Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a multilevel path analysis model

  • Feng Liu
  • Albert D. RitzhauptEmail author
  • Kara Dawson
  • Ann E. Barron
Research Article


The purpose of this research was to design and test a model of classroom technology integration in the context of K-12 schools. The proposed multilevel path analysis model includes teacher, contextual, and school related variables on a teacher’s use of technology and confidence and comfort using technology as mediators of classroom technology integration. Data were collected from 1235 K-12 teachers, who were located in 336 schools in 41 districts across the state of Florida. The results suggest that a teacher’s experience with technology significantly influenced his or her classroom technology integration. Access to technology in classrooms and the availability of quality technology support were related to classroom technology integration. In addition, how frequently a teacher uses technology and his or her confidence and comfort using technology were mediators for classroom technology integration. These results provide preliminary evidence that the proposed model is both useful and relevant in explaining classroom technology integration in K-12 schools.


Technology integration K-12 schools Teachers Gender Confidence Comfort Access to technology 


  1. Allsopp, M., Hohlfeld, T., & Kemker, K. (2007). The technology integration matrix: The development and field-test of an Internet based multi-media assessment tool for the implementation of instructional technology in the classroom. Paper presented at the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa.Google Scholar
  2. Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baylor, A., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(1), 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(1), 136–155.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). ICT teacher training: Evidence for multilevel evaluation from a national initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2008). Florida’s leveraging laptops initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2016). Differences in technology uses and perceptions among elementary, middle and high school teachers. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school system. Computer & Education, 51, 669–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: Application to the implementation of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  18. Harmes, C., Kemker, K., Kalaydjian, K., & Barron, A. E. (2000). Working toward national technology standards: Teacher use of computers in the classroom. Paper presented at the Florida Educational Research Association, Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
  19. Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hernandez-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers’ use of technology in Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogarty, K., & Kromrey, J. (2000). The nature of technology use in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ perceptions. Paper presented at the Florida Educational Research Association, Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
  22. Hohlfeld, T. H., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holmes, K., Bourke, S., Preston, G., Shaw, K., & Smith, M. (2013). Supporting innovation in teaching: What are the key contextual factors? International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education, 1(1), 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsu, S., & Kuan, P. Y. (2013). The impact of multilevel factors on technology integration: The case of Taiwanese grade 1–9 teachers and schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huggins, A. C., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Dawson, K. (2014). Measuring information and communication technology literacy using a performance assessment: Validation of the Student Tool for Technology Literacy (ST2L). Computers & Education, 77, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yildirim, S. (2013). A path model for technology integration into elementary school settings in Turkey. Computers & Education, 68, 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., & van Buuren, H. (2013). What stimulates teachers to integrate ICT in their pedagogical practices? The use of digital learning materials in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., & Reifsneider, D. (2009). Technology in schools: What the research says. Culver City, CA: Commissioned by Cisco. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from
  33. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.Google Scholar
  34. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct of computer mediated classroom lesson. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 807–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59–68.Google Scholar
  36. Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 652–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  39. Muthén, B., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 267–316). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. O’Dwyer, L., Russell, M., & Bebel, D. (2004). Elementary teachers’ use of technology: Characteristics of teachers, schools, and districts associated with technology use. Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College.Google Scholar
  41. Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Proctor, M. D., & Marks, Y. (2013). A survey of exemplar teachers’ perceptions, use, and access of computer-based games and technology for classroom instruction. Computers & Education, 62, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Puentedura, R. R. (2014). SAMR: A contextualized introduction.
  44. Ringstaff, C., & Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco: WestEd RTEC.Google Scholar
  45. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing student use of technology in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schofield, J. W. (1999). Bringing the Internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  48. Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 241–261.Google Scholar
  49. Shapka, J. D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & Van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 494–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tweed, S. R. (2013). Technology implementation: Teacher age, experience, self-efficacy, and professional development as related to classroom technology integration. Electronic theses and dissertations. Paper 1109.
  54. U.S. Department of Education. (2012). National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from
  55. van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4), 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 120–173.Google Scholar
  57. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feng Liu
    • 1
  • Albert D. Ritzhaupt
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kara Dawson
    • 2
  • Ann E. Barron
    • 3
  1. 1.American Institutes for ResearchWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Teaching and Learning, College of EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations