TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION:
A RESEARCH-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Education
By
TORI ROSE FAULDER
B.A. Middle Childhood Education, Mount Vernon Nazarene University, 2005
2011
Cedarville University
iii
ABSTRACT
Faulder, Tori R. M.Ed., Education Department, Cedarville University, 2011. Technology
Integration: A Research-based Professional Development Program
This research-based thesis project explains the governmental acts and policies,
investors, and other stakeholders who have worked to promote, question, and explore the
use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the classroom. Research
suggests that best-practice ICT integration requires using ICT alongside constructivist
pedagogy. However, ICT integration is a complex phenomenon involving a significant
number of factors. Teachers have often taken the blame for a failure to effectively
integrate ICT in their classrooms due to their integral role in effective integration. This
research project attempts to ensure that teachers will be equipped, empowered, and
encouraged to include ICT in their instructional repertoires through the development of a
research-based professional development program. While this professional development
program will only address the teacher factors involved in ICT integration, it is an
essential step toward effective integration.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….……………...1
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………..5
Statement of Issue………………………………………………………....9
Scope of the Study and Delimitations…………………………………....10
Significance of the Study…………………………………………….......12
Methods of Procedure…………………………………………………....14
II. PLENARY LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………….…...15
Governmental Policy and History of ICT in Education…………….……15
Promises of ICT Use……………………………………………….…….34
Constructivism……………………………………………………….…..43
Current Utilization of ICT…………………………….............................53
Integration………………………………………………………….…….61
Integral Role of the Teacher………………………………......................68
Professional Development……………………….....................................83
Summary………………………………………………………………....94
v
III. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM………………………...96
Phase One: School Culture………………………………………………96
Phase Two: Training Teacher-Mentors………………………………….96
Phase Three: Non- and Limited-Use Teachers………………………....105
Phase Four: Increasing Classroom Integration…………………………107
Phase Five: Reimplementation………………………………………....110
IV. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………...111
V. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………..120
VI. APPENDICES…………………………………………………...……...…136
Appendix I: School Culture and Current Use Survey………...............136
Appendix II: Belief Meets Action Survey…………………………..…138
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Though in today‟s society it often seems cliché, I would like to thank the Lord for
his perfect hand in my life. I say this with the utmost reverence for who He is and with a
thankful heart for his grace, mercy, and provision. I would also like to thank my family
and friends for their patience and support throughout my life, and especially during the
time that was invested in reaching this point in my professional life. Thank you to my
colleagues who have been immensely supportive and caring during the time I spent
working on this project. Finally, thank you to the many professors at Cedarville
University who helped to prepare me for what undertaking this thesis would entail,
especially Dr. Runyan, who so willingly offered his time and guidance throughout the
final stages of this thesis project.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
Various components of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have
increased dramatically in number and accessibility for the average school across the
United States over the past two decades (Bebell, Russell, & O‟Dwyer, 2004). Given the
vast promises of ICT to reform and enhance the educational system in the United States
(Ayas, 2006), initiatives handed down from federal and state governments (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004), and significant investments in hardware and software to
equip classrooms (Bebell, et. al., 2004), we would expect to see significant usage of these
technologies in classrooms on a daily basis (Casey, 2008). However, research identifies
that ICT is only a marginal component in the education of the vast majority of the
nation‟s students; and when it is used, it is not used in a way that fulfills its promise to
enhance best practice teaching methods (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001).
Across the nation a generation of “digital natives” is being raised up immersed in
the world of ICT (Tondeur, Devos, Van Houtte, Van Braak, & Valcke, 2009). They live
lives “hooked up” to various forms of ICT and other technologies that enhance, and
sometimes even create, their daily lives, entertainment outlets, social connections, and
planned future endeavors. Information and Communication Technologies have
significantly changed the operations of nearly every sector of the United States economy
except the school system (Loveless, 1996; Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008b).
Schools have been accused of being entrenched in the Industrial Age, while the rest of the
world moves forward into the Information Age, leaving our students behind (Hopson,
Simms, & Knezek, 2001-2002; Lunenberg, 1998). Thus, the question remains: Are
2
schools in the United States equipping their students for their futures using the best tools
and practices available to them?
Many reasons, ranging from hardware and software availability to teacher
reticence, have been cited for this disparity in the availability and utilization of
Information and Communication Technology (Groff & Mouza, 2008). As availability of
resources has increased with limited change in their usage, teachers seem to have become
the scapegoat for the failure of ICT to live up to its promises (Ferneding, 2003).
Accusations of a lack of creativity and innovativeness among teachers (Kurt, 2010),
limited technological skills among these “digital immigrants” (Keengwe & Anyanwu,
2007), and unwillingness to adopt constructivist teaching methods (Prensky, 2008) are
among the reasons cited for teachers failing to integrate technology into their repertoire
of teaching practices in order to develop, deliver, and enhance their curriculum.
Although research would suggest that teachers are increasingly using technology in their
daily lives and for other professional endeavors, it also supports the claim that ICT use
for instructional purposes is limited (Bebell, et. al., 2004).
Recent research identifies that this lack of integration is the result of a failure to
equip and empower teachers to utilize ICT in a meaningful way in their classrooms.
Higher education, prompted by standards handed down from government licensing, has
attempted to implement technology instruction into its teacher preparation programs with
the hope of rectifying this disparity between personal and instructional use of computers
by their teacher candidates (Pasco & Adcock, 2007). Despite these efforts, there is a lack
of transference between learning the techniques involved in ICT integration and actually
implementing them into the daily activities of the classroom (Kagan, 1992).
3
In addition to these new inductees, a number of veteran teachers remain in the
classroom contributing their knowledge of teaching and learning to the field of education.
Many of these veteran teachers graduated from teacher candidate programs long before
new initiatives to equip teachers to use ICT in their classrooms were developed and
initiated in institutions of higher learning. If the investments in ICT are to be put to
effective use in the classroom, it is imperative that all teachers be equipped, empowered,
and encouraged to use these technologies in their classrooms (Keengwe & Anyanwu,
2007).
In attempting to increase ICT integration for instructional purposes, it is essential
to consider the invaluable role of the classroom teacher. Many studies have identified
and supported the claim that teacher beliefs and attitudes play a determining role in the
integration of ICT into instructional methods (Polly & Hannafin, 2010). While
government entities and school administrators can identify the importance of ICT
integration into the classroom, ultimately it is the classroom teacher who determines the
best way to implement the provided curriculum on a daily basis (Cuban, 2006). Though
they should not be blamed as the sole reason for the lack of ICT integration in the
classroom, classroom teachers are the determining factor when considering the practical
implementation of ICT for instructional purposes.
Given this important role of the classroom teacher, adequate professional
development is necessary for increased integration of ICT in the classroom (Glazer,
Hannafin, & Song, 2005). Still, defining and providing “adequate professional
development” can present significant problems for the majority of schools. Historically,
professional development has been delivered in various forms (Mueller, Wood,
4
Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008). Research indicates that the best form of
professional development is ongoing, involves content specific directives, and provides
significant support during the implementation phase (Lee, 2004-2005). However, this
type of professional development can be very costly, so it is often dismissed as an
impractical initiative (Russell, Bebell, O‟Dwyer, & O‟Connor, 2003; Fletcher, 2006).
With regard to ICT specifically, additional problems for the cost of professional
development arise with the significant investments required for the hardware and
software itself. It is often taken for granted that once the tools are provided, the teachers
will automatically use them effectively (Keengwe, 2007). This fallacy has contributed to
the current disparity between availability and utilization of ICT in schools today.
Another factor to consider when selecting or designing professional development for
educators in the area of ICT is the stages of progression teachers move through in regard
to their utilization of ICT in the classroom (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009). A failure to
recognize the various levels of the educators involved in the professional development
will result in training that does not fit the current needs of each specific teacher and
classroom involved.
In summary, a disparity exists between the current availability and utilization of
Information and Communication Technology resources for instructional purposes in the
classrooms of United States schools. Despite evidence to identify the benefits of ICT
integration in the classroom and significant investments in ICT for the classroom,
integration currently occurs at limited rates. Understanding the integral role of the
classroom teacher in the integration of ICT to support best practice teaching, it is critical
that professional development be utilized in its most powerful and effective form to
5
equip, empower, and encourage teachers to integrate ICT into their daily curriculum
using best practice teaching methods.
Definition of Terms
Collaborative Apprenticeship- A model of professional development in which
experienced teachers are appointed as mentors to teachers with less experience in the area
of technology. Technology integration increases as teachers learn through modeling and
collaboration (Glazer, et. al., 2005).
Communicative Technology- Identified as “technology” by the average person, it
encompasses devices such as computers, cell phones, iPads, and the Internet (Hlynka &
Jacobson, 2009).
Computer-Assisted Instruction- Instruction that utilizes the computer as an aid to create
opportunities for students to learn at their individual instructional level, at a pace
controlled by the learner, with immediate feedback, and in a stimulating learning
environment (Mautone, DuPaul, & Jitendra, 2005).
Constructivism- A learning theory based in the work of Bruner, Piaget, Vygotsky, and
Papert in which students are viewed as active participants in the learning process (Neo,
2005). Considered by some researchers to be a significant trend in education that
attempts to reform how teachers teach and how students learn, in this pedagogical method
the student is responsible for their own learning in a teacher developed environment that
provides opportunity for authentic inquiry and assessment (Lunenberg, 1998).
Cultural school characteristics- Characteristics of a school that encompass general
assumptions, norms, and values shared by members of the school community that
6
influence their perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of the school environment (Tondeur,
et. al., 2009)
Digital Immigrants- A term that refers to those individuals born after 1980 who may
work in the technology world with continuous attachments to their homeland. For
example they would prefer to print an attachment to viewing it on the computer screen
and are distrustful of common technological tasks (i.e. e-mail), so they would
consistently confirm that these tasks were successful. (Prensky, 2001)
Digital Natives- Roughly refers to students, or teachers, born after 1980 (Prensky, 2001).
These individuals grow up with various forms of ICT ever-present in their lives
(Tondeur, et al., 2009). Digital natives may also be referred to as “digital learners”
(Simpson & Clem, 2008). Digital learners are proactive, instant processors who prefer
opportunities for random-access instruction, collaborative learning, graphics, and goal-
oriented, authentic tasks (Simpson & Clem, 2008).
Educational Technology- “The study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and
improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological
processes and resources.” (Januszewski, 2005 ¶1)
Goal Orientedness- A result of the clear formation, dissemination, and adoption of a
school vision by the members of the school community (Tondeur, et. al., 2009).
Hardware- The mechanical, electronic, or physical components of a computer system,
including: disk drives, circuits, screens, modems, cables, speakers, printers, etc.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hardware, accessed 12/10/2010)
7
ICT integration- Effective use of ICT tools to accomplish learning goals. It is a process
that involves many diverse factors and changes rapidly with the development of new
information and communication technologies (Tondeur, et. al., 2009)
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)- Although it can encompass any
technological device or development used for gaining information or communicating
information with others, it most commonly refers to computers as tools for technology
(Tondeur, et. al. 2009).
Information Technology (IT)- A previously used term for Information and
Communication Technology (Tondeur, et. al., 2009)
Innovativeness- Describes the ability of concerned parties within a school community to
adapt to educational innovations and changes with an open attitude (Tondeur, et. al.,
2009).
Instructional Communication Process (ICP)- A model that illustrates the process of
communicating information from a source to a receiver through an identified medium.
Traditionally, the teacher is the sender, the curriculum is the information, the student is
the receiver, and tools used to deliver the message are the medium (Neo & Neo, 2004).
Instructional Technology- Technology used to implement a specific instructional design
to achieve instructional ends (Januszewski, 2005)
Internet- A worldwide computer network that connects other computer networks,
including government, private and educational networks, using common communication
protocols that allow data and information to be accessed and exchanged
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet, accessed 12/10/2010).
8
Leadership- Identifies the extent to which the administration (i.e. principal,
superintendent, etc.) of a school community demonstrates supportive behavior (Tondeur,
et. al., 2009).
Multimedia- A combination of several types of digital media including text, graphics,
sound, or video to provide a multi-sensory interactive experience or presentation when
transmitting information to viewers or participants (Neo & Neo, 2004)
Simulation- A representation of an authentic experience that allows the learner to
experience and interact with the situation in a safe and controlled learning environment or
to view the process in a way that enhances their understanding of a process or event it
would otherwise be difficult to observe or experience (Adams, Reid, LeMaster,
McKagan, Perkins, Dubson, et. al., 2008)
Software- Programs that direct, run, explain, or operate a computer system
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/software, accessed 12/10/2010).
Technocentric- Approaches to technology integration that focus on the technologies
themselves rather than student needs, curriculum materials, and disciplinary knowledge.
This approach to technology is unaware of the complex nature of ICT integration (Harris,
Mishra, & Koehler, 2009)
Technology- Any application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes (Hlynka &
Jacobsen, 2009). Physical examples of technology are rapidly changing as new advances
are made using scientific information and understanding making a clear, accurate
definition difficult to ascertain (Cummings & Buzzard, 2002).
Traditional teaching methods- Teaching method involving teacher-centered instruction in
which teachers transmit information, skills, and values to students through direct-
9
instruction. Most often the entire class is taught as one group and textbooks are used on a
regular basis to guide students‟ daily work (Cuban, 2006).
Statement of Issue
Economic investments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
have prompted continuous research in the field since its introduction to schools. The
results of this research indicate that ICT is not living up to its promises in the field of
education. Traditional research in the field tended to focus on the availability of ICT and
only touched on the periphery of teacher and student perceptions. More recent research
has focused on developing a greater understanding of the complex myriad of factors
contributing to the integration of ICT in the classroom. Within this collection of factors,
the important roles of the classroom teacher‟s beliefs and attitudes toward ICT and
educational pedagogy have been established. It is believed that the classroom teacher has
the greatest potential to improve the use of ICT in the classroom, but the need still exists
to effectively equip these teachers to fully realize the benefits of ICT to their students.
Additionally, extensive research has been done on the methods of constructivist teaching
and benefits and limitations of professional development. This thesis project will
combine the knowledge established through the extensive research completed in the areas
of ICT use in schools, constructivist pedagogy, and professional development to design a
professional development program with the goal of equipping, empowering, and
encouraging classroom teachers to integrate ICT into their curriculums.
Teaching at a relatively small Christian school in rural Ohio has its benefits and
challenges. A close-knit atmosphere quickly develops and, along with it, a strong desire
to see each child reach their fullest potential. Part of our mission statement is to equip
10
and inspire students to be effective leaders in their communities, preparing them for their
future station in life. Recognizing that these students will be entering a workforce
extensively immersed in ICT, a responsibility exists to insure that each student
understands the benefits and limitations of ICT, is able to appropriately use various forms
of ICT, and has the skills necessary to effectively participate in the society of the
Information Age. A necessary part of this is the use of ICT for meaningful applications
directly connected to their learning.
However, integration of ICT in the classroom has been limited to this point. As
with many schools trying to function effectively within limited budgets, time has become
a priceless commodity to overburdened teachers and the technology funds are invested in
providing additional and updated hardware and software programs. Although this school
does have a long-term technology plan, the focus is on the acquisition of ICT components
rather than the effective integration of them into the classroom. Taking all of these
characteristics into account, the professional development program designed through this
thesis project will be essential in moving this school to the next level in the effective use
of ICT and realizing the expressed desire of their mission statement.
Scope of the Study and Delimitations
For this project, I have researched prior studies on ICT use in schools, including
teacher beliefs and attitudes toward technology, availability and access to various
components of ICT, and best practice integration of ICT in the classroom. In addition to
my study of ICT, I have researched a comparison of constructivist pedagogy and
traditional teaching methods and previous studies on the effectiveness of various forms of
11
professional development. This thesis project synthesizes the information collected into a
research-based professional development initiative.
This program has been specifically designed for a small Christian school in rural
Ohio and will take into account this school‟s population and ICT availability. The
current faculty and staff of this school are comprised of twenty-one teachers and three
administrators, all of which can be classified as Caucasian. The administrators are 66.7%
male and 33.3% female with 100% having more than five years service in the school.
With regard to teachers, 86% are female, 14% are male, 71.4% have over five years
teaching experience, 28.6% have fewer than five years teaching experience, 71.4% are
over thirty years old, and 28.6% are under 30 years old. Despite the percentage
alignments of teaching experience and age, these are not necessarily the same individuals
in each category. The current student population has 153 students in grades K-12 who
can be described as 90.8% Caucasian, 5.8% African American, 2.8% Asian or Pacific
Islander, and less than 1% Indian. The student population can be further divided into 82
elementary (K-6) students and 71 junior high and high school students (7-12). At the
elementary level 56% of the students are boys and 44% of the students are girls. At the
high school level 42% of the students are boys and 58% of the students are girls. Current
ICT components include: one portable interactive white board, one stationary mounted
interactive white board, four LCD projectors, fifteen student laptop computers with CD-
Rom and USB ports on a portable computer cart, sixteen teacher laptop computers with
CD-Rom and USB drives, twenty Netbook computers with USB ports on a portable
computer cart, at least two desktop computers in each classroom, wireless Internet access
for all laptops and Netbooks, high-speed Internet access for all desktop computers, a
12
centralized server, four color printers, one networked black and white laser printer, and
one networked copier that can also be used for printing.
This professional development initiative is most directly beneficial to this school,
but could easily be generalized and transferred to other schools with similar size,
demographics, and ICT availability. Indirect, generalized applications could also be
made when developing a program with similar goals in a larger or more diverse setting.
Given the timeframe allotted to complete this project in comparison to the
current school schedule, this project relies on theoretical applications of the research for
its design. It is based on the assumption that good research and appropriate application of
that research will create a successful program. In the future, it would be beneficial to
study the effectiveness of this professional development initiative to create lasting change
in ICT integration in the classroom. Additionally, because the focus is on the classroom
teacher, student attitudes, beliefs, ICT skills, and perceptions of classroom integration
will not be fully studied or addressed.
Significance of the Study
Despite the availability of ICT at this school and the development of an extensive
technology plan, ICT is not integrated into the majority of classrooms on a regular basis.
The current technology plan lacks an understanding of the preeminent role professional
development needs to play in order to ensure integration of technology into the standard
curriculum. Additionally, with limited opportunities for professional development in
general, it is unlikely that the necessary skills for ICT integration will be developed
without this project. This professional development initiative has the potential to serve as
13
a catalyst for the design and implementation of school-initiated, research-based
professional development on other important educational topics.
Given the yearly investments in technology at this school and the school‟s
expressed desire to equip and inspire their students to become future leaders in their
community, this professional development initiative will be a significant step forward in
being good stewards of the resources the teachers have available to them. It will benefit
the students of this school by equipping their teachers to create engaging, authentic
lessons using best practice pedagogy. Students will learn skills necessary to participate
efficiently and effectively in the Information Age. Additionally, teachers will experience
a professional development program designed specifically for them. This program will
give them valuable ICT skills, stimulate their innovativeness, establish collaborative
discussions with colleagues, and provide ample opportunities for assessing their success
in the classroom. Most importantly, it will enable them to use all of the tools available to
them to provide their students with the best possible learning experiences.
Whenever attempts are made to require more time of hard-working teachers, some
resistance is to be expected. It will be important to help teachers see the value of this
program for their professional lives and the lives of their students. If too much resistance
is encountered, it may be more effective to begin the program with a smaller number of
volunteer teachers rather than a school-wide initiative. Feedback from this initial group
of teachers would provide valuable insight for future implementations of this program
and the development of other on-site professional development programs.
14
Methods of Procedure
This thesis project began with a comprehensive study of the literature on the topic
of ICT use in schools. Additional research was completed on constructivist teaching
pedagogy and the effectiveness of various forms of professional development. The
information gleaned from the review of the literature is presented in chapter two of this
thesis. Data about the demographics and ICT availability in the target school was
collected for the project. The study of the literature was then synthesized with the
demographics and ICT availability of the target school to create a custom research-based
professional development program. The program is explained in detail in chapter three of
this thesis. Finally, chapter four of this thesis offers a discussion of the program
development, including implications for future analysis and study.
15
II. PLENARY LITERATURE REVIEW
The use and presence of technology in education is as old as the field of education
itself, beginning with more simple tools like chalk and slates and progressing toward the
more complex tools of personal computers and their hardware and software components.
These technological contributions to the field of education are the result of passionate
innovators and scholars who have sought to enhance the educational system of the United
States (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008). For the purposes of this thesis
project, we will focus on the technological innovations that can be encompassed under
the umbrella of Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
Governmental Policy and History of ICT in Education
Attempts to involve ICT in the educational arena began with the invention of the
personal computer (Fazarinc, S. Divjak, Korošec, Holobar, M. Divjak, & Zazula, 2003).
Fazarinc, et. al. also point out that many subsequent inventions to make the personal
computer more user-friendly were spawned due to the desire to see the computer put to
use in educational settings. The first computers entered the world of education during the
1970s (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). During the 1980s, additional inventions that aided the
use of personal computers also entered the field of education (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b).
Finally, the Internet came on the scene during the 1990s (Keengwe, et. al. 2008b), further
securing the rise of the Information Age.
Along with the increasing presence of the Internet, other inventions in the field of
ICT were being combined to increase the accessibility and usability of ICT for
16
educational purposes. Teachers began using technology in additional ways both inside
and outside of the classroom (Bebell, et. al., 2004). Of note is the fact that while the
innovations of new ICT and their introduction to educational institutions were in full
swing, the integration of these technologies into the process of learning was not observed
in most of the nation‟s classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
The increasing availability and promises of ICT in the classroom prompted
investigations into how ICT was utilized in classroom settings. Historically, ICT use was
categorized into the following three categories: tutor or computer-aided instruction, tool,
and tutee (Wentworth & Earle, 2003). The computer as a tutor included drill-and-
practice type programs (Wentworth & Earle, 2003). The computer as a tool encompassed
such activities as word-processing and researching databases of information (Wentworth
& Earle, 2003). The computer as a tutee involved the student programming the computer
(Wentworth & Earle, 2003). More recent inspections have categorized computer-use by
teachers into the following activities: creating instructional materials, keeping
administrative records, communicating with colleagues, gathering information for
planning lessons, presenting multimedia presentations, accessing research for best
practice teaching, communicating with parents and students, and accessing model lesson
plans (Bebell, et. al., 2004). The results of this research indicate that computers are being
used in significant ways to support teaching outside of the classroom but in limited ways
to support learning in the classroom (Bebell, et. al., 2004). Based on this understanding
of current ICT use in classrooms, recent efforts in ICT use for education have focused on
encouraging teachers to use technology to support learning in the classroom (Frye &
Dornisch, 2007-2008).
17
Research would indicate that this focus is well-placed. Despite many promises of
ICT to enhance, even reform, the educational system in the United States, ICT is not
being used in the classroom in ways that develop meaningful learning opportunities or
fully realize its proclaimed potential (Keengwe & Anyanwu, 2007). Even so, the ever-
present components of ICT and continuing research on ICT remind us that computer
technology continues to advance and influence the way students learn (Keengwe &
Anyanwu, 2007). With three decades worth of investments, advancements, and research
into the use of ICT in classrooms, many stake-holders in the field of education
understand the potential for the use of technologies in the classroom (Allen, 2008). Now,
a shift in focus is being made to understanding how to prepare teachers to select and use
appropriate components of ICT to achieve the goals they have for their students
(Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). The goal of these various stake-holders, including teachers
and policymakers, is the continued advancement of the U.S. educational system and its
ability to provide a high-quality education for America‟s students (Culp, Honey, &
Mandinach, 2005).
In 1983 the Commission on Excellence in Education published the A Nation at
Risk report (Ferneding, 2003). Included in A Nation at Risk, were a list of basics that
should be covered before high school graduation, including computer science (Culp, et.
al., 2005). A Nation at Risk also pointed out the importance of innovativeness in the
future success of the nation (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Some have
questioned the arrogance of A Nation at Risk in identifying the school system as the root
of the nation‟s economic struggles (Ferneding, 2003). Nevertheless, it has served as a
springboard for educational reform in the United States. Since the time of this report
18
nations around the world, including the United States, have maintained continuous policy
making that includes the use of ICT in classrooms (Selwyn, 2008). Despite the progress
that the United States has made since A Nation at Risk (Culp, et. al., 2005), there has been
a push to move technology from computer class and integrate it within the general
curriculum for all students (Allen, 2008). Although all of the governmental reports on
technology recognize the importance of hardware accessibility and reliability, many
reports also draw attention to other factors involved in technology integration (Culp, et.
al., 2005). In fact, the A Nation at Risk report identified the importance of having highly
qualified teachers in the classroom, and the 2000 National Technology Plan identified the
importance of improving the training of teachers to enhance technology integration
(Culp, et. al., 2005).
A Nation at Risk began one of the most continuous periods of government fed
national reform in the United States educational system, and since its passage many other
pieces of legislation have attempted to continue this reform (Lunenberg, 1998). The
Goals 2000 Educate America Act was passed in 1994. Among other things, the act
requires that students demonstrate competency in core subject areas and learn to use their
minds well (Lunenberg, 1998). Many feel that constructivism and technology integration
offer the most promise for fulfilling these goals (Lunenberg, 1998). The National
Assessment of Educational Progress is used to assess the nation‟s progress in fulfilling
these goals.
In 2001 the No Child Left Behind Act was passed with bipartisan support in
Congress. President Bush signed the act into law in January of 2002 (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). This act hoped to save children lost in the educational system and
19
abolish illiteracy (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). With No Child Left Behind the
government introduced more stringent accountability standards for the educational
system and cited the importance of using research to fuel reform (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). It also increased expectations of students with the hopes of thwarting
the tendency to pass children along to the next grade and teacher (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). Research also indicates that along with traditional literacy skills, it is
also important to help students develop appropriate electronic literacy skills (Labbo,
2007).
In 2002 the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
included technology in their standards for teacher preparation courses, focusing on six
skills areas in order to effectively use technology with students and colleagues (Pasco &
Adcock, 2007). In addition, the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers
include 23 indicators of appropriate preparedness for teacher candidates (Pasco &
Adcock, 2007).
The National Education Technology Plan was presented in 2004 offering
recommendations in seven key action areas for states, districts, and schools to use when
developing their own long-term technology plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
The seven key areas include: strengthening leadership, innovative budgeting, improving
teacher training, supporting e-learning and virtual schools, increasing broadband access,
moving toward digital content, and integrating data systems (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). This project will focus on the recommendations for leadership and
teacher training. The recommendations for leadership include: developing tech-savvy
personnel at every level of leadership, developing administrator education programs that
20
include training in technology decision making, encouraging creative partnerships with
local businesses, and including students in the decision-making process (U.S. Department
of Education, 2004). The recommendations with the most application to this project were
the recommendations for teacher training. These recommendations include: improving
teacher preparation for the use of new technology, offering every teacher the opportunity
to take online learning courses, improving the quality and consistency of teacher
education, and ensuring that teachers are able to access and interpret data to personalize
instruction (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). These recommendations are indicative
of a developing push to provide professional development for teachers to increase the
integration of technology in the classroom (Frye & Dornisch, 2007-2008).
Also in 1994, the National Education Association collected data from students
and teachers to develop an understanding of the use of technology in the classroom
(Tuck, 2004). This collection of evidence identifies major gains and gaps in the use of
technology in schools (Tuck, 2004). Major findings of the study included the following
(Tuck, 2004):
Most educators had access to computers, but student access
in the classroom was limited.
Educators were involved in technology purchases, but still
felt that upgrades and support were insufficient.
Educators were more familiar with educational technology,
but were ill-prepared to use that technology for
instructional purposes.
21
Training was inadequate to prepare and encourage
integration in the classroom.
Gaps still existed based on demographics.
Educator attitudes toward technology are variable over
time.
Based on these major findings, the following recommendations were given (Tuck, 2004):
Make computers available in the classrooms that provide
regular access throughout the school day.
Provide adequate staff development, equipment upgrades,
and technical support to encourage broad-scale integration.
Include the staff in decision-making about all areas of
school technology, including training and professional
development opportunities.
Ensure that pre-service and in-service teachers are
adequately prepared to integrate technology in their
classrooms.
Close disparities between demographic groups.
Upgrade and maintain equipment in impoverished school
districts.
Encourage further research and development of technology
programs.
Evidence supports the political commitment to improve the quality of education
that our nation‟s students receive and the importance that increased integration of
22
technology in the classroom will play in achieving these lofty goals and stresses the
importance of preparing schools and teachers to utilize the technology available to them
(Joshi, Pan, Murakami, & Narayanan, 2010). Additionally, these goals are not just for
certain levels of students. The National Association for Education of Young Children
stressed the importance of integrating computers beginning at the early childhood level
(Joshi, et. al., 2010).
The federal government and other national organizations have developed
curriculum standards that focus on high-order thinking skills, authentic tasks, and
technology integration to support learning (Polly & Hannafin, 2010). These skills
include critical thinking, inquiry, and collaborative problem-solving in every subject area
(Polly & Hannafin, 2010).
Many states, including Ohio, have also adopted technology standards to
encourage the use of technology in highly effective schools. Ohio adopted their
technology standards in December 2003 (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003). The
expressed goal of these standards is to identify what students should be able to know and
do in technology (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003). The process of developing
these standards began in 1997 and Amended Substitute Senate Bill 1 added the area of
technology to the list of subjects for standards to be developed (State of Ohio Board of
Education, 2003). These standards are based on the National Education Technology
Standards for Students and were reviewed by national experts to ensure their
appropriateness and clarity (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003). They address a
broad spectrum of technologies, including ICT, that are divided into three categories:
computer and multimedia literacy, information literacy, and technological literacy (State
23
of Ohio Board of Education, 2003) with the goal of equipping schools to prepare their
students to meet the Eighth Grade Technology Literacy requirement of No Child Left
Behind (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003). Seven standards are delineated with
benchmarks and indicators as follows (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003):
Nature of Technology
Technology for Society Interaction
Technology for Productivity Applications
Technology for Communication Applications
Technology for Information Literacy
Design
Designed World
Standards have an important role to play in technology integration. Standards
delineate specific goals and expectations to be sought and met and provide political
momentum for reform movements (Gordon & Still, 2007). Universities and
governmental organizations alike recognize this need for specific standards in order to
align their programs (Donaldson, 2009). Important to note is that due to the fluidity of
the field of technology, it is imperative to continuously evaluate these standards
(Donaldson, 2009). The Ohio Academic Content Standards, including those for
technology, sought to create this important framework (State of Ohio Board of Education,
2003). In regard specifically to the technology standards, they sought to provide a
foundation for technological achievement (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003).
They offer these as a “set of common expectations upon which to base technology
curricula” (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003). The State of Ohio Board of
24
Education (2003) identifies the following principles as guiding factors when developing
the state‟s technology standards: high expectations for all students, alignment with
national technology standards, successive transitions between grades, a focus on
important concepts, active and authentic learning, guided curriculum decisions, and
ability to become a basis for assessments. Although it is important to recognize the
reality that standards alone will not ensure good methodology (Gordon & Still, 2007),
standards can provide a baseline for establishing proper content and methodology.
Within the broader constructs of the Ohio Academic Content Standards for
Technology, specific goals are given for all students to achieve. Within the area of
computer and multimedia literacy, students would be expected to use hardware, software
applications, and multimedia tools in appropriate ways to accomplish educational tasks
(State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003). Information literacy involves the ability to
locate, interpret, and utilize information for research and knowledge building (State of
Ohio Board of Education, 2003). Technological literacy refers specifically to unique
abilities required for participation in a technological world, including the connections
between technology and career choices (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003). The
philosophy behind these standards is that “learners will become capable problem-solvers
and creative thinkers who are prepared to adapt to changing environments, educational
challenges, and career opportunities” (State of Ohio Board of Education, 2003).
The importance of literacy within these standards is evident. In the Information
and Technological Age, literacy becomes even more essential, not just in understanding
text, but also the possession of the ability to discern accuracy and usefulness for a given
situation (Gordon & Still, 2007). The school system in the United States was designed to
25
serve students in an era of U.S. history that has become known as the Industrial Age.
Today‟s students, however, no longer fit that mold (Prensky, 2001). Todays students are
known as “digital natives” and they require a new set of skills to participate in a new
structure known as the Information Age (Shepherd & Mullane, 2010). Teachers and
students must now learn to view components of ICT as tools rather than toys (Shepherd
& Mullane, 2010). Students can complete tasks at higher levels when they are equipped
to use ICT as a tool, but students and teachers alike need appropriate training to select the
best technological tool for the task at hand (Shepherd & Mullane, 2010). This generation
constructs and understands meanings through various mediums, including music and
images in addition to printed text (Shepherd & Mullane, 2010). This has developed an
entirely new set of literacy skills that students need to learn and cultivate in order to
become active participants in the Information Society.
Students today have to learn how to access the information, but they must also
learn the necessary skills to sort through and use the information to accomplish their tasks
(Kurt, 2010). Much research has been done on the development of literacy skills. One
such study indicates that literacy has cultural, creative, and social applications
(Partington, 2010). Media literacy works in a similar way to traditional literacy in that it
is critical and requires a specific set of skills, including an understanding based on social
context (Partington, 2010). Following his study on gaming literacy, Partington (2010)
concluded that it is imperative for teachers to engage students in activities that are a part
of their culture and scaffold ideas that allow students to learn from their experiences.
In their work on new literacy, Mokhtari, Kymes, and Edwards (2008) investigate
how current models of reading and writing translate to online literacy. Their research
26
identifies that online and offline reading are very different. Online reading enables
instant communication about the issues students are studying and the purposes for
reading are often different than the reading of traditional printed text (Mokhtari, et. al.,
2008). Necessary literacy skills range from knowing which search engine to use to
critically evaluating the information that is found (Mokhtari, et. al., 2008). Mokhtari, et.
al. identify that online reading comprehension skills involve the following five areas:
generating a social problem or question, locating information, critically evaluating
information, synthesizing information from multiple sources, and communicating
information with others. However, the National Assessment for Educational Progress
will not assess for these skills until after 2019 (Mokhtari, et. al., 2008).
One marked difference between traditional literacy and electronic literacy is in the
passivity of traditional texts and the interactivity of electronic texts (Pearman, 2008).
Electronic texts allow the reader to hear the text, hyperlink to other explanations or
connecting data, and control the flow of the text (McKenna, Reinking, Labbo, & Kieffer,
1999). While electronic texts must be utilized carefully with struggling readers
(Pearman, 2008), especially in reference to the potentially bewildering set of options
(McKenna, et. al., 1999), some text features may offer computer-aided, individualized
instruction for struggling readers (Labbo, 2007). Translation resources and illustrations
can provide scaffolding help to struggling readers if used in an appropriate manner, but
just as with traditional text it is important to recognize the major stages that students
move through in regard to reading ability: initial reading and decoding, confirmation and
fluency, reading for learning, multiple viewpoints, and developing a world view
(McKenna et. al., 1999).
27
In addition to changing, or at least enhancing, the skills necessary for reading
electronic texts, increased use of the Internet has made changes in the necessity for
developing writing skills for effective online communication (Karchmer-Klein, 2007).
Electronic text is different than traditional prose in that it allows for many advanced
features such as sound, font changes, graphics, and hyperlinks to be used (Karchmer-
Klein, 2007). Students must develop the capabilities to use these features in their writing
in order to accurately convey their thoughts to their readers (Karchmer-Klein, 2007).
Suggestions have been made that the use of classroom websites will contribute to the
development of both reading and writing portions of electronic literacy (Karchmer-Klein,
2007).
As identified in the aforementioned research, it is important that students learn to
access and use the seemingly limitless information available to them courtesy of ICT
(Salpeter, 2008). Today‟s students possess the basic skills necessary to utilize computers
as toys, but they must be trained in search skills, analysis, and online ethics in order to
effectively use them as tools (Salpeter, 2008). Though ICT rapidly changes, teachers can
effectively equip their students to be critical thinkers with regard to the information they
are able to access via ICT technologies (Baker, 2007). Likewise, other opportunities for
developing these new literacy skills seem to be relatively limitless given the information
available via the Internet (Baker, 2007).
Though some critics question the responsibility of the educational system to cater
to society as a whole and cite the computerization of society as the force behind including
the computer in the classroom, even they must also admit that developments in ICT are
creating changes in the lives of those involved in the educational system (Ferneding,
28
2003). Ferneding also identifies that the purpose of education in the Information Age has
been redefined resulting in a need for the integration of ICT into the educational system.
Students growing up in this Information Age need to develop a set of skills different from
students of the past. These students need to function in a global marketplace where
technology skills, critical thinking capabilities, and the ability to effectively access and
utilize information are prerequisite skills for success (Culp, et. al., 2005; Baker, 2007).
Projections for the future suggest that global competition will continue to increase in the
future and recognize that this competition will require increasing ICT skills (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004). America‟s students need to be equipped to participate
in this global market economy (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
The United States Department of Education (2004) also recorded the voices of
students when developing the National Education Technology Plan. Given that it is there
future at stake and to get a better perspective on these “digital natives” to be educated in
this newly evolving educational system, these voices provide valuable insight to the study
of the integration of ICT into classrooms. Major themes identified from student
comments included a description of students as tech-savvy students who value and prefer
the use of technology in every aspect of life. Also identified were that their daily
activities were different because of technology, the bulk of their computer access occurs
at home, and they are ultra-communicators. These students expressed the desire to use
computers to learn at school and the need for teachers to be equipped to teach using
computers. These students see the potential for ICT use in schools, but also recognize the
need for teachers to receive the training to realize this potential (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).
29
Few would argue the fact that we live in a technological world and that the tools
of ICT are becoming a part of the way we teach and learn today (Ayas, 2006). Today‟s
students love to do, discover, and interact with their environment. These activities make
learning more fun. Some would argue that it is not a question of should we use
technology, but how can we best use technology to enhance the learning of our students
(Ayas, 2006). In addition to equipping students to become participants in a technological
world, research supports the use of ICT to increase student motivation and performance
(Ayas, 2006). Frye and Dornisch (2007-2008) indicate in their study on student
evaluations of ICT use that students favor the more interactive approach that the use of
ICT seems to lend itself to over more traditional forms of learning. Still, it is imperative
that we continue to recognize technology as a tool and recognize the critical role of
teachers who will decide how to best utilize this tool in preparing their students for their
futures (Casey, 2008).
Given this information it is apparent that ICT can provide tools for educational
reform and improvement (Ayas, 2006). The U.S. Department of Education (2004)
indicates that our nation is seeking change and that the constructivist movement will
continue to be fueled through ICT integration. Their reasoning for this reform is to see
that all students are able to succeed and receive a quality education. Educational reform
finds its foundation in two basic assumptions: students of the U.S. have a lower academic
achievement level than students of other world countries and the Information Age
requires a new skill set to ensure competitiveness in this global economy (Ferneding,
2003). The merger of these two goals has created a technocentric approach to reform
(Ferneding, 2003). To be fair, Ferneding cautions against whole-heartedly accepting ICT
30
as a tool without cultural bias and points to the importance of understanding the cultural
influences at play when making technocentric reforms. A key point in this awareness is
the acknowledgement that acquisition of ICT components will not inherently create
reform. Teachers must be equipped to use the tools in ways that align with best practice
pedagogy (Ferneding, 2003). In short, how you use the technology is just as important as
having the technology.
Given the two assumptions stated above, it is not surprising that one of the most
common reasons given in support of reform is the need to effectively prepare students for
adulthood (Hopson, et. al., 2001-2002). Listed among the skills necessary for success in
the Information Age are problem-solving, critical-thinking, and higher-order thinking
skills and the integration of ICT is viewed as a tool with the potential to develop these
skills when used in conjunction with constructivist teaching (Hopson, et. al., 2001-2002).
Additional goals of reform include making schools efficient and transforming the
teaching-learning process into an active experience on the part of both teachers and
students (Solhaug, 2009). The use of ICT alone will not promote reform in the
educational system, but it is believed that the use of ICT can work as a catalyst to
encourage the use of constructivist teaching methods rather than more traditional teacher-
centered approaches (Culp, et. al., 2005).
Labbo (2007) suggests that the reason computers catalyze change is that they
provide a unique, efficient, and creative approach to problem-solving. Labbo (2007) also
suggests that ICT components can create student-centered learning environments that
motivate students to seek after knowledge and take control of their own learning. Frye
and Dornisch (2007-2008) also identify that successful integration of technology carries
31
with it a tendency towards student-centered teaching. Additionally, the Internet provides
enhanced communication that increases feelings of ownership among students (Solhaug,
2009). Further cementing the relationship between constructivism and ICT integration,
Gordon and Still (2007) identify that constructivist teaching carries with it the inherent
proclivity toward the inclusion of ICT as a tool for authentic learning tasks and points to
the potential for ICT to serve as an intellectual partner in scaffolding during learning
tasks. In fact, constructivist beliefs of teachers had a strong correlation with ICT
integration in the classroom (Hermans, et. al., 2008).
This current trend toward constructivist teaching has opened doors for the
integration of technology because technology is viewed as the vehicle for enacting the
change from traditional, teacher-centered classrooms to constructivist, student-centered
classrooms (Hermans, et. al., 2008). ICT is credited with the potential to bring about this
constructivist revolution (Hermans, et. al., 2008).
Further support for the use of ICT in education reform comes from the positive
correlation between ICT integration and student achievement, attitudes, and self-esteem
(Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Keengwe, et. al. continues to point out the importance of
using technology as a tool to complete appropriate and authentic tasks and the importance
of using ICT alongside best practice, student-centered constructivist teaching.
Admittedly, the potential of ICT exists only in its proper usage, but when it is used
appropriately the opportunities for educational reform are nearly limitless (Keengwe, et.
al., 2008b).
Though ICT can serve as a catalyst, it is not a magical cure to fix all of the
problems of the educational system (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). The most important
32
resource for reform in the classroom is the teacher, and those teachers must be prepared
to utilize the ICT that is available in their classroom in authentic and effective ways
(Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). ICT is popular because teachers believe in the potential of ICT
to improve student learning, but evidence identifies that ICT integration only improves
the educational experiences of students if it is used in effective, constructivist ways
(Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Thus, the greatest need to achieve the desired educational
reform is the preparation of teachers to utilize all the tools available to them in a way that
promotes best practice pedagogy so that instruction guides the selection of appropriate
tools (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Teachers have a unique and invaluable role to play in the
integration and effectiveness of ICT in the classroom (Keengwe, 2007).
Still, some educators caution that reform does not happen overnight and we
should be aware of faddish changes that reflect the ever-changing attitudes and desires of
the public (O‟Neil, 2000). Additionally, O‟Neil in his interview of Larry Cuban, records
Cuban‟s caution that reforms with the least chance of sticking are those that attempt to
change the way teachers teach. If policy makers intend to transform education from
traditional to constructivist teaching, it is imperative that teachers are involved in the
decision-making process and equipped to carry out the changes within the classroom over
the long term (O‟Neil, 2000).
Cuban, et. al. (2001) also point out that current studies on technology use in
classrooms identify that teachers maintain current pedagogy. They note that historical
attempts at reform have failed due to their focus on policy makers rather than on the
teachers who would be carrying out those reforms. If the current push for educational
reform is to be lasting, teachers must be equipped and empowered to make the necessary
33
pedagogical changes (Cuban, et. al., 2001). Prensky (2008) also points out that many
teachers see this change as enormous and the hope of change rests on the shoulders of
those who believe in the potential of constructivist teaching and ICT integration. Prensky
suggests that three things will be required for the majority of teachers to make this
pedagogical shift: examples, support, and success.
At the risk of stating the obvious, significant investments in ICT have been made
in schools across the nation over the past few decades (Bebell, et. al., 2004). The
constructivist reform movement that hangs its tenants on the promises of ICT integration
in the classroom has spawned increasing expenditures in technology (Kromhout &
Butzin, 1993). Proponents of ICT investments justify these expenditures across three key
ideas: technology is a tool that can address the challenges of education, technology can
serve as a catalyst for constructivism, and technology plays an increasingly significant
role in the global economy (Culp, et. al., 2005). As schools continue to invest in
components of ICT, it is important to determine the effectiveness of these investments in
regard to student learning (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Research indicates that in many
classrooms across the country, computers have become rather expensive dust collectors
that merely take up space in the classroom (Kromhout & Butzin, 1993). Some have
questioned the expectation that providing the components of ICT will automatically lead
to their effective use, and stress the point that a re-appropriation of ICT funds to include
teacher training is called for (Cuban, et. al., 2001; Keengwe, et. al., 2008b; Keengwe,
2007). The U.S. Department of Education (2004) suggests that the problem with ICT
integration is not funding for ICT, but how those funds are allocated and a failure to
understand how to use the technology to promote best practice teaching. Likewise, Culp,
34
et. al. (2005) suggest that ICT funding be spent across seven areas: improving access and
infrastructure, creating and purchasing high-quality software, providing sustained
professional development, increasing funding from various sources, promoting the roles
of public and private stakeholders, increasing research, and continuously reviewing the
local purchasing and use of ICT in the classroom.
The fact remains that although ICT is often touted as the savior from an out-dated
educational system (Ferneding, 2003) and the catalyst for the reformation of that system
(Hermans, et. al., 2008) the realization of these goals is yet unseen (Fazarinc, et. al.,
2003) despite significant investments and political support of ICT integration and reform
(Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). The time has come to stop looking back and begin looking
forward by equipping teachers to use the most effective tools to provide the best
education possible for their students (Shepherd & Mullane, 2010).
Promises of ICT Use
Though evidence suggests that ICT is not being used at its fullest potential and
that the most effective use only begins in the final two stages of progression in ICT
integration, one researcher suggests that an important selling point for the use of ICT is
that it is now possible to begin using ICT in the classroom without changing pedagogical
practice at the same time, thereby allowing teachers to progress toward best practice use
of ICT technology at their own pace (Chaptal, 2002). Extensive research has been
completed that offers findings that support the advantages of ICT integration in the
classroom (Kurt, 2010). Gimbert and Cristol (2004) identify that the promise of ICT lie
in the ability to improve teaching and learning. These proposed advantages of
35
technology have been the justification for the seemingly endless investments hoping to
support ICT use in the classroom (Milliron & Miles, 1999).
One such advantage often cited by proponents of ICT integration is its ability to
breathe life into an outdated educational system by developing more creative and
innovative lessons (Milliron & Miles, 1999). Okan (2007) explains that ICT has the
potential to improve the way that students learn. Zhao (2006) outlines the importance of
using creativity when teaching and fostering creativity in students. Frye and Dornisch
(2007-2008) identify that the integration of ICT in the classroom can often lead to more
creative and interactive lessons. The research of Hopson, et. al. (2001-2002) supported
the claim that ICT integration has a positive effect on the development of higher-order
thinking skills in students. Neo (2005) identified the success of ICT in helping students
to develop critical thinking, creative thinking, and problem solving skills, while
simultaneously developing their metacognition and collaboration. The importance of
using interactive multimedia applications in the classroom to foster creative and
innovative learning has also been established (Neo & Neo, 2004). In addition to
researchers, many educators also believe in the creative potential of ICT to provide
active, authentic, and more enticing learning experiences for students (Keengwe, et. al.,
2008b). Despite its potential to bring creative and innovative changes to the classroom,
these will only become reality when ICT is combined with best-practice, constructivist
teaching (Gentry, 2008).
In addition to the promises of ICT to increase creativity and innovativeness,
research also identifies the potential of ICT to increase collaboration in learning based on
the assumption that learning begins on a social level (Järvelä, Veermans, & Leinonen,
36
2008; Clements & Sarama, 2003). Though support would have to be given to some
students, socio-constructivist learning enhanced by ICT scaffolding has the potential to
increase collaborative learning, decision-making skills, ownership, and social skills in
students (Järvelä, et. al., 2008). The access to information and interactivity that ICT
communication can provide helps improve student learning (Solhaug, 2009). In research
on the use of simulation games in the classroom, the potential for social interaction is
identified alongside intervention and authenticity (Simpson & Clem, 2008). Simpson and
Clem also reported findings based on student journals kept during the simulation
activities that indicate student perceptions of collaboration during the activity. Schrand
(2008) also identified that the use of interactive multimedia improved student
participation and interaction even in a large group setting.
In addition to student collaboration, ICT also has the potential to increase the
collaboration of teachers and other educational professionals. In the early childhood
classroom ICT is identified as serving as a catalyst to encourage collaboration between
teachers and parents, as well as inter-student collaboration in learning (Gimbert &
Cristol, 2004). This collaborative teaching leads to increased professional development,
meaningful pedagogical changes, and more effective ICT integration (Gimbert & Cristol,
2004). Accessibility to information on the Internet also increases the potential for
collaboration between professionals in various fields of education (Doolittle & Hicks,
2003). Still, some researchers believe that teachers are not completely aware of the
collaborative potential of ICT for professional growth (Lim & Chai, 2008).
Another concern of teachers with regard to collaborative ICT learning is that it is
difficult to assess student learning (Lim & Chai, 2008). Despite the difficulty of
37
assessing collaborative learning through ICT, it does hold promise to increase
collaborative learning through the consideration of individual needs (Mavrou, Lewis, &
Douglas, 2010). Collaboration among teachers is essential to developing positive
feedback on the collaborative use of ICT in education. Collaboration and negotiation are
important to the educational experience, and teachers have a key role to play in
facilitating communication between students that enhances the combination of the
various sets of background information and experiences individual students bring to the
collaborative learning experience of the classroom (Gall & Breeze, 2008).
Along with innovativeness and collaboration, researchers have also explored the
role that ICT has the potential to play in regard to intervention for individual abilities. As
identified in the previous paragraph, ICT holds the promise to adjust its questions and
requirements based on individual levels, needs, and capabilities (Mavrou, et. al., 2010).
Keengwe, et. al. (2008b) described the promise of computers as tools for students with
disabilities, meeting individual needs, and making abstract concepts more concrete when
competent educators design lessons that effectively use ICT.
Gentry (2008) identified the desires of educators to explore the promise of ICT to
support students in the act of writing. Englert, Manalo, and Zhao (2004) researched the
effect that the use of ICT for scaffolding would have on students‟ abilities to complete
the abstract task of writing. They identified three ways in which ICT can provide
scaffolding for the writing process: highlighting text structures like sequencing and genre
types, supporting communication, and giving prompts for completing each step (Englert,
et. al., 2004). The results of this research supported the use of ICT in the education of
38
young or struggling writers (Englert, et. al., 2004). It is also expected that CAI can
encourage fluidity in the writing of young students (Clements & Sarama, 2003).
McKenna, et. al. (1999) similarly investigated the promise of using ICT to aid
struggling readers. They identified that guidance could be built into the software that is
used in the classroom to provide pronunciation, definitions, examples, and illustrations
that would assist struggling readers in understanding a given text (McKenna, et. al.,
1999). Clements and Sarama (2003) identify the hope of ICT to help close the gap in
reading ability caused by environmental factors in early childhood education. Though
the use of ICT for reading intervention can create some challenges, research argues that
the promises of ICT to effectively aid struggling readers outweigh their challenges and
costs (McKenna, et. al., 1999).
Similarly, Mautone, et. al. (2005) acknowledged that computer-assisted
instruction (CAI) holds the promise to allow individuals to learn various curriculum
materials at their own pace and level with immediate and consistent feedback. Their
research determined that CAI was effective in providing intervention for students
diagnosed with ADHD in the area of mathematics (Mautone, et. al., 2005). The results of
research on ICT use in the social studies classroom indicate that students in each of three
ability groups (special needs, gifted and talented, and regular education) showed
improvement in their knowledge and understanding of topics covered, with the most
significant improvement recorded in the gifted and talented group (Gentry, 2008).
Additionally, when ICT lessons are effectively designed and implemented they
can provide interactive authentic lessons that align with the varied learning styles and
preferences of the myriad of students in each classroom (Choi, Lee, & Jung, 2008).
39
Blagojevic (2003) similarly identifies the possibilities of ICT in meeting the individual
learning styles of students in her research on the funding of ICT programs in early
childhood settings. In their research on the use of video simulation games in the
classroom, Simpson and Clem (2008) identified increased motivation due to the video
game adjusting to individual abilities and providing immediate feedback. Okan (2007)
also cited the abilities of ICT to provide individualized instruction that meet specific
learner needs.
Research has documented the effectiveness of ICT integration when it is used
deliberately and appropriately. For example, educators understand the importance of
timely and complete feedback for students in creating an effective learning environment.
In their research on computer-mediated feedback, Boling and Beatty (2010) documented
how the use of a computer aided in providing ongoing, formative assessment and
cognitive modeling in an Advanced Placement English course. In another example, Ke
(2008) designed a study to test the conflicting results of studies on the use of computer
games to improve student mathematic performance. While Ke‟s study only partially
supported the effectiveness of computer games on learning outcomes, it does illustrate
the potential of using ICT as a tool to complement best-practice teaching and support the
technique of using ICT to increase student motivation. Lin (2008) also investigated the
effect of using ICT in the mathematic classroom. Lin conducted interviews of teachers
who, through a workshop experience, had attempted to use ICT when teaching
mathematic concepts. All of the participants indicated that the computer and web
resources played a significant role in helping the students learn and increasing student
motivation (Lin, 2008).
40
Perhaps one of the most significant longitudinal studies on the effectiveness of
ICT integration in the classroom has been Project CHILD (Butzin, 2000). Project
CHILD encompassed a decade of research demonstrating the effectiveness of technology
in the classroom (Butzin, 2000). Created by Florida State University in 1988, the goal of
Project CHILD was to create classrooms where innovation and technology integration
were an integral part of the classroom environment (Butzin, 2000). Project CHILD
involved a classroom designed to utilize technology in a constructivist environment
(Butzin, 2000). Kromhout and Butzin (1993) identified seven key components to the
Project CHILD program: multi-grade continuous progress classroom clusters, multi-
dimensional classroom learning stations, student empowerment, systemic classroom
management procedures, use of multiple assessments, and parent involvement. The role
of ICT in the program was extending instruction, maximizing time on-task, and proving
feedback (Butzin, 2000). Results of this study record consistently higher test scores from
Project CHILD students over traditional classrooms in mathematics and reading (Butzin,
2000; Butzin, 2001). Results also indicate that the effects may be cumulative relative to
the length of time a student spends in the Project CHILD program (Kromhout & Butzin,
1993).
Aside from testing scores, another expected result of ICT integration in the
classroom is increasing computer skills in students (Frye & Dornisch, 2007-2008).
Blagojevic (2003) identifies that computer and other ICT skills are important for students
to have in an Information Age economy. A positive correlation between computer
proficiency and academic achievement has been identified, including increased
achievement in all subjects, improved attitude, and increased self-esteem in the classroom
41
relative to computer skills (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Clements and Sarama (2003)
identify that ICT can have a significant impact on student learning when it is used well.
Important to note, however, is that teacher proficiency with ICT significantly determines
the effectiveness of its use in the classroom (Chen & Chang, 2006).
In order for ICT integration to have a positive impact on the education of
students, teachers must strongly believe in its capabilities and use ICT as a tool to take
advantage of and enhance learning opportunities (Silman & Gündoğdu, 2007). In short,
research provides support for the effectiveness of ICT integration when it is used by
skilled teachers as a tool to facilitate and enhance their teaching (Silman & Gündoğdu,
2007; Butzin, 2001). Additionally, it is most effective when used in a constructivist
classroom as opposed to a traditional classroom (Butzin, 2001). As Milliron and Miles
(1999) determined, the Internet hasn‟t changed effective education, but it can be used to
enable best-practice education.
Hopson, et. al. (2001-2002) conducted research investigating the impact of ICT
integration on higher-order thinking skills and student attitudes toward technology. They
identified that the use of ICT integration did have a positive effect on student
development of higher-order thinking skills (Hopson, et. al., 2001-2002). Even stronger
were the results indicative of ICT integration creating classroom environments more
student-centered, cooperative, and tending toward application than traditional classrooms
(Hopson, et. al., 2001-2002). This indicates that the technology was a tool in creating a
more constructivist environment, thereby enhancing higher-order thinking skills (Hopson,
et. al., 2001-2002). According to Neo (2005), constructivism and ICT work together to
create a best-practice learning environment that will encourage students to be active
42
participants in their educational experience and aid them in the development of the skills
necessary for their future success.
ICT is changing the way teaching and learning occur in the classroom (Neo &
Neo, 2004). While many students possess at least basic familiarity of the use of ICT, the
teacher has an important role to play in developing lessons that enable students to use
ICT as a tool to accomplish specific learning goals (Neo & Neo, 2004). The conjunction
of constructivist teaching and ICT integration has the potential to create a more effective
learning experience for students (Neo & Neo, 2004). Schrand (2008) indicates the
importance of using ICT to increase the activity level of students in their learning. Chen
and Chang (2006) also identify the importance of utilizing technology in conjunction
with an educational environment that encourages student activity and exploration.
Doolittle and Hicks (2003) assert in their research that the use of constructivism in
conjunction with ICT provides an effective opportunity for students to investigate their
role as a citizen and demonstrate meaningful learning. Englert, et. al. (2004) also
identify the ability of technology to provide scaffolds for thinking and learning in the best
practice classroom. Technology has the potential to serve in the role of keeping a student
within their zone of proximal development (ZPD) when completing learning tasks in a
constructivist classroom (Gentry, 2008).
Despite all of the promises of the joining of ICT with constructivist pedagogy,
critics remind us of the reality surrounding the integration of ICT alongside
constructivism. Peck, Cuban, and Kirkpatrick (2002) identify the following unrealized
promises: technology literacy for all students, improved resources and academic
achievement, and a reformed educational system. In addition, some researchers are
43
unsure that adequate research has been done to prove that change is even desirable
(Kazanci & Okan, 2009; Okan, 2007). It is important to inspect what constructivism is
and in what ways research supports constructivism as best practice pedagogy.
Constructivism
Constructivism is an important trend in education with regard to the relationships
between the actions of teachers and students in the classroom and is often the basis for
current educational reforms (Lunenberg, 1998). Though it is often touted as a new way
to reform the educational system in the United States, teacher-centered (traditional)
pedagogy and student-centered (constructivist) pedagogy have both helped to develop
instruction in U.S. schools. Still, constructivism is recognized as the most current
learning theory in educational psychology (Ayas, 2006). The ultimate goal of developing
best-practice pedagogy is to help students become successful learners and citizens;
however, these diverse pedagogies have different ideas about how to best accomplish
these goals (Cuban, 2006).
Prensky (2008) explains the difference between traditionalist and constructivist
teaching by identifying them as old and new teaching paradigms. He identifies the basic
tenant of traditionalist teaching as teachers dispensing knowledge to kids, and the basic
tenant of constructivist teaching as teachers providing guidance as kids teach themselves
(Prensky, 2008). Prensky agrees that the primary goal of education is equipping students
for success, and identifies constructivism as a new way to reach that goal.
Lim and Chai (2008) explain that pedagogical beliefs are, simply put, beliefs
about teaching and learning, and further identify that these beliefs have significant
implications for effective learning in all environments. In their study on the use of
44
constructivism in classrooms, Lim and Chai identified that constructivist principles were
most commonly apparent in the categories of lesson type and student role, while more
traditionalist principles were common in the categories of teaching style, curriculum,
goals, and assessments. Becker and Ravitz (2000) explain that constructivist pedagogy is
developed from the educational theories of Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky and may
include practices like the following:
activities/curriculum driven by student interests
collaborative projects that include authentic use of skills
content centered on complex ideas instead of facts or
definitions
encourage self-assessment
teachers frequently learn alongside and even from their
students
Additionally, Becker and Ravitz (2000) identify four categories that
contain both traditional and constructivist poles with regard to teacher beliefs and
practices: student tasks, curriculum structure, teaching style, teacher perceptions.
A strong emphasis of constructivism is authentic task problem-solving (Häkkinen,
2002). Teachers provide authentic questions or problems that activate learning,
aid students in accessing prior knowledge, and provide support for students as
they make inquiries and choices (Häkkinen, 2002). Within the constructivist
paradigm, it has been said that teachers move from „sage on the stage‟ to „guide
on the side‟ (Mainka, 2007). A key role of the teacher is in instructional design
(Häkkinen, 2002).
45
Within the tenants of constructivism, teachers create an educational environment
that values critical thinking, discussion, cooperation, and inquiry, and students are
responsible for their learning within that environment (Lunenberg, 1998). With
constructivism the emphasis is on the student learning how to identify and develop their
ideas (Lunenberg, 1998). Lunenberg lists five principles of constructivist pedagogy:
relevant problems, primary concepts, encouraging students to share their perspectives,
student-driven curriculum adaptations, and authentic assessments. Objectives in the
constructivist classroom would involve encouraging students to classify, analyze, predict,
and create; and encourage students to elaborate on their understanding of various topics
constructing relationships and metaphors (Lunenberg, 1998). Additionally, student
responses and questions would drive the lesson with the end goal of teaching students to
become problem finders and solvers (Lunenberg, 1998). Learning in a constructivist
classroom is fluid and active within social situations and frequently follows veins not
written into traditional curriculum models (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003). Constructivism
operates on the assumption that students will actively seek knowledge and are innately
curious; therefore, motivation would play a key role in the constructivist classroom
(Ayas, 2006; Simpson & Clem, 2008).
According to Doolittle and Hicks (2003), constructivism in general focuses on the
role of the student as active participant in their learning, but can be further divided into
three branches: radical constructivism, social constructivism, and cognitive
constructivism. Radical constructivism emphasizes internal learning, and builds upon the
belief that reality outside of the individual cannot be known (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003).
Social constructivism focuses on the construction of knowledge within social
46
collaboration, but also holds to the belief that external knowledge is unknowable
(Doolittle & Hicks, 2003). Cognitive constructivism is a conservative form of
constructivism that acknowledges external realities that can be explored and understood,
thus it involves a search for knowledge in how the world works and knowledge is
valuable based on its alignment with reality (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003). Doolittle and
Hicks would hold to the worldview of cognitive constructivism and outline the basic
principles of constructivism as follows:
Constructing knowledge through social and individual
processes
Constructing knowledge within cultural contexts
Constructing knowledge in authentic, real-world
environments
Constructing knowledge on the foundation of prior
knowledge and experiences
Constructing knowledge within an integration of
various subject contexts
Constructing self-regulation strategies to assess
personal learning
It is important to remember that teachers do not necessarily staunchly maintain
the same pedagogical style across years or even lessons (Becker & Ravitz, 2000).
External pressures also impact a teacher‟s pedagogical style and develop their
pedagogical beliefs (Becker & Ravitz, 2000). Cuban (2006) demonstrates in his research
on classroom instruction that teachers‟ pedagogical practices are often hybrids,
47
containing tenants of both teaching traditions. Cuban goes on to explain that it is prudent
to view the pedagogical practices of teachers along a continuum rather than black and
white, but did acknowledge that these hybrid pedagogies are most common in elementary
classrooms. Cuban also identifies the role that external pressures play on the beliefs and
practices of teachers.
Included in these external pressures is the push to develop pedagogical skills that
adequately meet the needs of learners in the Information Age. Simpson and Clem (2008)
believe that it is important to determine whether or not the current pedagogy of teachers
is sufficient for today‟s digital learners. They recognize the valuable store of knowledge
that teachers hold, but believe that they require more up-to-date pedagogical skills in
order to aid students in developing their own knowledge base (Simpson & Clem, 2008).
The research of Neo (2005) does support that today‟s students prefer the authentic,
collaborative problem-solving of constructivist learning.
There is agreement among many researchers that constructivism is the best
pedagogical model for the Information Age (Chaptal, 2002). Chaptal does caution that
the external pressure of high-stakes testing could discourage teachers from adopting
constructivist practices. Similar to the research previously cited, Chaptal identifies the
tenants of constructivism as follows:
complex and realistic problems
collaborative problem solving
examining problems from multiple perspectives
student-ownership of their own learning
self-awareness and self-assessment
48
Countries around the world are including the push for constructivist teaching in
many of their educational initiatives, with the hope of helping students develop creativity
and problem-solving skills necessary for effectiveness in the twenty-first century (Neo,
2005). These policy makers believe, and are supported by the research, that
constructivism offers the greatest promise for improving the education of all students
(Lunenberg, 1998) and for increasing the effective integration of ICT in the classroom
(Gordon & Still, 2007). Choi, et. al. (2008) identify that knowledge constructed in
authentic environments promoted by constructivism is more active. Hopson, et. al.
(2001-2002) explain that the learner in a constructivist environment learns more because
their interactions with the material are more authentic, interdisciplinary, and self-driven.
They also identify that higher-order thinking skills are more developed in a constructivist
environment because students become active participants in their knowledge construction
unlike the passivity of traditional classrooms, the focus is on inquiry and big concepts
rather than fact regurgitation, there is collaboration with peers, and assessments require
the use of higher-order skills rather than fact and definition recall (Hopson, et. al., 2001-
2002).
In their research on the use of video simulations in a constructivist classroom,
Simpson and Clem (2008) observed the following results from the constructivist
pedagogical approach involved in this classroom: increased classroom and student
morale, student ownership of educational tasks, and unique responsibilities within
working groups. Keengwe, et. al. (2008b) also recorded that students using technology
within constructivist classroom settings scored significantly higher on assessments than
those who used technology in traditional classrooms. Additional research suggests that
49
the benefits of constructivism lie in the motivation for students and the development of
life-long learning skills and explains that constructivist learning encourages the active,
authentic problem solving necessary for concept development and essential for lifelong
success and learning (Järvelä, et. al., 2008). Additionally, Boling and Beatty (2010)
suggest that constructivist environments provide the opportunity for increased formative
assessment, which is more conducive to knowledge development than the summative
assessment most commonly used in traditional classrooms.
The results of Keengwe, et. al. (2008b) suggest that it is important for teachers to
encourage students to construct knowledge through problem-solving, decision-making,
and goal-setting because it allows students develop a better understanding of key
concepts. Admittedly constructivism can be difficult to implement, and certainly
changing from traditionalist pedagogy to constructivist pedagogy would require
significant philosophical reevaluation and investment of time, but research suggests that
the ends would justify the means (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Finally, many believe that
constructivism holds the key to the most effective integration of ICT in the classroom
(Lunenberg, 1998).
Though it is difficult to discern which is the cause and which is the effect, a
strong positive correlation exists between constructivism and ICT integration in
classrooms. Some researchers believe that ICT offers the best tool for supporting
constructivist learning and identify that the explosive combination of constructivism and
ICT integration increases student engagement and motivation (Järvelä, et. al., 2008).
Järvelä, et. al. (2008) believe that the scaffolding provided by ICT and the empowerment
provided by self-regulation and encouragement of inquiry reduce student uncertainty and
50
help guide learning. Scaffolding is important in constructivist pedagogy and involves
teachers, or in some cases technology, providing necessary assists to keep students within
their zone of proximal development and gradually removing these assists, or scaffolds, as
students master necessary skills (Englert, et. al., 2004).
Keengwe, et. al. (2008b) identify that teachers should utilize ICT as a tool within
a classroom based on constructivist pedagogy and acknowledge that ICT alone will not
change education, but rather the effective use of that technology to increase learning in
core subject areas, and identify that teacher pedagogical beliefs are one of several factors
involved in the effective integration of ICT in the classroom. Teachers need to know
how to effectively use ICT in their classrooms (Ayas, 2006). Ayas also claims that ICT
integration is necessary for preparing twenty-first century students and should be used
within the paradigm of constructivism.
Hopson, et. al. (2001-2002) identified in their research that teachers felt that ICT
classrooms differed from traditional classrooms because learning was student-centered,
cooperative groups were used, and learning focused on application allowing students to
move past learning facts to applying information to authentic problem solving. Simpson
and Clem (2008) stated that the combination of ICT and constructivism in their study led
to increased student motivation and active engagement in the learning task. Neo (2005)
suggests that the shift toward constructivist pedagogy has opened up opportunities for the
integration of ICT in the classroom. Butzin (2002) supports this claim, identifying that
the greatest hindrance to effective ICT integration is the attempt to integrate ICT into
traditionalist pedagogy, and that constructivism creates greater opportunity for effective
ICT integration.
51
Mueller, et. al. (2008) suggest that constructivist pedagogical beliefs may be a
prerequisite for effective technology integration. Chaptal (2002) explains that technology
can be used to support both traditional and constructivist pedagogy, but that it is most
effective when used alongside a constructivist model of teaching and learning. Prensky
(2008) agrees that it is combination of ICT integration and constructivist pedagogy that
holds the key to educational reform that prepares students for the twenty-first century.
Ayas (2006) also identifies that ICT is well-suited for use as a tool in a constructivist
classroom and that constructivist values are supported by the use of ICT in the classroom
to provide students with a tool that enhances their motivation, collaboration, and
ownership of classroom activities. Doolittle and Hicks (2003) support these claims,
identify this transformation of education as essential, and offer the following suggestions
for constructivist-based ICT integration in the classroom:
Implement technology as a tool for inquiry
Implement technology as a way to increase task-
authenticity
Implement technology that increases social
interaction on all levels
Implement technology to provide effective feedback
Implement technology to encourage student
independence
Becker and Ravitz (2000) caution that there are many ways to build a classroom
based on constructivist pedagogy, but they also recognize the possibilities of ICT when
used as a tool to achieve constructivist goals. Research supports the important role of the
52
classroom teacher on the effective integration of ICT as a tool to meet the needs of the
complex classroom environment (Lim & Chai, 2008). The research of Becker and Ravitz
examined the hypothesis that continued ICT use in the classroom would lead to changes
in pedagogy toward constructivism. Their results supported the hypothesis that teachers
who regularly integrated ICT into their classroom activities also reported the greatest
shift in their personal pedagogies toward constructivism. Becker and Ravitz suggested
the following explanations for this correlation:
These teachers learn over time that they are more
effective when using constructivist teaching strategies.
These teachers may have already held philosophical
beliefs bent toward constructivism
These teachers may have been influenced by an
external culture that supported both ICT integration and
constructivism
These teachers were the most willing to experiment
with their teaching style and took a more innovative
approach toward education pedagogy and ICT use in
the classroom
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2008) remind that ICT is a tool and therefore it is
dependent upon the work of teachers for its effective use. In their work on the use of
simulations in the classroom, Adams, et. al. (2008) identify that the simulations were
optimally effective when their use was student-driven, allowing students to formulate
their own questions and actively seek answers. Similarly, Hermans, et. al. (2008),
53
identify that when considering effective ICT integration it is imperative that stake holders
consider the myriad of factors involved, including the teacher‟s pedagogical beliefs.
Their work established that constructivist teacher beliefs were a strong predictor of ICT
integration in the classroom (Hermans, et. al., 2008). Culp, et. al. (2005) concede the
promise of technology as an catalyst to encourage constructivist pedagogy, but caution
that adequate professional development is essential to realizing the combined power of
constructivist pedagogy and ICT integration.
Current Utilization of ICT
Significant investments in technology have led to questions about its impact on
teaching and learning (Bebell, et. al., 2004). Key leaders in the field of ICT integration,
including both cheerleaders and skeptics, have started to question whether or not the
significant investments in ICT are justified by the results of their use (Chaptal, 2002).
Cuban (2000), for example, feels that there is little evidence to support continued
investments in ICT technologies and even questions the necessity of ICT skills for future
careers. Many researchers, including Keengwe (2007) cite the work of Cuban as
identifying and explaining the failure to effectively integrate ICT in instruction despite
significant expenditures on ICT technologies. Carnevale (2004) also indicates a failure
of the acquisition of ICT to create meaningful change.
The research of the National Education Association indicates that progress has
been made in the area of ICT integration in the classroom, but there are still many
obstacles to widespread use (Tuck, 2004). One conclusion of the NEA report was that
students need greater meaningful access to computers in the classroom (Tuck, 2004).
The reality is that greater access and availability has been established, but widespread
54
utilization of ICT in the classroom has not yet been attained (Chaptal, 2002). This
suggests that stakeholders must now shift their focus to investing in the people who will
use the ICT infrastructure that has been built through previous investments (Keengwe,
2007).
In their investigation of ICT use in high schools of Silicon Valley, Peck, et. al.
(2002) identified that the use of ICT in classrooms other than computer-based electives
was limited. Many of the students indicated that they never used computers, and
researchers found significant discrepancies within departments (Peck, et. al., 2002).
Additionally, the students who did report computer use, including those in computer-
based electives, identified that the use was teacher-driven, and researchers reported that
they found little evidence of the constructivist learning that ICT supporters promote
(Peck, et. al., 2002). This research supports the theory that just providing the ICT
equipment is not enough to enable teachers to effectively integrate ICT in their
classrooms (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008a).
When exploring the effects and pervasiveness of technology in the classroom,
researchers must move beyond the existence of ICT in the classroom and attempt to
understand its role and usage in the cultural context of the classroom with specific
reference to students and teachers (Bebell, et. al., 2004; Kurt, 2010). With regard to
teachers, the all-encompassing phrase „technology use‟ is not clear enough to provide real
benefit to researchers (Bebell, et. al., 2004). Originally researchers used this phrase in
order to simplify their research, but this has caused problems for researchers including: a
lack of a valid measure, interpretation of findings, and identifying ways to increase ICT
use in the classroom (Bebell, et. al., 2004). Bebell, et. al. identify that it is important to
55
identify the individual categories of ICT use, because they have a weak enough
relationship to do so, and these categories can provide us with a deeper understanding of
ICT use in the classroom.
Evidence suggests that a great number of teachers are currently using technology
to support their own teaching, record keeping, worksheet and test development, and
tracking of student progress (Bebell, et. al., 2004; Kurt, 2010). Van Braak, Tondeur, and
Valke (2004) identify that a majority of teachers use ICT to support their teaching, but far
fewer integrate ICT into their instructional repertoire. By the beginning of this
millennium, over 85% of teachers used their computers for the creation of instructional
materials, and over 50% of teachers used their computers for record-keeping and
administrative tasks (Bebell, et. al., 2004). Through their research, Bebell, et. al.
examined through survey responses the specific activities that teachers utilized their
computers for and developed the following list of categorical activities: preparation,
professional e-mail communication, delivering instruction, accommodation, teacher-
directed student use, teacher-directed student products, and grading. Bebell, et. al. tested
the assumption that these measures would all be related to each other and found only
weak to moderate relationships.
Bebell, et. al. (2004) also compared technology use to length of time in the field
of education and found no noticeable variance in teacher use. Comparisons of
technology use and level taught identified only slight differences, including increased use
for accommodation at the elementary level and increased use for preparation at the
middle and high school levels (Bebell, et. al., 2004). Kurt (2010) also explains that when
technology is used in the classroom, it is frequently used to maintain traditional
56
pedagogy, rather than developing activities that align with constructivist pedagogical
methods. Teachers primarily utilized ICT for instruction in how to use ICT,
administrative activities, instructional purposes that aligned with previously held
pedagogical beliefs, and non-educational tasks (Kurt, 2010).
The National Education Association conducted a survey to investigate the
effective use of ICT in the classroom (Tuck, 2004). The major findings of this survey
included:
Most educators had access, but student access was
limited.
Educators were involved in decision making, but
upgrades and support were limited.
Educator training was inadequate to support integration
in instruction.
Gaps in technology access remained for certain
demographic groups.
Some educator attitudes were maintained over time, but
some changed or became increasingly complex.
Ferneding (2003) suggests that the job skills required for success in the
Information Age are a significant part of the push for the use of ICT in education. Casey
(2008) questions why schools are not playing a more significant role in preparing their
students for ICT use in their futures. Given the pervasiveness of technology in the
Information Age and the significant investments that have already been made toward ICT
programs in schools, it seems inevitable that ICT will continue to have a role in
57
classrooms (Chaptal, 2002). The question that remains is what that role will be and what
those classrooms will look like. The National Education Association gave the following
recommendations (Tuck, 2004):
Make computers available in the classrooms that
provide regular access throughout the school day.
Provide adequate staff development, equipment
upgrades, and technical support to encourage broad-
scale integration.
Include the staff in decision-making about all areas of
school technology, including training and professional
development opportunities.
Ensure that pre-service and in-service teachers are
adequately prepared to integrate technology in their
classrooms.
Close disparities between demographic groups.
Upgrade and maintain equipment in impoverished
school districts.
Encourage further research and development of
technology programs.
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) claim that low-level ICT use is no longer
appropriate for students. With the advent of the twenty-first century, teachers should be
expected to use technology for effective constructivist teaching, and technology should
no longer be viewed as a supplemental tool for teaching, but rather an essential tool for
58
effective teaching (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Thus, technology skills and
training in technology integration would be requirements for the twenty-first century
teacher. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2008) do caution the pitfall of allowing product focus
to limit the content knowledge acquisition when learning with ICT, but agree that
technology can support constructivist values, when used appropriately. Again, this
illustrates the need for proper training and skill development in the twenty-first century
teacher. Important to note is that the majority of teachers do believe that computers are
effective and important educational tools (Silman & Gündoğdu, 2007), they just need to
be equipped to use them in their classrooms.
The promises of ICT integration were explained in detail in a previous section of
this chapter, and a failure to realize some of those promises questions whether or not
students are being provided with the best possible education. Keengwe, et. al. (2008b)
recorded increased achievement for students who utilized ICT in conjunction with
constructivist practices when compared to students using ICT with traditional practices.
ICT integration and constructivist pedagogy are two sides of the same coin that may
provide the key to increased student learning and success. Schrand (2008) observed
increased authenticity in student participation when utilizing interactive multimedia to
create active-learning exercises. Isolated examples of effective integration abound; now
the goal is to create a more wide-spread phenomenon.
Authorities frequently play the blame game and identify teachers as the root of the
problem of limited ICT integration, but others have also suggested attitudes that include:
failure to prove ICT‟s efficiency to individuals, school designs and cultures that don‟t
promote the widespread use of technology, and the need for greater patience when
59
waiting for widespread integration to occur (Chaptal, 2002). Peck, et. al. (2002) also
identify that teachers often take the blame for the lack of technology use, but identify that
other challenges hinder the use of technology in schools including: school and classroom
structures, time constraints, defects in the technology, and competing priorities.
While teachers do determine what activities will occur in their individual
classrooms, one must recognize that teachers receive significant pressures from various
stake holders in the field of education, thus change will likely be progressive and require
support and professional development (Chaptal, 2002). Zhao, Hueyshan Tan, and Mishra
(2000-2001) also suggest that ICT integration combined with pedagogical changes create
a great deal of uncertainty and that uncertainty leads to slow and cautious changes.
Kromhout & Butzin (1993) indicate from their study on ICT integration with project
CHILD that one of the greatest concerns is the workload required of teachers. Kurt
(2010) identifies at the conclusion of his research that teachers cannot be forced to
integrate ICT into their curriculums, but programs can be developed to guide teachers in
the importance and appropriate use of ICT in the classroom. The National Education
Association study on ICT use in schools, found that staff training on technology use was
increasing, but there was a lack of time and opportunities to learn about the instructional
uses of these technologies (Tuck, 2004).
With regard to school designs and cultures, Chaptal (2002) suggests that schools
should change to encourage constructivist teaching practices, but cautions that traditional
testing may thwart efforts to further develop and implement constructivist teaching
alongside ICT use. Kromhout & Butzin (1993) also indicate that standardized tests
cannot adequately assess the learning in ICT enriched, constructivist classrooms. Cuban
60
(1994) believes that schools are different from other organizations, and these differences
hinder the wide-scale integration of ICT into the classroom. According to Cuban, these
differences include: beliefs about teaching and learning, what constitutes proper content,
views on the teacher-student relationship, age-grade classroom divisions, equitability, and
instructional organization.
Another struggle in the effective integration of ICT in schools is the varied skill
levels of students with regard to ICT, prompting researchers to identify that there is still a
need for some direct instruction in ICT skills for students (Keengwe, 2007; Karchmer-
Klein, 2007). This is not to say that ICT should not be integrated into the curriculum as
that is where it is most effectively used, only that direct ICT instruction for students
should continue to be a part of a comprehensive technology plan.
Keengwe, et. al. (2008a) conclude that there are many factors that influence ICT
integration, including access, support, and training. They explain that ICT integration
alongside pedagogical reform requires major changes in education and teaching practices,
thus reformers should move forward with caution, recognizing the need for incremental
changes (Keengwe, et. al., 2008a). Van Braak, et. al. (2004) explain that past experience
and behavior have a significant impact on teacher decisions to integrate ICT into their
classroom. Keengwe, et. al. offer the following as obstacles to effective ICT integration:
lack of computers, limited quality of software, time constraints, lack of funds, technical
problems, teacher attitudes toward computers, lack of teacher confidence, resistance to
change, lack of administrative support, lack of training, in addition to the challenge of
behavior and commitment of individual teachers.
61
Buckenmeyer (2010) maintains that the challenge of getting the technology into
the classrooms is being met in many schools and the focus must now be shifted toward
utilizing that technology. Okan (2007) cautions that it is prudent to develop a complete
picture of the myriad of factors involved before making judgments or instituting changes
with regard to ICT integration.
Integration
Researchers would agree that ICT provides additional educational opportunities
when it is used effectively (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Currently, whether or not to use
ICT is rarely questioned, rather the question focuses on what constitutes effective use
(Valanides & Angeli, 2008). While there is a need for some direct instruction (Keengwe,
2007), the true promise of ICT lies in its integration into the content areas. In fact, many
researchers, including Keengwe, et. al. use the effective integration of technology as a
measure of technologys success and usefulness in schools. For the most part, the
necessity of integrating technology into the basic curriculum, rather than offering it as
external elective courses, has been established and is now assumed (Keengwe &
Anyanwu, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Additionally, most researchers
admit that the substantial investments that have been made in ICT, will only be
considered money, and time, well spent when teachers are able to make wise decisions
about the effective use of ICT in the classroom to incorporate active and authentic
learning opportunities into the daily curriculum (Pasco & Adcock, 2007).
Curriculum standards from both national and state organizations require or
recommend the integration of technology in the classroom (Polly & Hannafin, 2010;
Fletcher, 2006). Fletcher also indicates that it is only through the integration of ICT that
62
these technologies will be utilized in a way that students receive the best possible
education for their future success in an increasingly technological world. Teachers are
now facing classrooms of technology savvy students who are well entrenched in the
Information Age, but still require teaching to understand the effective use of ICT for
learning (Keengwe & Anyanwu, 2007). From the perspective of these digital natives it is
expected that their educational experience will include the use of ICT for learning.
Tearle (2003) identifies that the invasiveness of ICT on the various sectors of society
indicate that it will have some place in education and acknowledges the oft-touted
promises of ICT integration in the classroom. It is expected that eventually teachers of
all levels will be required to integrate technology into their teaching (Joshi, et. al., 2010).
Keengwe, et. al. (2008a) state that evidence demonstrates a lack of widespread
integration in schools and recognize that ICT provides both challenges and opportunities
for classroom teachers. Keengwe, et. al. (2008a) suggest that teachers work to meet
several objectives in relation to ICT integration in the classroom: incorporate active
learning and teaching, develop appreciation for technology, become leaders of effective
integration, design curriculum activities that incorporate ICT, recognize the power of ICT
integration, understand the benefits of ICT in the classroom, learn to motivate students
using ICT, and become advocates for ICT integration in the classroom. Technology
should be used in the classroom with the purpose of improving student learning of
curriculum materials, and teachers should focus on developing meaningful learning
experiences that incorporate technology as a means of creating learning opportunities for
their students (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Prensky (2008) also identifies that ICT
integration allows teachers to achieve constructivist teaching goals more efficiently and
63
effectively when used properly in the classroom. Project CHILD also offers evidence to
support claims of effectiveness in regard to ICT integration in the classroom (Butzin,
2000).
Many research studies have established that ICT presence alone does not assume
effective use. Rather careful design and implementation of activities in which ICT
components are used to effectively participate in authentic learning experiences is
required in order to effectively enhance learning (Delialioglu & Yildirim, 2008). Cady
and Terrell (2007-2008) completed a study on the effect of ICT integration on female
students and determined that ICT integration had a significantly positive effect on the
attitudes of female students toward computer importance. Harris, et. al. (2009) identified
the importance of developing lessons in which technology and content work together to
create effective learning experiences and indicated that effective teaching required the
understanding of content and effective strategies to aid students in learning that content.
Though researchers have established the necessity and effectiveness of ICT integration in
the classroom, many also recognize that widespread integration has not yet occurred
(Razfar, 2008).
Understanding the importance of integration does not necessarily lead to
experiencing the reality of teaching and learning in a classroom augmented by ICT
integration. Stake holders initially believed that providing the hardware and
infrastructure would lead to effective integration of ICT into classrooms, but most now
realize that more is required (Culp, et. al., 2005; Tondeur, et. al., 2009). Researchers
have now begun to investigate the complex combination of factors involved in effective
ICT integration. In addition to physical availability of ICT infrastructure, accessibility is
64
a reference to appropriateness compared to content, support, training, and ability to use
effectively (Culp, et. al., 2005). Additionally, identifying and defining long-term goals
can be hindered by several interacting factors including: multiple types of technologies,
rapid creation and upgrading of technologies, working and fluctuating budgets, and
public perceptions (Culp, et. al., 2005).
Current approaches to ICT integration fail to recognize the complex dynamics
involved in integration (Harris, et. al., 2009). Techno-centric approaches to ICT
integration have fallen flat due to their failure to consider the content and pedagogical
factors involved in effective integration (Harris, et. al., 2009). Many conventional
approaches focus on the ICT components and ignore the learning needs of prospective
students (Harris, et. al., 2009). Harris, et. al. point out in their work that it is imperative
to consider technology, pedagogy, content, and background knowledge when developing
activities that involve ICT integration. Still, as if to further illustrate the complexity of
ICT integration, each of these areas has a complex set of factors of its own.
Keengwe and Anyanwu (2007) further explain that ICT integration is a complex
phenomenon that involves teacher interactions, teacher beliefs, and teacher attitudes.
Tondeur, Valke, and Van Braak (2008) attempted to identify the factors that influence
ICT integration, but questioned whether or not a complete list of the complex factors and
their interactions was even possible to create. In their work on developing an inventory
for assessing ICT integration, Groff and Mouza (2008) also identify the complexity and
challenges of effective ICT integration. Yet, Levin and Wadmany (2008) explain that it
is important to understand as much as possible about the complex dynamics involved in
ICT integration in order to increase effective integration. Also of note is that some of the
65
factors, including teacher beliefs and attitudes, exist on a continually shifting continuum
which creates more complex dynamics, and it is important to avoid developing an
approach to ICT integration that maintains a one-size-fits-all mentality (Levin &
Wadmany, 2008).
ICT integration involves a variety of factors, continually changing and interacting
over-time, creating difficulty for researchers, teachers, and policymakers interested in
studying the effective integration of ICT in classrooms (Tondeur, et. al., 2009). This
difficulty can sometimes hinder ICT integration because it creates an atmosphere of
adventure and innovativeness that is also plagued with uncertainty (Chaptal, 2002). This
uncertainty can sometimes lead to reticence on the part of administrators and teachers
implementing ICT in their schools and classrooms. Perhaps most importantly, effective
ICT integration can require major changes and reevaluations of personal beliefs,
attitudes, skills, and actions (Keengwe, et. al., 2008a)
Based on the combined work of many researchers (Baek, 2008; Fletcher, 2006;
Groff & Mouza, 2008; Joshi, et. al., 2010; Keengwe, et. al., 2008a; Keengwe, et. al.,
2008b; Klieger, Ben-Hur, & Bar-Yossef, 2010; Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Loveless,
1996; Maynard, 2010; Pasco & Adcock, 2007; Razfar, 2008; Russell, et. al., 2003;
Shepherd & Mullane, 2010; Steketee, 2005; Tearle, 2003; Thomas & Vela, 2003;
Tondeur, et. al., 2008; Tondeur, et. al., 2009; Valanides & Angeli, 2008; Van Braak,
Tondeur, Valcke, 2004; Wright & Lesisko, 2008; Wright, 1996; Yaghi & Ghaith, 2002;
U.S. Department of Education, 2004), the following list of factors involved in ICT
integration has been developed. It is important to remember that many complex
interactions of these factors exist beyond the straightforward list given here:
66
Motivation of teachers
Perceptions of teachers
Pedagogical beliefs of teachers
Teacher beliefs about technology
Interrelationships between factors
Teacher attitudes toward ICT use and integration
Teacher attitudes toward creativity and innovativeness
Organizational factors
Time constraints
Availability of and access to resources
Level of support available
Teacher attitudes toward constructivism
Cultural and structural characteristics of the school
Teacher training and professional development
Leadership that promotes change and supports teachers
Focus, goals, and implementation of school vision
Supportive interaction between colleagues
Practice and success with ICT integration in the
classroom
Lack of technological skills
Ability to utilize available technology for educational
purposes
Student attitudes and abilities
67
Reliability of available technology
Teacher anxiety with regard to computer use
Teacher beliefs about age appropriateness of computers
Control and assessment concerns
Budgetary constraints
Practical implementation of skills gained during ICT
training
Groff and Mouza (2008) divide these factors into six categories: legislative
factors, district/school level factors, teacher factors, ICT project factors, student factors,
and inherent technology factors. Of these factors, teacher beliefs are the strongest
factors in ICT integration (Russell, et. al., 2003). The integral role of the teacher in ICT
integration and the factors related to the teacher will be examined further in the next
section.
Legislative factors, inherent technology factors, and school factors represent the
groups that individual teachers have the least, if any, amount of control over (Tondeur, et.
al., 2009). Legislative factors include government policy and available research
(Tondeur, et. al., 2009). District and school level factors include structural and cultural
school factors (Tondeur, et. al., 2009). Though these factors are difficult to define,
research has determined that these factors are related to the way that stakeholders
perceive, think, and feel about various aspects of school and include staff attitudes toward
innovativeness, school vision, and supportive leadership (Tondeur, et. al., 2009).
Constructivist teaching beliefs is believed to be the most influential cultural factor to ICT
integration (Tondeur, et. al., 2008). School factors can also include age of the school
68
buildings, availability of technological staff, budgetary considerations, and teacher
training program availability (Tearle, 2003).
Integral Role of the Teacher
Levin and Wadmany (2008) identify that teachers play the key role in changing
the field of education, especially the way teaching and learning occur in their individual
classrooms. In his research, Loveless (1996) explains that a significant hindrance to
effective classroom integration lies in the failure to recognize the integral role of the
classroom teacher. Karchmer-Klein (2007) identifies the classroom teacher as the most
important factor to classroom integration, but continues by explaining that they are not
trained properly to effectively integrate ICT into their classroom teaching. Casey (2008)
suggests that given the continued divergence of expert opinions, the greatest hope for
educational reform and effective ICT integration is talented teachers making informed
decisions about how to utilize ICT in their classroom. One thing is certain- teachers face
numerable obstacles and important decisions in how to effectively use ICT in their
classrooms (Silman & Gündoğdu, 2007). Kurt (2010) also identifies that successful
integration is largely contingent on the classroom teacher. Gall and Breeze (2008)
identified in their study that effective integration that fosters collaboration in a positive
learning environment was contingent on the classroom teacher.
With this understanding of the important role of the classroom teacher, it is easy
to fall into the trap of blaming teachers, thus using them as scapegoats, for the failure to
realize the promises of ICT integration in the classroom (Ferneding, 2003; Cuban,
1999a). Though some researchers would decry the injustice of this action and revert to
turning ICT and policy makers into the scapegoats (Ferneding, 2003) and others, as
69
demonstrated previously in this chapter, would continue to lift up the promises and
provision of ICT components and infrastructure despite the failure of teachers to integrate
ICT in the classroom; as with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Emergent ICT is not a “magic bullet” that can single-handedly reform and enhance the
educational system in the United States, but rather is dependent upon the valuable insight
of well-trained teachers to fully integrate and realize its potential (Casey, 2010).
Additionally, teachers are not equipped, empowered, or trained to effectively navigate all
the factors involved in ICT integration (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009).
Shepherd and Mullane (2010) draw attention to the fact that teachers are failing to
integrate technology into the classroom and cite maintenance costs, lack of training, and
ineffective preparation for technology use in the classroom setting as possible obstacles.
In their study on the past two decades of governmental policy on ICT use in classrooms,
Culp, et. al. (2005) assert that these reports identify high quality, sustained professional
development as essential to effective ICT integration. Additionally, it is imperative that
teachers are willing to experiment with various technologies and activities as they are
attempting to effectively incorporate ICT into their teaching repertoire (Buckenmeyer,
2010).
Many researchers have identified various factors involved in ICT integration that
are directly linked to teachers. Some of these factors include: positive experiences,
comfort with computers, beliefs about computers as an instructional tool, level of
training, motivation and innovativeness, administrative and collegial support, and
teaching efficacy (Mueller, et. al., 2008). Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) identify the
following factors: access does not equal integration, time constraints, lack of training
70
and/or appropriate times for training, and lack of technical support. These researcher
further divide factors involved in integration into first order barriers, or barriers the
teacher cannot control, including lack of resources and school culture; and second-order
barriers, or barriers within the teacher‟s control, including personal beliefs, attitudes,
knowledge and skills (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009). Cuban (1999b) expounds upon
first-order barriers, citing contradictory and ever-changing advice from experts, inflexible
schedules, outside demands, unreliability of technology, disrespect for teacher opinions,
the nature of education, and the multiple purposes or masters that schools serve as
additional first-order barriers. Important to note is that the factors of years in the field,
gender, and age of the teacher have inconsistent and low impact with regard to effective
ICT integration (Mueller, et. al., 2008; Cuban, et. al., 2001). Teacher proficiency with
ICT components did have a significant impact on their ability to increase student gains
from ICT use in the classroom (Chen & Chang, 2006).
Using technology just for the sake of using it is not helpful in the classroom, nor
does it lead to the realization of the promises of ICT integration in the classroom. Rather,
it is the teachers that work to determine the why and how of ICT integration in the
classroom who turn promises into reality (Kazanci & Okan, 2009). The benefits of ICT
use in the classroom rely on how the teacher structures the classroom environment and
activities while utilizing ICT components (MacBride & Luehmann, 2008). Callister and
Dunne (1993) explain that machines are tools that require the perceptions and decisions
of teachers for effective use. Lim and Chai (2008) acknowledge that researchers are
finally beginning to recognize the integral role of individual teachers in effective ICT
71
integration and the complex environment that these teachers must negotiate in their
decision making.
Kurt (2010) asserts that policy-makers, administrators, and proponents of ICT
integration expect teachers to integrate ICT into their classroom activities, but most also
recognize that the decisions of when and how to accomplish this ultimately lie in the
hands of classroom teachers. Classroom teachers have the greatest influence over what
happens when the doors to their classrooms close and instruction begins (Groff & Mouza,
2008). Having an understanding of this identifies the importance of investigating the
roles of teachers in ICT integration and investing in professional development for these
teachers (Mueller, et. al., 2008). Levin and Wadmany (2008) identify that teachers have
the most impact on ICT use in the classroom and explain that realizing the promises of
ICT integration is reliant upon how the classroom teachers decide to use ICT in their
classrooms. Examining the list of factors involved in ICT integration, research
demonstrates that teacher factors have more influence than the other factors when
considering ICT use in classrooms (Thomas & Vela, 2003).
In his critical exposition on computer use in schools, Loveless (1996) suggests
that students, parents, and other stake-holders instinctively understand that unhindered
computer use in the classroom will increase the personal responsibility of the learner
beyond where it should be, and the teacher provides some control and authority over
classroom ICT use. Keengwe and Anyanwu (2007) explain that it is ultimately the
teacher, not the technology, which will be held accountable for the education of their
students. Experience teaches that students need teachers to support them and facilitate
their learning (Shepherd & Mullane, 2010).
72
In reference to the blame on teachers for not adequately using ICT technology in
the classroom, Loveless (1996) agrees that teachers should develop stronger skills for
utilizing ICT in the classroom but reminds readers that teachers are experts at teaching
even if they are not experts in ICT. Continued investments in ICT for classrooms
combined with research demonstrating continued hindrance of ICT usage in the
classroom, puts continued pressure on teachers who are being blamed for the failure of
ICT to activate educational reform (Keengwe, et. al., 2008a). Teachers frequently cite
lack of time and lack of educational ICT training as barriers to the utilization of ICT in
the classroom (Fletcher, 2006). Ruthven, Hennessy, and Deany (2008) also cite the
necessity of curriculum selection and adaptation, including negotiating attempts to
teacher-proof curriculum, as hindrances to ICT integration. Research demonstrates that
computer training increased innovativeness and use for support and integration (Van
Braak, et. al., 2004).
Of the teacher factors involved in ICT integration, teacher beliefs and attitudes
have the most significant impact on ICT integration in the classroom (Hermans, et. al.,
2008; Thomas & Vela, 2003). Kagan (1992) provides an understanding of the role of
teacher beliefs in the classroom. Kagan compares the teaching profession to creative
invention and identifies teacher beliefs as internal, implicit, resistant to change, and
intensely private. Although teacher beliefs cannot be fully understood from observations
of instructional practices, certain activities can provide illumination of an underlying
belief system (Kagan, 1992).
One hindrance to understanding belief systems is that various secondary and
tertiary beliefs are established based on basic core beliefs that have multiple connections
73
to other beliefs and core beliefs are the most difficult to change (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010). Another hindrance to understanding teacher beliefs is that teachers are
often unable to adequately explain their own unconscious beliefs (Kagan, 1992). In
addition to their inability to articulate their specific belief systems, teachers may also lack
the ability to fully articulate barriers to ICT use in their classrooms (Hixon &
Buckenmeyer, 2009).
Further complicating the understanding of teacher beliefs are inconsistencies
between self-expressed beliefs and observed beliefs in the classroom (Lim & Chai, 2008).
In attempting to explain these discrepancies, teachers once again cited external time,
training, and evaluation constraints (Lim & Chai, 2008; Tuck, 2004). Most professional
knowledge can also be considered a part of teacher belief, but current belief acts as a
filter for the dissemination and utilization of new knowledge (Kagan, 1992; Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Research identifies that changes in belief systems require
application of knowledge gained rather than theoretical studying (Kagan, 1992).
Kagan (1992) further divides teacher beliefs into two categories: self-efficacy and
content-specific beliefs. Self-efficacy refers to expected ability to perform instructional
and professional tasks, and content-specific beliefs refer to understanding and ability
regarding specific academic content (Kagan, 1992). Teachers‟ self-efficacy toward
problem-solving skills can have a significant impact on their willingness to experiment
with ICT integration in the classroom (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Thomas & Vela,
2003). Tondeur, et. al. (2008) identify that constructivist pedagogical beliefs are essential
to ICT integration. Even if a teacher‟s pedagogical beliefs are in line with ICT
integration, the teacher must believe that she has the technological ability to implement
74
activities involving ICT integration (Mueller, et. al., 2008; Loveless, 1996). Yaghi and
Ghaith (2002) also support the assertion that confidence related to computer use and,
more importantly, computer use for educational purposes (Pasco & Adcock, 2007) plays
a significant role in teacher‟s deciding to integrate ICT into the classroom.
Teacher belief is significantly influenced by the isolating nature of classroom
instruction (Kagan, 1992). The level of control that teachers possess in their classrooms
establishes a sense of safety and predictability for teachers, which can sometimes cause
teachers to be skeptical or defensive about external advice (Kagan, 1992; Hixon &
Buckenmeyer, 2009). Kagan also describes the uncertainty and ambiguity of classroom
tasks and the resulting development of a personal pedagogical belief system that allows
the teacher to maintain confidence and certainty in the classroom. Kagan suggests the
use of creative expression to limit the isolation factors by providing a connection to
others. The resulting collaboration provides opportunities for merging belief systems and
further development of school culture (Kagan, 1992).
Levin and Wadmany (2008) also identify the necessity of administrative and
collegial support for teachers to develop self-efficacy and effectively integrate ICT in the
classroom. One teacher identified the integral role that administrative support played in
her decisions to persevere through encountered difficulties, and another teacher identified
support from and collaboration with colleagues as the source of her courage and
confidence regarding ICT integration (Levin & Wadmany, 2008).
The utilization of ICT in classrooms causes most teachers to take on a different
role in their classroom (Silman & Gündoğdu, 2007). Despite the fact that the majority of
teachers believe that computers are effective tools for teaching and learning and that
75
students may need ICT skills post-graduation, conflicting teacher beliefs and pressures
still hinder their use in the classroom (Silman & Gündoğdu, 2007; Chen, 2008).
According to Chen and supported by Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), the
resulting discrepancies lie in the negotiation process teachers go through when
determining the most effective tool they are able to use to meet a variety of prioritized
learning goals within a specific school culture that may or may not support ICT
integration.
The reality exists that many teachers may simply view technology as an
unnecessary distraction in an already overbooked schedule (Gordon & Still, 2007).
Prensky (2008) elaborates, indentifying that one reason teachers struggle so much with
change is that teachers feel outside pressure to cover all of the curriculum materials they
are given. Additionally, teachers are hindered in their decision-making in the classroom
by the need to provide a quality education for all of their students by balancing individual
student needs with corporate student needs (Ferneding, 2003). Levin and Wadmany
(2008) assert that teachers must be willing to learn how to use technology and examine,
possibly even change, their foundational pedagogical beliefs in order to realize the
benefits of effective ICT integration. Research shows that teachers who possess a
willingness to change, try new things, and be innovative in the classroom are more likely
to attempt high level ICT integration in the classroom (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009).
In addition to teacher beliefs, teacher attitudes play a significant role in decisions
regarding ICT integration (Van Braak, et. al., 2004; Tondeur, et. al., 2008). Teacher
ability to use computers is positively correlated to teacher attitudes toward computers,
and teacher attitudes towards computers are significantly linked to computer use in the
76
classroom (Van Braak, et. al., 2004; Gordon & Still, 2007). General innovativeness and
familiarity with computers also have a significant impact on teacher attitudes toward
computer use in the classroom (Van Braak, et. al., 2004). Desire, training, and support
are also significant factors in teacher decisions to integrate ICT into their curriculum
(Fletcher, 2006). According to Keengwe, et. al. (2008a, p. 562, ¶ 2) the most significant
factors hindering ICT integration are the “behavior, investments, and commitments of
individual teachers.” Teachers need to be interested, motivated, and willing in order to
use ICT meaningfully in the classroom (Keengwe, et. al., 2008b).
In a study conducted by the National Education Association, researchers
attempted to analyze ICT integration from the perspectives of classroom teachers (Tuck,
2004). Their research indicated that the attitudes of educators toward technology for
educational purposes had a significant impact on successful ICT integration (Tuck,
2004). Training in computer skills had the most significant relationship with computer
use and training, and technology enjoyment was strongly related to familiarity with and
positive attitudes toward computer use for educational purposes (Tuck, 2004). Time also
impacted skill levels, advanced usage, and perceived impact on job performance (Tuck,
2004). Also, teachers were more likely to value technology that improved access to
content information or efficiency in product creation (Tuck, 2004).
Past experiences with ICT integration also have a significant impact on a
teacher‟s beliefs and attitudes toward ICT integration (Mueller, et. al., 2008; Tuck, 2004;
Baek, 2008). Groff and Mouza (2008) explain that teachers who are continually met with
failure when attempting to utilize ICT in their classrooms, are likely to develop negative
beliefs and attitudes toward integration. In contrast, teachers who meet success when
77
attempting to utilize ICT in the classroom are more will to continue attempting
innovative ICT enhanced lessons (Groff & Mouza, 2008). Groff and Mouza suggest
paying attention to the teacher-controlled factors of ICT integration including context,
innovator, innovation, and operators when examining successful ICT integration in the
classroom. They outline school factors like resources and support; teacher factors like
technology proficiency, pedagogical beliefs, and innovativeness; project factors like
relationship to school culture, dependence on outside resources, and relationship to
current pedagogical practices; and student factors like technology proficiency, attitudes,
beliefs, and engagement as important to predicting success with regard to activities
involving ICT integration (Groff & Mouza, 2008). Their research supports teacher
training in technology skills, the importance of positive teacher beliefs and attitudes, the
influence of pedagogical beliefs, and the importance of successful experiences with
integration for future attempts at ICT integration (Groff & Mouza, 2008). Availability
and access to support is of utmost importance (Groff & Mouza, 2008).
Although research has established the potential of ICT integration in classroom, it
also shows that many teachers are not yet prepared to effectively integrate ICT into their
classrooms (Chen & Chang, 2006). Though observers once believed that veteran
teachers and digital immigrants would have the most trouble making the shift to ICT
enhanced classrooms, research now demonstrates that novice teachers have more
difficulty with this step (Chen & Chang, 2006). It is important to remember that teachers
most often take on the pedagogical styles of the teaching they have experienced; and,
although undergraduate educational programs can have some impact on pedagogical
beliefs, practically speaking, pre-service teachers generally leave their undergraduate
78
programs with the same pedagogical beliefs that they started them with (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Kagan, 1992), creating novice teachers with traditional
pedagogical belief systems despite their familiarity with technology. Additionally, the
research of Guo, Dobson, and Petrina (2008) also suggests that the differences between
digital natives and digital immigrants have been exaggerated.
Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) explained that teachers progress through various
stages with regard to reaching the goal of best-practice ICT integration in the classroom.
While various researchers give these stages different names, there is sufficient evidence
to suggest that teachers move through stages involving specific characteristics (Hixon &
Buckenmeyer, 2009; Groff & Mouza, 2008). The first stage involves the development of
basic ICT skills (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009). The second stage contains the
utilization of ICT skills to increase professional efficiency (Hixon & Buckenmeyer,
2009). During the third stage, teachers begin to utilize ICT in the classroom for delivery
of instruction that maintains existing pedagogical practices (Hixon & Buckenmeyer,
2009). Next, teachers begin to experiment with best-practice ICT integration (Hixon &
Buckenmeyer, 2009). Finally, teachers refine and increase their use of ICT in the
classroom until they reach full integration (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009).
Cuban, et. al. (2001) noted that pedagogical changes as a result of continuous ICT
integration were incremental over time. Teachers with high skill levels tend to achieve
greater incremental change toward advanced ICT integration over time (Tuck, 2004). For
teachers to move past the first stage, they must have adequate access, support, and
training (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Mueller, et. al., 2008). It is also important to
note that constructivist beliefs are required in order for teachers to reach the higher stages
79
of progression toward complete ICT integration (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009). Hixon
and Buckenmeyer and Mueller, et. al. also stress the importance of professional
development opportunities in all stages of ICT use and integration.
Cuban, et. al. (2001) question the idea that a slow revolution toward increased
ICT integration with increasing numbers of teachers embracing ICT integration will
occur on its own. Some researchers suggest that full integration could require several
years to achieve and the ever-changing nature of technology may increase that time
(Mueller, et. al., 2008). Major findings from the National Education Association survey
concluded that educators are more familiar with the use of technology, but the training
they have received was inadequate to promote best-practice instruction (Tuck, 2004).
This survey also identified that teacher attitudes, especially their perceived impact of ICT
on their job performance, can change significantly over time based on experiences with
technology (Tuck, 2004).
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) suggest that early professional
development opportunities should include basic ICT skills and then progress toward more
constructivist ICT integration. Yaghi and Ghaith (2002) explain that general ICT use for
things other than teaching will help teachers to build confidence for future use. Research
also suggests that progression is contingent upon successful experiences, whether
personal or vicarious, with ICT integration at each level (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). In order to be empowered to integrate ICT into their classrooms teachers must
develop specific attitudes, skills, confidence, and intentional classroom practices (Chen &
Chang, 2006).
80
Cuban, et. al. (2001) identify that traditional attempts at reform have failed
because they did not take into account the teachers‟ developmental characteristics or
allocate adequate funding for professional development programs. They suggest that
teachers will only be empowered by convenient, on-site professional development that is
specifically geared toward the teachers involved in the program (Cuban, et. al., 2001).
ICT integration requires collaboration with other classroom teachers and adequate time to
develop the necessary skills and experience the necessary successes (Cuban, et. al.,
2001). The obstacle most frequently identified by teachers is a lack of time for learning,
development, and preparation (Cuban, et. al., 2001).
Klieger, et. al. (2010) suggest that teachers will become more invested in change
if they participate in adequate professional development programs. Valanides and
Angeli (2008) explain that adequate professional development is a key component in any
school improvement plan and is needed to help teachers develop basic computer skills,
pedagogical understandings, deeper understandings of content, and ICT enhanced inquiry
teaching methods and suggest that these programs must be “carefully planned and
implemented.” Culp, et. al. (2005) suggest that teachers will only be able to develop the
necessary skills and techniques for best-practice ICT integration through adequate
professional development. The research of Kurt (2010) supports the assertion that it is
imperative to develop effective training programs for teachers. As a part of that
professional development, teachers must be given time and opportunities to practice the
skills that they learn (Gülbahar, 2008).
