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

  • Khe Foon HewEmail author
  • Thomas Brush
Research article


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.


Technology integration Barriers Strategies K-12 Curriculum Future research 



  1. 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 .Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. *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 Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. *Bowman, J., Newman, D. L., & Masterson, J. (2001). Adopting educational technology: Implications for designing interventions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *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
  13. 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 Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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 Scholar
  16. Chu, G. C., & Schramm, W. (1967). Learning from television: What the research says. Washington, DC: National Society of Professionals in Telecommunications.Google Scholar
  17. *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
  18. *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
  19. *Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. E. (2002). USA: A model of implementation effectiveness. Retrieved on May 23, 2006 from Scholar
  20. Education Week (2003). Tech’s answer to testing. Schools turn to computerized exams to meet new demands. 22(35).Google Scholar
  21. Education Week (2005). Technology counts 2005, 24(35).Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. *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
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. *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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. *Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 161–169.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. *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
  32. *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
  33. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. *Gülbahar, Y. (in press). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers and Education.Google Scholar
  36. *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
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. *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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. *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
  42. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Implementing cooperative learning. Contemporary Education, 63(3), 173–180.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. *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
  45. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. *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
  48. *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
  49. *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
  50. *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
  51. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. MOE Singapore (1998). Ministry of Education’s Response to the External Curriculum Review Report. Retrieved from on August 8, 2005.Google Scholar
  54. *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
  55. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.Google Scholar
  58. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. *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 Scholar
  60. *O’Mahony, C. (2003). Getting the information and communications technology formula right: access + ability=confident use. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2).Google Scholar
  61. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. *Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Quality Education Data (QED) Report. (2004). 2004–2005 technology purchasing forecas, 10th edn. New York: Scholastic Company.Google Scholar
  64. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. *Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1995). Getting started in instructional technology research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. *Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. *Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  73. Schneiderman, M. (2004). What does SBR mean for education technology? THE Journal, 31(11), 30–36.Google Scholar
  74. *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
  75. Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. *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
  77. *Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: The influences of subject cultures. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
  78. Shaunessy, E. (2005). Assessing and addressing teachers’ attitudes toward information technology in the gifted classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 45–53.Google Scholar
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. *Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2001–02). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. *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
  83. *Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. *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
  85. Trafimow, D., & Sheeran, P. (1998). Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 378–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. *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
  90. *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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. *Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. *Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Sciences and Technology Academic Group, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Instructional Systems TechnologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations