Three Primary Barrier to Educational Technology Integration

J. Ryan Rimington

Boise State University

Three Primary Barriers to Educational Technology Integration

The effects of technology on teaching and learning is one of the most debated topics in

U.S. education at all levels. Cuban (1986), a historian who has investigated 100 years of

educational technology, eloquently argues against an emphasis on technology. He contends that

schools are deeply conservative, set in their ways as reflected in their social and instructional

mores (Cuban, 1993). However, while he asserts technology is “oversold and underused” in

schools (Cuban, 2003, p. 179), there is far more evidence that technology is reshaping many, if

not most, aspects of education.

The digital revolution has profoundly changed the way people learn, live, communicate,

and carry out day-to-day business. The digital era is characterized by advancements in

technology in which analog, mechanical, and electronic tools have been replaced by digital

innovations that are now essentially ubiquitous. While the digital revolution has infiltrated every

sector of society, studying its particular influence on and integration within education is

challenging.

A complex array of interrelating factors are at play when studying technology’s impact

on education (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Straub (2009) describes the integration of

technology into education as a “complex, inherently social, developmental process . . . and

successfully facilitating a technology adoption needs to address cognitive, emotional, and

contextual concerns” (p.626). While educational research shows that technology can be effective

in delivering instruction and enrich student learning processes, integration efforts is often marked

by barriers (Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). This paper sets out to

explore three primary barriers that hinder the integration of technology: (1) access to resources;

(2) teachers’ knowledge and skills; and (3) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs.

Defining Technology Integration

Definitions of what it means to integrate technology in K-12 education are varied.

(Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). For some, integration is viewed in terms of how teachers

utilize technology to carry out traditional classroom activities more reliably and productively

(Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005). Others categorize classroom technology integration as

either low-level (e.g., gathering information or representations) or high-level (e.g., synthesizing,

applying, and creatively presenting learning products) (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001).

Technology integration is also sometimes evaluated in terms of teachers using the tools to help

students accomplish learning goals and to stimulate cognition (Lim et al., 2003).

While a standardized definition for technology integration is lacking, the prevailing

theme that permeates is the role technology plays in instructional designs for learning. Therefore,

in this discourse, technology integration is defined as implementing educational technology tools

into instructional designs to pursue particular learning outcomes. Educational technology tools is

considered to be any device, software, tool, or equipment that is utilized to help students pursue

particular learning goals and outcomes (Davies, Sprauge, & New, 2008).

Barriers to Technology Integration

While educational practitioners and researchers recognize the value of integrating

technology to approach learning goals, efforts to do so are often impacted by barriers. In 1999,

Ertmer compartmentalized technology integration barriers into two categories. First-order

barriers are those which are external to the educator (e.g., supplied resources, training, and

support). Second-order barriers are internal, or intrapersonal, within the teacher (e.g., their

attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, skills) (Ertmer, 1999). Since Ertmer’s (1999) initial distinctions,

numerous researchers have investigated various barriers that impact teachers’ classroom

integration of technology (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006–2007; Hew & Brush,

2007; Lowther, Strahl, Inan, & Ross, 2008; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Of those, a

prominent guide by which to explore the barriers of technology integration stems from a robust

literature review executed by Hew and Brush (2007). They found 123 technology integration

barriers were presented in previous empirical studies between 1995-2006, which can be

categorized into 6 domains: (1) access to resources; (2) teachers’ knowledge and skills; (3)

school institutions; (4) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs; (5) assessment expectations; and (6)

culture of the subject matter (Hew & Brush, 2007). Of these, access to resources, teachers’

knowledge and skills, and teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are explored in detail below.

Access to Resources

While a reliable assumption, research has confirmed that teachers are unable to integrate

technology effectively into their instructional designs for students if the resources they desire to

use are unavailable or inaccessible (Chapman, 1990; Ely, 1999, Pelgrum, 2001). However,

comparing past and current reports of the accessibility of technology resources reveal the field of

education has made strides to address this first-order barrier (Bausell, 2008; Gray & Lewis,

2009; National Education Association, 2008). For example, a robust 2009 study of 2,005 public

schools across the United States reports a 5.3 to 1 ratio of students to classroom computers (Gray

& Lewis, 2009). 97% of teachers in that same study reported access to at least one computer in

their classroom every day (Gray & Lewis, 2009). However, while accessible to technology

resources, 60% of teachers in the same study revealed they did not often use them during

instructional time (Gray & Lewis, 2009). A study that same year indicates that when educators

do use technology resources during their work day they are applied for administrative purposes,

personal productivity, or communicating with colleagues and parents (Shapley, Sheehan,

Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010). Two more studies in that same time period indicate that

when students are provided access to technology tools they most often use them to gather

information using the internet or for completing an assigned task more efficiently, such as word

processing and other productivity tools (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Davies, Sprague, & New, 2008).

Finally, in their 2002 survey of 4,000 K-12 classroom teachers, Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, and

Soloway (2003) found technology did not impact teaching and learning because students did not

have access to technology even if the resources were present. For example, according to the

authors, “Having one computer in the classroom is not access, nor will it lead to significant

student use. Frankly, technology can’t have an impact if children have not had the opportunity to

access and use the technology” (Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003, p. 15).

Due to the rapid change in types and capability of technology resources, investigating

more recent data reports with regard to technology access in K-12 education is important.

Technology Counts is a report published annually regarding the state of technology in K-12

schools (Education Week, 2015, 2016). The Horizon Report focuses on emerging technologies

or implementations that are likely to be pursued in education over the current year to five years

(Adams Becker, Freeman, Giesinger Hall, Cummins, & Yuhnke, 2016; Johnson, Adams Becker,

Estrada, & Freeman, 2014, 2015). Project Tomorrow publishes regular reports that focus on

perceptions about and the integration of educational technology (Project Tomorrow, 2015).

While these reports confirm that the presence of technology continues to increase in K-12

learning environments, they reveal attention is being especially being given to mobile devices as

a primary means by which to provide individual access to technology resources. With the

proliferation of mobile technology devices in society, the integration into K-12 education is

profound. The rollout of Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD), Bring Your Own Technology

(BYOT), and one-to-one (1:1) initiatives relative to laptops, tablets, and smartphones, is evident

in school districts across the nation. While these initiatives to improve access have justifications

they also generate associated barriers.

BYOD/BYOT initiatives. A primary organized effort by school leaders to promote

mobile device integration into their institutions is reflected in BYOD/BYOT initiatives.

According to a vast survey of school leaders in 2015 by the Consortium of School Networking

(CoSN), 14% of districts have fully operational BYOD/BYOT programs, and an additional 58%

were either strongly considering piloting or working on the initiative (CoSN, 2015, p.18). For

example, 47% of K-12 teachers surveyed by Project Tomorrow (2015) reported that their

students have regular classroom access to mobile devices. The 2015 Horizon Report adds that

“research from the nonprofit Mobile Future in the US highlighted that 43% of Pre-K through

12th-grade students use a smartphone and 73% of middle and high school teachers use cell

phones for classroom activities” (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015, p. 36)

1:1 computing. In addition to BYOD/BYOT, integration of mobile devices through one-

to-one (1:1) technology initiatives are being pursued throughout the United States to improve

equity in classroom technology access (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014). In

2006, nearly 25% of the nation’s school districts were investigating or implementing a tablet or

laptop 1:1 program, a significant increased from 4% reported just two years earlier (eSchool

News, 2006). This pursuit by school districts are bolstered as many states that have pursued

largescale 1:1 institutionalized initiatives such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia, Florida,

Maine, among others (eSchool News, 2006). Furthermore, international 1:1 computing initiatives

exist, such as Intel’s “World Ahead Program” and “One Laptop Per Child,” which sets out to

provide third world countries with bulk quantities of inexpensive educational laptops (Kraemer,

Dedrick, & Sharma, 2009).

Research on the effectiveness of 1:1 programs is mixed. Some studies report positive

outcomes according to specific targeted program goals (Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012; Storz &

Hoffman, 2013). Other studies suggest that the novelty of 1:1 initiatives tend to wear off and

consistent integration of the devices for instruction wanes, especially by the second year (Cullen,

Dawson, & DeBacker, 2014; Swallow, 2015). Furthermore, reports of the abandonment of 1:1

computing programs altogether (Goodwin, 2011) illustrates the barrier of technology access is

far more complex than simply funding and distributing devices.

