Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research

  • Research article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although research studies in education show that use of technology can help student learning, its use is generally affected by certain barriers. In this paper, we first identify the general barriers typically faced by K-12 schools, both in the United States as well as other countries, when integrating technology into the curriculum for instructional purposes, namely: (a) resources, (b) institution, (c) subject culture, (d) attitudes and beliefs, (e) knowledge and skills, and (f) assessment. We then describe the strategies to overcome such barriers: (a) having a shared vision and technology integration plan, (b) overcoming the scarcity of resources, (c) changing attitudes and beliefs, (d) conducting professional development, and (e) reconsidering assessments. Finally, we identify several current knowledge gaps pertaining to the barriers and strategies of technology integration, and offer pertinent recommendations for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Descriptive studies describe conditions as they exist in a particular setting (e.g., the number of teachers at different grade levels who use computer-based instruction). It is primarily concerned with “what is” type of questions (Knupfer & McLellan, 1996, p. 1196). With descriptive studies, one may use qualitative data sources (field notes from observations, interviews), quantitative sources (descriptive statistics), or both (Ross & Morrison, 1995). Correlational studies examine how variables relate to one another (Ross & Morrison, 1995). A quasi-experimental study uses intact groups. It is similar to the experimental method, with the omission of the randomization component (Ross & Morrison, 1995).

References

  • Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2003). Newsome Park Elementary: Making learning meaningful through project-based learning using wireless laptops in a K-5 Math, Science, and Technology magnet school. Case report from the U.S.A. Exemplary Technology-Supported Schooling Case Studies Project. Retrieved on May 27, 2006 from http://edtechcases.info/schools/newsome/newsome.htm. .

  • Baker, E. L., Herman, J. L., & Gearhart, M. (1996). Does technology work in schools? Why evaluation cannot tell the full story. In C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms (pp. 185–202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, A., & Ross, K. (1999). School reengineering and SAT-1 performance: A case study. International Journal of Education Reform, 9(2), 148–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved on July 11, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/.

  • Bichelmeyer, B. (2005). Status of instructional technology in elementary-secondary and higher education in the United States. Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Journal, 1(2), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichelmeyer, B., & Molenda, M. (2006). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Gradual growth atop tectonic shifts. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 31, 3–32.

  • Bodur, H. O., Brinberg, D., & Coupey, E. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bowman, J., Newman, D. L., & Masterson, J. (2001). Adopting educational technology: Implications for designing interventions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantley-Dias, L., Calandra, B., Harmon, S. W., Shoffner, M. B. (2006). An analysis of collaboration between colleges of education and arts & sciences in PT3. TechTrends, 50(3), 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Butzin, S. M. (2001). Using instructional technology in transformed learning environments: An evaluation of Project CHILD. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butzin, S. M. (2004). Project CHILD: A proven model for the integration of computer and curriculum in the elementary classroom. Retrieved on May 23, 2006 from http://www.acecjournal.org/archives_archives.php.

  • Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner, R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2001). The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf.

  • Chu, G. C., & Schramm, W. (1967). Learning from television: What the research says. Washington, DC: National Society of Professionals in Telecommunications.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. C. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on the integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. E. (2002). USA: A model of implementation effectiveness. Retrieved on May 23, 2006 from http://edtechcases.info/papers/multicase_implementation.htm.

  • Education Week (2003). Tech’s answer to testing. Schools turn to computerized exams to meet new demands. 22(35).

  • Education Week (2005). Technology counts 2005, 24(35).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Eshet, Y., Klemes, J., Henderson, L., & Jalali, S. (2000). A model of successful technology integration in a school system: Plano’s Curriculum Integration Project. In P. Kommers, & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2000 (pp. 310–315). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education: Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fishman, B. J., & Pinkard, N. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: Planning for technology vs. technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 161–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1983). Managing positive classroom environments. In B. J. Fraser (Ed.), Classroom management: Monograph in the faculty of education research seminar and workshop series. Western Australian Institute of Technology: Faculty of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005). A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 361–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Goodson, I. F., & Mangan, J. M. (1995). Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 613–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 480–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Grant, M. M., Ross, S. M., Wang, W., & Potter, A. (2005). Computers on wheels: An alternative to ‘each one has one’. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1017–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gülbahar, Y. (in press). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers and Education.

  • *Hakkarainen, K., Muukonen, H., Lipponen, L., Ilomaki, L., Rahikainen, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2001). Teachers’ information and communication technology skills and practices of using ICT. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, D. R., & Flowers, C. P. (2001). Comparing social desirability responding on World Wide Web and Paper-Administered Surveys. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., Valcke, M. M., & van Braak, J. (2006). Educational beliefs as predictors of ICT use in the classroom. Paper presented at the convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2004). Integrating technology in classrooms: We have met the enemy and he is us. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago: IL.

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Implementing cooperative learning. Contemporary Education, 63(3), 173–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing light into the black box of implementation: ICT in Cyprus elementary schools. Educational Media International, 42(1), 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Keller, J. B., Bonk, C. J., & Hew, K. (2005). The TICKIT to teacher learning: Designing professional development according to situative principles. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knupfer, N. N., & McLellan, H. (1996). Descriptive research methodologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1196–1212). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lai, K. W., Trewern, A., & Pratt, K. (2002). Computer coordinators as change agents: Some New Zealand observations. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 539–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lawson, T., & Comber, C. (1999). Superhighways technology: Personnel factors leading to successful integration of information and communications technology in schools and colleges. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 8(1), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. M. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOE Singapore (1998). Ministry of Education’s Response to the External Curriculum Review Report. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/press/1998/980321.htm on August 8, 2005.

  • *Mouza, C. (2002–2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mulkeen, A. (2003). What can policy makers do to encourage integration of information and communications technology? Evidence from the Irish School System. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2), 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath, L. R., & Ross, S. M. (2001). The influence of a peer-tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementary students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Newhouse, C. P. (2001). A follow-up study of students using portable computers at a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M. & Bebell, D. J. (2004). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved on May 17, 2006 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48/.

  • *O’Mahony, C. (2003). Getting the information and communications technology formula right: access + ability=confident use. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2).

  • Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37, 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quality Education Data (QED) Report. (2004). 2004–2005 technology purchasing forecas, 10th edn. New York: Scholastic Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd edn. (pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.

  • *Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rogers, L., & Finlayson, H. (2004). Developing successful pedagogy with information and communications technology: how are science teachers meeting the challenge? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Thomas, M. D. (1996). Responses on computer surveys: Impression management, social desirability, and the big brother syndrome. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(2), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1995). Getting started in instructional technology research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Higgins, J. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, M. (2004). What does SBR mean for education technology? THE Journal, 31(11), 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schiller, J. (2002). Interventions by school leaders in effective implementation of information and communications technology: Perceptions of Australian principals. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 11(3), 289–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sclater, J., Sicoly, F., Abrami, P. C., & Wade, C. A. (2006). Ubiquitous technology integration in Canadian public schools: Year one study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(1), 9–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: The influences of subject cultures. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaunessy, E. (2005). Assessing and addressing teachers’ attitudes toward information technology in the gifted classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R. Jr., & Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on the affective dimensions of science learning. In D. White (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 211–235). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (2000). Research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2001–02). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal from Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(3), 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Teo, H. H., & Wei, K. K. (2001). Effective use of computer aided instruction in secondary schools: A causal model of institutional factors and teachers’ roles. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 385–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trafimow, D., & Sheeran, P. (1998). Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 378–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Van ‘T Hooft, M., Diaz, S., & Swan, K. (2004). Examining the potential of handheld computers: Findings from the OHIO PEP project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 295–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Yuen, A. H. K., Law, N., & Wong, K. C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership: Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 158–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khe Foon Hew.

Additional information

*These references make up the 48 past empirical studies that we reviewed.

This paper is a revised version of the manuscript selected as the recipient of the AECT 2006 Young Scholar Award. Revisions were based on blind reviews from a panel of Consulting Editors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hew, K.F., Brush, T. Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Tech Research Dev 55, 223–252 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5

Keywords

Navigation