Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainability and Scalability in Educational Technology Initiatives: Research-Informed Practice

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although a positive impact of technology interventions on educational practice and student outcomes has been shown in many previous research settings, the use of technology in classrooms and schools is still often superficial and not meeting the potential of technology as envisioned by education reformers and researchers in the field. However, when technology projects have been implemented successfully in educational practice and shown valuable impacts, sustainability within similar contexts is not guaranteed—let alone scaling the initiative to other broader contexts. This article builds on the discussions of the EDUsummIT 2017 Thematic Working Group 9 (TWG9) and the summary report that captured the outcome of those discussions. The goal of TWG9 was to help inform policy and practice by providing insights into key factors that contribute to scalability and sustainability of educational technology integration and impact.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agyei, D. (2012). Preparation of pre-service teachers in Ghana to integrate Information and communication technology in teaching mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

  • Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2011). ICT use in the teaching of mathematics: Implications for professional development of pre-service teachers in Ghana. Education and Information Technologies, 16, 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albion, P. R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 655–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allaire, S., & Lusignan, G. (2011). Enseigner et apprendre en réseau: Collaborer entre écoles distantes à l’aide des TIC. Anjou: Éditions CEC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the River City curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2006). Scaling up: Evolving innovations beyond ideal settings to challenging contexts of practice. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 551–566). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2012). Digital education revolution—Overview. Retrieved September 20, 2013, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx

  • Dickard, N. (Ed.) (2003). The sustainability challenge: Taking EdTech to the next level. Chicago: Joyce Foundation. http://www2.edc.org/CCT/admin/. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.

  • Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(5), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eickelmann, B. (2011). Supportive and hindering factors to a sustainable implementation of ICT in schools. Journal of Educational Research Online, 3(1), 75–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleener, M. J. (2016). Re-searching methods in educational research: A transdisciplinary approach. In M. Koopmans & D. Stamovlasis (Eds.), Complex dynamical systems in education: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 9–21). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27577-2_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, N., & Murphy, P. (2016). Upgrading technology infrastructure in California’s schools. Sacramento, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2000). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., Boyle, A., & Harris, A. (2014). Uplifting leadership: How organizations, teams, and communities raise performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, G., & Hurworth, R. (2006). Exploring programme sustainability: Identifying factors in two educational initiatives in Victoria. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, S. K. (2011). Affect and acceptability: Exploring teachers’ technology-related risk perceptions. Educational Media International, 48(4), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.632275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, S. K., & Gigliotti, A. (2016). Having a go: Looking at teachers’ experience of risk-taking in technology integration. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1351–1366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9386-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, S. K., & Thompson, K. (2016). Seeing the system: Dynamics and complexity of technology integration in secondary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1877–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9424-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., & Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: How to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2016). Factors affecting teachers’ continuation of technology use in teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 21, 535–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Examining some assumptions and limitations of research on the effects of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 536–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koba, M. (2015). Education tech funding soars—But is it working in the classroom? Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/04/28/education-tech-funding-soars-but-is-it-working-in-the-classroom/. Accessed 20 Feb 2018.

  • Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCandless, J. (2015). U.S. education institutions spend $6.6 Billion on IT in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.centerdigitaled.com/higher-ed/US-Education-Institutions-Spend-66-Billion-on-IT-in-2015.html. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.

  • Niederhauser, D. S., & Lindstrom, D. L. (2018). Instructional technology integration models and frameworks: Diffusion, competencies, attitudes, and dispositions. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. W. Lai (Eds.), Handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederhauser, D. S., Mishra, P., Agyei, D., Cox, M., Howard, S., Laferriere, T., et al. (2017). Supporting sustainability and scalability in educational technology initiatives: Research informed practice. In K. Lai, J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), Rethinking learning in a digital age: Edusummit 2017 Summary Reports (pp. 71–76). Borovets: UNESCO. ISBN 978-0-473-42542-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owston, R. D. (2003). School context, sustainability, and transferability of innovation. In R. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: ISTE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/02/28/how-teachers-are-using-technology-at-home-and-in-their-classrooms/. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.

  • Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Educational technology research in a VUCA world. Educational Technology, 55(2), 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teacher change in technology-rich classrooms. In C. Fisher, D. Dwyer & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, L. (1998). An integrated technology adoption and diffusion model. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2), 113–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringfield, S., & Datnow, A. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 269–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2008). Computers in human behavior development and validation of a computer attitude measure for young students (CAMYS), 24, 2659–2667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorova, A., & Osburg, T. (2009). Factors for the sustainability of a teacher professional development programme for technology integration. Paper presented at the London international conference on education, London.

  • Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a context of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500109304References.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R., Hickey, D., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43, 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiske, M. S., & Perkins, D. (2005). Dewey goes digital: Scaling up constructivist pedagogies and the promise of new technologies. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement. New York: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the organizers of EDUsummIT 17 and acknowledge the contributions of EDUsummIT 2017 Thematic Working Group 9 members Punya Mishra and Lynn Schrum during the EDUsummIT discussions in Borovets, Bulgaria.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education and Human Services, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6122, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA

    Dale S. Niederhauser

  2. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

    Sarah K. Howard

  3. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

  4. University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

    Douglas D. Agyei

  5. Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada

    Therese Laferriere

  6. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Jo Tondeur

  7. King’s College London, London, UK

    Margaret J. Cox

Authors
  1. Dale S. Niederhauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah K. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joke Voogt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Douglas D. Agyei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Therese Laferriere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jo Tondeur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Margaret J. Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dale S. Niederhauser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niederhauser, D.S., Howard, S.K., Voogt, J. et al. Sustainability and Scalability in Educational Technology Initiatives: Research-Informed Practice. Tech Know Learn 23, 507–523 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9382-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9382-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation