Reflective Practice and Digital Technology Use in a University Context: A Qualitative Approach to Transformative Teaching

Abstract

Integrating digital technologies into universities has transformed teaching and learning experiences, requiring educators to use systematic and rigorous reflective practice to evaluate and optimize their pedagogical strategies. This study examined the intersection between reflective teaching practices and the use of digital technology, including artificial intelligence, in university teaching. Through a thematic analysis, this study examined how educators employ technological tools, reflect on their educational decisions, and influence their ongoing faculty development. The results revealed that, under specific conditions, reflective practice is crucial for refining the practice and foreseeing the meaningful uses of digital technology in learning. The results also highlight the importance of colleague-to-colleague collaboration in supporting pedagogical innovation and enhancing instructional planning. This study extends the previous research on teachers’ reflective practice regarding the educational use of digital technology in a new academic environment, highlighting the relevance of integrating reflexivity into higher education faculty development to promote compelling and authentic educational technology adoption.

1. Introduction

Integrating digital technologies into university education has significantly transformed teaching and learning, offering educators new opportunities and challenges for ongoing faculty development. Numerous frameworks and models have been developed to assist faculty members in effectively integrating digital technologies into their teaching practices. Among the most notable is the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler et al., 2017), which emphasizes the interaction between three essential domains of knowledge: technology, pedagogy, and content. Similarly, models such as the substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR) model provide insight into the transformative potential of technology in the classroom (Puentedura, 2015), offering educators practical guidance on the use of educational technology.

While the frameworks offer theoretical support for digital technology and the models present practical guidance on enhancing teaching through technology, they often concentrate on structural aspects of usage. This focus leaves limited room for teacher reflection on the deeper, critical processes associated with technology’s conscious and ethical use with students.

This article presents an approach that builds upon these existing models by introducing a lens of collaborative reflective practice. The aim is to foster teachers’ conscious, purposeful, and cooperative engagement with digital technologies. Incorporating reflective collaborative inquiry into the integration process encourages educators to make critical and collective decisions for further improvement.

Thus, this work’s contribution extends beyond offering a complementary framework to the existing ones; it also enables a more nuanced and reflective approach to technology use in education, empowering teachers to adapt and refine their practices over time (Amhag et al., 2019; Colomer et al., 2020). Engaging in teacher reflection allows educators to assess the perceived impact of these tools on their teaching while fostering pedagogical adaptability. This process is crucial, as digital reflection and effective curriculum design are foundational to enabling authentic learning experiences (Schön, 1983; Freire, 2014).

This study explored the intersection of faculty members’ reflective practices and the integration of digital technologies in a Chilean university teaching context and strived to understand how educators use and reflect on these tools in their pedagogical endeavors. We investigated the decisions made by the participating faculty members and the evolution of technology implementation among learners. Furthermore, the implications of these findings for ongoing faculty development are discussed, highlighting the need for formative approaches that embed critical reflection and digital literacy as essential components for educational innovation.

The specific research questions that guided this study are as follows.

• Primary question: How do the faculty of coordinated subjects in the participating department reflect on their teaching practice with digital technologies?
• Secondary questions:
  • What pedagogical configurations are reported in the reflective records of the participating faculty members?
  • What types of teaching practices using digital technologies can be developed based on the faculty’s reflective practice approach?

2. Literature Review

Integrating digital technologies in higher education compels educators, who are experts in their fields, to welcome new tools while also critically assessing their educational implications. Reflective practice has emerged as a significant strategy for faculty development in higher education, with a focus on enhancing the teaching quality (Amhag et al., 2019; Colomer et al., 2020). The following sections review the literature on the relationship between faculty reflection and the implementation of digital technologies in university teaching, examining the interactions between teachers and learners through these tools and how critical reflection can boost improvements in educational practice.

2.1. The Role of Digital Technology in University Learning

“Digital technology” encompasses a diverse range of resources and tools that enable individuals to engage with, construct, and disseminate information within digital environments (Livingstone, 2012) to facilitate learning, as discussed in the works of Dourish (2017), Luckin et al. (2011), and Luckin (2018), who emphasized the critical role of digital technologies in transforming educational practices and enhancing the dissemination of knowledge among learners.

The term “digital technology” includes devices (such as smartphones and tablets), as well as online learning management systems like Google Classroom. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be considered a part of these technologies and has been employed for educational purposes, providing opportunities to develop personalized and adaptive learning pathways tailored to individual student needs (Mao et al., 2024).

In this study, we adopted a sociocultural perspective, emphasizing that digital technologies lack neutrality and are designed for specific purposes. Consequently, these technologies can potentially influence and transform our behaviors, interactions and worldviews (Potter & McDougall, 2017; Selwyn, 2022; Williamson et al., 2020b). This viewpoint highlights the dynamic relationship between designers and users of digital technology, as well as the technologies themselves, which can shape our practices, values, and social structures—particularly when their use occurs unconsciously or spontaneously. Within this context, critical and creative thinking, as well as reflective practice, emerge as essential dimensions of human interaction when considering the educational applications of digital technology (Freire, 2005).

The research on educational technology has emphasized the diverse ways in which digital tools are employed in teaching and learning. This utilization is shaped by various dimensions, including the academic perception of these technologies’ efficacy, the educators’ training, and the institutional context of implementation (Novoa-Echaurren et al., 2025). In the realm of higher education, this phenomenon is particularly pronounced. Most university faculty retain a robust background in their respective disciplines; nonetheless, they often lack systematic pedagogical training, unlike their counterparts at the school level (Ruggiero & Mong, 2015).

There are specific cases, such as the one described by Demzky et al. (2024), that demonstrate how automated feedback on teaching practices in universities, facilitated through digital platforms, can enhance classroom interaction between teachers and students while fostering informed decision-making about the educational use of digital technologies. These cases advocate for a technology adoption process in university teaching driven by critical reflection on its potential impact on learning.

2.2. Challenges to the Use of Digital Technology in University Teaching

Insufficient pedagogical training and digital skills among university faculty present significant challenges to integrating digital technologies in higher education (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2021). A gap between disciplinary knowledge and the pedagogical application of technology arises as a critical limitation to its effective implementation with students (Amhag et al., 2019).

Another notable constraint to effective technology use in teaching stems from the limited time and resources available for ongoing faculty development. To address these issues, Vires et al. (2024) emphasize the need for creating academic development instances that enable educators to learn and apply teaching strategies with digital technology reflectively and gradually.

The previous research suggests that explicit strategies are needed to enhance the effectiveness of digital technologies in university teaching. For instance, Montero-Mesa et al. (2023) contend that teacher development should incorporate spaces for collective reflection, allowing educators to share experiences and assess the added value of technology in the learning process.

In recent decades, educational models, frameworks, and approaches for integrating digital technologies have expanded significantly (Crompton & Burke, 2020; Kennedy & Laurillard, 2024; Koehler et al., 2017). A model can be understood to be an evidence-based orientation for educational institutions to self-assess and enhance their practices. For instance, the innovative digital school (IDI) model considers six key elements to define an innovative digital school, such as school vision, leadership, teaching community practices, pedagogical practices, school-level knowledge practices, and digital resources (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018).

The “SAMR” model is another model that guides institutions in effective technology integration (Puentedura, 2015). It represents four distinct levels of technology adoption: (1) substitution, where technology acts as a direct replacement for traditional methods without altering functionality (e.g., using a word processor instead of pen and paper); (2) augmentation, in which technology replaces tools while enhancing functional capabilities (e.g., employing AI tools for grammar and writing feedback); (3) modification, where technology allows for significant redesigning of tasks (e.g., students collaborating on a document in real time); and (4) redefinition, which enables the creation of tasks that were previously unimaginable (e.g., students developing multimedia projects for an international audience). This model encourages educators to move beyond mere substitutions and consider how technology can fundamentally transform learning experiences.

On the other hand, a framework provides theoretical support for improving the effectiveness of technology use. For instance, the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK; Koehler et al., 2017) framework has been extensively utilized in university settings to guide educators in reflecting on the educational use of digital technologies (Amhag et al., 2019). This framework enables teachers to evaluate how technology can enhance their pedagogical strategies and improve student learning, emphasizing the integration of the teacher’s technological (“TK”), pedagogical (“PK”), and disciplinary (“CK”) knowledge.

Additionally, an approach interacts with models and frameworks to increase the effectiveness of technology integration in teaching and learning. For instance, our research offers an approach to reflection (Novoa-Echaurren, 2022, 2024) that seamlessly integrates with the existing models and frameworks. This integration enhances the applicability of our findings and fosters a deeper understanding and engagement within models and frameworks about educational technology. Before discussing the definition and implications of the proposed reflective approach, we provide a discussion of the challenges associated with integrating artificial intelligence into academic contexts, as these new technological advancements have posed challenges for faculty members about how to effectively integrate them in teaching.

2.3. Challenges to the Use of AI in University Teaching

Several issues have arisen in the discussion of digital technology integration into teaching and learning, particularly regarding the implementation of AI in university education. For instance, researchers have raised concerns about the potential for AI to disrupt established teaching methodologies (Bearman et al., 2022) and the urgent ethical considerations (Smuha, 2023). The infrastructural requirements for student equitable access, alongside the gaps in technical proficiency among educators, have been highlighted by scholars in the field (Bond et al., 2024). Another significant concern is the datafication of education, as articulated by Williamson et al. (2020a). While characteristic of a broader societal trend, this phenomenon is particularly pronounced in the education sector. AI propels the narrative that performance, institutional quality, and student behavior can be assessed solely through quantitative data and standardized metrics. Although standardization can be beneficial for informed decision-making, it often neglects the nuanced situated knowledge, contextual variables, and structural limitations prevailing in the educational environments where such technologies are deployed.

Crucially, a lack of critical reflection on technology’s interplay with its surrounding context can render the adoption of digital tools a mere exercise in process replication or efficient enhancement without yielding substantive improvements in educational quality or research output (Buckingham, 2019). A systematic review on the applications of AI in higher education demonstrated that the dominant uses include assessments, predictive analytics, personalized assistance, and the development of intelligent tutoring systems and management platforms (Bond et al., 2024). Kamoun et al. (2024) highlighted that the challenges associated with the critical and ethical adoption of AI tools in universities underline the need to enhance reflective teaching practices. This enhancement can cultivate pedagogical decision-making grounded in a contextualized analysis of digital technology use in higher education.

Consequently, beyond the continuous evolution of technology, two pivotal elements warrant profound consideration: the role of educators as both teaching practitioners and researchers and the conceptualization of digital technologies, including AI, within the framework of the educational mission. These considerations relate closely to what has been termed the “total lack of critical reflection regarding the challenges and risks of AI in education”, which underscores the tenuous connection to theoretical, pedagogical frameworks and the imperative for more extensive ethical and educational inquiries surrounding AI in higher education (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019, p. 1).

These inquiries are not novel; instead, they represent persisting ethical and strategic dimensions that invite reflection on how AI interfaces with pedagogical frameworks and the overarching objectives of higher education (Popenici & Kerr, 2017). This aligns with a broader call to delve deeper into complex issues, including student perceptions of AI, rectifying inherent biases within the technology, data privacy concerns, and institutional strategies for managing data storage and utilization (Bearman et al., 2022; Selwyn, 2019).

While numerous studies have examined digital technology adoption in education through quantitative lenses that assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (Kamoun et al., 2024), a notable gap remains in our understanding of the reflective processes through which teachers interpret, adapt, and redefine these resources within specific contexts. Qualitative research can offer insights into these deeper dimensions, facilitating the exploration of teacher agency, pedagogical decision-making, and the expansion of professional knowledge concerning the transformative use of technologies—elements that are challenging to capture through standardized metrics.

