Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology pp 841–853Cite as

Technology Integration in Schools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 http://www.oerderves.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/a-review-of-the-open-educational-resources-oer-movement_final.pdf.

  • Bahrampour, T. (2006, December 9). For some, laptops don’t computer: Virginia school pushes wireless learning. Washington Post, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Baum, J. J. (2005). CyberEthics: The new frontier. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(6), 54–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ben-Jacob, M. (2005). Integrating computer ethics across the curriculum: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 198–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, L. (2005). Guidelines for using technology in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 96(1), 38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 http://www.editlib.org/p/28106.

  • 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 

  • Center for Digital Education. (2008). A complete guide to one-to-one computing. Retrieved from http://www.one-to-oneinstitute.org/files/CDE07_Book_MPC_K12.pdf-oneinstitute.org/files/CDE07_Book_MPC_K12.pdf.

  • 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 

  • Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 203–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chuang, H. (2010). Weblog-based electronic portfolios for student teachers. Technology, 211–227. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9098-1.

  • 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 

  • Cizek, G. J. (2010b). Translating standards into assessments: The opportunities and challenges of a common core. Brookings Institute Report. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/∼/media/Files/events/2010/1028_race_to_the_top/1028_race_to_the_top_cizek_paper.pdf.

  • *Conati, C. (2009). Intelligent tutoring systems: New challenges and directions. Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI-09/paper/viewFile/671/576.

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Cuban, L. (2006a, October 18). Commentary: The laptop revolution has no clothes. Education Week, p. 29. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/18/08cuban.h26.html

  • Cuban, L. (2006b, October 31). 1:1 laptops transforming classrooms: Yeah, sure. New York, NY: Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=12818.

  • Davies, R. (2003). Learner intent and online courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 2(1), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/2.1.4.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Deubel, P. (2010). Are we ready for testing under common core state standards? The Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/09/15/are-we-ready-for-testing-under-common-core-state-standards.aspx

  • 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 

  • Dyal, A., Carpenter, L. B., & Wright, J. V. (2009). Assistive technology: What every school leader should know. Education, 129(3), 556–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, V. E. (2010). Emerging technology trends and ethical practices for the school principal. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gibson, S., & Kelland, J. (2009). Connecting preservice teachers with children using blogs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 299–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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 

  • Gunn, C. (2010). Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008). National educational technology standards for teacchers (NETS-T). Eugene, OR: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008b). National educational technology standards for students (NETS-S). Eugene, OR: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • *Keefe, J. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, J., & Jenkins, J. (2002). A special section on personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 440–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • *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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, R. (2003). Discussing cyber ethics with students is critical. The Social Studies, 94(4), 188–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Ma, H., Lu, E. Y., Turner, C. C., & Wan, G. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organizational change? ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://courses.ceit.metu.edu.tr/ceit626/week12/JECR.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (2009). Computers as writing instructors. Science, 323(5910), 59–60. doi:10.1126/science.323.5910.59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milson, A. J., & Chu, B. W. (2002). Character education for cyberspace: Developing good netizens. The Social Studies, 93(3), 117–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://loticonnection.com/pdf/LoTiFrameworkNov95.pdf.

  • Nagel, D. (2010, May 5). Report: Mobile and classroom technologies surge in schools. The Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/05/05/report-mobile-and-classroom-technologies-surge-in-schools.aspx

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. T.H.E. Journal, 36(3), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osguthorpe, R. T., Osguthorpe, R. T., Jacob, J., & Davies, R. (2003). The moral design of instruction. Educational Technology, 43(2), 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pascual, P. C. (2005). Educational technoethics: As a means to an end. AACE Journal, 13(1), 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Gilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Richey, R. C., Silber, K. H., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. TechTrends, 52(1), 24–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2009). Effectively using technology in education. Better Evidence-Based Education, 2(1), 20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Samuels, L. B., & Bast, C. M. (2006). Strategies to help legal studies students avoid plagiarism. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 23(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Stucker, H. (2005). Digital “natives” are growing restless. School Library Journal, 51(6), 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Toch, T., & Tyre, P. (2010). How will the common core initiative impact the testing industry? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://spencer.jrn.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Tyre_Fordham.pdf.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/pub_docs/assessment/scope_pa_topol.pdf.

  • Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Education. (2002). Enhancing education through technology. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html.

  • *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 

  • 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 Education’s review process could improve state academic assessments. GAO-09-911. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, September 2009. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09911.pdf.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 http://www.nber.org/papers/w16078.

  • Wang, Y. (2008). University student online plagiarism. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 743–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/netbooks-aera2010.pdf

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.jtla.org

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D. (2007). Open educational resources: On the sustainability of OER initiatives in higher education. Commissioned report for OECD. Retrieved January 6, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/9/38645447.pdf.

  • *Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology. Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/ccc/docs/groe/GROE%20Roadmap%20for%20Education%20Technology%20Final%20Report.pdf

  • Yang, F. (2010). The ideology of intelligent tutoring systems. ACM Inroads, 1(4), 63–65. doi:10.1145/1869746.1869765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.k12blueprint.com/k12/blueprint/cd/FinalReport.pdf.

  • Zucker, A. A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323(5910), 82–85. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/82.full.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University, MCKB 150, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Randall S. Davies & Richard E. West

Authors
  1. Randall S. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard E. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randall S. Davies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davies, R.S., West, R.E. (2014). Technology Integration in Schools. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_68

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation