Technology Integration in Schools

  • Randall S. Davies
  • Richard E. West


It is commonly believed that learning is enhanced through the use of technology and that students need to develop technology skills in order to be productive members of society. For this reason, providing a high quality education includes the expectation that teachers use educational technologies effectively in their classroom and that they teach their students to use technology. In this chapter we have organized our review of technology integration research around a framework based on three areas of focus: (1) increasing access to educational technologies, (2) increasing the use of technology for instructional purposes, and (3) improving the effectiveness of technology use to facilitate learning. Within these categories, we describe findings related to one-to-one computing initiatives, integration of open educational resources, various methods of teacher professional development, ethical issues affecting technology use, emerging approaches to technology integration that emphasize pedagogical perspectives and personalized instruction, technology-enabled assessment practices, and the need for systemic educational change to fully realize technology’s potential for improving learning. From our analysis of the scholarship in this area, we conclude that the primary benefit of current technology use in education has been to increase information access and communication. Students primarily use technology to gather, organize, analyze, and report information, but this has not dramatically improved student performance on standardized tests. These findings lead to the conclusion that future efforts should focus on providing students and teachers with increased access to technology along with training in pedagogically sound best practices, including more advanced approaches for technology-based assessment and adaptive instruction.


Technology integration Educational technology Instructional technology Learning technology TPACK Educational policy Technology-enabled assessment Personalized instruction 


  1. Akbulut, Y., Sendag, S., Birinci, G., Kilicer, K., Sahin, M. C., & Odabasi, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons of internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of internet-triggered academic dishonesty scale (ITADS). Computers in Education, 51(1), 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annetta, L., Murray, M., Gull Laird, S., Bohr, S., & Park, J. (2008). Investigating student attitudes toward a synchronous, online graduate course in a multi-user virtual learning environment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 5–34.Google Scholar
  3. Atkins, D. E., Seely Brown, J., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities. A report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved from
  4. Bahrampour, T. (2006, December 9). For some, laptops don’t computer: Virginia school pushes wireless learning. Washington Post, p. 1.Google Scholar
  5. Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 93–112.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.Google Scholar
  7. Baum, J. J. (2005). CyberEthics: The new frontier. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(6), 54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bausell, C. V. (2008). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week: Technology Counts, 27(30), 39–42.Google Scholar
  9. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 4–58.Google Scholar
  10. Ben-Jacob, M. (2005). Integrating computer ethics across the curriculum: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 198–204.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, L. (2005). Guidelines for using technology in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 96(1), 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calandra, B., Brantley-dias, L., Lee, J. K., & Fox, D. L. (2009). Using video editing to cultivate novice teachers’ practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 73–94.Google Scholar
  14. Cavin, R. (2008). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teachers through microteaching lesson study. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 5214–5220). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
  15. Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  16. Center for Digital Education. (2008). A complete guide to one-to-one computing. Retrieved from
  17. Cheesman, E., Winograd, G., & Wehrman, J. (2010). Clickers in teacher education: Student perceptions by age and gender. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 35–55.Google Scholar
  18. Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 203–211.Google Scholar
  19. Choy, D., & Wong, A. F. L. (2009). Student teachers’ intentions and actions on integrating technology into their classrooms during student teaching: A Singapore study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 175–195.Google Scholar
  20. Chuang, H. (2010). Weblog-based electronic portfolios for student teachers. Technology, 211–227. doi:  10.1007/s11423-008-9098-1.
  21. Cizek, G. J. (2010a). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges. In G. J. Cizek & H. L. Andrade (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Cizek, G. J. (2010b). Translating standards into assessments: The opportunities and challenges of a common core. Brookings Institute Report. Retrieved from∼/media/Files/events/2010/1028_race_to_the_top/1028_race_to_the_top_cizek_paper.pdf.