2.4. The Role of Reflective Practice in Promoting Collaborative Academic Development

Multiple theoretical and methodological approaches have been used to explore the concept of reflective practice (Loughran, 2002; Mathew, 2012; Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993; Sellars, 2012; Taylor et al., 2015; Van Manen, 2006). The many viewpoints have generated challenges in defining “reflective practice” and understanding its implications for faculty development. Historically, in the 20th century, “reflective practice” has been conceived through a pragmatic lens, depicted as a personal and iterative process of evaluating and critically analyzing pedagogical experiences for the continuous improvement of teaching (Dewey, 1910; Schön, 1983).

At the turn of the last century and the beginning of the current one, more comprehensive approaches appeared (Bleakley, 2006; Freire, 2014) that conceptualize reflection as a process unfolding beyond mere self-assessment. These approaches incorporate collaborative, institutional, and even socio-cultural dimensions. In this context, “reflective practice” has evolved towards a systemic account that considers the educators’ pedagogical decisions, as well as the frameworks provided by institutional policies, interactions with professional peers (Damşa et al., 2021), and the socio-cultural context in which teaching and learning ensue (Bleakley, 2006; Freire, 2014). This perspective emphasizes the interplay of internal and external factors, such as national scholarly policies, student needs, and institutional expectations, in shaping educational practices.

In the digital age, “reflective practice” has gained a new dimension, enabling educators to critically examine how technologies can be integrated into educational experiences to enhance learning and improve teaching skills (Livingstone, 2012; Lomos et al., 2023). From this stance, the GEM 2023 Report (UNESCO, 2024) suggests that the rapid transformation of the digital ecosystem is putting pressure on education systems, necessitating agile and flexible adaptive processes. Nevertheless, the implementation of digital tools in teaching remains influenced by socio-economic factors, cultural disparities, and the level of teacher preparation, which are inhibiting sustained progress in this area. This issue stresses the importance of reflective practice associated with digital technologies, which entails a technological update, a shift in the pedagogical paradigm, and a reassessment of the organizational structures that govern teaching.

The large-scale uptake of digital technologies among students continues, especially in more advanced countries such as Finland (Novoa-Echaurren et al., 2025; Kaarakainen & Saikkonen, 2021; Lavonen, 2020). This reality perpetuates disparities in resourcing, resulting in the most disadvantaged students and institutions that are most likely to optimize their use of digital tools often being the least likely to receive basic access (UNESCO, 2024). This trend has been recognized in the literature and is an ongoing concern among educational technology specialists (Becker, 2000; Cuban, 2001; Perrotta & Selwyn, 2019; Selwyn, 2022).

Considering these ideas, it is vital to recognize continuing faculty development (CFD) as a fundamental initiative for enhancing the integration of digital technologies in teaching. Research in this field has consistently underlined CFD’s importance in supporting the effective use of digital technologies in education, ultimately aimed at improving academic outcomes (Michos et al., 2018) and cultivating connections between policy and practice (Bruggeman et al., 2022).

CFD can significantly enhance initiatives that empower teachers to engage in collaborative educational decisions regarding digital technology. This process should be grounded in a two-way action plan that integrates both top-down and bottom-up communication among stakeholders involved in decision-making. Educational leadership has recognized such an approach as better suited to our evolving contemporary landscape (Ostinelli & Crescentini, 2021). Scholars and leaders in educational technology concur that those at the helm of education systems providing CFD opportunities must strike a balance between top-down and bottom-up strategies (Eicken et al., 2021). This perspective is instrumental in enhancing teacher agency (Albion & Tondeur, 2018; Novoa-Echaurren, 2024; Philipsen et al., 2019).

Understanding the pedagogical application of digital technologies as part of a broader ecosystem is essential for their systematic and rigorous integration into teaching (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024). The pedagogical use of digital technologies includes the entire teaching and learning experience, comprising the design, implementation, and assessment of specific learning technologies (Koehler et al., 2017; Laurillard, 2012; Laurillard et al., 2018; Tallvid, 2016).

These challenges for educators are often synthesized in acquiring sufficient technical and pedagogical expertise to effectively identify and apply appropriate technologies within a specific curriculum context and for distinct academic purposes (Selwyn, 2022). Beyond mere technical and administrative considerations, digital tools are considered integral components of a broader learning ecosystem, including technical, social, and cultural dimensions relevant to any educational setting (Lim et al., 2013). The socio-cultural potentials and limitations of digital technologies are not always immediately apparent, and their applications can vary based on the background, educational needs, and digital competencies of the participants, and the context in which the digital technologies are used. Considering these factors, reflection emerges as a crucial practice that aids educators in identifying potential pathways for fostering authentic learning experiences.

Reflective practice is essential to faculty development (Montero-Mesa et al., 2023). Colomer et al. (2020) highlighted that reflective learning enables educators to assess their experiences, connect theory to practice, and enhance their instructional approaches to improve teaching quality. Engaging in critical reflection improves individual teaching practices and allows educators to adapt their methods to evolving contexts, fostering more inclusive and participatory approaches.

Reflecting on digital technology integration in higher education is essential for addressing challenges that have been identified in educational technology research, such as insufficient training and resistance to change (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2021). For instance, Amhag et al. (2019) contends that developing digital skills in educators requires continuing self-assessment and professional development, where reflective practice plays a pivotal role.

The previous research indicates that reflective teaching practices often lack systematization (Mohamed et al., 2022; Msafiri et al., 2023). Factors such as space and time limitations contribute to teachers’ insufficient reflection on their instructional methods (Akram et al., 2022; Chen & Chen, 2022; Sosa-Díaz et al., 2022). This issue may lead to large-scale research on the pedagogical application of conventional teaching strategies predominantly focusing on content delivery and the utilization of pre-designed materials that are available online, often without tailoring them to the local context (Claro et al., 2018; Ibieta et al., 2017).

Our study is grounded in a reflective approach that comprises three dimensions (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024) and three pedagogical configurations arising from teachers’ reflections and decisions (Novoa-Echaurren, 2022).

The reflective approach dimensions are defined below (see Figure 1; Novoa-Echaurren, 2024).

• Professional or personal: This dimension refers to an individual teacher’s ability to consider and apply their pedagogical approaches, including the unique characteristics of their discipline and the relevant pedagogical elements associated with the subject they teach.
• Collaborative: This dimension refers to engaging academic or professional peers in reflective practice. It encompasses the reception of feedback and the proposal of ideas for improvement when faced with the challenging aspects of practice to enhance the future design and implementation of their practice. It also includes comparing and contrasting one’s own practice with that of peers to promote continuous improvement.
• Institutional: This dimension pertains to integrating regulations, expectations, and conditions for the use of digital technologies in education. It embodies a political and ethical perspective, emphasizing these aspects to enhance student learning.

The interplay among the three dimensions culminates in teacher agency, denoted by the ‘A’ in Figure 1, positioned within the concentric circles. Agency, as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2, is the result of a reflexive process (Freire, 2014), and it embodies the capacity to make informed decisions regarding the integration of digital technologies into teaching. Hence, “agency” is relational, engaging faculty, educational leaders, such as heads of schools or departments, and students in collaborative decision-making (Damşa et al., 2021).

The second aspect of the reflexive approach concerns the pedagogical configurations that emerge from teacher decision-making, which is informed by reflexivity. These configurations include space (which includes both conventional and distributed organizations), social interactions (which focus on dialogical structures or collaborative knowledge construction among students), and time (which involves choosing between a linear time organization—considering a class from start to end—or a more flexible temporality that aligns with students’ learning rhythms) (Novoa-Echaurren, 2022; Dourish, 2017). The interplay between them allows educators to develop distinctive learning environments using technology.

3. Materials and Methods

The qualitative multiple-case study design involved the analysis of reflective practice meetings documented by faculty members from an undergraduate department at an accredited university in Chile.

3.1. Sampling

The research adopted a fixed purposive sampling method (Sabariego Puig, 2019) to assess the replicability of the reflective practice approach (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024), which was previously investigated in a different educational environment. The university and department selection were conducted using strategic criteria, inviting faculty members from a department where the researchers actively engage in academic development initiatives. This specific sampling strategy ensured a controlled atmosphere for implementing this study and facilitated participant access. Furthermore, it reflected the research team’s interest in exploring the applicability of the reflective practice approach in a university setting (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Hence, this study examined the adoption of digital technologies in teaching through a reflective lens and investigated the influence of the organizational structure and academic development processes on the execution of reflective strategies in higher education. Regarding teacher selection within the unit, the following criteria were used:

• The faculty must be engaged in the designated department, specifically in a subject with established coordination, as it is taught across multiple programs within the department. This criterion ensures that they can collaboratively contribute to the design of curricula and syllabi and observe and reflect on teaching practices.
• Alternatively, educators teaching subjects with comparable attributes were invited to form a discussion group for reflection.
• Additionally, the participating faculty must regularly incorporate digital technologies in their instructional practices.

The selection criteria are grounded in the concept of “reflective practice” (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024; Freire, 1998, 2014). It recognizes that agency stems from reflexivity and collaborative decision-making (Damşa et al., 2021). Through collaborative practice, teachers can define and develop unique learning environments through the interplay of spatial, social, and temporal configurations (Dourish, 2017), allowing them to tailor their use of technology to the specific conditions and needs of their teaching contexts. In alignment with these criteria, a total of 23 faculty members were invited to participate, with 10 completing the reflective process, as detailed in

Table 1. Study sample.

Case N°	Thematic Area	Course	Number of Faculty Members	%
1	Sciences	Biochemistry	2	20
1		Chemistry	3	30
1		Biology	1	10
2	Humanities	History of Science	2	40
2		Western History	2
		Total	10	43

.

This study followed the ethical standards set forth by the institution’s Scientific Ethics Committee, which mandated the approval of the research protocol and obtaining informed consent from all the participants. Increased attention was paid to confidentiality and data privacy. All collected data were anonymized for research purposes before analysis. The informed consent form outlined the aims, procedures, benefits, and risks associated with volunteer participation, as well as the ability to withdraw at any time without any negative impact on their professional or academic development.

3.2. Participants’ Background

The faculty involved in Case 1 had a solid background in their respective disciplinary fields, extensive experience in undergraduate teaching, and master’s and doctoral degrees in their disciplines. While some had completed university teaching training programs, they generally lacked formal pedagogical preparation, such as a degree in basic pedagogy, as their foundational education did not align with the teaching profession.

The faculty in Case 2 had prior experience in the school environment and had pursued further academic development, earning master’s and doctoral degrees. They had undergone formal pedagogical training and had a teaching career that spanned both school and university levels, which provided them with a broader perspective on the learning process across different educational stages.

The faculty in Case 1 convened once a month, with each educator observing a colleague’s class and completing the rubric illustrated in Appendix A. It is worth noting that the teaching team developed this rubric, which does not correspond to the reflective recording form provided by the research team. Following the rubric, the observing faculty offered qualitative commentary on the teaching and learning experience (Appendix A and Appendix B).

The Case 2 faculty members also met monthly during the second term of 2024. They used a thinking routine as a guideline for providing feedback and further reflection on their practices with technology. Additionally, one of the teachers maintained a personal reflective log on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) with students. This initiative aimed to help students delve deeper into the subject matter, particularly in connection with a visit to a historical museum.