In addition to adequate professional development programs, administrative and
collegial support is essential to empowering classroom teachers to integrate ICT (Wright,
81
1996). According to Groff and Mouza (2008), administrator support or lack thereof can
be the clinch-pin of success or failure with regard to increasing ICT integration levels.
Scoolis (1999) offers several suggestions for administrators and teacher-leaders
attempting to encourage ICT integration in their schools. First, leadership must
remember that it is asking teachers to change well-established teaching methods for
something that in their mind is unproven, unpredictable, and unreliable (Scoolis, 1999).
A failure to recognize the emotional issues and time constraints involved in making these
changes could result in strained relationships, poor attitudes or confidence, and program
failure (Scoolis, 1999). In addition to being aware the significance of change, Scoolis
offers the following suggestions for administrators and leaders:
develop a shared vision for success
practice your own techniques in ways that are visible to
your colleagues and teachers
allow staff members to participate in the decision-
making process
prioritize needs
give teachers a reason to utilize technology
develop activities that focus on learning
provide opportunities for the free exchange of ideas
develop on-site training
stay focused on a few key steps at a time
be patient
ensure access to necessary technologies
82
provide technical support
maintain a sense of humor
Administrators and teacher-leaders should also remember that teachers are daily
working in high stress environments with stress factors including: students who lack
motivation and discipline, time constraints, extensive work loads, ever-changing
environments, interactions with colleagues and administrators, parents, and technology
(Al-Fudail & Meller, 2008). Technology can add additional stress factors when teachers
are forced to use technological skills above those they possess and adequate support is
not provided (Al-Fudail & Meller, 2008). This lack of fit is only one reported problem
with “technostress”; participants also reported that time constraints, ICT reliability, lack
of support, lack of student skills, and lack of training increased stress involved in ICT
integration (Al-Fudail & Meller, 2008).
The research of Hermans, et. al. (2008) presents the importance of developing
support groups among teachers when initiating ICT integration initiatives. They found
that belonging to the support groups of colleagues enabled teachers to build confidence,
share success stories, understand school culture, and develop a professional community
(Hermans, et. al., 2008). Prensky (2008) suggests that teachers will require three things
to embrace best-practice ICT integration: examples, colleagues and administrators who
support them, and successful experiences. He suggests that teacher support groups will
provide advice, empathy, examples, and shared successes (Prensky, 2008).
The majority of variables predictive of ICT integration in classrooms are related
to teacher computer experience, and hands-on, in-classroom, in-context practice is likely
the best way for teachers to build confidence and add ICT integration to their teaching
83
repertoire (Mueller, et. al., 2008). Administrators should identify and train mentor
teachers before integrating widespread change (Mueller, et. al., 2008). Additionally,
using the Integrating Innovations program developed by Groff and Mouza (2008) could
provide teachers with a way to examine the predicted viability of ICT innovations in their
classroom, at their school, with their resources.
Professional Development
Research suggests that investments for ICT in schools should be shifted to
investing in the teachers who will utilize the technology (Keengwe, 2007; Culp, et. al.,
2005; Pasco & Adcock, 2007). Teacher training programs have begun to include courses
on both ICT integration and constructivist teaching practices, but many teachers still
require additional opportunities for educational experiences in order to adequately
integrate ICT into constructivist learning environments (Wentworth & Earle, 2003;
Bebell, et. al., 2004; Pasco & Adcock, 2007). Teachers need the support of meaningful,
practical professional development programs that educate teachers about ICT integration
for instructional purposes, rather than focusing on technology skills (Gimbert & Cristol,
2004). Russell, et. al. (2003) explain that teachers need to understand the value of
technology and how to integrate that technology into their instructional activities.
Mainka (2007) suggests that schools must begin to view teachers as assets to be
developed by investing in professional development, incorporating prior knowledge,
linking training to content, ensuring ownership of learning, encouraging collaboration,
building confidence, supporting ongoing staff development, and making technology an
integral part of daily school life.
84
Fletcher (2006) identifies that the majority of elementary teachers are not
modeling or integrating ICT into their classroom activities and put forth lack of training
as a major barrier to ICT integration. Fletcher suggests that professional development
and required documentation could increase ICT integration in elementary classrooms.
Shepherd and Mullane (2010) state that teachers are failing to integrate technology into
their classrooms in meaningful and appropriate ways, but stress that the ability to select
and use appropriate technology for classroom activities is an essential skill for 21
st
century teachers. The results of Chen and Chang (2006) suggest that teachers are not
prepared to integrate technology into the classroom in meaningful ways and cite
professional development as the best means of equipping teachers for effective ICT
integration. Culp, et. al. (2005) also recommend in their evaluation of historical ICT
policy that investments in professional development for teachers are essential for
improved ICT integration.
Professional development programs aimed at equipping teachers for effective ICT
integration in a constructivist learning environment must go beyond the coverage of
traditional professional development programs and help the teacher to create connections
among the professional development program, their own learning, student learning, and
classroom activities (Polly & Hannafin, 2010). Not all ICT use in the classroom is the
same, and not all professional development is the same. Rather teachers must be taught
to focus on how the professional development activities are carried out and how ICT
components are used in their classrooms (Becker, 2006). Tondeur, et. al. (2008) caution
that it is important to consider cultural school characteristics when evaluating appropriate
levels of ICT integration.
85
According to Klieger, et. al. (2010), professional development is a key component
in equipping, empowering, and encouraging teachers to implement change. Valanides
and Angeli (2008) identify a lack of professional development as the greatest barrier to
ICT integration. Blagojevic (2003) also explains that continuous professional
development is necessary for teachers to feel comfortable using and experimenting with
ICT for instructional purposes. According to Buckenmeyer (2010) reluctant teachers and
administrators can be encouraged to move toward effective ICT integration through
ongoing, content-specific professional development. Kagan (1992) explains that teacher
knowledge and belief exists in the juncture of three areas: specific group of students,
academic material to be taught, and the teacher‟s unique belief system.
Research has also demonstrated that teachers are not always able to identify how
ICT integration can enhance their teaching and that specific, relevant, and easily-
applicable training is necessary to develop this understanding (Mueller, et. al., 2008;
Culp, et. al., 2005). Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) suggest that effective professional
development can build teacher confidence and promote more innovative approaches to
technology. Their research also suggests that teachers at different stages in the
progression toward ICT integration will require different types of professional
development with differing levels of support (Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009). Teachers
in the early stages may require directives from administrators (Hixon and Buckenmeyer,
2009). Teachers at the middle levels will benefit from co-teaching and hands-on training
(Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009). Teachers at the higher levels may require reflective
practice, research, and discussions with peers to promote optimal professional growth
(Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009). Teachers at all levels require content-specific, hands-
86
on, need-based technology training (Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009). Keengwe and
Anyanwu (2007) identify that teachers need to be prepared to move from personal
computer use to educational and instructional ICT use.
Groff and Mouza (2008) draw attention to the extreme pressure placed on
teachers to integrate ICT into their classrooms and caution that it is imperative for these
teachers to understand why they are using the technology and discern the when, where,
and how of integrating ICT into their classrooms. Their research suggests that proper
training is essential to equipping teachers to make these decisions in the face of pressure
to use technology more and more (Groff & Mouza, 2008). It is essential to prioritize the
learning goals over the goal of ICT integration (Groff & Mouza, 2008). Hixon and
Buckenmeyer (2009) also stress the importance of equipping teachers to integrate ICT in
ways that promote higher-order thinking skills. Keengwe and Anyanwu (2007) explain
that teachers must understand how to use technology in ways that enhance, rather than
hinder, student learning.
Teaching with technology requires a specialized set of skills surrounding
pedagogical practices, technology skills, evaluation techniques, applications and
connections to content, classroom management skills, and the ability to select the right
tool to complete the desired learning outcomes (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;
Keengwe & Anyanwu, 2007). Teachers need to have a high sense of self-efficacy,
recognize technology as a valuable educational tool, and be prepared to make informed
decisions about the use of technology in the classroom (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich suggest that teachers lack the knowledge, beliefs,
and confidence to effectively integrate technology into the classroom, yet it is precisely
87
this convergence of knowledge, beliefs, and confidence that will lead to equipping,
empowering, and encouraging teachers toward effective ICT integration. Butzin (2000)
explains that teacher preparation for Project CHILD includes a year of intensive training
in effective ICT integration. Neo and Neo (2004) support the need for preparing teachers
to meld ICT with content to effectively enhance student learning.
The knowledge, beliefs, and confidence of teachers regarding ICT integration in
the classroom are significant determinates of how much students learn from activities
involving ICT in the classroom (Chen & Chang, 2006). Teachers require the skills to
effectively evaluate software, the ability to select appropriate tools to gain optimal
learning outcomes, and attitudes that promote effective ICT integration (Chen & Chang,
2006). Teacher proficiency is strongly connected to both student success and
effectiveness of in-service training (Chen & Chang, 2006; Shepherd & Mullane, 2010).
Chen and Chang also establish that teaching methods are a significant determinate for
ICT integration, teachers are more likely to experiment with new innovations following
successful experience with ICT use, and the building of teacher confidence is essential in
developing proficiency.
While the importance of professional development has been established, in what
form should professional development programs be presented in order to achieve optimal
change? Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet (2000) explain that most professional
development programs do not meet the needs or challenges of their attendees. Viadero
(2005) supports this conclusion, identifying that most professional development is too
generic and fragmented to promote significant change, and many teachers view
professional development as a waste of time because it is not specific to their needs.
88
Viadero suggests that professional development programs need to last longer and focus
on specific academic content. Klieger, et. al. (2010) suggest that a combination of
traditional and reformed types of professional development can be effective with regard
to ICT integration.
Birman, et. al. (2000) suggest that professional development can be designed and
evaluated using three structural features: form, duration, and participation; and three core
features: content focus, active learning, and coherence; but there are relationships and
crossover between features. With regard to structure, they found that traditional formats
tend to be shorter and lack hands-on practical opportunities, while reform formats tend to
be longer and further develop the core features (Birman, et. al., 2000). They did stress
however that if duration and core feature focus is strengthened, traditional workshop and
conference type programs can still be effective (Birman, et. al., 2000). Core features are
extremely important in determining the successfulness of any professional development
program with teachers reporting that content-specific professional development that
includes practical opportunities for implementation, in alignment with school culture and
previous professional experiences is the most effective form (Birman, et. al., 2000).
Lee (2004-2005) presents a comprehensive professional development model that
can be applied to a variety of topics, skills, and practices. The stated goals for this needs-
based program are maximizing outcomes and sustaining practices (Lee, 2004-2005).
This program is self-described as a combination of traditional and reform methods of
professional development and incorporates a variety of instructional techniques including
activities that are interactive, collaborative, involve problem-solving, content-specific,
context-specific, and practical (Lee, 2004-2004). Lee explains that it is critical for any
89
professional development program to be directly related to the needs of the teachers
participating. Teachers who have participated in professional development for ICT
integration acknowledge the usefulness of resources that are applicable to their subject of
study (Lin, 2008).
A variety of strategies, as listed above, and a variety of organizational structures
(i.e. seminars, conferences, workshops, study groups, mentoring, and coaching) are
suggested alongside extended duration and adequate time allotment for activity
completion (Lee, 2004-2005). Lack of time is often identified as a factor in failure to
create lasting change from professional development information (Lin, 2008). Lee also
identifies that programs designed and implemented with teachers from the same school,
especially when provided at their school, are better able to facilitate discussions,
problem-solving, and enthusiasm. The first step in developing a professional
development program is to identify the needs of the teachers involved (Lee, 2004-2005).
Additionally, teachers should be included in the decision-making process, project goals
should correspond to teacher needs, collaborative groups of similar content and context
should be formed, and a connection between learning and practice must be established
(Lee, 2004-2005).
Glazer, et. al. (2005) explain the use of a professional development program
known as Collaborative Apprenticeship to encourage ICT integration. Collaborative
Apprenticeship exchanges ineffective, generic seminars for a form of professional
development that is continuous, on-site, and uses experienced teachers as mentors for
their colleagues (Glazer, et. al., 2005). This format allows for the experience to take
place in authentic environments that offer practical opportunities for practice and
90
immediate feedback on success (Glazer, et. al., 2005). Glazer, et. al. stress that
professional development programs need to be well-planned, well-organized, allow
opportunities to reflect and recognize success, and provide teachers with adequate
support. As teachers progress through the levels of ICT integration, the necessary
support lessens (Glazer, et. al., 2005). In order for Collaborative Apprenticeship to be
implemented, shared time and teacher commitment are necessary factors (Glazer, et. al.,
2005).
Teacher beliefs are also an important factor to consider given the nature of
technology and the hopes of ICT proponents that ICT integration will lead to
constructivist teaching methods (Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009). Kagan (1992) explains
that teacher beliefs are intensely private and are rarely altered through reading and
listening to research. Rather, true belief alterations require practical opportunities and
experienced successes (Kagan, 1992). According to Kagan, professional development
aimed at altering ingrained teacher beliefs must include several steps including: explicitly
stating beliefs, challenging the adequacy of beliefs, giving extended opportunities for
examining beliefs, and providing opportunities to integrate new knowledge into their
belief systems.
With regard to technology specifically, Waddoups, Wentworth, and Earle (2004)
identify the need for examples and experiences with lessons involving ICT integration.
However, many current professional development programs do not provide these
necessary opportunities and fail to move past lower-level uses of ICT in the classroom
(Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009). Also lacking are programs that are need-based and
offered at the appropriate step in progression for the teachers involved (Hixon and
91
Buckenmeyer, 2009; Levin & Wadmany, 2008). The work of Peck, et. al. (2002)
suggests that training students to aid in tech support can stretch limited resources while
providing necessary support to teachers and opportunities for growth for students.
Glazer, Hannafin, Polly, and Rich (2009) explored the factors and interactions
that influenced ICT integration through professional development. The premise is that
the failure of efforts involving ICT integration result from a lack of training in ICT
integration for instructional purposes (Glazer, et. al., 2009). Research demonstrates that
professional development for ICT integration should take place in the everyday
environments of the teachers who will be integrating the technology (Glazer, et. al.,
2009). The collaboration of teachers is essential to developing and maintaining a
community of practice that serves as a support network during integration attempts
(Glazer, et. al., 2009). Teacher-leaders with prior training are also a necessary
component to providing on-time support for novice innovators (Glazer, et. al., 2009).
Research demonstrates that these peer teachers develop relationships that are sustained
outside of allocated professional development time and provide various forms of support
to each other including advice, conflict resolution, comfort, brainstorming, motivating,
reinforcing, and modeling (Glazer, et. al., 2009).
According to Steketee (2005), professional development approaches to ICT
integration fall into one of four categories: skills development, pedagogical approach,
subject-specific approach, and practice-driven approach. When considering the
progressive nature of ICT skill acquisition, the first approach is appropriate for teachers
who lack basic ICT skills because they cannot move forward until they develop the
adequate skills to do so (Steketee, 2005). For teachers who have basic ICT skills, it is
92
necessary to provide adequate pedagogical training and belief system evaluation with the
goal of eventually moving toward subject-specific, practical professional development
opportunities (Steketee, 2005). True change and effective ICT integration is only
achieved in the higher levels of development (Steketee, 2005; Gimbert & Cristol, 2004).
Wright and Lesisko (2008) also identify the importance of professional development
being on-going and need-based in order to promote effectual change.
With regard to collaboration, Pascopella (2008) suggests the following guidelines:
high administrative expectations, inclusive acceptable use policy, team-building
opportunities, utilization of teacher-leaders, and streamlined site filtering. To review the
work of Scoolis (1999), staff development in ICT integration should include: recognizing
change as a process, identifying and focusing on what is needed most, giving teachers a
reason to use the technology, supporting existing activities, exchanging ideas, developing
training on-site, remaining focused, being patient, ensuring access, and providing
technical support. Chen and Chang (2006) remind of the necessity to ensure adequate
support during and after the professional development program, provide on-going
training, and match training to teacher needs. Demonstrations, assisting with setup, and
brainstorming are just a few of the ways that support for integration can be offered (Chen
& Chang, 2006). Additionally, some level of in-class support will likely be needed until
training has progressed far enough to ensure continuing change and integration (Chen &
Chang, 2006; Mueller, et. al., 2008).
Keengwe, et. al. (2008a) identify some responsibilities that teacher participants
have in professional development for ICT integration. Teachers must strive to
accomplish activities at their highest level (Keengwe, et. al., 2008a). Teachers should
93
create relationships between active learning and active teaching (Keengwe, et. al.,
2008a). Appreciation for the potential of technology and the power of effective
integration are essential for fueling the desire to accomplish integration tasks (Keengwe,
et. al., 2008a). Teachers should desire to develop leadership skills in order to become
role models for effective integration in their schools (Keengwe, et. al., 2008a). Working
to learn the benefits of technology and incorporate ICT into classroom activities in ways
that increase student motivation and learning are also essential teacher responsibilities
(Keengwe, et. al., 2008a). The most effective way to ensure teacher growth and change
with regard to ICT integration is to provide very specific ideas and resources for content-
relevant integration, support teachers in risk-taking and innovative use of ICT in the
classroom, and provide teachers the opportunities to experience personal successes with
ICT integration in their classrooms (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Mueller, et. al.,
2008; Levin & Wadmany, 2008).
Remember that the ultimate goal of professional development is actually to
increase or improve student learning (Polly & Hannafin, 2010). Professional
development aimed at this goal should focus on the content to be learned and evaluating
student learning, encourage teacher-ownership, help develop teacher knowledge of
content and pedagogy, establish opportunities for collaboration, remain ongoing in a
convenient location, and encourage teacher reflection and evaluation (Polly & Hannafin,
2010). Some research also suggests that adequate professional development for ICT
integration will also include practical advice for classroom management during the use of
computers and other ICT components (Erdoğan, Kursun, Tan Sіsman, Saltan, Gök, &
Yildiz, 2010).
94
Summary
Government policy and investments in ICT components promote ICT integration
in today‟s schools. It has been suggested that in order to adequately motivate and prepare
todays students for the twenty-first century, technology must be an essential component
in their education. Investigations of the historical use of ICT in classrooms illuminate the
limited state of ICT integration across the country. Investments in ICT components have
been spawned by the vast promises of ICT integration including creativity,
innovativeness, collaborative learning, intervention, and inquiry-learning. However,
most would agree that these promises are only fully realized alongside constructivist
pedagogy.
Constructivist pedagogy differs from traditional pedagogy in that it promotes
student-centered, inquiry learning. Benefits of constructivist pedagogy include the
tendency to promote higher-order thinking skills and collaborative learning. It is
believed that technology can be utilized to fuel and enhance constructivist learning.
Current ICT use falls short of fulfilling the promises of researchers, reformers, and
proponents of ICT integration. Additionally, the challenges of integrating ICT into
classrooms present seemingly insurmountable barriers for classroom teachers.
ICT integration is a complex phenomenon involving a significant number of
interacting school, technological, administrative, student, and teacher factors. Teachers
have often taken the blame for the lack of ICT integration due to their integral role in
effective integration. Teachers ultimately have the final say in what activities occur in
the classroom and their beliefs, attitudes, self-efficacy, innovativeness, and skill levels
are just a few of the factors that influence their decisions. Additionally, these factors
95
interact with the school, technological, administrative, and student factors for a nearly
endless set of possible circumstances as unique as each individual teacher. Teachers
must be equipped, empowered, and encouraged to include ICT in their instructional
repertoire.
In order to reach this goal, adequate professional development programs must be
established on-site, allowing for convenience, practicality, and extended duration. While
professional development will only address the teacher factors involved in integration, it
is an essential step toward ICT integration. Professional development should meet the
individual needs of teachers involved in the program and aid them in their progression
through the stages of ICT integration. Adequate professional development must be need-
based, continuous, on-site, and content-specific. It should offer practical, hands-on
experience and be supplemented by adequate support from colleagues, administrators,
and technical staff.
96
III. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Phase One
Objectives:
The implementer will identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current school
culture toward large-scale ICT integration.
The implementer will identify and recruit optimal teacher-mentor candidates.
The implementer will work alongside administration and teacher-mentors to
develop a school vision for ICT integration.
This phase will be carried out through a series of meetings with appropriate
stakeholders.
Procedures:
Complete a school-wide survey of all teachers (Appendix I).
Carry out interviews with select teachers who have been identified as possible
candidates for teacher-mentors.
Develop school-wide vision and support for ICT integration through a series of
meetings with administration, teacher-mentors, and other stakeholders.
Present the vision and plan to the greater school community (i.e. teachers, staff,
parents, students, donors, and other stakeholders).
Phase Two
Objectives:
The implementer will train teacher-mentors in more advanced computer skills,
constructivist ICT integration, and mentorship responsibilities.
97
The implementer will establish streamlined network and Internet access for
teacher-mentors.
Teacher-mentors will explicitly define their core beliefs.
Teacher-mentors will design lessons that employ constructivist teaching methods
alongside ICT integration.
Teacher-mentors will explore the advanced features of common production
software.
Teacher-mentors will establish a support network among themselves.
Teacher-mentors will create a bank of lesson resources.
Teacher-mentors will build classroom websites to facilitate ICT integration in
their classrooms.
This phase will be carried out in two parts: a seven to ten day intensive summer seminar
followed by monthly meetings of four to six hours throughout the school year.
Procedures:
Prior to the start of the intensive summer seminar, the implementer should limit
Internet/website blockers and filters on teacher-mentor computers and/or provide
access codes to all teacher-mentors.
Day One
What makes a leader/mentor?
Teacher-mentors participate in a brainstorming discussion of
characteristics found in a quality mentor or leader.
Teacher-mentors will work in pairs to use an online concordance/word
study to create a biblical picture of leadership/mentorship.
98
Teacher-mentors discuss their findings as a group.
The implementer uses a prepared sample to give a 10-15 minute mini-
lesson on the basic features of the software program Inspiration.
Teacher-mentors use the program to create a visual representation of the
key question and practical applications of character/leadership traits.
Survey: Belief Meets Action (Appendix II)
Teacher-mentors complete a survey to help identify their core beliefs and
the beliefs their actions show.
Teacher-mentors generate lists of teaching and learning activities they
would identify as components of constructivist or traditional teaching.
The implementer should guide a discussion if any activities need to be
moved to a different category and add any missed components to the
appropriate category.
The implementer should guide teacher-mentors as they go over their
surveys in small groups and discuss any discrepancies that are identified.
Microsoft Word Project
Teacher-mentors select a topic from their subject area and create a review
sheet, test, or sample student project that involves the use of tables,
textboxes, and graphics.
Day Two
Lesson Comparison
One-half of the teacher-mentors work to create a traditional lesson on a
topic from their field of study.
99
One-half of the teacher-mentors work to create a constructivist lesson
from their field of study.
Each group of teacher-mentors teaches their lesson to the remaining half
of teacher-mentors.
Teacher-mentors compare and contrast the perceived benefits and
challenges of each teaching type.
Microsoft Publisher Project
Teacher-mentors make a poster that could be used during a unit of
instruction that they will teach during the next school year.
Teacher-mentors take a field trip to a local copy center where they have
their posters printed and explore the other printing, binding, and
presentation options that the center offers.
Day Three
Constructivism meets ICT
Teacher-mentors review the basic tenants of constructivism and ICT
integration.
Unit Creation
Teacher-mentors individually prepare to teach a unit during the first month
of school using primarily constructivist teaching strategies. One
requirement is that ICT components be used for at least 50 percent of the
unit activities.
Teacher-mentors participate in a progress discussion halfway through the
day‟s time and at the end of the day‟s time.
100
The implementer should provide support as needed throughout the unit
planning and preparation.
Day Four
Non-linear Microsoft PowerPoint Project
The implementer presents a sample non-linear PowerPoint and quickly
reviews the necessary features of Microsoft PowerPoint.
Teacher-mentors develop one non-linear kiosk PowerPoint activity for
learning a new concept.
Teacher-mentors develop one non-linear kiosk PowerPoint activity to be
used for review purposes.
Microsoft PowerPoint Review
Teacher-mentors trade PowerPoint activities. They explore their partner‟s
activity and complete a review of the activity.
Teacher-mentors discuss strengths and weaknesses identified in the
activities, planning for the activities, and preparation of the activities.
Unit Creation
Teacher-mentors discuss their progress on the creation of their unit plans.
Teacher-mentors work together to resolve any problems their colleagues
are encountering in creating their plan or materials.
101
Day Five
Building a Resource Bank
The implementer briefly shares Internet search strategies with the teacher-
mentors and invites their input into search strategies they have found
effective.
The implementer shares some sample resources (i.e. you-tube downloader,
InfoOhio, ITunes, Intel AppUp, etc.) with the teacher-mentors.
Treasure Hunt for Resources
Teacher-mentors embark on a treasure hunt for electronic resources.
Teacher-mentors participate in a progress discussion halfway through the
day‟s time and at the end of the day‟s time. Teacher-mentors are
encouraged to work together and share findings throughout the time they
are searching for resources as well.
The implementer should provide support as needed throughout the
resource treasure hunt.
Electronic Resource Treasury
Teacher-mentors organize a searchable resource treasury online and/or on
their computers. Items categorized on individual computers should be
backed up to a flash drive and CD as well.
Software Suggestions
Teacher-mentors and the implementer work together to prepare a list of
software suggestions.
102
The implementer presents the software suggestions to administration for
budgetary consideration.
Day Six
Windows Movie Maker Project
Special Note: Another video application (i.e. IMovie) could also be used.
The implementer goes over features and basic use of the video application
selected.
Teacher-mentors discuss possible classroom uses and applications.
Teacher-mentors develop a video for classroom use. View some of the
videos as time allows.
Teacher-mentors discuss the feasibility of aiding students in the creation
of their own videos to demonstrate learning. The implementer shares a
sample video submitted by a student for a fifth grade history project.
Day Seven+
Classroom Web Site Creation
Teacher-mentors will create a classroom website. Currently, three options
seem most viable for this task.
Option 1: Teachers can utilize the online site weebly.com
free of charge to use templates and design a viable website
for their classroom.
Option 2: Teachers can utilize Microsoft Word or another
software program (i.e. Dreamweaver) to create a custom
web page. That web page can then be hosted on
103
ipage.com or bluehost.com and the teacher will be
reimbursed for the monthly expense through the school.
Option 3: Teachers can utilize Microsoft Word or another
software program (i.e. Dreamweaver) to create a custom
web page. That web page can then be hosted as a part of
our school website.
Business Card Project and Printing
Teacher-mentors use Microsoft Publisher to design and print personal
business cards.
Monthly Meetings
The implementer should be prepared to provide technical and networking support
for setup and implementation of units involving extensive ICT integration
throughout the first month of the school year.
Initial Meeting
Teacher-mentors discuss and review their unit implementation including:
strengths and weaknesses perceived, difficulties encountered, and successes
experienced.
Teacher-mentors identify a lesson or unit to use ICT integration with during the
next month. Teacher-mentors should video tape one lesson and bring it with them
to the next meeting.
104
Subsequent Meetings
Lesson Review and Discussion
Teacher-mentors view each others‟ videos and identify constructivist and
traditional teaching elements in each lesson.
Teacher-mentors discuss strengths and weaknesses of lessons viewed.
Struggles and Solutions
Teacher-mentors identify struggles encountered in unit implementation
and brainstorm solutions together.
Ideas and Resources
Teacher-mentors share new ideas or resources they have discovered and
add to their resource treasuries.
Preparation for Next Meeting
Teacher-mentors identify lessons or units to attempt ICT integration in for
the next month. Teacher-mentors should video tape one lesson and bring
it with them to the next meeting.
Last Meeting of the Year
Teacher-mentors identify and discuss the successes they have experienced
throughout the school year with ICT integration.
Teacher-mentors discuss and evaluate the experience as a whole.
Teacher-mentors review the role of a mentor/leader.
The implementer should remain available for support as needed throughout the
program.
105
Phase Three
Objectives:
Non-use and limited-use teachers will develop basic computer skills and be
encouraged to practice these skills for practical purposes.
This phase will be implemented through bi-monthly meetings during the school year.
Phase three can be implemented before phase two has been completed. Teachers who
fall into the categories of non-use and limited-use may require administrative directives
to encourage initial participation.
Procedures:
The implementer must be certain that adequate support from technical staff,
administration, and teacher-mentors is conveniently available as activities are
implemented in order to allow these teachers to experience success when utilizing
technology.
Basic E-mail Skills
The implementer provides training in basic e-mail skills using the First
Class program utilized by the school district.
The implementer requires daily e-mail contact between themselves and the
teacher participants for the next two weeks.
The implementer requires twice weekly contact for the two weeks
following the previous step.
School-wide Grading and Communication Program
The implementer provides training and set-up assistance for the
Cornerstone grading and communication program utilized by the school.
106
Teachers use Cornerstone for tracking attendance and grades.
Teachers use Cornerstone for accessing communication information for
students, parents, and colleagues.
The implementer provides continued support on an as needed basis
throughout the school year.
Microsoft Word
The implementer provides basic training and support throughout the
project.
Teachers use the basic features of Microsoft Word to make and submit
lesson plans for the next four weeks.
Linear Microsoft PowerPoint
The implementer provides basic training and support throughout the
project.
Teachers use the basic features of Microsoft PowerPoint, including clip
art, pictures, text boxes, templates, and design, to create a devotional slide
show over the next two weeks and share their slide show on their next date
to lead faculty devotional time.
Basic Internet Searching
The implementer shares basic search strategies when using standard
Internet search engines.
Teachers create a list of websites in their favorites that could be used as
resources for them professionally or as resources for their students.
107
Phase Four
Objectives:
Teachers with personal and professional ICT proficiency will begin to utilize ICT
in the classroom for instructional purposes.
Teachers who participate in this phase will be prepared to complete phase one of
this program upon their satisfactory completion of phase four.
This phase will be carried out in two parts: a three to four day intensive summer seminar
followed by monthly meetings of four to six hours throughout the school year. This phase
may be implemented over several stages as necessary and may be done as a requirement
or on a voluntary basis.
Procedures:
Prior to the start of the intensive summer seminar, the implementer should limit
Internet/website blockers and filters on teacher computers and/or provide access
codes to all teachers participating in the program.
Day One
The implementer should arrange for trained teacher-mentors to interact with
teachers and participate in this activity alongside participants.
Building a Resource Bank
The implementer briefly shares Internet search strategies with the teachers
and invites their input into search strategies they have found effective.
The implementer shares some sample resources (i.e. you-tube downloader,
InfoOhio, ITunes, Intel AppUp, etc.) with the teachers.
108
Treasure Hunt for Resources
Teachers embark on a treasure hunt for electronic resources.
The implementer and teacher-mentors should provide support as needed
throughout the resource treasure hunt.
Teacher-mentors share some of their positive experiences with technology in the
classroom and learning to effectively integrate ICT into their classroom.
The implementer facilitates a question and answer time between teacher
participants and teacher-mentors.
Days Two and Three
Teachers identify a unit or short series of lessons they would like to attempt ICT
integration with during the first two months of school.
Suggestions for Unit Selection:
Teachers select a subject and topic they are confident and
comfortable teaching.
Teachers select technology programs they are confident with and
their students possess the skills to implement.
Teachers complete the I inventory for their planned unit. Teachers discuss and
adjust their unit based on their findings from the I5 inventory.
The implementer matches up teacher-mentors with teacher participants.
Teachers develop and prepare for a unit plan with guidance and support from the
implementer and teacher-mentors.
109
Day Four
Teachers discuss the pros and cons of their experience planning a unit that
contains ICT integration.
The implementer facilitates an open-forum discussion of planned units.
The implementer facilitates a discussion of anticipated struggles with
implementation and possible solutions to these struggles.
Monthly Meetings
The implementer and teacher-mentors should be prepared to provide technical and
networking support for setup and implementation of units involving ICT
integration throughout the first two months of the school year.
Initial Meeting
Teachers discuss and review their unit implementation including: strengths and
weaknesses perceived, difficulties encountered, and successes experienced.
Teachers identify a lesson or unit to use ICT integration with during the next
month. Teachers should video tape one lesson and bring it with them to the next
meeting.
Subsequent Meetings
Lesson Review and Discussion
Teachers view each others‟ videos and discuss strengths and weaknesses
of lessons viewed.
Struggles and Solutions
Teachers identify struggles encountered in unit implementation and
brainstorm solutions together.
110
Ideas and Resources
Teachers share new ideas or resources they have discovered and add to
their resource treasuries.
Preparation for Next Meeting
Teachers identify lessons or units to attempt ICT integration in for the next
month. Teachers should video tape one lesson and bring it with them to
the next meeting.
Last Meeting of the Year
Teachers identify and discuss the successes they have experienced throughout the
school year with ICT integration.
Teachers discuss and evaluate the experience as a whole.
Teachers are interviewed for possible participation in the teacher-mentor training
phase.
The implementer should remain available for support as needed throughout the
program.
Phase Five
Objectives:
Phase five of this program facilitates ongoing and continuous training and growth
in effective ICT integration.
Procedures:
Re-implement each phase of the professional development program as time,
interest, and need arise.
111
IV. DISCUSSION
The need for adequate professional development for effective ICT integration is
well-established and extensively outlined in chapter two of this thesis, but the individual
decisions made in the creation of this professional development program may be less
obvious. The program begins with a survey of teachers in order to ascertain the current
school culture with regard to ICT integration. This survey is followed by meetings with
administration and teacher-leaders to establish a school vision for ICT integration. The
purpose of this survey is to make teachers, administrators, and other stake-holders aware
of the prevailing school culture. If this is ignored, the implementer may be setting the
program up for failure. According to Chaptal (2002), an existing school culture that does
not promote ICT integration can significantly hinder attempts by individual teachers to
integrate ICT into their classrooms. Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) identify school
culture as a first-order barrier to integration.
The purpose of including administrators and teachers in the development of a
school-wide vision for ICT integration is two-fold. First, it is important to include
teachers in the decision-making process (Tuck, 2004). Secondly, it ensures that the
administration will be behind efforts to increase ICT integration. According to Keengwe,
et. al. (2008a), administrative support plays an essential role in ICT integration. Tondeur,
et. al. (2009) also identifies the importance of effective leadership to perpetuating
effective ICT integration. From my own observations, I hypothesize that the current
school culture would support ICT integration, but would hesitate to embrace it in its most
effective form- alongside constructivist pedagogy. The school currently relies heavily
112
upon the purchased textbooks and workbooks for instruction, with the promotion of
reading as many text pages and completing as many workbook pages as possible. It is
my belief that this stems from an era when the school was growing and many of the
teachers were not specifically trained in education and more traditional teaching methods
were the norm.
Despite this fact, the administration and school board have demonstrated a strong
desire to see the school grow in more dynamic forms of teaching through professional
development. Recently, they have demonstrated a willingness to rely more heavily upon
the expertise of individual teachers than on the purchased textbooks. They also have a
strong desire to see the school become technologically equipped and have developed a
long term technology plan for reaching this goal. Additionally, they consciously invest in
technology each year in an attempt to move toward those goals. Because of these
actions, I believe that the administration and school board would be very interested in the
information contained in this thesis and support the program that is based on the research
completed. Although it would only be solidified after budgetary considerations, the
administration would also consider budgetary investments in the program. Essentially,
the purpose of the first phase of this professional development program is to evaluate and
create a school culture that supports and encourages ICT integration. It is important to
minimize the obstacles that teachers will encounter if the program is to be effective in
empowering them to increase ICT integration in their classrooms.
The final objective of the first phase is to identify teacher-mentor candidates. It is
apparent from the research that having strategically placed and trained mentor teachers
can provide the necessary support for hesitant teachers to attempt ICT integration in their
113
classrooms and experience success with their initial attempts at integration (Glazer, et.
al., 2005). Glazer, et. al. identified this model of professional development as
Collaborative Apprenticeship. Part of the survey will identify those teachers who already
possess advanced computer skills and have taken at least the initial steps of
experimenting with ICT integration in their classrooms. The interview will serve to
identify those teachers who are willing to broaden their understanding of effective ICT
integration in the classroom and serve as mentors to help support other teachers in their
attempts to integrate ICT into their classrooms. Because of the significant time
investment, these teachers would need to participate on a voluntary basis. Teachers could
be encouraged to participate in the program through a small stipend offered by the school
or the opportunity to earn CEUs for participation in the program. As an accredited
school, we are able to work with ACSI to host professional development meetings that
allow teachers to earn CEUs upon their approval. Ideally, both high school and
elementary teachers would be represented during this phase of the program.
The objectives of the second phase of the professional development program
focus on preparing the teacher-mentors. First, these teachers must be trained in how to be
an effective mentor. This is to ensure that they are able to adequately support their
colleagues in the next portion of the professional development program. Because this
program is designed specifically for a Christian school, it is desirable that a biblical
understanding of leadership be gained before these teachers serve as mentors to their
colleagues. Availability and access to support is essential for the majority of teachers to
experience success (Groff & Mouza, 2008). The importance of adequate support is also
114
the justification for encouraging the teacher-mentors to build a support network among
themselves.
Secondly, web access and network access should be streamlined for these
teachers, including the provision of access codes to bypass blockers. The teachers should
be men and women of integrity and limited access often provides undue frustration when
planning for lessons that involve ICT integration. For example, an interactive website on
the Civil War may be blocked because it is considered a “game” or because of the words
“war” or “guns” when it is actually a very suitable site for students. Streamlining access
for teachers provides them with the ability to make decisions for their specific needs. As
established in chapter two of this thesis project, unpredictability is one hindrance to ICT
integration in the classroom.
Possibly the most important objective of phase two is the development of teachers
who utilize ICT integration in its most powerful form, ICT integration alongside
constructivist pedagogy (Hopson, et. al., 2001-2002; Keengwe, et. al., 2008b). Included
in phase four of this professional development is the objective that teachers will be
prepared to go through the phase two training once they have completed phase four- the
ultimate goal being that these teachers too would be able to utilize ICT integration in
their classrooms alongside constructivist pedagogy. As a part of this objective, the
implementer will attempt to utilize constructivist teaching methods for a majority of the
professional development program in order to establish an effective example for the
teachers (Prensky, 2008). Kagan (1992) identifies the importance of helping teachers to
make their internal beliefs explicit to facilitate effective evaluation of those beliefs.
115
Additionally, teachers must understand and experience the benefits of constructivist
pedagogy (Wentworth & Earle, 2003; Bebell, et. al., 2004; Pasco & Adcock, 2007).
The inclusion of training in common production software, creation of a bank of
lesson resources, and creation of a classroom website are also included in this phase of
the professional development program. Certainly, it is important to recognize that the
specific software programs were included because of their current availability to the
school this program was designed for and their general popularity in educational and
other arenas, rather than because of specific research carried out on these programs.
Because these teachers already possess a working knowledge of technology, the
experiences contained in this professional development program will be needs-based
(Lee, 2004-2005; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Wright & Lesisko, 2008) by
focusing on more advanced features of the included software. Additionally, the inclusion
of this element in the program will ensure that these teachers are confident when
facilitating lessons in their classrooms that include the use of these programs and
providing support to the teachers they will mentor in the future (Groff & Mouza, 2008;
Mueller, et. al., 2008; Chen & Chang, 2006; Van Braak, et. al., 2004).
The creation of a bank of lesson resources and a classroom website are for
organizational purposes and to facilitate future ICT integration while simultaneously
providing opportunities for the building of a support network between the teacher-
mentors. While many of these resources in the resource treasury may be included in each
teacher‟s website, my vision for this bank of resources is that teachers will locate not only
links to websites, but also pictures, videos, and other documents that the teachers can
access quickly for use in their classrooms and lesson preparations. For this reason,
116
teachers will organize the resources they find in a series of subject and chapter folders.
Hyperlinks to websites will be kept in a word document with a brief description, again
sorted by subject and chapter. The desired links would also be included on the teacher‟s
website for student access and use. Three options have been listed for the website
creation. I believe that option number one will be the most viable for timeframe, cost,
and ease of use. However, it is important to note that if teachers prefer to use either
option two or three, we would have easy access to trained individuals and support teams
for using a web host to publish these sites.
Finally, the decision to include a combination of an intensive summer seminar
session and meetings throughout the school year is two-fold: it takes advantage of the
current school schedule without overwhelming teachers and facilitates on-going training
and support (Wright & Lesisko, 2008; Chen & Chang, 2006). The purpose of the video-
taped lessons is to allow teachers to see their internal beliefs in action (Lim & Chai,
2008; Russell, et. al., 2003). Discussions and reviews of lessons allow for continuous
improvement in lessons involving ICT integration and provide support for teachers who
are attempting to integrate ICT alongside constructivist pedagogy.
The purpose of phase three of this professional development program is to meet
the individual needs of non-use and limited-use teachers. One of the most important
characteristics of effective professional development is that it is needs-based (Lee, 2004-
2005; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Wright & Lesisko, 2008). These teachers
need to be met where they are at and eased into ICT use rather than being thrust into
attempting integration before they are ready. Hixon & Buckenmeyer (2009) explain that
teachers who are at this point may require administrative directives in order to encourage
117
initial participation. The elements included in this phase are designed to help these
teachers learn to complete commonly required professional tasks more efficiently without
overwhelming them.
Phase four of this professional development program is designed to meet the
needs of the majority of classroom teachers, as they are expected to fall based on
government reports about the current use of ICT in classrooms (Tuck, 2004). These
teachers have a working knowledge of computers and frequently use them for
professional tasks, but for any of a variety of reasons they have not yet implemented ICT
into learning activities in their classrooms (Chaptal, 2002; Peck, et. al., 2002; Kromhout
& Butzin, 1993; Cuban, 1994; Kurt, 2010). Research recognizes that teachers move
through phases with regard to ICT integration (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010), thus the focus of this phase of the program is to encourage
success with ICT integration. As a result, this phase will not focus on constructivist
pedagogy, though the implementer will continue to use constructivist pedagogy as an
example of its effectiveness.
The activities included in phase four of this professional development program
will be completed alongside the teacher-mentors to foster relationships between the
teacher-mentors and their colleagues who are participating in this phase of the program.
Teachers will develop lessons with support that will enable them to experience success
with ICT integration. The use of the I5 inventory to aid in decision-making is included to
equip teachers to make effective decisions about ICT integration in their classrooms
(Groff & Mouza, 2008).
118
The remaining elements included in phase four of this professional development
program correlate strongly with the elements included in phase two of this program and
the reasons identified for that phase should be included here also. The inclusion of
training in common production software and the creation of a bank of lesson resources
are both also included in this phase of the professional development program. Again, it is
important to recognize that the specific software programs were included because of their
current availability to the school this program was designed for and their general
popularity in educational and other arenas, rather than because of specific research
carried out on these programs. The creation of a bank of lesson resources was scaled
down for this portion of the program due to the needs of the individual teachers involved,
but is still included to foster organization, encourage ideas, and develop relationships
between teachers and teacher-mentors.
Finally, the decision to include a combination of an intensive summer seminar
session and meetings throughout the school year is two-fold: it takes advantage of the
current school schedule without overwhelming teachers and facilitates on-going training
and support (Wright & Lesisko, 2008; Chen & Chang, 2006). The purpose of the video-
taped lessons is to allow teachers to identify successes and struggles with ICT
implementation in their classrooms (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Groff &
Mouza, 2008; Mueller, et. al., 2008; Levin & Wadmany, 2008).
Research strongly indicates that the most effective professional development
programs are on-site, on-going, and needs-based (Lee, 2004-2005; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010; Wright & Lesisko, 2008; Chen & Chang, 2006). This understanding of
adequate professional development was the driving force behind the development of this
119
program. This understanding of professional development was combined with research
on constructivist pedagogy and ICT integration to create a professional development
program that will equip, empower, and encourage teachers to effectively integrate ICT in
their classroom in ways that enhance the learning experience for their students.
Given the yearly investments in technology at this school and the school‟s
expressed desire to equip and inspire their students to become future leaders in their
community, this professional development initiative will be a significant step forward in
being good stewards of the resources the teachers have available to them. It will benefit
the students of this school by equipping their teachers to create engaging, authentic
lessons using best practice pedagogy. Students will learn skills necessary to participate
efficiently and effectively in the Information Age. Additionally, teachers will experience
a professional development program designed specifically for them. This program will
give them valuable ICT skills, stimulate their innovativeness, establish collaborative
discussions with colleagues, and provide ample opportunities for assessing their success
in the classroom. Most importantly, it will enable them to use all of the tools available to
them to provide their students with the best possible learning experiences.
Whenever attempts are made to require more time of hard-working teachers, some
resistance is to be expected. It will be important to help teachers see the value of this
program for their professional lives and the lives of their students. If too much resistance
is encountered, it may be more effective to begin the program with a smaller number of
volunteer teachers rather than a school-wide initiative. Feedback from this initial group
of teachers would provide valuable insight for future implementations of this program
and the development of other on-site professional development programs.
120
REFERENCES
Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., et.
al. (2008). A study of educational simulations part 1-engagement and learning.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19, 397-419.
Al-Fudail, M. & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when using technology.
Computers & Education, 51, 1103-1110.
Allen, L. (2008, April). The technology implications of „A Nation at Risk‟. Phi Delta
Kappan, 608-610.
Ayas, C. (2006). An examination of the relationship between the integration of
technology into social studies and constructivist pedagogies. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 5, article 2.
Baek, Y. K. (2008). What hinders teachers in using computer and video games in the
classroom? Exploring factors inhibiting the uptake of computer and video games.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 665-671.
Baker, E. A. (2007). Elementary classroom web sites. Journal of Literacy Research, 39,
1-36.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O‟Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers‟ technology uses:
Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 37, 45-63.
Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (2000). The influence of computer and internet use on
teachers‟ pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 31, 356-384.
121
Becker, J. D. (2006). Digital equity in education: A multilevel examination of differences
in and relationships between computer access, computer use and state-level
technology policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(3), 1-38.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000, May). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 28-33.
Blagojevic, B. (2003). Funding technology: Does it make cents? Young Children, 58(6),
28-33.
Boling, E. C., & Beatty, J. (2010). Cognitive apprenticeship in computer-mediated
feedback: Creating a classroom environment to increase feedback and learning.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 47-65.
Buckenmeyer, J.A. (2010). Beyond computers in the classroom: Factors related to
technology adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in
Education Research, 3(4), 27-35.
Butzin, S. M. (2000). Project CHILD: A decade of success for young children. T.H.E.
Journal, 27(11), 90-94.
Butzin, S. M. (2001). Using instructional technology in transformed learning
environments: An evaluation of Project CHILD. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 33, 367-373.
Butzin, S. M. (2002). Project CHILD: The perfect fit for multimedia elementary schools.
Multimedia Schools, 9(6), 14-16.
Cady, D., & Terrell, S. R. (2007-2008). The effect of the integration of computing
technology in a science curriculum on female students‟ self-efficacy attitudes.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36, 277-286.
122
Callister, T. A. Jr., & Dunne, F. (1993). The computer as a doorstop: Technology as
disempowerment. Education Digest, 58(9), 4-7.
Carnevale, D. (2004). Report says educational technology has failed to deliver on its
promises. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(43), A30.
Casey, J. M. (2008, June/July). Students „power down‟ for school: Technology left
behind. Reading Today.
Casey, J. M. (2010). Students power down and dumb down for school: A commentary.
The California Reader, 43(2), 19-22.
Chaptal, A. (2002). Is the investment really worth it? Education Media International, 87-
99.
Chen, C.-H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102, 65-75.
Chen, J.-Q. & Chang, C. (2006). Using computers in early childhood classrooms:
Teachers‟ attitudes, skills and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4,
169-188.
Choi, I., Lee, S. J., & Jung, J. W. (2008). Designing multimedia case-based instruction
accommodating students‟ diverse learning styles. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 5-25.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003, November). Young children and technology: What
does the research say? Young Children, 34-40.
Cuban, L. (1994). Computers meet classroom: Who wins? Education Digest, 59(7), 50-
53.
123
Cuban, L. (1999a, January). High-tech schools, low-tech teaching. The Education Digest,
53-54.
Cuban, L. (1999b). The technology puzzle. Education Week, 18(43), 68-69.
Cuban, L. (2000). Is spending money on technology worth it? Education Week, 19(24),
42.
Cuban, L. (2006, June). Centennial Reflections: Getting past futile pedagogical wars. Phi
Delta Kappan, 793-795.
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, 813-834.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of
education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32,
279-307.
Cummings, D., & Buzzard, C. (2002, November/December). Technology, students, and
faculty…how to make it happen! Techniques, 30-33.
Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology
enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in
comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 51, 474-483.
Dictionary.com. Hardware. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hardware.
Retrieved: December 10, 2010.
Dictionary.com. Internet. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet. Retrieved:
December 10, 2010.
124
Dictionary.com. Software. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/software. Retrieved:
December 10, 2010.
Donaldson, J. A. (2009). Definition to Practice: Translating the definition into a
standards-based IT program. TechTrends, 53(5), 29-33.
Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the
use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31,
71-103.
Englert, C. S., Manalo, M., and Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The
effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers‟ composition. Journal
of Special Education Technology, 19, 5-21.
Erdoğan, M., Kursun, E., Tan Sisman, G., Saltan, F., Gök, A., & Yildiz, I. (2010). A
qualitative study on classroom management and classroom discipline problems,
reasons, and solutions: A case of information technologies class. Educational
Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10, 881-891.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42, 255-284.
Fazarinc, Z., Divjak, S., Korošec, D., Holobar, A., Divjak, M., & Zazula, D. (2003).
Quest for effective use of computer technology in education: From natural
sciences to medicine. Using Computer Technologies in Education and Training,
116-131.
125
Ferneding, K. A. (2003). Alternative visions: Questioning technocentrism. Questioning
Technology: Electronic Technologies and Educational Reform, 41-87. Retrieved
December 1, 2010, from Education Research Complete database.
Fletcher, D. (2006). Technology integration: Do they or don‟t they? A self-report survey
from preK through 5
th
grade professional educators. Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 14, 207-219.
Frye, N. E., & Dornisch, M. M. (2007-2008). Teacher technology use and student
evaluations: The moderating role of content area. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 36, 305-317.
Gall, M., & Breeze, N. (2008). Music and eJay: An opportunity for creative collaboration
in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 27-40.
Gentry, J. (2008). E-publishing‟s impact on learning in an inclusive sixth grade social
studies classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19, 455-467.
Gimbert, B., & Cristol, D. (2004). Teaching curriculum with technology: Enhancing
children‟s technological competence during early childhood. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 31, 207-216.
Glazer, E. M., Hannafin, M. J., Polly, D., & Rich, P. (2009). Factors and interactions
influencing technology integration during situated professional development in an
elementary school. Computers in the Schools, 26, 21-39.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through
collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research & Development,
53(4), 57-67.
126
Gordan, J. P., & Still, K. L. (2007). Becoming a techno-teacher: Deal me in. Ohio
Journal of English Language Arts, 47, 20-27.
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom
technology use. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
Journal, 16, 21-46.
Gülbahar, Y. (2008). Improving the technology integration skills of prospective teachers
through practice: A case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 7, 71-81.
Guo, R. X., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants: An
analysis of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 38, 235-254.
Häkkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design of computer-based learning environments.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 461-469.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers‟ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393-416.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary
school teachers‟ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers.
Computers & Education, 51, 1499-1509.
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools:
Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26, 130-
146.
127
Hlynka, D., & Jacobsen, M. (2009). What is educational technology, anyway? A
commentary on the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, 35(2), 9.
Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001-2002). Using a technology-
enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 34, 109-119.
Januszewski, A. (2005). Definition and Terminology Committee. Tech Trends, 50, 10.
Järvelä, S., Veermans, M., & Leinonen, P. (2008). Investigating student engagement in
computer-supported inquiry: A process-oriented analysis. Social Psychology of
Education: An International Journal, 11, 299-322.
Joshi, A., Pan, A., Murakami, M., & Narayanan, S. (2010). Role of computers in
educating young children: U.S. and Japanese teachers‟ perspectives. Computers in
the Schools, 27, 5-19.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27, 65-90.
Kazanci, Z., & Okan, Z. (2009). Evaluating English language teaching software for kids:
Education or entertainment or both? The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 8(3), 30-38.
Karchmer-Klein, R. (2007). Audience awareness and internet publishing: A qualitative
analysis of factors influencing how fourth graders write electronic text. Action in
Teacher Education, 29(2), 39-50.
128
Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures:
cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 56, 539-556.
Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students‟
perceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. Journal of
Information Technology Education, 6, 169-180.
Keengwe, J., & Anyanwu, L. O. (2007). Computer technology-infused learning
enhancement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 387-393.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008a). Computer technology integration and
student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17, 560-565.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008b). The use of computer tools to support
meaningful learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education Journal, 16, 77-92.
Klieger, A., Ben-Hur, Y., & Bar-Yossef, N. (2010). Integrating laptop computers into
classroom: Attitudes, needs, and professional development of science teachers- a
case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 187-198.
Kromhout, O. M., & Butzin, S. M. (1993). Integrating computers into the elementary
school curriculum: An evaluation of nine Project CHILD model schools. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 55-69.
Kurt, S. (2010). Technology use in elementary education in Turkey: A case study. New
Horizons in Education, 58, 65-76.
129
Labbo, L. D. (2007). Living in the promised land…or can old and new literacies live
happily ever after in the classroom? College Reading Association Yearbook, 28,
20-30.
Lee, H. J. (2004-2005). Developing a professional development program model based on
teacher‟s needs. The Professional Educator, 27, 39-49.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers‟ views on factors affecting effective
integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 233-263.
Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers‟ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and
conduct of computer-mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39, 807-828.
Lin, C. Y. (2008). Beliefs about using technology in the mathematics classroom:
Interviews with pre-service elementary teachers. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 4, 135-142.
Loveless, T. (1996). Why aren‟t computers used more in schools? Educational Policy,
10, 448-467.
Lunenberg, F. C. (1998). Constructivism and technology: Instructional designs for
successful education reform. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 75-81.
MacBride, R., & Luehmann, A. L. (2008). Capitalizing on emerging technologies: A case
study of classroom blogging. School Science and Mathematics, 108, 173-183.
Mainka, C. (2007). Putting staff first in staff development for the effective use of
technology in teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 158-160.
130
Mautone, J. A., DuPaul, G. J., & Jitendra, A. K. (2005). The effects of computer-assisted
instruction on the mathematics performance and classroom behavior of children
with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 301-312.
Mavrou, K., Lewis, A., & Douglas, G. (2010). Researching computer-based collaborative
learning in inclusive classrooms in Cyprus: The role of the computer in pupils‟
interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 486-501.
Maynard, R. (2010). Computers and young children. Canadian Children, 35, 15-18.
McKenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic
transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading
& Writing Quarterly, 15, 111-126.
Milliron, M. D., & Miles, C. L. (1999). Aha! The Internet changes nothing. Supplement
Technology, 11(18), 3-5.
Mokhtari, K., Kymes, A., & Edwards, P. (2008). Assessing the new literacies of online
reading comprehension: An informative interview with W. Ian O‟Byrne, Lisa
Zawilinski, J. Greg McVerry, and Donald J. Leu at the University of Connecticut.
The Reading Teacher, 62, 354-357.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying
discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and
teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51, 1523-1537.
Neo, M. (2005). Web-enhanced learning: Engaging students in constructivist learning.
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22, 4-14.
Neo, T.-K., & Neo, M. (2004). Innovation: Engaging students in interactive multimedia
learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 21, 118-124.
131
Okan, Z. (2007, May). Towards a critical theory of educational technology. Paper
presented at the International Educational Technology Conference, Nicosia,
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
O‟Neil, J. (2000, April). Fads and fireflies: The difficulties of sustaining change.
Educational Leadership, 6-9.
Partington, A. (2010). Game literacy, gaming cultures and media education. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9, 73-86.
Pasco, B., & Adcock, P. G. (2007). New rules, new roles: Technology standards and
teacher education. Educational Considerations, 34(2), 29-31.
Pascopella, A. (2008). Web tools: The second generation. District Administration, 44(6),
54-58.
Pearman, C. J. (2008). Independent reading of CD-ROM storybooks: Measuring
comprehension with oral retellings. Reading Teacher, 61, 594-602.
Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002, April). High-tech‟s high hopes meet
student realities. Phi Delta Kappan, 47-54.
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Reexamining technologys role in learner-centered
professional development. Education Technology Research & Development, 58,
557-571.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital native, digital immigrants. NCB University Press, 9(5), 1-6.
Prensky, M. (2008, May-June). The courage to change: Guiding teachers to the new
paradigm. Educational Technology, 64.
132
Razfar, A. (2008). Developing technological literacy: A case study of technology
integration in a Latina liberal arts college. Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education Journal, 16, 327-345.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O‟Dwyer, L., & O‟Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297-310.
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2008). Constructions of dynamic geometry: A
study of interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice.
Computers & Education, 51, 297-317.
Salpeter, J. (2008). Make students info literate: There remains a larger challenge for
schools- how to develop a new generation of knowledgeable digital citizens who
can operate in the unregulated online world. Technology & Learning, 28(10), 24-
26.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2008). Pedagogical biases in educational technologies.
Educational Technology Magazine: The Magazine for Managers of Change in
Education, 48(3), 3-11.
Schrand, T. (2008). Tapping into active learning and multiple intelligences with
interactive multimedia: A low-threshold classroom approach. College Teaching,
56(2), 78-84.
Scoolis, J. (1999). Infusing your curriculum with technology. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 28(4), 14-16.
Selwyn, N. (2008). Realising the potential of new technology? Assessing the legacy of
new labour‟s ICT agenda 1997-2007. Oxford Review of Education, 34, 701-712.
133
Shepherd, C., & Mullane, A. M. (2010). Managing multimedia mania: Taming the
technology beast. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7, 59-70.
Silman, F., & Gündoğdu, K. (2007, May). Teachers’ perceptions of computer use in
education in the TRNC schools. Paper presented at the International Educational
Technology Conference, Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Simpson, E., & Clem, F. A. (2008). Video games in the middle school classroom. Middle
School Journal, 39(4), 4-11.
Solhaug, T. (2009). Two configurations for accessing classroom computers: differential
impact on students‟ critical reflections and their empowerment. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 411-422.
State of Ohio Board of Education. (2003). Technology Academic Content Standards.
Retrieved November 26, 2008, from
<http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/
ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1707&ContentID=1279&Content=8
8699>
Steketee, C. (2005). Integrating ICT as an integral teaching and learning tool into pre-
service teacher training courses. Issues in Educational Research, 15, 101-113.
Tearle, P. (2003). ICT implementation: what makes the difference? British Journal of
Educational Technology, 34, 567-583.
Thomas, M. O. J., & Vela, C. (2003). Computers in the primary classroom: Barriers to
effective use. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
4, 347-354.
134
Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to
determinants of computer use in primary education: teacher and school
characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 494-506.
Tondeur, J., Devos, G., Van Houtte, M., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2009).
Understanding structural and cultural school characteristics in relation to
educational change: the case of ICT integration. Educational Studies, 35, 223-
235.
Tuck, K. (2004, October). Gains and gaps in education technology: An NEA survey of
educational technologies in U.S. schools. National Education Association
Research Department.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education:
How the Internet, the law, and today‟s students are revolutionizing expectations.
National Education Technology Plan 2004.
Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2008). Professional development for computer-enhanced
learning: a case study with science teachers. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 26, 3-12.
Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer
use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 19, 407-422.
Viadero, D. (2005). Pressure builds for effective staff training. Education Week, 24(43),
1-21.
135
Waddoups, G. L., Wentworth, N., & Earle, R. (2004). Principles of technology
integration and curriculum development: A faculty design team approach. The
Haworth Press, inc.
Wentworth, N., & Earle, R. (2003). Trends in computer uses as reported in „Computers in
the Schools‟. Technology in Education: A Twenty-Year Retrospective. The
Haworth Press, inc.
Wright, R. J., & Lesisko, L. J. (2008, March). Technology infusion in a rural school
system: A case study from Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Wright, S. W. (1996). Technology integration, user support top faculty wish lists.
Community College Week, 9(9), 10.
Yaghi, H. M., & Ghaith, G. M. (2002). Correlates of computing confidence among
teachers in an international setting. Computers in the Schools, 19, 81-94.
Zhao, Y. (2006, May). Are we fixing the wrong things? Educational Leadership, 28-31.
Zhao, Y., Hueyshan Tan, S., & Mishra, P. (2000-2001). Teaching and learning: Whose
computer is it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 348-354.
136
APPENDIX I
School Culture and Current Use Survey
Name: ______________________________________________Date:_______________
Please put your name on this survey for the purposes of identifying possible mentor candidates. Only the
implementer will see your name in conjunction with your answers. No other people (including
administrators or parents) will have access to your individual responses in conjunction with your name.
Special Note: For the purposes of this survey, ICT refers to specific technology used for accessing and
disseminating information (i.e. computers, laptops, Internet, production software such as Microsoft Word
or Microsoft PowerPoint, e-mail, etc.)
How much pressure do you feel to cover all of the textbook and workbook pages
provided to you?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
None Little Some Moderate Significant Extreme
What percentage of this pressure would you estimate comes from external sources? ____
What percentage of this pressure would you estimate comes from internal beliefs? ____
To what degree do your administrators expect you to utilize ICT in the classroom?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not at all Indifferent Occasionally Often Frequently Daily
To what degree do your administrators expect you to utilize ICT in the classroom for
inquiry learning?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not at all Indifferent Occasionally Often Frequently Daily
To what degree do you believe that you would have administrative support for using ICT
as a catalyst for inquiry learning on a regular, consistent basis?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
None Extensive
To what degree do you believe that you would have parental support for using ICT as a
catalyst for inquiry learning on a regular, consistent basis?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
None Extensive
To what degree do you believe that you would have technological support for using ICT
as a catalyst for inquiry learning on a regular, consistent basis?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
None Extensive
137
How often do you utilize ICT for personal reasons?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Never A Little Occasionally Often Frequently Daily
How often do you utilize ICT for lesson preparation, identifying or accessing resources,
displaying Power Points or other notes to your class, or preparing special activities?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Never A Little Occasionally Often Frequently Daily
How often do you utilize ICT for professional communication with administrators,
colleagues, students, or parents?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Never A Little Occasionally Often Frequently Daily
How would you rate your access to ICT for personal and professional use?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No access Occasional access Some access Easy access Ongoing access
How often do your students utilize ICT in the classroom for producing products (i.e.
typing reports, PowerPoint presentations, making brochures, etc.)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Never A Little Occasionally Often Frequently Daily
How often do your students utilize ICT in the classroom for inquiry learning activities
and learning new concepts?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Never A Little Occasionally Often Frequently Daily
How would you rate your access to ICT for instructional and student use in the
classroom?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No access Occasional access Some access Easy access Ongoing access
What level of outside support do you have for utilizing ICT in the classroom?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
None Extensive
138
APPENDIX II
Belief Meets Action
This survey is for your personal use in order to help you identify your internal beliefs about pedagogy and
the pedagogical style seen most frequently in your classroom actions and activities.
For each statement below indicate your level of agreement based on the scale provided.
1. I believe it is important to consider student interests when determining topics of
study in the classroom.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
2. The majority of class time should be spent with the teacher presenting information
and students taking notes or answering review questions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
3. My objectives frequently require the use of higher order thinking skills.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
4. The majority of questions on assignments, tests, and quizzes assess student
knowledge of facts and definitions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
5. I encourage my students to develop deep understandings of topics studied.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
6. The majority of class time in my classroom is spent with me presenting
information and students taking notes or answering review questions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
7. I frequently plan lessons that promote inquiry learning and require students to be
responsible for their own learning.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
8. Most topics of study in my classroom are determined by the material presented in
the textbooks provided to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
9. The majority of class time in my classroom is spent on student-driven discussions
and investigations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
139
10. The majority of students attend school and complete assigned tasks because of the
threat of consequences or poor grades for incomplete work.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
11. Students in my classroom frequently work in groups to solve authentic problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
12. Interdisciplinary activities require more preparation time and scheduling
adjustments than they are worth.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
13. My role as a teacher is to provide students with authentic questions or problems
and guide them in their quest for answers and determination of the best way to
present their understandings of the concepts studied.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
14. The majority of activities completed in my classroom are done individually.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
15. The majority of students have an innate curiosity and desire to learn new things.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
16. My role as a teacher is to present the topics required by my curriculum and assess
student knowledge of the concepts presented.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
17. I frequently provide opportunities for students to gain a deep understanding of
topics covered.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
How much pressure do you feel to cover all of the textbook and workbook pages
provided to you?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
None Little Some Moderate Significant Extreme
What percentage of this pressure would you estimate comes from external sources? ____
What percentage of this pressure would you estimate comes from internal beliefs? ____
How often do you utilize forms of assessment other than workbook pages, chapter and
section reviews, or tests and quizzes provided with your textbook?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Never A Little Occasionally Often Frequently Daily