Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research

Abstract

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.

Full text

Abstract Although research studies in education show that use of technol-
ogy 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.
Keywords Technology integration ÆBarriers ÆStrategies ÆK-12 Æ
Curriculum ÆFuture research
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.
K. F. Hew (&)
Learning Sciences and Technology Academic Group, National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore
e-mail: timhkf@yahoo.com
T. Brush
Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Room 2216, W. W. Wright Education
Building, Bloomington, USA
123
Education Tech Research Dev (2007) 55:223–252
DOI 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Integrating technology into K-12 teaching
and learning: current knowledge gaps
and recommendations for future research
Khe Foon Hew ÆThomas Brush
Published online: 5 December 2006
Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Introduction
From the birth of the motion picture in 1922, to the advent of the computer in
the mid-1970s, educators have been intrigued with the potential of technology
to help transform education and improve student learning. Research studies in
education demonstrate that the use of technology (e.g., computers) can help
improve students’ scores on standardized tests (Bain & Ross, 1999), improve
students’ inventive thinking (e.g., problem solving) (Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) Forum on Education and Technology, 2001), and improve students’
self-concept and motivation (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). Moreover, tech-
nology is also seen as being able to provide a number of opportunities that
would otherwise be difficult to attain. The use of computer-mediated com-
munication tools, for example, can help students from various geographical
locations ‘‘talk’’ to one another and experts conveniently. The increased
ability to communicate with experts enhances students’ learning process
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).
The belief that technology can positively impact student learning has led
many governments to create programs for the integration of technology in
their schools. In the United States, school districts reportedly spent $7.87
billion on technology equipment during the 2003–2004 school year (Quality
Education Data, 2004). The student-per-instructional computer ratio dropped
to 3.8:1 in 2004, whereas the student-per-Internet-connected computer ratio
dropped to 4.1:1 (Education Week, 2005).
In Singapore, the first Master plan for Information Technology in Education
was launched in April 1997. This program cost approximately $1.2 billion. As
part of this plan, all Singapore schools are expected to acquire and integrate
technology in their curriculum in order to develop in students a culture of
thinking, lifelong learning, and social responsibility. More recently, the Singa-
pore government unveiled the second Master plan for Information Technology
in July 2002 to continue to provide overall direction on how schools can harness
the possibilities offered by information technology for teaching and learning.
Although research studies in education show that use of technology can
help student learning, its use is generally affected by certain barriers. These
barriers are all too prevalent—even among exemplary users of technology in
schools (Becker, 2000). The purpose of this paper is to examine the current
barriers related to the integration of technology into the curriculum that are
currently faced by K-12 schools both in the United States and in other
countries, and to identify strategies to overcome those barriers. In addition,
we identify current knowledge gaps in the literature and provide recom-
mendations for future research.
What is technology integration?
There is no clear standard definition of technology integration in K-12 schools
(Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). For some scholars, technology integration
224 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

was understood and examined in terms of types of teachers’ computer use in
the classrooms: low-level (e.g., students doing Internet searches) or high-level
use (e.g., students doing multimedia presentations, collecting and interpreting
data for projects) (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). For other scholars,
technology integration was understood and examined in terms of how teachers
used technology to carry out familiar activities more reliably and productively,
and how such use may be re-shaping these activities (Hennessy, Ruthven, &
Brindley, 2005). Still others consider technology integration in terms of
teachers using technology to develop students’ thinking skills (Lim et al.,
2003). Despite the lack of a clear standard definition, certain prevailing ele-
ments appear to cut across the many different current discussions about
technology integration in K-12 schools. These elements typically include the
use of computing devices for instruction. In this paper, technology integration
is thus viewed as the use of computing devices such as desktop computers,
laptops, handheld computers, software, or Internet in K-12 schools for
instructional purposes.
Analysis of previous research studies
To examine the current barriers and strategies, we analyzed existing studies
from 1995 to spring 2006 that reported empirical research findings. The focus
of our technology integration literature search and discussion in this paper is
on the general barriers affecting the use of computing devices in K-12 schools
for instructional purposes, and the strategies to overcome those barriers. We
looked for a mixture of empirical studies that were conducted in the United
States and countries abroad. Using databases such as Academic Search
Premier, ERIC, and PsycARTICLES, and Professional Development Col-
lection, we searched using several combinations of keywords including:
‘‘technology,’’ ‘‘computer,’’ ‘‘Internet,’’ ‘‘teacher,’’ and ‘‘K-12 school.’’ We
also employed the ‘‘snowball’’ method and reviewed the references in the
selected articles for additional empirical studies. We eliminated those that
pertained only to (a) pre-service teachers, (b) non-empirical descriptions of
technology integration programs, (c) literature reviews, and (d) opinion pa-
pers. We also excluded studies that discussed the non-instructional purposes
of technology such as use of technology for administrative support work (e.g.,
keeping students’ attendance records), and other forms of technology such as
instructional radio. Consequently, we examined 48 studies that reported
empirical findings. Of these 48 studies, 43 came from peer-reviewed journals
(e.g., American Educational Research Journal), two came from research
reports (e.g., the U.S.A. exemplary technology-supported case studies pro-
ject), two came from conference presentations (e.g., the American Educa-
tional Research Association annual meeting), and one came from a book
reporting the results of a 10-year empirical study on technology integration.
We then used the constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)on
these studies to derive the barrier and strategy categories. Each empirical
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 225
123

study was analyzed to identify the types of research studies being conducted,
the barriers, and the strategies (if any) used to address the barriers. These
barriers and strategies were then subsequently grouped into a number of
tentative categories. Every subsequent new barrier or strategy identified was
compared to the existing categories, with specific barriers and strategies being
recoded as the definitions and properties of each category became better
developed. Data analysis continued until the barrier and strategy categories
were saturated, meaning that additional data began to confirm the categories
rather than identify new categories.
Barriers of technology integration
A total of 123 barriers were found from the review of past empirical studies. In
order to provide a coherent and parsimonious description of the various
technology integration barriers, we classified them into six main categories: (a)
resources, (b) knowledge and skills, (c) institution, (d) attitudes and beliefs,
(e) assessment, and (f) subject culture. These barriers are listed in order of the
relative frequency in which they were mentioned in the studies reviewed (see
Fig. 1).
Resources
The lack of resources may include one or more of the following: (a) tech-
nology, (b) access to available technology, (c) time, and (d) technical support.
Lack of technology includes insufficient computers, peripherals, and software
(e.g., Karagiorgi, 2005; O’Mahony, 2003; Pelgrum, 2001; Sandholtz, Ringstaff,
& Dwyer, 1997). Without adequate hardware and software, there is little
opportunity for teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum. Even in
cases where technology is abundant, there is no guarantee that teachers have
easy access to those resources. Access to technology is more than merely the
availability of technology in a school; it involves providing the proper amount
and right types of technology in locations where teachers and students can use
them (Fabry & Higgs, 1997). For example, Selwyn (1999) found that the best
40%
14%
2%
13%
23%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
uoseR rces
titsn
Itu n
oi
tc
e
jbuSer
ut
l
u
c
AttiB
/se
d
ut le fei s
Kgd
el
w
on /
ei
kS lsl
tnemsse
s
sA
Fig. 1 Relative frequency in which the barriers were mentioned in the past studies
226 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

resources tended to be dominated by technology classes (e.g., computer
studies); thus resulting in a ‘‘pecking order’’ of subjects where use of computer
laboratories is concerned, putting teachers of non-technological subjects (e.g.,
art, humanities) at a disadvantage. Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002)
similarly found that although schools have computers housed in laboratories,
teachers might not have easy access to them if they needed to compete with
other teachers for laboratory time.
Lack of time is another resource-type barrier (Butzin, 2001; Cuban et al.,
2001; Karagiorgi, 2005; O’Mahony, 2003). Teachers needed hours to preview
web sites, to locate the photos they required for the multimedia project they
assigned to students, or to scan those photos into the computers. Teachers
who were willing to work longer hours paid a personal price in ‘‘burn out’’ and
an eventual exit from the school. The lack of technical support is yet another
resource-type barrier (Lai, Trewen, & Pratt, 2002; Rogers, 2000). Teachers
need adequate technical support to assist them in using different technologies.
Employing a limited number of technical support personnel in a school se-
verely hinders teachers’ technology use. More often than not, these technical
support personnel were often overwhelmed by teacher requests, and could not
respond swiftly or adequately (Cuban et al., 2001).
Knowledge and skills
The lack of specific technology knowledge and skills, technology-supported-
pedagogical knowledge and skills, and technology-related-classroom man-
agement knowledge and skills has been identified as a major barrier to
technology integration. Lack of specific technology knowledge and skills is
one of the common reasons given by teachers for not using technology
(Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001/2; Williams, Coles, Wilson, Richardson, & Tuson,
2000). For example, in a study of Scottish schools, Williams et al. (2000),
found that lack of skills in the use of databases and spreadsheets was seen as
an inhibiting factor by more than 10% of elementary school teachers.
Snoeyink and Ertmer (2001/2), in their study of one middle-class school in the
United States, also found that limited computer knowledge or skills contrib-
uted to the lack of technology integration by teachers. The teachers in their
study did not attempt any technology-related activities with their students
until they had developed basic skills such as logging onto the network,
opening and closing files and applications, and basic word processing.
In addition to the lack of technology knowledge and skills, some teachers
are unfamiliar with the pedagogy of using technology. According to Hughes
(2005), teachers need to have a technology-supported-pedagogy knowledge
and skills base, which they can draw upon when planning to integrate tech-
nology into their teaching. Technology-supported-pedagogy may be classified
into three categories in which technology functions as: (a) replacement, (b)
amplification, or (c) transformation (Hughes, 2005). Technology as replace-
ment involves technology serving as a different means to the same instruc-
tional goal. For example, a teacher could type a poem on a PowerPoint slide
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 227
123

and project it on the wall. This activity replaces the writing of the poem on a
poster and taping it on the wall with the unchanged instructional goal for
students to read the poem. Technology as amplification involves the use of
technology to accomplish tasks more efficiently and effectively without
altering the task (Pea, 1985). For example, a teacher may ask students to edit
peers’ stories typed in a word processor. As opposed to hand-written stories,
the author’s ability to easily revise the story based on peers’ comments is
amplified because the student does not have to rewrite the story each time to
accommodate the peers’ feedback. Finally, use of technology as transforma-
tion has the potential to provide innovative educational opportunities
(Hughes, 2005) by reorganizing students’ cognitive processes and problem-
solving activities (Pea, 1985). For example, students can use computer data-
bases and graphing software as tools for exploratory data analysis, data
organization, and for framing and testing hypotheses related to the data. Many
teachers have not been exposed to transformative technology-supported-
pedagogy because professional development activities have focused primarily
on how to merely operate the technology.
The lack of technology-related-classroom management knowledge and
skills is another barrier to technology integration into the curriculum. Tradi-
tionally, classroom management includes ‘‘the provisions and procedures
necessary to establish and maintain an environment in which instruction and
learning can occur and the preparation of the classroom as an effective
learning environment’’ (Fraser, 1983, p. 68). Classroom management has been
identified as the most important factor influencing student learning (Wang,
Haertel, & Walberg, 1993).
Typically, traditional classroom management involves a set of guidelines for
appropriate student behaviors (Lim et al., 2003). Although the rules and
procedures established in a non-technology integrated classroom can apply in
a technology-integrated one, there are additional rules and procedures to be
established in the latter due to the inclusion of computers, printers, monitors,
CD-ROMs, and other technology resources (Lim et al., 2003). Thus, in a
technology-integrated classroom, teachers need to be equipped with tech-
nology-related classroom management skills such as how to organize the class
effectively so that students have equal opportunities to use computers, or what
to do if students run into technical problems when working on computers.
Examples of empirical evidence indicating that the lack of technology-related-
classroom management skills inhibits technology integration can be found in
studies conducted by Lim et al. (2003) and Newhouse (2001).
Institution
Institutional barriers may include: (a) leadership, (b) school time-tabling
structure, and (c) school planning. Research has shown that school leadership
can hinder the integration of technology by teachers. Fox and Henri (2005)
found that the majority of Hong Kong teachers felt that their principals did not
understand technology and its relevance to the government’s proposed shift to
228 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

more learner-centered activities. Consequently, the impact of technology on
the teachers’ practices in the classroom was restricted. An inflexible timetable
can also act as a barrier. In a survey of more than 4,000 teachers in over 1,100
schools in the United States, Becker (2000) found that most secondary students
have a continuous block of less than one hour’s duration to do work in any one
class. Such a time limit constrains the variety of learning modalities their
teachers can design. Consequently, fewer teachers plan computer activities on
a regular basis. The lack of school planning with regard to technology use is
another barrier. Lawson and Comber (1999) found that in one United King-
dom school that made minimal use of technology, the administrators had
decided to enter a technology integration project as a way of getting free
Internet access for a year. There had been no planning regarding what to do
with the technology once it was installed, and the administrators left the
information technology department to its own devices during the project.
Consequently, the use of technology did not extend beyond that department.
Attitudes and beliefs
Teacher attitudes and beliefs towards technology can be another major barrier
to technology integration (Hermans, Tondeur, Valcke, & Van Braak, 2006).
According to Simpson, Koballa, Oliver, and Crawley (1994), attitudes can be
defined as specific feelings that indicate whether a person likes or dislikes
something. In the context of technology integration, teacher attitudes toward
technology may be conceptualized as teachers liking or disliking the use of
technology. Beliefs can be defined as premises or suppositions about some-
thing that are felt to be true (Calderhead, 1996; Richardson, 1996). Specifi-
cally, teachers’ beliefs may include their educational beliefs about teaching
and learning (i.e., pedagogical beliefs), and their beliefs about technology
(Ertmer, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Researchers have found that beliefs
determine a person’s attitude (Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000).
Ertmer (2005) argued that the decision of whether and how to use tech-
nology for instruction ultimately depends on the teachers themselves and the
beliefs they hold about technology. For example, in an investigation of one
elementary school in the United States, Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and
Woods (1999) found that teachers’ beliefs about technology in the curriculum
shaped their goals for technology use. Teachers who viewed technology as
merely ‘‘a way to keep kids busy,’’ did not see the relevance of technology to
the designated curriculum. Computer time was commonly granted after reg-
ular classroom work was done and as a reward for the completion of assigned
tasks. To these teachers, other skills and content knowledge were more
important. Similarly, other researchers have found teacher beliefs about
technology to be a major barrier to technology integration. For example, a
study in Australia that investigated the perceptions of students and teachers
towards the use of portable computers at a secondary school revealed that the
majority of teachers believed that computers would not lead to better
understanding or faster learning (Newhouse, 2001). Similarly, teachers in
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 229
123

Cyprus who participated in a program focusing on information and commu-
nication technologies in schools, failed to see the value of such technology for
their students. Although they had seen the power of the computer in other
areas, they were unconvinced that it could help in education (Karagiorgi,
2005).
Assessment
Assessment can be defined as the activity of measuring student learning
(Reeves, 2000). It can be formative or summative in nature, although tradi-
tionally, it is typically summative in the form of school and national high-
stakes testing. High-stakes testing can be defined as assessment with serious
attached consequences such as promotion or graduation for students (CEO
Forum on Education and Technology, 2001) or rewards versus sanctions for
schools. The pressures of such testing can be a major barrier to technology
integration. For example, Fox and Henri (2005) explored the use of tech-
nology in Hong Kong elementary and secondary school classrooms and found
that pressures related to high-stakes testing gave teachers little time to at-
tempt new instructional methods involving technology. This view was cor-
roborated by Butzin (2004) who noted that the pressure to meet higher
standards and score high on standardized tests, along with the need to cover
vast scope of material within a limited amount of time, creates a daunting
challenge for any teacher. Consequently, teachers feel they can cover more
material when they are in front of the class talking with every student doing
the same thing at the same time, rather than using technology because of
the additional technology planning time required to identify and select
appropriate software to match lesson objectives (Butzin, 2004).
In addition, high-stakes testing can result in the shift of using technology
from teaching and learning to using it to facilitate assessment (Bichelmeyer,
2005). The ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ act has placed great emphasis on testing
and has accordingly drawn more attention to comparative test scores
(Brantley-Dias, Calandra, Harmon, & Shoffner, 2006). Such emphasis on
testing, argued Schneiderman (2004), undercuts the potential promise of
technology as a teaching and learning tool. As a result, the focus of technology
use in K-12 education has not been on the use of computers for teaching and
learning, but rather on the financial benefits of computer-based testing and the
warehousing of assessment results (Bichelmeyer & Molenda, 2006; Education
Week, May 8, 2003).
Finally, Hennessy et al. (2005) found that there was a perceived tension
between using technology and the need to conform to the external require-
ments of traditional examinations. Requirements to use technology to en-
hance learning without recognition through assessment were deemed
problematic. For example, there was concern that the use of graphic calcu-
lators was disadvantageous to students because such calculators are prohibited
in national examinations. Such concerns led to decreased enthusiasm among
teachers for using technology.
230 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

Subject culture
Subject culture refers to the ‘‘general set of institutionalized practices and
expectations which have grown up around a particular school subject, and
shapes the definition of that subject as a distinct area of study’’ (Goodson &
Mangan, 1995, p. 614). Subject cultures have long-standing histories, rein-
forced by generations of school practice (Goodson & Mangan, 1995), and are
typically shaped by the subject content, subject pedagogy, and subject
assessment (Selwyn, 1999). Teachers are reluctant to adopt a technology that
seems incompatible with the norms of a subject culture (Hennessy, Ruthven,
& Brindley, 2005). For example, Selwyn (1999) found an art teacher who
justified her avoidance of using computers by saying that when painting, one
would be more in tune with it if one did it physically with one’s own hand; the
art teacher believed that using a mouse makes one’s mind and hand disjointed.
Another art teacher argued that from an aesthetic point of view, accessing art
galleries through a computer can never equal experiencing an actual painting
in person.
Identifying the relationships among the barriers
Although each type of barrier was described separately, in reality the barriers
are related to one another. In this section, we construct a tentative model
based on the findings of past studies to describe such relationships (see Fig. 2).
The linkages shown in Fig. 2denote claims made by the studies that certain
barriers can influence others. For example, Selwyn (1999) and Hennessy et al.
(2005) claim that assessment influences subject cultures. It can be seen from
s
e
cruoseR
fo
y
t
i
l
ibaliavA
yg
ol
o
n
h
c
et
ygolonhcet ot sseccA
emiT
tr
op
pus lacinhceT
erutluc
tc
ejbuS
dezila
n
oitutitsni fo
t
es l
are
n
eG
hcihw snoitat
cepxe
dn
a secitca
rp
r
a
lu
c
itrap
a
d
nuora
pu nw
o
rg
s
a
h
tcejbus l
o
ohcs
no
i
tut
i
t
s
n
I
pih
s
re
d
a
eL
gnilbat-emiT
erutcurts
na
l
p l
o
ohc
S
f
ei
l
eb/e
d
u
tit
t
a r
eh
cae
T
eh
t
tuoba fe
il
e
b
s’re
h
caet
f
o
e
so
p
rup
l
an
o
it
a
cu
d
e
eht ni ygolonhcet gnisu
gni
nrael dna gnihcaet
sseco
r
p
s
l
likS/egd
e
lwonK
slliks ygolonhceT
-d
e
t
ro
ppus-yg
o
lonhce
T
slli
k
s yg
o
gad
e
p
-detaler-ygolonhceT
t
n
emega
n
a
m
m
oor
ssa
l
c
s
l
liks
tnemssessA
t
n
e
du
t
s
gn
i
rusaeM
yll
acipy
t
,gni
n
ra
el
s
e
k
a
ts
-hg
i
h hguo
rh
t
snoi
t
an
i
ma
xe
y
g
olonh
c
eT
n
o
i
t
a
rge
t
ni
te smai
l
liW ;)9991( rebmoC & noswaL
& kniyeonS ;)5002( sehguH ;)0002( .la
;)9991( .la te remtrE ;)20
-1002( remtrE
)6002( .la
t
e snamreH
n
e
niarakk
aH
;)
10
02( mur
gl
e
P
)1002( .la te
)
5
002( igroigara
K
;)99
9
1
(
rebmo
C
& n
o
swaL
)5002( .la
t
e
y
s
s
enn
eH ;
)0
002(
sr
e
go
R ;
)1002
(
murgleP
;)100
2
( .la t
e
na
bu
C
)1002(
ieW & oeT
)1
0
02( i
eW
&
o
e
T
ieW & oeT
(100
2)
;)5002( .la te yssenneH
re
b
mo
C
& noswaL
.la te regnarG ;)9991(
)
20
02
(
)
5
002(
,.la te
y
sse
n
neH
;
)9991
(
ny
w
leS
;)500
2
( .la te
yssenneH
ir
n
eH
& x
oF(5
002)
)9991( nywleS
)
1
002( sehguH
Fig. 2 Model showing the relationships among the various barriers
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 231
123

Fig. 2that technology integration is thought to be directly influenced by the
following four barriers: (a) the teacher’s attitudes and beliefs towards using
technology, (b) the teacher’s knowledge and skills, (c) the institution, and (d)
resources. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward using technology are also
thought to be affected by their knowledge and skills, and vice-versa. In
addition, the institution appears to directly affect the adequacy of resources
provided for technology integration, the adequacy of teachers’ knowledge and
skills (via provision of professional development), and teachers’ attitudes to-
ward using technology. For example, Hennessy et al. (2005) found that an
institution’s top-down internal policies to use technology within subject
teaching could cause a feeling of disempowerment in teachers. Teachers
interviewed felt that they had to include technology into schemes of work,
regardless of whether technology was particularly useful for that aspect of the
curriculum.
Technology integration is also thought to be indirectly influenced by the
subject culture and assessment. Subject culture indirectly affects technology
integration via teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, and the institution. The latter is
affected because an institution is made up of various subject departments that
are inexorably linked with their respective subject cultures (e.g., arts depart-
ment with the arts subject culture). Although technology may be integrated
more routinely in certain subjects such as geography and business studies
(Selwyn, 1999), its use is still affected by the mode of assessment. Assessment
indirectly affects technology integration because the form of assessment typ-
ically dictates both how a subject should be taught and assessed and thus how
technology should be used (e.g., the use of graphing calculators is not
encouraged because they are prohibited in high-stakes testing).
Having described the general barriers typically faced by K-12 schools when
integrating technology into the curriculum for instructional purposes, we now
describe the strategies to overcome the barriers in the following section.
Strategies to overcome barriers
In order to provide a coherent description of various strategies to overcome
barriers, we have classified them into five main categories: (a) having a shared
vision and technology integration plan, (b) overcoming the scarcity of re-
sources, (c) changing attitudes and beliefs, (d) conducting professional
development, and (e) reconsidering assessments. These strategies are not
listed in order of priority or importance. Table 1summarizes all the five
categories of strategies.
Having a shared vision and technology integration plan
Having a shared vision of learning and teaching can serve as a driving force for
overcoming leadership barriers to technology use (Sandholtz et al., 1997;
Tearle, 2004). Lim and Khine (2006), for example, found in their study of four
232 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

Table 1 Summary of strategies to overcome barriers of technology integration
Barriers Strategies
Resources Obtaining the necessary resources
•Lack of technology •Introduce technology into one or two subject areas at a time to
ensure that teachers and students in those areas have adequate
technology and access to technology (Tearle, 2004)
•Create a hybrid technology setup in classrooms that involved
cheaper computer systems. (Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004)
•Use laptops with wireless connections to save building and
maintenance costs of the computer laboratories (Lowther
et al., 2003)
•Lack of access
to technology
•Putting technology into the classrooms rather than in centralized
locations (Becker, 2000)
•Rotate students through the small number of classroom (Sand-
holtz et al., 1997)
•Lack of time •Teachers collaborate to create technology-integrated lesson
plans and materials (Dexter & Anderson, 2002; Lim & Khine,
2006)
•Reduce class loads for teachers in order to free up some school
time (Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001–2002). For example, reduce
the overall curriculum content (MOE Singapore, 1998)
•Also include the strategy for time-tabling structure
•Lack of technical
support
•Use student technology helpers (Cuban et al., 2001; Lim et al.,
2003)
Institution Shared vision and technology plan
•Leadership •Having a shared vision (Rogers, 2000; Sandholtz et al., 1997;
Tearle, 2004; Yuen et al., 2003)
•Time-tabling
structure
•Schools change their time-tabling schedule to increase class time
to double period sessions (Bowman et al., 2001)
•Lack of technology
integration plan
•Having a technology plan (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001; Lawson &
Comber, 1999). Such a plan should center on teaching and
learning, not merely on technology issues (Rogers, 2000)
Subject culture •No strategies currently mentioned in the studies reviewed
Attitudes/beliefs Facilitating attitudes/beliefs change
•Institution support (having vision and plan; providing the nec-
essary resources; providing ongoing professional development;
encouraging teachers) (Lawson & Comber, 1999; Sandholtz &
Reilly, 2004; Granger et al. 2002; Teo & Wei, 2001)
•Subject culture
•Assessment (see strategies for assessment below)
•Professional development (see strategies for professional devel-
opment below)
Skills Professional development – have three essential overlapping
facets: (a) appropriate to the needs of the teachers and class-
room practice, (b) provides opportunities for teachers to engage
in active learning, and (c) focuses on: technological knowledge/
skills, technology-supported pedagogy knowledge/skills, and
technology-related classroom management knowledge/skills.
•Lack of technology
skills
•Provide basic technology knowledge/skills training (Mulkeen,
2003; Snoeyink & Ertmer (2001–2002)
•Lack of technology-
supported-pedagogy
skills
•Ground learning experiences in content-connected technology
examples (Hughes, 2005). Can be achieved through the use of
a buddy system approach (Lim & Khine, 2006)
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 233
123

schools that a shared vision and technology integration plan gave school
leaders and teachers an avenue to coherently communicate how technology
can be used, as well as a place to begin, a goal to achieve, and a guide along
the way. Without such a vision, it is likely that teachers and administrators will
limit their thinking about technology to ‘‘boxes and wires’’ or isolated com-
puter skills (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001, p. 70). Probably the most important
issue to consider when formulating a shared vision regarding technology
integration is to address the specific relationship between technology and
particular curriculum content areas because a commitment to the curriculum
is a critical scaffold for technology integration (Staples, Pugach, & Himes,
2005). In other words, the vision for technology integration should be to
enhance student learning of the curriculum (Staples et al., 2005). It is also
important to note that the vision should not be created by just the school
leaders; teachers, in particular, should be involved in the decision-making
because teacher participation has been found to be one of the ingredients for
successful wide-scale integration of technology in a school district (Bowman,
Newman, & Masterson, 2001; Eshet, Klemes, Henderson, & Jalali, 2000).
After a vision has been successfully created and accepted, the next step is to
articulate a technology integration plan, which provides a detailed blueprint of
the steps needed to translate the school technology vision into reality. Fish-
man and Pinkard (2001) offered some practical advice on how to facilitate the
development of a technology integration plan: establish a ‘‘planning for
technology’’ committee that consists of teachers, administrators, and outside
facilitators (e.g., educational technology experts) who are willing to help
facilitate change. The outside facilitators can help to address any questions
that teachers and administrators may have.
In a study of one school in Turkey, Gu
¨lbahar (in press), found several issues
that were deemed necessary to be considered during the actual development
of a technology integration plan. These issues relate to the maintenance and
regular upgrade of the technology resources, equity of access to technology for
teachers and students, a reward or recognition system that encourages
Table 1 continued
Barriers Strategies
•Lack of technology-
related-classroom
management skills
•Establishment of rules and procedures (Lim et al., 2003).
•Classroom layout redesign (Zandvliet & Fraser, 2004)
Assessment Assessment
•New ways to assess students’ multimedia work. For example, a
contract that indicates how many slides would be produced,
and evidence of how the information was obtained (Bowman
et al., 2001)
•Closely aligning the technology to their state’s curriculum
standards (Dexter & Anderson, 2002)
234 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

teachers’ use of technology, and professional development opportunities to
teachers. Another issue that needs to be considered is the expectations of
technology use for instructional purposes such as the stipulated number of
technology-mediated lessons to be conducted per week (Lim & Khine, 2006).
Stipulating the number of technology-integrated lessons can serve as a tool to
exert pressure on teachers to use technology and thereby to increase usage
(O’Dwyer, Russell, & Bebell, 2004). Other forms of pressure that had been
found useful for technology integration involve the expectation for teachers to
participate in team meetings regarding use of technology, and requiring the
scope for technology use to be developed for all grade and skill levels
(Schiller, 2002). Another issue to be considered in the technology plan is the
formulation of monitoring activities to ensure that technology integration is
taking place. Examples of monitoring activities used by principals that were
found to be significant in ensuring teachers’ use of technology include: one-on-
one discussions with teachers, observation visits to classrooms, and scrutiny of
lesson and program plans (Schiller, 2002).
Overcoming the scarcity of resources
Three strategies to overcome the lack of technology barrier were reported in
previous studies. First, create a hybrid technology setup in classrooms that
involved cheaper computer systems, such as ‘‘thin client computers.’’ Thin
client computers consist of only a monitor and a device that provides access to
a network with no hard or floppy drive. These computers can be purchased at
one third the cost of a traditional personal computer. In their study of a U.S. K-
8 public school district, Sandholtz and Reilly (2004) found that the use of thin
client computers provided three distinct advantages: (a) their lower cost en-
abled schools to stretch their purchasing capacity, (b) the thin clients presented
few maintenance or technical problems for teachers to address, and (c) thin
clients reduced space management issues due to their small size. Second,
introduce technology into one or two subject areas at a time to ensure that
teachers and students in those areas have adequate technology (Tearle, 2004).
Third, instead of building expensive computer laboratories and equipping
them with desktop computers, use laptops with wireless connections to achieve
a one-to-one student-to-computer ratio (Lowther, Ross, & Morrison, 2003).
Using laptops can save building and maintenance costs of the computer lab-
oratories. Furthermore, there is evidence that laptops can provide potentially
optimal contexts for integrating technology use into teaching practices (Low-
ther et al., 2003). Laptops can either be provided to students on a permanent or
temporary one-to-one basis. One possible way to achieve a temporary one-to-
one student-to-laptop ratio is to use mobile laptop carts (Grant, Ross, Wang, &
Potter, 2005; Russell, Bebell, & Higgins, 2004). The mobile laptop carts can be
brought from one classroom to another on an as-needed basis.
Overcoming the lack of access to technology barrier can involve two
strategies. First, several computers could be placed in the classroom, rather
than in centralized locations. For example, Becker (2000) found that
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 235
123