  23. *Conati, C. (2009). Intelligent tutoring systems: New challenges and directions. Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from
  24. Cook-Sather, A. (2007). Direct links: Using e-mail to connect preservice teachers, experienced teachers, and high school students within an undergraduate teacher preparation program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 11–37.Google Scholar
  25. Cooper, M. (2010). Charting a course for software licensing and distribution. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Fall Conference on SIGUCCS 2010. doi:  10.1145/1878335.1878375
  26. Cuban, L. (2006a, October 18). Commentary: The laptop revolution has no clothes. Education Week, p. 29. Retrieved from
  27. Cuban, L. (2006b, October 31). 1:1 laptops transforming classrooms: Yeah, sure. New York, NY: Teachers College Record. Retrieved from
  28. Davies, R. (2003). Learner intent and online courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 2(1), 1–10. Retrieved from Scholar
  29. *Davies, R. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 55(5), 45–52.Google Scholar
  30. Davies, R., Sprague, C., & New, C. (2008). Integrating technology into a science classroom: An evaluation of inquiry-based technology integration. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright, & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The impact of technology and the laboratory on K-16 science learning series: Research in science education (pp. 207–237). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  31. de Jager, K., & Brown, C. (2010). The tangled web: Investigating academics’ views of plagiarism at the University of Cape Town. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Derham, C., & DiPerna, J. (2007). Digital professional portfolios of preservice teaching: An initial study of score reliability and validity. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 363–381.Google Scholar
  33. Deubel, P. (2010). Are we ready for testing under common core state standards? The Journal. Retrieved from
  34. Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach online: What works for pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 357–376.Google Scholar
  35. Dyal, A., Carpenter, L. B., & Wright, J. V. (2009). Assistive technology: What every school leader should know. Education, 129(3), 556–560.Google Scholar
  36. Elliot, S. (2003). Intellimetric: From here to validity. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 71–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23–27.Google Scholar
  38. *Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect culture. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.Google Scholar
  39. Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years? Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fletcher, G., & Lu, J. (2009). Human computing skills: Rethinking the K-12 experience. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 23–25. doi: 10.1145/1461928.1461938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Garland, V. E. (2010). Emerging technology trends and ethical practices for the school principal. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gentry, L. B., Denton, C. A., & Kurz, T. (2008). Technologically-based mentoring provided to teachers: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3), 339–373.Google Scholar
  43. Gibson, S., & Kelland, J. (2009). Connecting preservice teachers with children using blogs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 299–314.Google Scholar
  44. *Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachersuse 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
  45. Greaves, T. W., & Hayes, J. (2008). American’s digital schools 2008: The six trends to watch. Encinitas, CA: Greaves Group and Hayes Connection.Google Scholar
  46. Gunn, C. (2010). Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.Google Scholar
  48. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhoupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in P-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers in Education, 51(4), 1648–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Howell, S. L., Sorensen, D., & Tippets, H. R. (2009). The new (and old) news about cheating for distance educators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3).Google Scholar
  50. Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities: Why do teachers want to participate in self-generated online communities of K-12 teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 279–304.Google Scholar
  51. Huysman, M., Steinfield, C., David, K., Poot, J. A. N., & Mulder, I. (2003). Virtual teams and the appropriation of communication technology: Exploring the concept of media stickiness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. *International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008). National educational technology standards for teacchers (NETS-T). Eugene, OR: Author.Google Scholar
  54. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008b). National educational technology standards for students (NETS-S). Eugene, OR: Author.Google Scholar
  55. Jocoy, C., & DiBiase, D. (2006). Plagiarism by adult learners online: A case study in detection and remediation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  56. Jones, N. B., & Graham, C. (2010). Improving hybrid and online course delivery emerging technologies. In Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning management system technologies and software solutions for online teaching: Tools and applications (pp. 239–258). doi:  10.4018/978-1-61520-853-1.ch014.
  57. Kang, M., Heo, H., Jo, I., Shin, J., & Seo, J. (2010–2011). Developing an educational performance indicator for new millennium learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 157–170.Google Scholar
  58. Kang, J. J., Wu, M. L., Ni, X., & Li, G. (2010). Developing a TPACK assessment framework for evaluating teachers’ knowledge and practice to provide ongoing feedback. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 1980–1983). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  59. *Keefe, J. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217–223.Google Scholar
  60. Keefe, J., & Jenkins, J. (2002). A special section on personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 440–448.Google Scholar
  61. King, C. G., Jr., Roger, W. G., Jr., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students’ views. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  62. *Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York, NY: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers in Education, 49(3), 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Technology, 58(2), 175–190. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4.Google Scholar
  65. Kose, E. (2009). Assessment of the effectiveness of the educational environment supported by computer aided presentations at primary school level. Computers in Education, 53(4), 1355–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kruger, R. (2003). Discussing cyber ethics with students is critical. The Social Studies, 94(4), 188–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Cuper, P. (2008). Technology, transfer, and teaching: The impact of a single technology course on preservice teachers’ computer attitudes and ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 385–410.Google Scholar
  68. Li, S. C. (2010). Social capital, empowerment and educational change: A scenario of permeation of one-to-one technology in school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Livingston, P. (2008). 1 to 1 Learning: Building and sustaining a computing program does not happen overnight. Education Week, 1(3), 18–21.Google Scholar
  71. Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (2012). Instructional designers and P-12 technology integration. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 208–217). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  72. Ma, H., Lu, E. Y., Turner, C. C., & Wan, G. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Macdonald, R. J. (2008). Professional development for information communication technology integration: Identifying and supporting a community of practice through design-based research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 429–445.Google Scholar
  74. Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organizational change? ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. *Marzano, R. J. (2009). Formative versus summative assessments as measures of student learning. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 261–271). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. McCaughtry, N., & Dillon, S. R. (2008). Learning to use PDAs to enhance teaching: The perspectives of preservice physical educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 483–508.Google Scholar
  77. McCurry, D. (2010). Can machine scoring deal with broad and open writing tests as well as human readers? Assessing Writing, 15(2), 118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. McMillan-Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of educational technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307. Retrieved from Scholar
  79. Miller, G. (2009). Computers as writing instructors. Science, 323(5910), 59–60. doi: 10.1126/science.323.5910.59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Milson, A. J., & Chu, B. W. (2002). Character education for cyberspace: Developing good netizens. The Social Studies, 93(3), 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(4), 40–42. Retrieved from
  82. Nagel, D. (2010, May 5). Report: Mobile and classroom technologies surge in schools. The Journal. Retrieved from
  83. Niederhauser, D. S., & Lindstrom, D. L. (2006). Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 91–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. O’Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. T.H.E. Journal, 36(3), 32–36.Google Scholar
  85. Oliver, K. (2007). Leveraging web 2.0 in the redesign of a graduate-level technology integration course. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 51(5), 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Osguthorpe, R. T., Osguthorpe, R. T., Jacob, J., & Davies, R. (2003). The moral design of instruction. Educational Technology, 43(2), 19–23.Google Scholar
  87. Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional development program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 43–61.Google Scholar
  88. Owusua, K. A., Monneyb, K. A., Appiaha, J. Y., & Wilmota, E. M. (2010). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on performance of senior high school biology students in Ghana. Computers in Education, 55(2), 904–910. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441.Google Scholar
  90. Pascual, P. C. (2005). Educational technoethics: As a means to an end. AACE Journal, 13(1), 73–90.Google Scholar
  91. *Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Gilford Press.Google Scholar
  92. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.Google Scholar
  93. Richey, R. C., Silber, K. H., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. TechTrends, 52(1), 24–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rickard, A., McAvinia, C., & Quirke-Bolt, N. (2009). The challenge of change: Digital video-analysis and constructivist teaching approaches on a one year preservice teacher education program in Ireland. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 349–367.Google Scholar
  95. Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2009). Effectively using technology in education. Better Evidence-Based Education, 2(1), 20–21.Google Scholar
  96. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
  97. 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
  98. Russell, M., & Douglas, J. (2009). Comparing self-paced and cohort-based online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 443–466.Google Scholar
  99. Samuels, L. B., & Bast, C. M. (2006). Strategies to help legal studies students avoid plagiarism. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 23(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sangra, A., & Gonzalez-Sanmamed, M. (2010). The role of information and communication technologies in improving teaching and learning processes in primary and secondary schools. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Saunders, G., Wenzel, L., & Stivason, C. T. (2008). Internet courses: Who is doing the work? Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(6), 25–35.Google Scholar
  102. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.Google Scholar
  103. Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 6–10.Google Scholar
  104. Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  105. Stucker, H. (2005). Digital “natives” are growing restless. School Library Journal, 51(6), 9–10.Google Scholar
  106. *Toch, T., & Tyre, P. (2010). How will the common core initiative impact the testing industry? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from
  107. Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  108. Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers in Education, 51(1), 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Topol, B., Olson, J., & Roeber, E. (2010). The cost of new higher quality assessments: A comprehensive analysis of the potential costs for future state assessments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from
  110. Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Turner, C. C. (2005). A new honesty for a new game: Distinguishing cheating from learning in a web-based testing environment. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(2), 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. US Department of Education. (2002). Enhancing education through technology. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001. Retrieved from
  113. *US Department of Education (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Education Technology Plan 2010. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  114. US Government Accountability Office. (2009). Report to the chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of Educations review process could improve state academic assessments. GAO-09-911. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, September 2009. Retrieved from
  115. Van Dam, A., Becker, S., & Simpson, R. M. (2007). Next-generation educational software: Why we need it & a research agenda for getting it (p. 32). SIGGRAPH ‘07: ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Courses. New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  116. Vandewaetere, M., Desmet, P., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Review: The contribution of learner characteristics in the development of computer-based adaptive learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 118–130. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vavasseur, C. B., & Macgregor, S. K. (2008). Extending content-focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 517–536.Google Scholar
  118. Vigdor, J. L., & Ladd, H. F. (2010). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement. Working paper no. 16078, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge. Retrieved from
  119. Wang, Y. (2008). University student online plagiarism. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 743–757.Google Scholar
  120. Warschauer, M. (2010, May). Netbooks and open source software in one-to-one programs. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from
  121. Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can one laptop per child save the world’s poor? Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
  122. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. doi: 10.3102/0091732X09349791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. West, R. E., Rich, P. J., Shepherd, C. E., Recesso, A., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Supporting induction teachers’ development using performance-based video evidence. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 369–391.Google Scholar
  124. West, R. E., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C. R. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9018-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6), 4–19. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  126. Wiley, D. (2007). Open educational resources: On the sustainability of OER initiatives in higher education. Commissioned report for OECD. Retrieved January 6, 2010, from
  127. *Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology. Retrieved from
  128. Yang, F. (2010). The ideology of intelligent tutoring systems. ACM Inroads, 1(4), 63–65. doi: 10.1145/1869746.1869765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311–333.Google Scholar
  130. Zucker, A. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. Education Development Center, Inc., SRI International. Retrieved from
  131. Zucker, A. A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323(5910), 82–85. Retrieved from Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional Psychology and TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations