Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model

Educational Technology Research and Development volume 58, pages 137–154 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of teachers’ individual characteristics and perceptions of environmental factors that influence their technology integration in the classroom. A research-based path model was developed to explain causal relationships between these factors and was tested based on data gathered from 1,382 Tennessee public school teachers. The results provided significant evidence that the developed model is useful in explaining factors affecting technology integration and the relationships between the factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Albion, P. R. (2001). Some factors in the development of self-efficacy beliefs for computer use among teacher education students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 321–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. P. (1997). Understanding regression analysis. New York: NetLibrary, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, A. E., Ivers, K. S., Lilavois, N., & Wells, J. A. (2006). Technologies for education: A practical guide (5th ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bausell, C. V. (2008). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week: Technology Counts 2008, 27(30), 39–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414.

    Article  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., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and interned use on teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

  • Bitter, G. G., & Legacy, J. M. (2008). Using technology in the classroom (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. (2006). Practices for the use of technology in high schools: A Delphi study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 481–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Globalizing professional development: The evaluation of a collaborative computer-mediated professional development program. Issues in Information Systems, 8(2), 76–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT: Do we know what we should know? Education and Information Technologies, 12(2), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, S., Doering, A. H., & Riedel, E. S. (2006). Content area specific technology integration: A model for educating teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drent, M. (2006, April). Innovative use of ICT by teacher educators: Influencing factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • 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 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. (2001). Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5). Retrieved March 5, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/JRTE/Issues/Volume_331/Number_5_Summer_2001/jrce-33-5-ertmer.pdf.

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Hruskocy, C. (1999). Impacts of a university–elementary school partnership designed to support technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J. J., Barkus, E., & Yavorsky, C. (2005). Understanding and using advanced statistics. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, 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 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hightower, A.E. (2009, March). Tracking U.S. trends: States earn B average for policies supporting educational technology use. Education Week: Technology Counts, 28.

  • Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year rrends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. E. (2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 245–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D. (2009). Pattern of classroom activities during students’ use of computers: Relations between instructional strategies and computer applications. Teaching and Teacher Education. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.017.

  • Jimoyiannisa, A., & Komisb, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S., & Madden, M. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanaya, T., Light, D., & Culp, K. M. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes from a technology-focused professional development program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 313–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, T. Z. (1988a). Path analysis: An introduction for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 17(2), 343–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, T. Z. (1988b). Using path analysis to test the importance of manipulable infuluences on school learning. School Psychology Review, 17(4), 637–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klem, L. (1995). Path analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lih-Juan, C., Jon-Chao, H., Jeou-Shyan, H., Shih-Hui, C., & Hui-Chuan, C. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 43(1), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J. D., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (2000). Teacher Technology Questionnaire (TTQ). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers’ context beliefs about technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W. W. K., Andersson, R., & Streith, K. O. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 387–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, J. G., & Guarino, A. J. (2000). Predicting teacher computer use: A path analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4), 385–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mims, C., Polly, D., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. A. (2006). Examining PT3 projects designed to improve preservice education. TechTrends, 50(3), 16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Integrating computer technology into the classroom (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42(2), 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumtaz, S. (2005). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 9(3), 319–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Cohen, A., Tubin, D., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2004). Factors involved in the implementation of pedagogical innovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 9(3), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology (No. NCES 2000102). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Digest of Education Statistics 2003 (No. NCES 2005–025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Digest of Education Statistics 2007 (No. NCES 2008–022). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • 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 

  • Newhouse, P., & Rennie, L. (2001). A longitudinal study of the use of student-owned portable computers in a secondary school. Computers & Education, 36(3), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Petraitis, P. S. (1996). Inferring multiple causality: The limitations of path analysis. Functional Ecology, 10(4), 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringstaff, C., & Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA: WestEd RTEC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. (2002). The ambiguous embrace: Twenty years of IT (ICT) in UK primary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 403–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. I. (2003). External, and internal factors which predict teachers’ computer usage in K-12 classrooms. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers’ confidence in their ability to implement computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 75–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student achievement in inner-city schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 215–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. L. (2004). Using classroom observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The School Observation Measure. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cape Town, South Africa: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, J. (2004). Technology in the schools. Technology in Society, 26(2–3), 149–160.

    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. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, F. L., & Logan, J. P. (1999). Computer technology in schools: What teachers should know and be able to do. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 305–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kiopatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs: A think tank white paper. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiue, Y. M. (2007). Investigating the sources of teachers’ instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2008). Instructional technology and media for learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44(3), 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Educational Administration Abstracts, 37(3), 279–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stage, F. K., Carter, H. C., & Nora, A. (2004). Path analysis: An introduction and analysis of a decade of research. Journal of Educational Research, 98(1), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterbinsky, A., & Burke, D. (2004). Tennessee EdTech Accountability Model (TEAM) Reliability Study. Alexandria, VA: The CNA Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 31–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valcke, M., Rots, I., Verbeke, M., & van Braak, J. (2007). ICT teacher training: Evaluation of the curriculum and training approach in Flanders. Teaching & Teacher Education, 23(6), 795–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L., & Shulha, L. (2003). A dynamic framework to guide the implementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 8(3), 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfle, L. M. (1985). Application of causal models in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 381–413). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfle, L. M. (2003). The introduction of path analysis to the social sciences, and some emergent themes: An annotated bibliography. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfle, L. M., & Ethington, C. A. (1985). GEMINI: Program for analysis of structural equations with standard errors of indirect effects. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 581–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., Lei, J., & Frank, K. A. (2006). The social life of technology: An ecological analysis of technology diffusion in schools. Pedagogies, 1(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Instructional Technology, Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership, College of Education, Texas Tech University, Box 41071, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

    Fethi A. Inan

  2. Instructional Design and Technology, College of Education, The University of Memphis, 415C Ball Hall, Memphis , TN, 38152, USA

    Deborah L. Lowther

Authors
  1. Fethi A. Inan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah L. Lowther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fethi A. Inan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Inan, F.A., Lowther, D.L. Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 137–154 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y

Keywords

search

Navigation