secondary subject teachers who have five to eight computers in their class-
room were twice as likely to give students frequent computer experience
during class as their counterparts whose classes used computers in a shared
location. Explaining this paradox, Becker said that the need for scheduling
whole classes to use computers as in the case of centralized or shared locations
makes it nearly impossible for technology to be integrated as research, ana-
lytic, and communicative tools in the context of the work of an academic class.
The use of laptops or mobile laptop carts can also eliminate the inconvenience
of scheduling class time since the laptops can be brought to class to achieve a
one-to-one student-to-computer ratio (Lowther et al., 2003). The second
strategy for overcoming the lack of access to technology is to rotate students
in groups (e.g., cooperative learning) (Johnson & Johnson, 1992) through the
small number of computers in the classrooms. In such classrooms, the teachers
employ a station approach using various learning activities (e.g., reading
centers, computer centers, etc.). Groups of students then take turns rotating
through each learning center; thus ensuring that each one has an opportunity
to use the computers (Sandholtz et al., 1997).
To overcome the lack of time barrier, three strategies were identified from
our review of empirical studies. First, schools can change their time-tabling
schedule to increase class time to double period sessions (Bowman et al.,
2001). Becker (2000) found that secondary school teachers who work in
schools with schedules involving longer blocks of time (e.g., 90–120 min
classes) were more likely to report frequent use of technology during class
compared to teachers who taught in traditional 50-minute periods. Second,
class loads for teachers can be reduced in order to free up some school time
for teachers to familiarize themselves with technology and develop appro-
priate technology-integrated curricula activities (Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001–
2002). One way to decrease class loads is to reduce the overall curriculum
content. For example, since 1998 the Ministry of Education in Singapore has
achieved a 10–30% content reduction in almost all curriculum subjects at the
secondary school level without compromising on basic foundation knowledge
that students need to master to proceed to higher levels of education (MOE
Singapore, 1998). Third, teachers should be encouraged to collaborate to
create technology-integrated lesson plans and materials (Dexter & Anderson,
2002; Lim & Khine, 2006). By working together, teachers are able to shorten
the time needed to produce technology-integrated lessons as compared to
producing the lessons alone.
To overcome the lack of technical support, students can be trained to
handle simple hardware and software problems rather than employing many
professional technicians. Thus, paying technicians would be necessary only
when the hardware or software problems are beyond the students’ abilities to
remedy. This can be a more cost-effective way than employing many full time
professional technicians. Lim et al. (2003) found the use of student helpers an
effective way to relieve some of the technical problems that may occur in a
technology-integrated lesson, so that the teacher could focus more attention
on conducting and managing instructional activities.
236 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

Changing attitudes and beliefs
To facilitate change in attitudes and beliefs, the current review has suggested
that four factors need to be taken into consideration: teachers’ knowledge and
skills, subject culture, assessment, and institution support. Institution support
typically comes in four major ways: (a) having a vision and plan of where the
school wishes to go with technology (e.g., Lawson & Comber, 1999); (b)
providing necessary resources for teachers (e.g., Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004); (c)
providing ongoing professional development for teachers (e.g., Schiller, 2002;
Teo & Wei, 2001); and (d) providing encouragement for teachers (e.g., Granger,
Morbey, Lotherington, Owston, & Wideman, 2002; Mouza, 2002–2003).
Granger et al. (2002), in their study of four schools in Canada, found that
teachers stressed the importance of principals providing encouragement for
teachers by acting as advocates in a period of fiscal restraint and ever-
increasing demands on educators. As one teacher said, ‘‘[The] atmosphere is
very relaxed with administrators who give you an opportunity to basically
experiment and explore and you don’t have to be perfect...[it] allows us to be
risk takers, to make mistakes...‘‘ (p. 485). Another teacher noted that good
leadership is ‘‘being allowed to do your own thing with encouragement to
improve’’ (p. 486). These findings support the notion that school leaders
should not take teachers immediately to task for any mistakes that teachers
may make, especially when they are new to technology.
Given that teachers need encouragement when integrating technology, how
then can principals’ support be increased? One possibility is to help principals
develop an appreciation for technology so that they can be more under-
standing of what teachers experience when they integrate technology in their
lessons (e.g., teachers’ anxieties and struggles). Such understanding is likely to
be fulfilled by providing principals with technology training, particularly
exposure to methods and procedures of integrating technology into the cur-
riculum (Dawson & Rakes, 2003).
Providing professional development
Professional development can influence a teacher’s attitudes and beliefs to-
wards technology (Shaunessy, 2005; Teo & Wei, 2001), as well as provide
teachers with the knowledge and skills to employ technology in classroom
practice (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001). In an empirical study of the effects of
different characteristics of professional development on a national sample of
over 1,000 teachers, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) found
that both traditional and innovative types of professional development of the
same duration tend to have the same effects on reported outcomes. They
concluded on this basis that it is more important to focus on the features of
professional development rather than its types (i.e., innovative types versus
traditional types such as study groups or mentoring versus formal training
workshops or conferences). Following this recommendation, we focused
specifically on features that made professional development effective.
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 237
123

A review of relevant literature shows that effective professional develop-
ment related to technology integration: (a) focuses on content (e.g., technol-
ogy knowledge and skills, technology-supported pedagogy knowledge and
skills, and technology-related classroom management knowledge and skills),
(b) gives teachers opportunities for ‘‘hands-on’’ work, and (c) is highly con-
sistent with teachers’ needs. First, focusing on technology knowledge and
skills is clearly important because technology integration cannot occur if the
teacher lacks the knowledge or skills to operate computers and software.
Snoeyink and Ertmer (2001–2002) found that teachers did not see the value of
technology integration until they had developed basic skills such as logging
onto the network and basic word processing.
Teachers also need to have the necessary technology-supported pedagogy
knowledge and skills in order to integrate technology for instructional pur-
poses (Dexter & Anderson, 2002; Mulkeen, 2003). In her study of four English
language arts teachers, Hughes (2005) found that the power to develop tech-
nology-supported pedagogy lies in the teacher’s interpretation of the tech-
nology’s value for instruction and learning in the classroom. The most effective
method toward this end, claimed Hughes, is helping teachers to see a clear
connection between the technology being used and the subject content being
taught—what Hughes referred to as ‘‘learning experiences grounded in con-
tent-based technology examples’’ (p. 277). As Hughes put it, ‘‘It accords that
the more content-specific the example, the more likely the teacher will see the
value [of technology] and learn it’’ (p. 296). For example, a novice teacher can
observe a more knowledgeable colleague using technology in a content-specific
area (e.g., use of PowerPoint to teach the structure of English Language and
composition). Teachers also need to understand the unique aspects of pre-
paring lessons that use technology, for example, having tight definition of tasks
involving the use of the Internet. Such teacher actions were found to contribute
towards successful lessons with technology (Rogers & Finlayson, 2004).
Teachers, for example, need to recognize the balance between the advantages
of giving students responsibility and the potential unproductiveness of random
surfing on the Internet. Successful solutions employed by the teachers in
Rogers and Finlayson’s (2004) study involved use of limited ranges of website
addresses, clear deadlines, and encouragement to students to develop their
critical skills about the nature and quality of information obtained.
Effective professional development also focuses on technology-related
classroom management knowledge and skills. Sandholtz et al. (1997) noted
that in every classroom, events typically take unexpected directions. The
changes in a classroom environment caused by the addition of technology
often lead to an even higher level of unpredictability. One way to help manage
unpredictability is to establish clear rules and procedures for technology usage
(Lim et al., 2003). Some of these rules included the following: (a) no unau-
thorized installation of programs and (b) no unauthorized change to the
features of the computer control panel. Some of the procedures included: (a)
indexing the computers with the index number of the student to facilitate
student seat assignment and enable the teacher to track down the student who
238 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