The researchers opted to utilize the observational and reflective guidelines developed by each team, following the reflective approach delineated in this article (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024; Freire, 1998). Reflection involves articulating the personal, collaborative, and institutional dimensions, thereby facilitating teacher agency. When faculty members use self-designed instruments, this choice has a specific value for cultivating their reflective and decision-making capacity (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024; Freire, 1998). Additionally, the fact that they decided to use their own formats constitutes a research outcome worth examining.

3.3. Data Collection and Data Analysis

The educators within the participating department were organized into collaborative teams based on specific subjects or thematic areas, each coordinated by a designated peer responsible for structuring formal opportunities to cultivate reflective practice. This methodological process involved colleague-to-colleague observations of teaching practices, followed by monthly meetings among team members to share feedback and ideas for improvement.

The researchers examined the observational and reflective records developed by the participating faculty members using a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2021). They analyzed the data independently and then collaborated to agree upon patterns and categories. Firstly, a deductive approach was utilized to identify patterns within the empirical data that align with the conceptual development of reflective practice (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024; Freire, 1998). In this analysis, a priori codes were developed based on the literature about reflective practice and its applications within educational technology implementations. This procedure highlighted key aspects of initial data interpretation, providing a structured framework for analyzing the implementation of reflective practice in digital contexts.

The second stage involved an inductive approach consistent with the principles of grounded theory (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006), allowing themes to emerge organically from the data without any preconceived categorizations. This method facilitated a dual inquiry of the data, enabling interpretations that evolve from “reflexivity” based on its conceptual development, which were then followed up to enhance the concept. Integrating both deductive and inductive analyses enabled a synthesis of theory and practice. Within this inferential analysis, the theory sheds light on teachers’ praxis, while the inductive approach enables a more profound understanding of the examined notion concerning the use of educational technology.

A priori coding was developed from the literature on reflective practices, the pedagogical integration of digital technologies in higher education, and continuous professional development for educators. The researchers analyzed a total of ten reflective records generated by the participants. The codes were subjected to iterative refinement through the identification and consolidation of themes. Employing keyword recognition, salient ideas, and patterns within the data sets facilitated the establishment of thematic categories, thereby promoting comparative analysis and the discernment of relationships and trends (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024).

The coding and analysis process utilized specialized qualitative analysis software, such as Dedoose, which facilitated the identification of recurrent themes within the data and established connections with the existing literature.

The researchers validated the recurrent categories, addressing any divergences and consolidating the final thematic analysis to ensure the coherence and interpretative richness of this study. An iterative comparison between the data and theoretical codes was maintained until saturation was achieved (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024; Braun & Clarke, 2021).

4. Results

The presentation of the findings integrates both inductive and deductive analytical approaches in a complementary manner. The presentation of the findings is organized in alignment with the research questions. Among the key findings, eight distinct themes emerged from the reflective processes of the participating faculty members.

4.1. Faculty Reflections About Their Teaching Practices with Digital Technologies

This section will disclose the findings related to the first research question. Six key themes were identified from the data (see

Table 2. Primary question findings.

“Primary question: How do the faculty of coordinated subjects in the participating department reflect on their teaching practice with digital technologies?”
Category	Number of Recurrences
1. The faculty members recognize the need for and are open to transformative pedagogical uses of digital technologies.	2
2. The faculty member’s reflective records revealed varied applications of digital technology in their teaching.	7
3. The faculty member values teaching experience and disciplinary background for the pedagogical use of digital technology.	8
4. The faculty member values design and planning as key components of reflective practice concerning the use of digital technologies.	4
5. Reflection enables the faculty member to adapt decision-making to their situational needs, increasing collaborative agency.	7
6. Reflexivity is a crucial mechanism for the continuous improvement of educational quality.	21

). The first theme shows that contemporary university students have higher expectations for quality, interactivity, and effectiveness than previous generations. Therefore, the faculty members who engaged in reflective practice recognized the necessity and were willing to adopt transformative pedagogical frameworks and models that sustain digital technology use (see theme 1 in Table 2).

This was observed from the faculty members’ reflective practice records, where they recognized the need for a variety of instructional strategies to address the demands of the contemporary educational landscape, as portrayed in the following quotation:

“I would suggest diversifying materials to stimulate students’ learning. The teacher can design more interactive resources, such as online quizzes, among others”.

(feedback provided by faculty member 4 for faculty member 1, Case 1)

A second finding related to the first research question was that, upon reflection, the faculty members identified diverse strategies through which they perceive and interact with digital technologies. These varied applications included presentation tools to enhance learning through knowledge acquisition and AI systems designed to expand student motivation and facilitate skill development within the learning process, as shown in the following quotations:

“To enhance the effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations, it would be valuable to integrate a more significant use of whiteboards or other materials. This approach can help maintain students’ attention and improve their understanding of the content. Additionally, it may be valuable to explore the integration of supplementary technological tools beyond those typically found in a conventional classroom”.

(feedback by faculty member 3 for faculty member 2, Case 1)

“The AI tool we designed was intended to enhance student engagement with the history of Chilean medicine by encouraging exploration and more profound comprehension of relevant topics. It offers supplementary resources and emphasizes intriguing facts about the museum’s exhibitions. We helped students craft the prompts to fulfill these objectives with specific characteristics that foster inquiry and critical thinking”.

(faculty member 1, Case 2)

Constructive educational frameworks, such as the TPACK framework (Koehler et al., 2017), and model orientations, like the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2015), were identified upon examination of the data, although the faculty members did not explicitly mention them. Their insights highlighted a notable shift from merely utilizing technologies for content transmission to embracing these tools and resources that enhance student motivation and foster greater learner agency within the educational process.

A third theme concerning the first research question was that the participating educators collectively recognize the value of individual experiences and disciplinary expertise in harnessing digital technologies for teaching purposes (see theme 3 in Table 2). This result coincides with suggestions from the literature that disciplinary knowledge is often prioritized in educators’ digital technology educational integration (Rivera-Vargas & Cobo, 2020). The following reflection reflects this challenge:

“The wide range of knowledge and applications that faculty member 3 demonstrates in various topics sometimes leads him to delve into aspects that, although enriching, are not always directly covered in the program syllabus. I find it difficult to express this in less than entirely positive terms, as I consider these additional contributions to be of great value”.

(feedback provided by faculty member 3 for faculty member 2, Case 1)

A fourth finding related to the first research question was that the faculty in both cases understand design and planning as critical components of reflective practice (see theme 4 in Table 2). The participating faculty members consistently claimed the need for a systematic organization of the teaching–learning experience when integrating digital technologies. This outcome highlights the importance of recognizing the pedagogical conditions that either enhance or constrain the effectiveness of these tools, as seen in the following quotation:

“[The faculty member observed] effectively plans and organizes course content, uses a variety of teaching and assessment strategies”.

(feedback provided by faculty member 1 for faculty member 3)

A fifth finding concerning the first research question was that the reflective process enabled a critical evaluation of environmental needs while raising awareness of the limitations and potentials inherent in their pedagogical practices (see theme 5 in Table 2). This engagement contributed to a broader understanding of the transformative application of digital technologies, which is grounded in a contextual and situated perspective. Thus, the context of reflective practice illuminated the theme of teaching agency. Although the research team provided a standardized reflective form to guide the observation and feedback processes, each team exercised autonomy by modifying the instrument to suit their specific needs. This finding aligns with the assertions of certain scholars, including Eicken et al. (2021), regarding the need to balance bottom-up and top-down approaches to decision-making in the use of digital technology in teaching. While the research team initially had a specific vision of how technology could facilitate reflection, the faculty members adapted this proposal to their unique conditions and needs. This decision reflects a conscious approach to informed pedagogical decision-making, as illustrated by the following quotation:

“Items evaluated:

1. Knowledge and mastery of the subject: 4 points/5pts.

2. Planning and organization: 3.8/5pts.

3. Ability to teach: 3/5pts.

4. Communication: 4.5/5pts.

5. Ability to motivate and stimulate learning: 2/5pts.

6. Classroom management: 3.5/5pts.

7. Evaluation and feedback: 2/5pts”.

(criteria for colleague observations and feedback within Case 1; also see Appendix B)

The quotation above illustrates the agreed-upon criteria among the educators in Case 1 for guiding the observation of their educational practices. Following the evaluation, these ratings were discussed to foster deeper reflection and propose methods for continually improving their teaching approaches. Additionally, the faculty in Case 1 emphasized the disciplinary and pedagogical dimensions associated with integrating digital technology into practice while largely overlooking the demographic questions posed by the research team (see Appendix A and Appendix B). Furthermore, the method of organizing the feedback resembled how teachers interact with their students, for instance, by utilizing an evaluation rubric that outlines the criteria and expected achievements, supported with constructive feedback. The reflective instrument developed by these educators was thoughtfully adapted to the unique situational conditions. This adaptation highlights the importance of team collaboration, enabling a more effective and responsive approach to teaching practices. Such an emphasis on teacher agency empowers educators and fosters a reflective and adaptive learning environment (Freire, 1998).

Additionally, each educator’s willingness to be observed by a colleague, combined with feedback delivery and receptivity, underlines that collaborative dynamics cultivate agency, echoing Damşa et al. (2021), who claim that agency emerges from collaborative decision-making.

The sixth finding related to the first research question was the identification of reflexivity as a vital mechanism for continuously improving educational quality in digitally mediated contexts (see theme 6 in Table 2). Participation in collaborative reflection sessions allowed educators to exchange viewpoints and develop metacognitive awareness concerning their instructional practices, particularly following feedback exchanges. This reflective exercise fostered a critical understanding of the implications of contemporary university teaching, as well as the challenges and opportunities presented by using digital technology in education. For instance, within Case 1, a discussion emerged among the faculty regarding the role of feedback in university education:

“Feedback is a common observation among students and applies to all teachers, including myself. If we don’t provide it, it is wrong; but when we provide it on an ongoing basis, it often becomes an opportunity for the student to try to raise their grade, rather than learning from the assessment. This comment is relevant to teacher 2, although I consider it a situation shared by the entire teaching team”.

(feedback from faculty member 1 for faculty member 3, Case 1)

This quotation exemplifies reflection on the value of student feedback while simultaneously questioning its frequency and delivery methods, thereby expanding its pedagogical implications in university contexts.

4.2. Pedagogical Configurations and Types of Teaching Practices Using Digital Technologies

This section discusses the two themes that were identified in relation to the secondary research questions, as shown in Table 3. First, reflective practice is crucial for promoting critical thinking about the effective integration of technology in education. By collaboratively assessing teaching methods and strategies, the design, implementation, and evaluation of practices can focus on student learning, as illustrated in the following quotations:

“Through activities such as educational trivia, students feel challenged and motivated to learn more about topics such as historical medical instruments, advances in anesthesia and gynecology, or the implementation of technologies such as X-rays”.

(faculty member 1, Case 2)

“Also, it would be valuable to integrate other technological tools, in addition to those of a conventional classroom, to increase student comprehension”.

(feedback from faculty member 2 for faculty member 4, Case 1)

These quotations exemplify how faculty reflection focuses on enhancing student motivation and understanding of the course content. The faculty members in Case 1 moved from merely using digital technology for content delivery to envisioning an approach that promotes active student engagement. Case 2, on the other hand, showcased student-centered applications that emphasize increasing learner motivation through the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Therefore, the design of instructional activities emerged from collaborative reflective efforts to achieve specific learning outcomes. In Case 2, the participating faculty members planned the integration of AI, considering both its technological capabilities and the cognitive and metacognitive processes they intended to activate in their students:

“The chatbot includes an interactive trivia function, allowing students to assess their knowledge of the museum’s exhibition. The questions are multiple-choice, true/false, and open-ended, all based on the uploaded documents and information on the museum’s website (…) After each question, it provides educational feedback that expands the information on the topic, motivating students to review the documents and delve deeper into the content”.

(faculty member 1’s personal reflection, Case 2)

A second theme emerging from the data was that interdisciplinary and collaborative reflection can offer personalized learning opportunities. For instance, in Case 2, the faculty designed an AI-based chatbot that tailors feedback to each student. It facilitates formative reflection on the students’ achievements and ongoing challenges as they prepared to visit the National Museum of Medicine. Before its deployment with the students, the tool underwent testing among the faculty, which enabled the anticipation of potential interaction challenges between the student and the technology, and the establishment of clear criteria to assess the effectiveness of the designed activity.

“We developed a strategy to support students on their visit to the National Museum of Medicine (www.museomedicina.cl; accessed on 2 December 2024). This activity offered the possibility of designing a customized AI chatbot as a student support tool for the museum visit, that is, serving as an educational assistant and guide for students”.

(faculty member 1’s personal reflection, Case 2)

In Case 2, one faculty member increased his pedagogical reflection by actively engaging in an interdisciplinary learning community that focused on applying artificial intelligence within educational contexts. This collaborative endeavor, comprising faculty members from various disciplines, encouraged his integration of a more sophisticated understanding of the ethical safeguards and political ramifications associated with AI usage into higher education. From this collective initiative, customized chatbots were designed to equip students with practical strategies for engaging with AI. These included the development of crucial skills such as prompt engineering (Anders, 2023), formulating essential questions (Elder & Paul, 2005), and enhancing conceptual understanding through practical exercises.

While this study did not yield empirical evidence regarding the extent to which students achieved these learning outcomes, it is essential to highlight the educator’s intentional and deepened reflective practice, which centered on the constructive application of AI as a tool for enhancing academic learning and cultivating transferable professional competencies. This reflective approach contributes to the discourses on and understanding of advanced technology integration into higher education, framed within an ethical, critical, and student-centered context.

Table 3. Primary findings and secondary research questions.

a. “What pedagogical configurations are reported in the reflective records of the participating faculty members?” b. “What types of teaching practices using digital technologies can be developed based on the faculty’s reflective practice approach”
Category	Number of Recurrences
7. The faculty members focus on student learning while participating in collaborative reflection.	5
8.Collaborative and interdisciplinary reflective endeavors foster personalized learning activities.	6

Table 3. Primary findings and secondary research questions.

a. “What pedagogical configurations are reported in the reflective records of the participating faculty members?” b. “What types of teaching practices using digital technologies can be developed based on the faculty’s reflective practice approach”
Category	Number of Recurrences
7. The faculty members focus on student learning while participating in collaborative reflection.	5
8.Collaborative and interdisciplinary reflective endeavors foster personalized learning activities.	6

5. Discussion

This study explored how faculty members of coordinated courses within an undergraduate department in Chile cultivate reflective practices regarding the use of digital technology. This study utilized two thematic analysis approaches—predominantly inductive and primarily deductive—to examine the results informed by practice and theory. These analyses yielded eight primary findings.

Figure 3 illustrates the interplay between these findings across the reflective practice dimensions (i.e., personal, collaborative, and institutional) and the teaching configurations (i.e., spatial, social, and temporal), as revealed through the feedback and decisions made by each participating faculty member.

The right side of the figure shows the key themes identified in this study that addressed the primary research question. The left side of the figure summarizes the conclusions about teaching practices and pedagogical configurations related to the secondary research questions. The dotted lines across the image illustrate the bidirectional relationship between reflective practice, as portrayed by the personal, collaborative, and institutional dimensions, and pedagogical decisions, as illustrated by the spatial, social, and temporal configurations, in shaping practices.

In addressing the first research question, “How do faculty members of coordinated subjects in the participating department reflect on their teaching practices with digital technologies?”, the participants agreed upon diverse technology uses through reflection, adapting it to their specific situations.

While the research team supplied each faculty member with a template for documenting their reflective practices, individual teams created their own models. This variation highlights the necessity for a more deliberate integration of each faculty member’s personal and collaborative insights to enhance decision-making about digital technology adoption in teaching. The findings also stress the need to strike a balance between the top-down approaches defined by institutional guidelines and bottom-up reflective strategies that address the faculty’s experiences in university teaching (Eicken et al., 2021).

Concerning the secondary questions, “What pedagogical configurations are reported in the reflective records of the participating faculty members?” and “What types of teaching practices using digital technologies can be developed based on the faculty’s reflective practice approach?”, the data showed a positive response to receiving feedback from colleagues. This result accounts for the collaborative and institutional dimensions, as previously highlighted by Novoa-Echaurren (2024). These findings also align with the existing literature that emphasizes the role of reflection in fostering environments that support active teaching practices to increase student learning (Akram et al., 2022; Chen & Chen, 2022; Sosa-Díaz et al., 2022).

Additionally, reflection enabled different pedagogical configurations, which were shaped by each faculty member’s disciplinary background and decisions. In certain instances, the reflective records indicated practices anchored in established disciplinary expertise, often leaning towards traditional methodologies that prioritize content transmission. This outcome was predominantly evidenced through conventional tools such as PowerPoint. The pedagogical framework suggested by this result is characterized by a traditional spatial arrangement, with students seated in rows facing a whiteboard. It encourages dialogic social interactions, as the PowerPoint format facilitates conversations between the teacher and students regarding specific content. Additionally, it follows a linear temporal structure, where presentations generally progress in a predefined sequence from beginning to end (see the left side of Figure 3). However, within these traditional contexts, the faculty demonstrated an awareness of the need to diversify tools, resources, and strategies to use digital technologies. This reflective outcome reveals the faculty’s openness to critically examining their practices and pursuing more interactive approaches that harness the potential of technology to enhance student learning.

