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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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).
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.
Bain, A., & Ross, K. (1999). School reengineering and SAT-1 performance: A case study. International Journal of Education Reform, 9(2), 148–153.
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.
*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.
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.
*Bowman, J., Newman, D. L., & Masterson, J. (2001). Adopting educational technology: Implications for designing interventions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 81–94.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
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.
*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.
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.
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.
*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.
*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.
*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.
*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.
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.
*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.
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.
*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.
*Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 161–169.
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.
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.
*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.
*Goodson, I. F., & Mangan, J. M. (1995). Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 613–629.
*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.
*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.
*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.
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.
*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.
*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.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Implementing cooperative learning. Contemporary Education, 63(3), 173–180.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
*Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing light into the black box of implementation: ICT in Cyprus elementary schools. Educational Media International, 42(1), 19–32.
*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.
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.
*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.
*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.
*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.
*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.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
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.
*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.
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.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
*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.
*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.
*Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37, 163–178.
Quality Education Data (QED) Report. (2004). 2004–2005 technology purchasing forecas, 10th edn. New York: Scholastic Company.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101–111.
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.
*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.
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.
Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1995). Getting started in instructional technology research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
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.
*Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487–512.
*Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College.
Schneiderman, M. (2004). What does SBR mean for education technology? THE Journal, 31(11), 30–36.
*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.
Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.
*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.
*Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: The influences of subject cultures. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 29–48.
Shaunessy, E. (2005). Assessing and addressing teachers’ attitudes toward information technology in the gifted classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 45–53.
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.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (2000). Research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.
*Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2001–02). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85–111.
*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.
*Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(3), 331–351.
*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.
Trafimow, D., & Sheeran, P. (1998). Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 378–397.
*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.
Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.
*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.
*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.
*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.
*Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 97–123.
*Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.
*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.
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