abused the computer, and (b) pairing students with stronger technology skills
with those who needed more support using technology to reduce the need for
students to frequently interrupt the teacher for help.
Classroom layout redesign is another strategy to help teachers manage
technology-integrated classroom. For example, Zandvliet and Fraser (2004)
found that room layouts could either promote or restrict the technology-
integrated activities performed in those settings. The researchers found that
teachers consistently preferred peripheral-type layouts (characterized by
computer workstations positioned along the wall of a room) because such
layouts allowed teachers to monitor student work to ensure that the students
were constantly engaged in the learning tasks while using the computers.
Students also preferred this type of layout as it allowed easy movement and
interaction among them as they worked on their projects or assignments.
Second, effective professional development provides teachers with oppor-
tunities for active learning. Active learning can take a number of forms,
including the opportunity to observe expert teachers in action (Garet et al.,
2001). One possible method for novice teachers to observe expert teachers in
action is through the use of a ‘‘buddy system’’ strategy where novice teachers
work together with expert teachers in a classroom using technology (Lim &
Khine, 2006). For example, a novice teacher can observe a more knowl-
edgeable colleague using technology in a content-specific area, a strategy that
Ertmer (2005) referred to as vicarious experiences.
Third, effective professional development is situated to teachers’ needs
(Dexter & Anderson, 2002; Keller, Bonk, & Hew, 2005). Granger et al. (2002)
found that ‘‘just-in-time’’ professional development is the most influential
factor contributing to teachers’ integration of technology into their class-
rooms. ‘‘Just-in-time’’ professional development, rather than ‘‘just-in-case’’
development (Schrum, 1999) may gain more teacher acceptance because it
addresses the teachers’ immediate concerns and is thus consistent with
teachers’ needs (Granger et al., 2002). This need-to-know approach to con-
structing technology knowledge and skills can transform teachers into active
knowledge builders possessing substantial autonomy regarding the specific
skills required (Granger et al., 2002). An example of how professional
development for in-service K-12 teachers can build upon the tenets of situa-
tive learning perspectives has been provided by Keller et al. (2005).
Reconsidering assessment
Because curriculum and assessment are closely intertwined, there is a need to
either completely reconsider the assessment approaches when technology is
integrated into the school curriculum, or consider more carefully how the use
of technology can meet the demands of standards-based accountability. To
address the former, alternative modes of assessment strategies may be for-
mulated. For example, Bowman et al. (2001) found that one teacher created a
contract with students detailing what they were expected to submit as part of
their final grade. The contract indicated how many PowerPoint slides would
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 239
123

be produced and evidence of how the information was obtained. Other
teachers developed protocols for creating electronic portfolios of student
work that would be evaluated and assessed during the school year.
Although the use of alternative modes of assessment is a possible strategy,
there is still a need to consider how technology can be used to meet the current
demands of standards-based accountability. Dexter and Anderson (2002)
provided some examples of how schools can achieve this, mainly by closely
aligning the technology to their state’s curriculum standards. Newsome Park
Elementary School, for instance, had received a warning from its state
department of education concerning its students’ low scores related to the
Standards of Learning (SOL). The school then made it a major priority to align
the district’s curricular content and requirements and its use of technology to
the state’s SOLs. Specifically, the school decided to implement technology-
supported project-based learning using wireless laptops through three distinct
phases: planning, fieldwork, and celebration of learning. For example, in the
planning phase, students brainstormed, under the teachers’ guidance, the
specific questions they wanted to answer. The teachers then planned how they
could address the SOLs through the students’ project work. Anderson and
Dexter (2003) reported that teachers were pleased to find that they could let
the students set the direction (hence increased students’ motivation toward
learning) and still be able to make significant gains on the state’s SOL exam-
inations, indicating that technology-supported project-based learning might
have played a key role in the improvement of student outcomes.
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research
Based on the analysis of related research, we now discuss several current
knowledge gaps and provide recommendations for future research related to
barriers and strategies of integrating technology for instructional purposes. In
discussing these current knowledge gaps, it is useful to adopt Ertmer’s et al.
(1999) notion of first- and second-order barriers to achieve a more parsimo-
nious classification of the barriers. First-order barriers are obstacles that are
external to teachers; while second-order barriers are intrinsic to teachers
(Ertmer et al., 1999). This notion can also be extrapolated to strategies
(Table 2).
Table 2 First- and second-order barriers and strategies*
Barrier Strategy
First-order •Lack of resources •Creating a shared vision and
technology integration plan•Institution
•Subject culture •Obtaining the necessary resources
•Assessment •Having alternative modes of assessments
Second-order •Attitudes and beliefs •Facilitating attitude change
•Knowledge and skills •Facilitating teacher knowledge and skills
* Adapted from Ertmer et al. (1999)
240 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

Barriers
The first knowledge gap is associated with the relationships between the first-
and second-order barriers: How much do we exactly know about how first-
and second-order barriers interact and influence each other in hindering the
integration of technology for instructional purposes? In the present literature
review, the study by Ertmer et al. (1999) was unique in that examined the
relationship between the two classifications of barriers in more detail rather
than merely highlighting that the barriers are related to one another. Many
researchers have thought that second-order barriers cause more difficulties
than the first-order ones (e.g., Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al., 1999). The danger
of this assumption is that educators and administrators may be led to assume
that overcoming second-order barriers is enough. As noted by Zhao et al.
(2002), there are ‘‘serious problems with the current effort to prepare teachers
to use technology. Most of the current efforts take a very narrow view of what
teachers need to use technology—some technical skills and a good attitude’’
(p. 511). Having technical skills and a good attitude might help to overcome
second-order barriers. However, Fig. 1suggests that second- and first-order
barriers are so inextricably linked together that it is very difficult to address
them separately. For example, trying to change teachers’ attitudes and beliefs
(a second-order barrier) toward using technology is likely to be futile in the
long run if one does not seriously consider changing the way students are
currently assessed through current high-stakes national examinations (a first-
order barrier) that discourage using technology during the assessment. Future
research should therefore examine the relationships between the first- and
second-order barriers in greater detail. For example, how valid are the rela-
tionships among the various barriers shown in Fig. 1? How do these rela-
tionships change over time? Future research should also investigate other
barriers that may need to be considered, especially a when one-to-one student
to computer ratio is achieved.
It would also be useful to compare and contrast our model shown in Fig. 1
with other existing models. For example, in Rogers’ (2000) model, six main
barriers are shown: (a) stakeholder attitudes and perceptions, (b) stakeholder
development, (c) availability and accessibility of technology, (d) technical
support, (e) funding, and (f) time. All Rogers’ (2000) barriers are represented
in our model, with the exception of ‘‘funding.’’ The lack of funding was not
highlighted in our model because it was not explicitly mentioned in the studies
we reviewed. Perhaps this is due to lack of funding being implicitly expressed
in the barriers already mentioned (e.g., lack of technology, lack of technical
support, or lack of professional development).
There is also a need for research to examine specific barriers of technology
integration in greater detail. We highlight the barrier of teacher beliefs in our
discussion. As previously mentioned, teachers’ beliefs may include their
educational beliefs about teaching and learning (i.e., pedagogical beliefs), and
their beliefs about technology. Making the distinction between beliefs and
knowledge, Ertmer (2005) considers teacher pedagogical beliefs as the final
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 241
123