Mobile learning justifications and barriers. School leaders and policy makers often

justify mobile learning initiatives citing that the full learning potential of technology cannot be

realized when shared by students (Oppenheimer, 2003). Also, school leaders cite BYOD/BYOT

and 1:1 initiatives as a solution to technology access for three institutional management reasons:

(1) a means by which to provide students and teachers with single devices they can use across

multiple subjects; (2) more expensive computer systems fixed to classrooms can be eliminated;

and (3) investment in wireless internet systems ultimately save on building and maintenance

costs as compared to computer labs (Hew and Brush, 2007). However, a resulting barrier of

mobile learning initiatives is the responsibility schools have in internet regulations and cyber-

protections of students. School-provided mobile devices are a significant financial investment

both in the program’s start-up and sustained support, yet allow the institution to diligently

monitor and control content. However, while permitting and promoting students’ personal

devices for integration into classrooms is more economical for the institution, significant liability

concerns surface as students may then bypass the school’s network and filter to make use of

cellular networks (Nair, 2006). Furthermore, it is well documented that with increased use of

mobile devices in schools there are significant concerns regarding a technology gap between

teachers and their students (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015). However,

despite the concerns, only 23% of administrators surveyed in 2015 indicated that their students

were not allowed to use their mobile devices at school, down from 52% in 2011 (Project

Tomorrow, 2015). Additionally, with large mobile learning initiatives comes the need to plan

and finance proportional sized technical support teams to manage the inevitable issues that arise.

For example, students using wireless mobile technology devices at the same time require the

infrastructure, bandwidth, and maintenance to support such traffic, especially given today’s

larger and more complex multimedia files.

Despite the improvement within the first-order barrier of access to resources, Goodwin

(2011) reminds education leaders and practitioners that a quick fix of disseminating technology

resources should never be assumed to be an automatic formula for heightened learning and

achievement. In fact, while school leaders are focused on the financial, infrastructural, and

security requirements of implementing large-scale technology resource initiatives, the broader

issues of effective pedagogical applications, impact on school culture, sustained teacher and

student engagement, and professional development may be blurred or altogether dismissed. This

then leads to a second barrier of technology implementation as the time and financing that is

required to support technology through the development of teacher’s pedagogical knowledge and

skills is sparse as it is expended in addressing and providing access.

Knowledge and Skills

While noticeable progress has been made with regard to the access barrier to technology

resources in schools, the knowledge and skills with which teachers integrate those resources is a

related barrier. However, it is important to clarify the nature of this barrier. The technology

training and support that is provided to teachers is described as an external first-order barrier

(Ertmer, 1999). Like access, research shows much progress has been made to provide teachers

with technology functionality training and support through professional development initiatives.

Gray and Lewis (2009) report that 95% of school districts in their national study offer

professional development focusing on equipping teachers with training on technology resources.

The National Education Association (2008) reports that policy makers and school district leaders

invest significant time, money, and personnel into training teachers to operate technology

resources in their classrooms. On the surface, these attempts to address the first-order barrier of

skills, training, and support appear to be effective. For example, in 2006, 63% of teachers self-

assessed their technology skills as being either advanced or somewhat-advanced, while only 2%

considered themselves to be beginners (CDW-G, 2006).

Given the attention and reported positive effects with regard to the first-order barrier of

training and support, a resultant growth in teachers’ instructional integration targeting students’

learning with technology may be assumed. However, Bauer and Kenton (2005) argue, “It is not

enough that teachers simply are familiar with computer technology” (p. 522). In other words, the

second-order barrier (Ertmer, 1999) of teacher’s actual knowledge and skills relative to

technology integration in pedagogical designs for their students is the actual barrier at hand.

Studies indicate that teachers with access to technology resources do not often possess

the pedagogical training nor experience for effective integration into instructional designs for

students (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, 2013; Prestridge, 2012). When teachers do utilize

technology resources, they feel more comfortable using them for administrative and personal

productivity applications rather than for instruction with students (National Education

Association, 2008). The same National Education Association (2008) survey reveals the

professional development technology training provided to teachers primarily focuses on

administration, research, communication, and troubleshooting functions. Only a slight majority

(57%) of teachers report that they have adequate training and experience to confidently use

technology regularly with students (National Education Association, 2008). This confirms the

assertions of Hughes (2005) and Bauer and Kenton (2005) that teachers need to have a skills

and knowledge base from which they can draw when guiding learning experiences for students

using technology. This perspective is referred to as “technology-enabled learning” (Ertmer &

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013).

Technology-enabled learning. When technology is used with students in classrooms, the

nature of those applications often still reflect the second-order barrier of knowledge and skills.

For example, in the 2008 National Education Association survey, of the teachers who reported

using technology with their students, only one-third required their students to use the resources

more than a few times per week. Additionally, teachers’ perspective as to the nature of

facilitating student learning with technology is still often teacher-driven and teacher-centered

(National Education Association, 2008; Project Tomorrow, 2011). Therefore, the underlying

issue regarding this integration barrier is not that educators are incapable of physically operating

technology tools and resources, but that they have a limited expectation for technology to deliver

the subject content. With the technology resources at hand, teachers often steer students to

obvious means to use technology, as opposed to learning through technology. For example, a

recent study of K-6 educators’ integration of technology found that the most active classroom

use was websites to acquire information and representations (Hsu, 2016). The barrier of teacher

knowledge and skills is based upon the emphasis teachers place on technology as opposed to

pedagogy. This aligns with Jonassen (1995) who has long promoted that when approaching

technology integration, it should be viewed as tools by which to learn with rather than learn

about. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) describe this need of a technology-pedagogy

relationship as “technology-enabled learning” (p.176). This concept promotes students’

meaningful learning with technology tools and resources, emphasizing the learning process and

the potential student-centered pedagogies afforded by technology rather than simply technology

integration as an end goal in itself. For example, while Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami,

and Schmid’s (2011) large scale meta-analysis research showed a 12% gain in learning across all

grade levels and higher education using a variety of technologies, they concluded the benefits

derive from teaching through the technology rather than from the technology itself. The reason

for the lag in the effective integration of classroom technologies is because the pedagogy largely

depends on teachers’ acceptance of the given technology, and their knowledge and skills to

understand and pursue it as a learning tool (Bauer and Kenton 2005; Miller & Hegelheimer,

2006; Robertson & Howells, 2008). Looi, Sun, Seow, and Chia (2014) describe the effective

relationship between pedagogy and technology in terms of teachers’ appropriation of technology,

identifying that teachers’ pedagogical orientations, their teaching practices and the intended

curriculum direct their application of classroom technologies.

Professional development. Research and best practice confirms that professional

development is a critical element to assist teachers to address the knowledge and skills barrier.

As early as 1999, Strudler and Wetzel found that teacher education programs were not

adequately preparing their graduates to teach in the field with technology and that the four

exemplary colleges they were studying in detail had not even fully integrated technology in their

own instructional practices. In his study of a sample of schools from 26 countries, Pelgrum

(2001) found that the lack of training in the knowledge and skills for applying technology in the

classroom was a primary obstacle for the technology to be used at all. In 2005, a survey of 900

U.S. elementary, middle and high school public school teachers reported that fewer than 20% felt

equipped to appropriately integrate technology into their classroom instructional designs

(Snyder, Tan, & Hoffman, 2006). Further, as Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) discuss in their

robust review of professional development programs in integrating technology, a traditional

approach which focuses mostly on training teachers how to operate technology rather than how

to integrate it in their designs for student learning, has proved to be ineffective. They argue this

type of professional development is disconnected from appropriate instructional practice

(Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Furthermore, at the time of his study, Brinkerhoff (2006) reported

that a majority of teachers in the nation receive less than eight hours of professional development

each year, and argues these “traditional sit-and-get training sessions without follow-up support

have proven ineffective in impacting teachers’ technology integration” (p.21). To that end,

researchers have attempted to address the need to equip educators with pedagogical knowledge

and skills for appropriate technology integration through a myriad of programs and models.

Technology pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). One model for addressing

teachers’ required knowledge and skills for effective technology integration is the Technology

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2005, 2009; Mishra

& Koehler, 2006). The TPACK framework builds upon educational psychologist Shulman’s

(1986) rich exploration, description, and framework by which to understand of teachers’

professional knowledge, termed pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Koehler and Mishra

(2005) extended Shulman’s work to detail the components and nature of the knowledge needed

by teachers for effective technology integration in their classrooms. Three primary types of

knowledge form an interactive relationship within the TPACK model: content, pedagogy, and

technology, which Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue are often approached in isolation. The

interplay results in seven potential manifestations of teachers’ professional knowledge all bound

in the context in which teachers obtain and apply their knowledge, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK model showing the dynamic relationship

between the three knowledge components impacting classroom technology integration.

The international response to TPACK is prolific as evidenced by hundreds of studies,

theories, measuring models, and large-scale applications (Graham, 2011). With such TPACK

interest and research, it has been applied in an abundant variety of contexts (Voogt, Fisser, Pareja

Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013). A simple search in the reference management tool,

Mendeley, results in 861 papers referring to the TPACK model (Mendeley, 2017). However,

with any such profound interest and study comes debate. One of the most recent discussed issues

is the modes by which to measure the acquisition and effective application of TPACK (Koehler,

Shin, & Mishra, 2011). Furthermore, even an account of widespread application of the TPACK

framework in the U.S. Department of Education’s Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use

Technology Initiative did not automatically ensure effective integration of technology by

teachers (Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010).

For technology-enabled learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013) to be achieved

and the second-order barrier of teachers’ knowledge and skills to be overcome (Ertmer, 1999;

Hew & Brush, 2007), new technologies nor new approaches to existing technologies is required.

Rather, a new pedagogical belief and orientation for understanding the potential value of

technology integration to learning is needed. Bauer and Kenton (2005) assert that instead of

layering technologies as an add-on, technology resources must be carefully selected and

professional development precisely tailored to provide teachers with the appropriate strategies

and techniques by which to integrate digital practices into the curriculum. While the modes by

which to develop and encourage such pedagogical belief and orientation among teachers is

dependent upon many contextual factors, the highly studied and refined TPACK framework

offers a place to start as it connects technology, curriculum content, and pedagogical approaches

to promote effective integration of technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Mishra & Koehler,

2006; Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010; Turner & Meyer, 2000).

Attitudes and Beliefs

While the TPACK framework offers a sturdy route for technology integration, it does not

illuminate why educators with ample access to resources (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Norris, Sullivan,

Poirot, & Soloway, 2003) and pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) still

utilize technology with varying levels of effectiveness (Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010).

Educators’ attitudes and beliefs are another second-order factor that needs attention and

ultimately permeates the technology integration equation (Ertmer, 2005). As Ertmer (2005)

explains, even when access to technology is provided and teacher’s knowledge and skills are

present, integrating technology effectively requires teachers to believe in “new ways of both

seeing and doing” (p. 26).

Research reveals that the varying approaches to teaching are often dependent upon

attitudes and beliefs, even when educators possess comparable knowledge, skills, and experience

(Ernest, 1989; Kagan, 1992; Wilkins, 2008). Relative to technology integration, these attitudes

and beliefs can be related to the value teachers place on technology for student learning (Polly,

Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010), self-efficacy regarding technology use (Abbitt, 2011;

Prestridge, 2012), or a combination of both (Park & Ertmer, 2008). However, one of the most

impactful lenses by which to view and categorize teacher’s attitudes and beliefs of technology

integration is to compare and contrast teacher-centered and student-centered beliefs and

practices.

Teacher-centered vs. student centered beliefs. Chan and Elliott (2004) explain that

teacher-centered classrooms are those are driven by a focus on traditional teacher-led activities.

A student-centered environment focusses on more constructivist approaches which emphasizes

the process of learning by targeting student engagement through student-centered activities,

independent learning, peer interactions, and student meaning-making (Chan & Elliott, 2004).

When applying this lens to teachers’ use of technology, in a traditional classroom, technology

typically plays a supporting or supplemental role (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur,

& Sendurur, 2012). For example, Mama and Hennessy (2013) portray examples such as using

technology to present a lecture, searching the internet for information and representations, or rote

exercises, all of which are often applied to reinforce previously taught skills or concepts. Bauer

& Kenton (2005) also describe learning management systems, while often touted as being

innovative, as just another portal for direct instruction pedagogy.

In contrast to teacher-led practices, constructivist classrooms apply technology in a more

integrated role, where they are used as a cognitive instrument to enable students to experience

authentic learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). In these classrooms, it is the students,

not the teacher, who use the technology, specifically to support their efforts as researchers,

designers, and problem solvers (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur,

2012). For example, student blogs, wikis, digital storyboards, internet field trips, gamification,

quest-based learning, virtual simulations, digital presentation boards, and feedback systems are a

few examples of constructivist applications of technology (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik,

Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012).

Implication of constructivist beliefs on technology integration. There are important

implications on technology integration when studying the two categories of teacher-led and

student-led pedagogical beliefs and practices. Teo, Chai, Hung, and Lee (2008) discovered a

strong statistically significant correlation between teachers who approach their instructional and

learning designs with constructivist beliefs and both traditional and constructivist applications of

technology integration. Whereas, no relationship was found between traditional pedagogical

beliefs and the use of technology (Two, Chai, Hung, & Lee, 2008). Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, and

DeMeester (2013) also discovered metacognitive beliefs about the processes of learning

combined with a diverse portfolio of instructional strategies, correlated to the application of

student-centered technology integrations. More specifically, these researchers found that if a

teacher had a more sophisticated theory of knowledge, their notions about the role of technology

in instruction were bent towards student-centered approaches and therefore technology

integrations focused more on supporting learning outcomes rather than the technology itself

(Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). This relationship is further supported by Ertmer,

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) who found that educators with

student-centered views of learning pursued student-centered applications to both enrich and

transform teaching through the use of technologies. Their multiple case-study design of twelve

K-12 technologically innovative educators reported that student-centered views elicited student-

centered applications of technology, particularly to promote authentic learning, student choice,

and collaboration. The educators in the case study cited their personal beliefs about the relevance

of technology in student learning processes is the most significant factor directing their pursuit

and success with classroom implementations (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, &

Sendurur, 2012).

How teacher beliefs are formed and changed. If teacher beliefs and attitudes influence

technology integrations, investigating ways in which these attitudes and beliefs are formed,

influenced, triggered, and even changed is important to pursue. Albion and Ertmer (2002) report

long-standing beliefs are most influenced and entrenched as a result of strong authority figures

and broad consensus in the field. Guskey (2002) asserts that trial-and-error is a common

influence on teacher’s development of personal beliefs regarding practice. That is, a teacher’s

beliefs change as they evaluate the influence on student learning, interaction, or instruction as a

result of trying a new approach, technology, or resource (Guskey, 2002). Similarly, Levin and

Wadmany (2005) found that when teachers are cognizant of their pre-existing beliefs and are

willing to challenge them through constructivist experimentation, that same constructivist

approach to professional development is reflected in constructivist integration of technology with

their students. However, it is important to note that even when teachers attempt to translate their

well-intentioned constructivist beliefs into practice, intervening factors can have both direct and

indirect influence. These factors can be first-order in nature, such as school, cultural, or societal

influences (e.g., policies, parental expectations, standardized teaching requirements), or second-

order (e.g. motivation, self-efficacy, health, time, confidence) (Straub, 2009).

While technology could be used to drastically change the traditional classroom model to

promote greater and more individualized learning experiences, there is general agreement that

teachers often fail to capitalize and use them in pedagogically significant ways (Brinkerhoff,

2006). Acknowledging and understanding how teachers’ attitudes and beliefs impact the nature

and effectiveness of their technology integration is important. Therefore, transformative

professional development must start with teachers acknowledging their own pre-existing

pedagogical beliefs as an impactful an informing agent in route to addressing it as a barrier to

effective technology integration for student learning.

Conclusion

Given the ubiquitous nature of technology resources in our culture today, very few

teachers truly work in an environment devoid of technology. Opportunities for integrating

technology into teaching and learning with students is plentiful. Even in schools where funds for

significant technology-based initiatives may be limited, tools for connecting, communicating,

collaborating, and creating are still present. However, teachers still experience barriers for

effective technology integration (Hew and Brush, 2007), that can be categorized as external first-

order (e.g., resources, training, support), and internal second-order (e.g., attitudes, beliefs,

knowledge, skills) (Ertmer, 1999). While the first-order barriers of access to technology

resources has historically played a larger role than they do today, especially with the rise of

mobile technologies, they still have their issues for schools’ and teachers’ integration efforts.

While efforts are still needed to address first-order barriers, the complexities and impact

of second-order barriers are arguably the “gatekeepers” to effective teacher integration of

technology (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012, p.433). For

example, Palak & Wells (2009) observed highly effective integration practices of educators with

few resources and student-centered beliefs, in contrast to teachers who limited their students’ use

of ample available technology resources due to their traditional teacher-centered practices.

Teachers with an understanding of and ability to manage the interplay of pedagogical, content,

and technological knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2005, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) as well

as a constructivist view of the role technology can have in student-centered practices, have been

observed to overcome first- and second-order barriers (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik,

Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). As Hannafin and Land noted, “student-centered learning

environments represent significant potential for optimizing the capabilities of both technology

and learners” (1997, p. 172).

There is an urgent need to shift the focus of technology integration in schools away from

mere emphasis on more resources and infrastructure. Instead, effective integration of technology

surpasses many barriers when student-centered pedagogical beliefs steer educators to creatively

apply the resources at hand, and fully tap the meaningful potential that technology offers for

transforming student learning.

References

Abbitt, J.T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about

technology integration and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPACK) among

preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143.

Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., and Yuhnke, B. (2016).

NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media

Consortium.

Albion, P. R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond the foundations: The role of vision and belief in

teachers’ preparation for integration of technology. TechTrends,46(5), 34–38.

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t

happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.

Bausell, C.V. (2008). Tracking U.S. Trends. Education Week: Technology Counts, 27(30), 39-

42.

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from

the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and

Assessment, 9(2), 4-58.

Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why

multiple-measure are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

37(1), 45-63.

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on

technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and

practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43.

CDW-G. (2006). Teachers Talk Tech reveals technology access and professional development

are driving improved teacher and student performance. Retrieved from

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20060626005358/en/Teachers-Talk-Tech-

Reveals-Technology-Access-Professional

Chapman, D. W. (1990). Monitoring implementation. In D. W. Chapman & C. A. Carrier (Eds.),

Improving educational quality (pp. 195-216). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Chan, K. W., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Relation analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions

about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817–831.

CoSN. (2015). 2105 K-12 IT leadership report. Washington, DC: Consortium of School

Networks. Retrieved from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2094616-cosn-

byod.html

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890–

1980. New York, NY: Longman.

Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high

school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research

Journal, 38(4), 813–834.

Cullen, T., Dawson, C., & DeBacker, T. (2014, April). Faculty response to a 1-to-1 iPad

initiative: A snapshot of technology adoption in higher education. Presented at the

American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from AERA

Online Paper Repository,

http://www.aera.net/Publications/OnlinePaperRepository/AERAOnlinePaperRepository

Davies, R., Sprague, C., & New, C. (2008). Integrating technology into a science classroom: An

evaluation of inquiry-based technology integration. In D.W. Sunal, E.L. Wright, & C.

Sundberg (Eds.), The impact of technology and the laboratory on K-16 science learning

series: Research in science education (pp. 207-237). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing, Inc.

Education Week. (2015). Technology counts 2015: Learning the digital way. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2015/06/11/index.html

Education Week. (2016). Technology counts 2016: Transforming the Classroom. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2016/06/09/

Ely, D.P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology

innovation. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23-27.

Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model.

Journal of Education for Teacher, 15(1), 13-34.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for

technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–

61.

Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our question for

technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-

39.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How

knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes

required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &

Education, 64, 175–182.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).

Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers

& Education, 59(2), 423–435.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006–2007). Exemplary technology-using

teachers: perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher

Education, 23(2), 55–61.

eSchool News. (2006, May 1). 1-to-1 computing on the rise in schools. eSchool News Online.

Retrieved January 25, 2017, from: http://www.eschoolnews.com/2006/05/01/1-to-1-

computing-on-the-rise-in-schools/

Goodwin, B. (2011). One-to-one laptop programs are no silver bullet. Educational Leadership,

68(5), 78–79.

Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical

knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.

Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2009). Educational technology in public school districts: Fall 2008

(NCES 2010-003). Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of

Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.

Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3),

381-391.

Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology

enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25(3), 167–202.

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into

subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 37(2), 155–192.

Hew, K.F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current

knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology

Research Development, 55(3), 223-252.

Hsu, P. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A

case study. TechTrends, 60(1), 30–40.

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming

technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),

277–302.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014

Library edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015

K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from

technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40–73.

Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1),

65-90.

Kim, C., Kim, M., Lee, C., Spector, J., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology

integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.

Kraemer, K.L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality.

Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66-73.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology?

The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Koehler, M. J., Shin, T.S., & Mishra, P. (2011). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the

ways. In R. N. Ronau, C.R. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.). Educational technology,

teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and

approaches (pp. 16-31). Information Science Reference, Hershey PA.

Lawless, K.A., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology

into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and

answers. Review of Education Research, 77(4), 575-614.

Levin, B., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of

teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and

Education, 14(3), 281–308.

Lim, C. P., Teo, Y. H., Wong, P., Khine, M. S., Chai, C. S., & Divaharan, S. (2003). Creating a

conducive learning environment for the effective integration of ICT: Classroom

management issues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 405–423.

Lowther, D., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. A., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration

“work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–

213.

Looi, C., Sun, D., Seow, P., & Chia, G. (2014). Enacting a technology-based science curriculum

across a grade level: The journey of teachers’ appropriation. Computers & Education, 71,

222–236.

Mama, M., & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices

concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380-387.

Mendeley. (2017). Resulting papers when searching TPACK. Retrieved from

https://www.mendeley.com/groups/522011/tpack/papers/

Miller, M., & Hegelheimer, V. (2006). The SIMS meet ESL. Incorporating authentic computer

simulation games into the language classroom. Interactive Technology and Smart

Education, 3(4), 311–328.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Nair, A. (2006). Mobile phones and the Internet: Legal issues in the protection of children.

International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 20(1-2), 177–185.

National Education Association. (2008). Technology in schools: The ongoing challenge of

access, adequacy, and equity (Policy Brief PB19). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved

from www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB19_Technology08.pdf

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot

surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 36(1), 15-28.

Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom

and how learning can be saved. New York, NY: Random House.

Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods

approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417-441.

Park, S.H., & Ertmer, P.A. (2008). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs

regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 247-

267.

Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a

worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163‐178.

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C.E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming

teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology. Teaching

and Teaching Education, 26(4), 863-870.

Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices.

Computers & Education, 58(1), 449–458.

Project Tomorrow. (2011). The new 3 E’s of Education: Enabled, engaged, empowered-How

today’s educators are advancing a new vision for teaching and learning. Speak Up 2010

Survey. Retrieved from

http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU10_3EofEducation(Students).pdf

Project Tomorrow. (2015). Digital learning 24/7: Understanding technology-Enhanced learning

in the lives of today’s students. Speak Up 2014 Survey. Retrieved from http://www.

tomorrow.org/speakup/SU14DigitalLearning24-7_StudentReport.html.

Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful

learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559–578.

Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop

environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the Time To Know program.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225.

Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the

implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student

achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 6-10.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Snyder, T.D., Tan, A.G., and Hoffman, C.M. (2006). Digest of Education Statistics 2005 (NCES

2006-030). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Storz, M. G., & Hoffman, A. R. (2013). Examining response to a one-to-one computer initiative:

Student and teacher voices. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 36(6),

1–18.

Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for

informal learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 625-649.

Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors

affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 47(4), 63-81.

Swallow, M. (2015). The year-two decline: Exploring the incremental experiences of a 1:1

technology initiative. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(2), 122-137.

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What

forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning. Review of

Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.

Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of

technology among pre-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,

36(2), 163–174.

Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of

classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85.

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological

pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 29(2), 109-121.

Wilkins, J.L. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes,

beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 139-164.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology

innovation. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.