Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed?;Est-ce que l’intégration de la technologie “fonctionne” lorsqu’on enlève les barrières principales?;“Funktioniert” Technikintegration sobald Schlüsselbarrieren entfernt sind?;Hay una integración funcional de la Tecnología cuando la barreras clave han sido eliminadas?

Educational Media International

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 195-213

  Lowther, Deborah L ^a   Inan, Fethi A ^b   Daniel Strahl, J ^a   Ross, Steven M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

^b TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

barriers to technology integration; computer software; computer uses in K 12 education; instructional strategies; student computer use; technology integration

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964671643     PISSN: 09523987     EISSN: 14695790     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09523980802284317     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. 21st Century Education System Task Force. 2007. Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st century education system International Society for Technology in Education, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and State Education Technology Directors Association. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from http://www.setda.org/web/guest/maximizingimpactreport
2. Baker, E., 2007. The end(s) of testing. Educational Researcher, 36(6): 309–317.
3. Barron, A.E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., and Kalaydjian, K., 2003. Large‐scale research study on technology in K‐12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35: 489–507.
4. Becker, H.J., and Ravitz, J., 1999. The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers' pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4): 356–384.
5. Butzin, S.M., 1992. “ Integrating technology into the classroom: Lessons from the project CHILD experience ”. In Phi Delta Kappan 330–333.
6. Casner‐Lotto, J., and Barrington, L., 2006. Are they really ready to work: Employers perspectives on the knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. The Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=40
7. 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.
8. Ertmer, P.A., Gopalakrishnan, S., and Ross, E.M., 2001. Technology‐using teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5) Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/jrte/33/5/ertmer.html
9. Grant, M.M., Ross, S.M., Wang, W., and Potter, A., 2005. Computers on wheels: An alternative to “each one has one”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6): 1017–1034.
10. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 2004. National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Technology Foundation Standards for all Students Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_stands.html
11. Kleiman, G.M., 2000. Myths and realities about technology in K‐12 schools. Leadership and New Technologies, 14 Retrieved September 12, 2007, from http://www2.edc.org/LNT/news/Issue14/feature1.htm
12. Kozma, R.B., 2003. Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1): 1–14.
13. Lowther, D.L., and Ross, S.M., 2001. Observation of computer use (OCU) (formerly named Survey of computer use), Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
14. Lowther, D.L., and Ross, S.M., 2003. Formative evaluation process for school improvement: Technology Packet, Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
15. Lowther, D.L., Ross, S.M., and Morrison, G.R., 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(03): 23–44.
16. Lumpe, A.T., and Chambers, E., 2001. Assessing teachers' context beliefs about technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1): 93–107.
17. Marcinkiewicz, H.R., and Regstad, N.G., 1996. Using subjective norms to predict teachers' computer use. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(1): 27–33.
18. Marvin, E.D., Lowther, D.L., and Ross, S.M., 2002. Technology Skills Assessment, Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
19. McCain, T., 2005. Teaching for tomorrow: Teaching content and problem‐solving, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
20. Morrison, G.R., and Lowther, D.L., 2005. Integrating computer technology into the classroom, (3rd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
21. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2000. Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
22. Newman, H., 2002. “ Computers used more to learn than teach ”. In Detroit Free Press Retrieved, June 7, 2007, from http://www.freepress.com/news/education/newman26_20020226.htm
23. Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., and Soloway, E., 2003. No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K‐12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1): 15–27.
24. Onwuegbuzie, A., and Teddlie, C., 2003. “ A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research ”. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, Edited by: Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C., 351–383. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Pierson, M.E., 2001. Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4): 413–430.
26. Rakes, G.C., Flowers, B.F., Casey, H.B., and Santana, R., 1999. An analysis of instructional technology use and constructivist behaviors in K‐12 teachers. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2): 1–18.
27. Ringstaff, C., and Kelly, L., 2002. The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research, San Francisco, CA: WestEd RTEC.
28. Roschelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N., and Means, B.M., 2000. Changing how and what children learn in school with computer‐based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2): 76–101.
29. Ross, S.M., Smith, L., Alberg, M., and Lowther, D., 2004. “ Using classroom observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The school observation measure ”. In New directions for observational research in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, Edited by: Hilberg, S., and Waxman, H., 144–173. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
30. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., and Alberg, M., 1999. “ The School Observation Measure (SOM©) ”. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
31. Sandholtz, J.H., and Reilly, B., 2004. Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3): 487–512.
32. Smith, L., Ross, S., McNelis, M., Squires, M., Wasson, R., Maxwell, S., Weddle, K., Nath, L., Grehan, A., and Buggey, T., 1998. The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3): 296–325.
33. Sterbinsky, A., and Burke, D., 2003. Summary of CSRTQ reliability studies, Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis. Technical Report
34. Swanson, C.B., 2006. Tracking U.S. trends: How Education Week graded the States. Education Week: Technology Counts, 25(25) May 4: 56
35. Tennessee Department of Education (TN DOE). 2003. Enhancing Education Through Technology: EdTech LAUNCH (Leading All Users to New Challenging Heights) (TnETL) Retrieved August 2, 2007, from http://tennessee.gov/education/news/nr/2004/nr040506.php
36. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA). 2003. Digital Economy 2003, Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 17, 2008, from https://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/DE‐Chap4.pdf
37. US Department of Education (DOE). 2001. No child left behind Act of 2001: Enhancing education through technology (II‐D‐1&2) Retrieved August 2, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page_pg28.html#iid1
38. US Department of Education (DOE). 2003. Federal funding for educational technology and how it is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology, Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/evaluation.html
39. Vannatta, R.A., and Fordham, N., 2004. Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3): 253–271.
40. Van Braak, J., 2001. Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2): 141–157.
41. Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., and Valcke, M., 2000. Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(4): 407–422.
42. Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L., and Shulha, L., 2003. A dynamic framework to guide the implementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 8(3): 267–285.
43. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., and Abrami, P., 2006. Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1): 173–207.