frontier in our quest for technology integration because of the assumption that
beliefs are far more influential than knowledge in predicting teacher behavior
due to the stronger affective components often associated with beliefs (Nes-
por, 1987). Other scholars, however, disagree. Baker, Herman, and Gerhart
(1996), for example, suggested that teachers’ content knowledge and peda-
gogical knowledge are the prime influence on whether and how teachers use
technology. Perhaps the appropriate question to address with regard to this
disagreement is under what conditions beliefs and knowledge will exert the
main influence on teachers’ use of technology. Research conducted in other
settings showed that knowledge can be a better predictor than beliefs with
regard to certain tasks (e.g., predicting the studying behavior of undergrad-
uate students) (Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998).
With regard to teachers’ beliefs about technology, there is a need to de-
velop clear operational definitions of such beliefs. Currently, different
researchers view teacher beliefs about technology differently—thus compli-
cating efforts by researchers and educators to interpret the findings across
studies. For example, Ertmer et al. (1999) view teacher beliefs about tech-
nology primarily in relation to the curriculum. For example, is technology
used to reinforce skills, enrich current topics, or extend topics beyond current
levels? O’Dwyer, Russell, and Bebell (2004), on the other hand, consider
teacher beliefs about technology to whether it can harm students (e.g., com-
puters have weakened students’ research skills), or benefits students (e.g.,
computers help student grasp difficult concepts).
Integration strategies
The second knowledge gap is related to the relationships between the strat-
egies. Research has shown that successful technology integration requires a
holistic approach that addresses both first- and second-order strategies
(Dexter & Anderson, 2002; Eshet et al., 2000). Zhao et al.’s (2002) study, for
example, investigated factors needed for classroom technology integration,
revealing that factors or strategies related to the teacher, the technology
project, and the school context were interrelated. Interestingly, the
researchers found that second-order factors associated with the teacher (e.g.,
teachers’ knowledge and skills of the broader computing system requirements
associated with the use of a specific technology), appeared to play a more
significant role in contributing to classroom technology integration efforts
than other factors such as having access to technological infrastructure, or
support from peers. Future research should be conducted to examine this
claim.
There is also a crucial need to learn more about certain strategies. We
highlight two in our discussion: subject culture and assessment, and technol-
ogy integration plan. We concur with Hennessy et al. (2005) that hitherto little
research has been conducted to examine how and why subject cultures affect
the use of technology. Studies by Goodson and Mangan (1995), Hennessy
et al. (2005), and Selwyn (1999) were the three exceptions that attempted to
242 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

provide more detailed analysis and discussion of the reasons underlying why
technology use appears to be more biased toward subjects such as business,
and design and technology, rather than simply highlighting subject matter
differences in technology applications. In short, these studies corroborate the
notion that subject cultures can be an important barrier that hinders teachers’
use of technology in their teaching. However, none of these studies investi-
gated specific strategies that can be used to overcome subject culture barriers.
There is therefore a need for further research to investigate how teachers
could use technology specifically in the case that technology is incongruous
with a particular subject culture. Interestingly, there is evidence showing that
use of technology is not widespread even in subject cultures that appear to be
congruous with technology. For example, Williams et al. (2000) found that
mathematics and science teachers used technology relatively less frequently
than teachers of social and aesthetic subjects. However, no explanation was
provided by Williams et al. (2000) for the discrepancies found.
In addition, because subject cultures are closely influenced by how students
are assessed, future research is needed to examine the use of alternative
modes of assessment that can accommodate students’ use of technology.
Probably the most pressing need is for more research to investigate how the
use of technology can fit with the current demands of standards-based
accountability.
With regard to technology integration planning, Mulkeen (2003) found that
Irish schools that regularly updated their technology plans had significantly
more use of technology in subject areas than those that did not. However,
nothing was mentioned about the nature and actual frequency of such up-
dates. Further research should be conducted to verify Mulkeen’s (2003)
findings, as well as address in greater depth the nature of the updates that lead
to certain schools having significantly greater uses of technology for instruc-
tional purposes.
It is also important to examine the potential drawbacks of each integration
strategy. For example, although the strategy of encouraging teachers to col-
laborate to create technology-integrated lesson plans and materials could help
teachers save time (Lim & Khine, 2006), collaboration in itself can be difficult to
achieve given that teachers have many other responsibilities to which they need
to attend in a school day. Zhao et al. (2002) reported that teachers who were less
dependent on other teachers (i.e., less reliance on the cooperation, participa-
tion, or support of other people) tended to have greater success in integrating
technology in their classrooms. Similarly, the strategy of having students work
cooperatively in groups and rotating them through the small number of class-
room computers can itself be difficult to design and deliver effectively (Nath &
Ross, 2001). For example, studies indicate caution about the conditions that
favor success regarding cooperative group work (Rogers & Finlayson, 2004). In
particular, groups must have the ability to organize themselves in ways, which
integrate the contributions of all members. How a teacher structures the tasks,
organizes, and manages productive cooperative group work in relation to
technology use is an area that needs further study. Acknowledging the
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 243
123

drawbacks is essential for teachers or school administrators to make informed
decisions about the strategies they are considering implementing. Future efforts
should therefore be expended in examining the efficacy and feasibility of these
strategies (especially over a long period of time), leading perhaps to some
empirical-based guidelines as to how these strategies can be optimally
employed.
Another point regarding strategies is that none of the previous studies we
examined included discussion of findings in relation to past evidence about the
integration of a prior technology (e.g., instructional television). Findings from
the integration of past technologies, may help today’s researchers and educa-
tors better understand the factors that can facilitate the integration of current
computing devices for instructional purposes. In an attempt to determine if
there are any differences between the integration of computing devices and the
integration of a past technology into teaching and learning, we examined Chu
and Schramm’s (1967) work that summarizes the findings of research on
instructional television. We found that much of what had been written about
strategies (and barriers) for integrating instructional television for instructional
purposes were similar to the current strategies (and barriers) for integrating
computing devices. For example, strategies such as providing adequate tech-
nology planning and time, and training for the classroom teacher were con-
sidered important for the integration of instructional television into the
curriculum. However, there is one key issue that appears to suggest why de-
spite the barriers (e.g., teacher attitudes and beliefs) instructional television
was used widely and effectively in certain quarters. This difference is related to
the size and urgency of an educational problem, rather than integration
strategy. As Chu and Schramm (1967) stated: ‘‘If the objective is obviously
important... it is easier for the classroom teacher to put aside his objections,
make his schedule fit, learn the new role. If the objective is not urgent... it is
easier for a classroom teacher to drag heels’’ (p. 18). Examples of sizeable and
urgent problems included the need to teach large number of students in remote
areas (e.g., in certain sections of Italy and Japan) where instructional television
was the only technology that could be used efficiently. Similarly, perhaps the
way that barriers of integrating computing devices for instructional purposes
can be overcome is not by examining more strategies but through the occur-
rence of events that exclude or discourage usage of other media.
Stages of technology integration
The third knowledge gap is related to the barriers and strategies associated
with the different stages of technology integration by teachers. Some
researchers see technology integration by teachers as an evolutionary process
rather than a revolutionary one (Hokanson & Hooper, 2004; Rogers, 2000;
Zhao et al., 2002). Hokanson and Hooper (2004), for example, postulated that
technology integration occurs along different stages: (a) familiarization, (b)
utilization, (c) integration, (d) reorientation, and (e) evolutionary. A survey
conducted by Rogers (2000) with 507 art teachers found that certain barriers
244 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

were more prevalent in certain stages. For example, first-order barriers such as
availability and accessibility of technology were most likely to be encountered
by teachers at the beginning stages (e.g., familiarization and utilization).
Additional research is needed to validate Rogers’ findings and conclusions
about the barriers in other schools and subjects areas to determine if the
findings are typical of all teachers at the beginning stages or strongly depen-
dent on the specific subject areas. Other additional knowledge gaps related to
the stage theory of technology integration include the following: (a) it is un-
clear whether the stages were derived from long-term observations of indi-
vidual teachers or represented levels that different teachers occupied at a
certain point in time, and (b) it is unclear how individual teachers make leaps
of progress from one stage to another and the strategies used to help them do
so (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
One-to-one computing learning environments
The fourth knowledge gap is associated with barriers and strategies in K-12
contexts where every student is provided with a computer for use in the
classroom or school (i.e., one-to-one computing learning environments). One-
to-one learning environment is typically made possible in a number of ways,
including the use of laptops for every student (e.g., Sclater, Sicoly, Abrami, &
Wade, 2006; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), mobile laptop carts (Grant et al., 2005;
Russell et al., 2004), or handheld devices (van ‘t Hooft, Diaz, & Swan, 2004).
Since a growing body of literature suggests that a high ratio of computers to
students (e.g., laptops for every student) may change the teaching and learning
dynamics in the classroom (Garthwait & Weller, 2005), it is possible that one-
to-one computing learning environments also introduce new barriers. Hence,
new strategies may need to be formulated to overcome these new barriers.
Current studies on laptop integration have largely focused on comparing
student achievement scores (e.g., reading scores), student writing and problem
solving skills, frequency of technology use, types of activities for which the
technology was used (e.g., search the Internet), motivation, or classroom
structure between classrooms that had laptops (1:1 student:computer ratio)
with classrooms that had several students per computer (e.g., Lowther et al.,
2003; Sclater et al., 2006). Other studies examined classrooms that had 1:1
laptops on a permanent basis with those classrooms that shared a mobile cart
of laptops on a temporary basis (Russell et al., 2004). Strategies to overcome
the barriers for using laptops or handheld devices were typically not the main
focus. One exception is the study by Garthwait and Weller (2005) that sought
to examine the factors that facilitate as well as hinder teachers in using laptops
in a Maine classroom. However, there were limitations to Garthwait and
Weller’s study: convenient sampling of only two teachers, and study context
limited to only science-math content areas. Future research should be con-
ducted to examine in greater breath and depth the barriers and strategies for
using laptops and handheld computing devices (e.g., Palm
TM
) using a larger
sample and in other subject content areas.
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 245
123

Types and quality of previous studies
Finally, we discuss the types and quality of past research studies that have
been conducted on technology integration. Using the types of research study
categorization frameworks of Ross and Morrison (1995), as well as Knupfer
and McLellan (1996), the 48 studies may be categorized as follows: (a) 38 were
descriptive studies
1
, (b) three were correlational studies, (c) four were a
mixture of descriptive and correlation studies, and (d) three were quasi-
experiments.
The quality of past research studies on technology integration appeared to
have one or more of the following four main limitations: (a) incomplete
description of methodology, (b) reliance on self-reported data, (c) short-term
in duration, and (d) focus primarily on the teacher and what went on in the
classroom. First, regarding the incomplete description of methodology, 12 of
48 studies did not report the research duration. Reporting the duration is
important because it informs the reader whether the study is short-term or
long-term. We suggest that there are benefits to conducting longitudinal
studies on technology integration. In addition, 7 of 48 studies did not report
the number of participants involved, and 21 of 22 studies that used observa-
tions as a means to gather data did not report any interobserver or intraob-
server agreement reliability. Knupfer and McLellan (1996) argued that
because human observers may have biasing expectations, and their recording
methods may change over time due to fatigue or practice, it is important that
an assessment of both interobserver and intraobserver reliability be conducted
for observational research.
A second concern is that half of the 48 studies based their findings solely
on the participants’ self-reported data such as interviews or surveys. Self-
reported data may not give an accurate depiction of how technology is
actually used because teachers’ beliefs, intentions, or perceptions do not
always translate into practice. Furthermore, as indicated by Hakkarainen
et al. (2001), a general problem of studies based on self-reported data is
that participants usually have correct notions about socially desirable an-
swers, which can be referred to as the tendency to provide answers that
cause the respondent to look good (Rosenfeld, Booth-Kewley, Edwards, &
Thomas, 1996). Social desirability responding has long been viewed as a
potential source of error variance in self-report measures (Hancock &
Flowers, 2001).
1
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).
246 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

Third, 25 studies were limited in their duration, ranging from as short as five
days to less than two years. Short-term studies cannot fully address some
issues that may be critical in helping us better understand technology inte-
gration. For example, a short-term study cannot examine the dynamic rela-
tionships between first- and second-order barriers over time. Neither can it
determine the long-term effects of first- and second-order strategies, nor the
stage theory of technology integration as advocated by its proponents. In
addition, studies that are short-term may suffer from a ‘‘Hawthorne-type’’
effect, where teachers are more likely to demonstrate ‘‘model’’ technology-
integrated lessons when observers visited briefly.
Finally, a majority of the studies (30 of 48) on technology integration in
K-12 schools focused primarily on the teacher and what occurred in the
classroom. Few studies included other potentially important variables at the
school or district level that may be affecting the integration of technology by
teachers. O’Dwyer et al. (2004) postulated that because technology-related
decisions that can impact practices within the classroom are typically made
outside of the classroom, it is important to examine potential technology-
related policies that exist at the school and district levels.
What then should future research studies on technology integration look
like? We suggest mixed methods research as the type of studies needed in the
future. Mixed methods research is defined as ‘‘the class of research where the
researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research tech-
niques, methods, approaches, concepts or language in a single study’’ (John-
son & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17). Mixed methods research frequently results
in superior research because of its key defining feature—methodological
pluralism (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In addition, we suggest the mixed
methods research that underpins future study on technology integration
should be guided by the following principles. First, future mixed methods
research studies should provide a rich, thick description of the methodology
(including the length of the study, number of participants, interobserver and
intraobserver agreement reliability) so that findings can be adequately inter-
preted. Second, future mixed methods studies should examine teachers in
actual practice through observations, and not merely rely on self-reported
data. Third, studies should be longitudinal in nature. Doing longitudinal
studies not only provides researchers the opportunity to examine the dynamic
relationships between first- and second-order barriers and strategies, or the
stage levels of technology integration over time, but also to examine if the
strategies used to overcome the barriers can impact students’ learning out-
comes in a positive way. Finally, future studies based on mixed methods re-
search should expand the focus to include the examination of other
stakeholders in the school such as the school administrators and leadership, as
well as the broader contexts such as decision-makers outside the school. As
Cuban (2001) reminded us, both groups—internal (i.e., school staff), and
external (i.e., decision-makers outside the school) are necessary for technol-
ogy integration in a school.
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 247
123

References
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. Inter-
national Journal of Education Reform,9(2), 148–153.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why mul-
tiple-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: Impli-
cations 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, expe-
rience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brantley-Dias, L., Calandra, B., Harmon, S. W., Shoffner, M. B. (2006). An analysis of collabo-
ration 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.acec-
journal.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.
*These references make up the 48 past empirical studies that we reviewed.
248 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

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 tech-
nology 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.
*Gu
¨lbahar, 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 pre-
dictors 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 tech-
nology-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.
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 249
123

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 pro-
fessional 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 imple-
menting 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 per-
spective. 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 world-
wide 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.
250 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123

*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. Com-
puters 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 expecta-
tions 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.
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research 251
123

*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 communi-
cations 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.
Khe Foon Hew is assistant professor of Learning Sciences and Technologies at the National
Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. His research focuses on
K-12 technology integration, and online learning.
Thomas A. Brush is associate professor of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana Univer-
sity, Bloomington, IN, USA. His research focuses on problem based inquiry and technology
integration in K-12 settings.
252 K. F. Hew, T. Brush
123