation, supporting effective, ethical, and contextually relevant technology use.

Methodological Approach

The study uses design-based research (Gravemeijer & van Eerde, 2009), which is situated in real educational contexts, iterative, and collaborative. Two macro cycles each included instructional design, experiment/mini-cycle analysis, and retrospective analysis, with the standards treated as a conjectured theory of ontological innovation. Participants (114 total) included US faculty from 28 institutions across five Carnegie types, international faculty from 11 countries, Centers for Teaching directors, accreditation coordinators, and representatives of educational technology, accrediting, and global organizations. Data came from surveys (Likert + open text) and semi-structured interviews, coded with grounded theory/constant comparative method (four researchers, 100% agreement on revisions).

Context and Rationale

The study responds to calls from scholars, organizations, and institutions to address the gap in scholarly knowledge about HE faculty technology standards. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed gaps in faculty preparedness for digital teaching, research, and service. The research questions ask what standards faculty should demonstrate and what indicators exemplify meeting them. A notable participant-driven refinement was the renaming of the "Administrator" standard to "Coordinator," reflecting the social and organizational meaning of terms in academic settings — a useful insight for Administrators and Teaching concepts.

Relevance to the Knowledge Base

This article is central to the knowledge base's Educational Development and Teaching clusters. It provides a concrete, evidence-based framework for how institutions can benchmark and support faculty technology integration across teaching, research, and service, and it connects to Learning Design, Curriculum Design, and institutional AI Governance/accreditation. It also complements AI Literacy by framing technology competence as a structured, standards-based institutional concern rather than an individual add-on.

What this means for practice

• Faculty developers. Adopt the six standards, Instructor, Coordinator, Leader, Researcher, Learner, and Contributor, as shared language that covers service and research, not only teaching.
• Administrators. Use the indicators to align Educational Development, institutional planning, and accreditation instead of importing K-12 frameworks such as ISTE, UNESCO, or DigCompEdu wholesale.
• Instructors. Match technology expectations to the full faculty role of teaching, research, and service rather than treating integration as a classroom-only competency.

Limitations

• Design-based research across two macro cycles with 114 participants; the framework is a designed artifact refined iteratively, not a population-estimate study.
• Participants were drawn largely from US faculty (28 institutions across five Carnegie types) plus international faculty from 11 countries, and the authors advise adopters to consider local contexts.
• The authors state that cultural and institutional nuances in how faculty roles are understood were only partially addressed, so testing across more countries is needed.
• The study establishes consensus and iteration rather than downstream effects; the authors call for design-based studies testing certificate programs built on the standards.

Citation

Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Nickel, C. (2026). Designing faculty standards for technology integration in higher education institutions: a design-based research study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.