A notable result was represented by Case 2, where pedagogical reflection prioritized student learning through the collaborative creation of an artificial-intelligence-based tool designed to cultivate metacognitive skills, intrinsic motivation, and anticipation of a learning experience (a museum visit). This pedagogical orientation suggests that reflection occurs within collaborative decision-making dynamics. As illustrated on the left side of Figure 3, this reflective process indicates a pedagogical framework defined by a distributed spatial organization, wherein learning interactions extend beyond the traditional boundaries of the physical classroom. It also features a dialogical social structure, primarily fostered through dialogue, technology-mediated question-and-answer exchanges, and a personalized learning focus. The AI tool was designed to be tailored to each student’s learning needs, promoting continuous engagement.

These findings illustrate that reflexivity is crucial for enhancing teaching, aligning with the literature on reflective practice (Demzky et al., 2024; Montero-Mesa et al., 2023; Vires et al., 2024). Additionally, teacher agency arises from collaborative processes that promote autonomy in making pedagogical decisions concerning technology in higher education. This insight corroborates the findings from Novoa-Echaurren (2024) and Damşa et al. (2021), who posit that teacher agency emerges from collaborative efforts rooted in systematic reflection.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the complex interplay between reflective practices and the utilization of digital technology in contemporary educational settings. The findings underscore the importance of establishing professional learning conditions that promote critical reflection, ethical awareness, and adaptive expertise, thereby enhancing faculty agency to adopt deliberate and thoughtful approaches to the use of emerging technologies.

The results also enabled the identification of the essential conditions for fostering sustained and meaningful faculty collaboration and ongoing development. From the thematic analysis of the faculty members’ reflective records, we present the following recommendations to promote collaborative reflection within university settings.

(a)

Institutional Structures

The literature suggests that faculty frequently experience time constraints and inadequate spaces as significant barriers to meaningful reflection (Amhag et al., 2019; Colomer et al., 2020). Despite these limitations, the faculty that engaged in the reflective sessions highly valued the reflective opportunities they had in order to assess and agree upon technology implementations. We recommend that institutions allocate dedicated time and establish physical and virtual spaces for collaborative reflection, thereby recognizing it as a legitimate and valued aspect of academic work.

(b)

Design of Reflective Processes

The participants who employed structured reflection protocols—particularly those who collaboratively designed within their respective disciplines—reported enhanced engagement with their reflective practices. Accordingly, we suggest utilizing agreed-upon frameworks or guidelines to scaffold reflective discussions, facilitating both consistency and contextual adaptation.

(c)

Sustainability and Institutional Alignment

Our study concluded that reflection fosters new practical insights, particularly when integrated into the faculty’s academic routine and when grounded in collaborative engagement. We recommend incorporating structured reflection opportunities into current faculty development pathways to promote sustainability and ensure that reflection is viewed as an ongoing, collaborative, and developmental practice.

This study articulates these practice-oriented guidelines, thereby providing an overview of reflective teaching. It provides an actionable approach for higher education leaders and instructional developers to use and adjust as necessary. Future research should evaluate these guidelines’ effectiveness and contextual adaptability across various disciplines and institutional types to further contribute to a theory of organizational conditions that support reflective digital pedagogies.

The reflective practice approach can foster and sustain ongoing reflection throughout various stages of personal and collaborative development. By systematically engaging in reflective exercises, individuals can enhance their self-awareness, critically evaluate their experiences, and adapt their practices accordingly. This iterative process fosters a deeper understanding and supports ongoing improvement and learning over time.

Four limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. Firstly, the research employed fixed purposive sampling (Sabariego Puig, 2019). This method limits the generalizability and replicability across different institutions and disciplinary fields while enabling an in-depth examination of a particular context. The specific department was selected due to the involvement of a team member in faculty development decision-making, potentially impacting the dynamics of participation and faculty perceptions during the reflective process. A research assistant was appointed as an intermediary with the participants to establish a formal separation between the research team and the faculty involved to address this concern. Nevertheless, the participants were aware of the researchers’ identities through the informed consent process, which may have affected their responses and perceptions during the data collection.

Secondly, the research utilized reflective records and collaborative meetings as the primary data sources. While this methodology provides a nuanced understanding of the participants’ experiences and pedagogical choices, it lacks the capacity for an objective comparison regarding the impact of digital technology on student learning outcomes. Future research should incorporate additional data sources, such as students’ academic performance or direct observations of technology utilization in the classroom.

This study’s temporal scope is a third limitation, as the data collection occurred over a single academic semester (five months). This timeframe restricts the analysis of the progression of reflective practices and the long-term integration of digital technologies. Employing a longitudinal design in future investigations could yield a more comprehensive view of the development of teachers’ reflective practices and the methodological shifts they implement.

Finally, although the thematic analysis identified emerging patterns and categories, a mixed-methods design may enhance the predominantly qualitative approach. Incorporating quantitative measures of the impact of reflective practices and digital technologies in higher education teaching could provide more robust insights.

Despite these limitations, this study’s findings make a significant contribution to the discourse on the ongoing development of university faculty in the digital age. They replicate an approach that was previously examined in a school context (Novoa-Echaurren, 2024), extending it to a university teaching environment. Specifically, the results offer valuable insights for designing faculty development programs to promote critical reflection on using digital technologies in higher education teaching. The qualitative analysis integration in this study unveiled dimensions of the teaching experience that extend beyond the information that surveys or quantitative scales can capture. This outcome includes the agency displayed in the adaptation of the instruments, the metacognitive evaluation of technology use, the inclusion of students’ foci in the teaching designs with artificial intelligence, and the collaborative processes that led to unique pedagogical configurations. These qualitative insights enhance our understanding of teachers’ challenges and opportunities when integrating digital technologies. They yield contextualized and nuanced evidence that can help shape institutional policies and faculty training programs, making them more relevant to the realities shaping educational practice.

7. Patents

No patents resulted from the work reported in this manuscript.