Challenges and solutions when using
technologies in the classroom
Amy M. Johnson, Matthew E. Jacovina, Devin G. Russell, and Christian M. Soto
Arizona State University
Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. E., & Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and solutions when using
technologies in the classroom. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.) Adaptive educational
technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 13-29). New York: Taylor & Francis. Published with
acknowledgment of federal support.
Author's Note
The authors would like to recognize the support of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education, through Grants R305A130124 and R305A120707, and the Office of Naval Research, through
Grant N00014140343, to Arizona State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do
not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom
Amy M. Johnson, Matthew E. Jacovina, Devin G. Russell, and Christian M. Soto
Arizona State University
to appear in
Crossley, S.A. & McNamara, D.S. (in preparation). Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy
Instruction. Taylor & Francis, Routledge: NY.
Introduction
Technology is perhaps the strongest factor shaping the educational landscape today.
Many school districts are showing support for increased levels of technology in the classroom by
providing hardware such as tablets and computers, enhancing internet connectivity, and
implementing programs designed to improve computer literacy for both teachers and students.
Although teachers generally appreciate the benefits of educational technologies, they often find
smooth and effective integration of new educational technologies challenging. From acquisition
of new technology equipment to adaptation of curricula and teaching techniques to incorporate
new educational tools, technology integration presents significant challenges to educators at each
level of school systems.
The purpose of this chapter is to present common challenges faced by educators when
attempting to integrate technology in the classroom, and offer potential solutions to those
problems. Examination of these issues should be valuable to current and future educators, school
administrators, as well as educational technology researchers. The chapter begins by introducing
the challenges to technology integration that are external (extrinsic) to the teacher, including
access to resources, training, and support. We then present barriers that are internal to teachers,
including their attitudes and beliefs, resistance toward technology in the classroom, and their
knowledge and skills. The next section presents international perspectives on the technology
integration problem, focusing on a case in Chile. The chapter concludes with a short summary of
the chapter and condensed recommendations for effective technology implementation.
External Challenges to Classroom Technology
First-order barriers to the successful integration of technology into the classroom are
factors external to teachers implementing technology. External barriers must be addressed at the
institutional level and changes are typically incremental (e.g., rolling out access to technology
one level at a time). Although there is growing evidence that, in the United States, first-order
barriers are being tackled (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012),
more effort is needed to entirely overcome these challenges. In this section, we introduce some
of the external barriers to classroom technology integration and present strategies to address
them.
First, we address issues surrounding insufficient equipment or connectivity, termed the
access constraint. If a teacher’s school does not possess adequate computers and fast internet
connection, the implementation of educational technology is not feasible. Next, we introduce the
challenge of inadequate training related to technology. If teachers are not provided effective
professional development on new technologies, they will not be capable of using it to its full
potential. Finally, we discuss factors related to the support constraint. Support barriers to
technology integration include inadequate technical support and administrative/peer support.
Access
Early accounts of technology integration focused much of their interest on increasing the
availability of computers in schools (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam, 1996). Certainly, the most basic
step toward effective technology integration is widespread access to equipment necessary to run
educational computer programs. If computer lab time is limited to one hour per week, persistent
use of educational technology is not viable. While many schools across the country are making
the transition to one-to-one (1:1) computing (Warschauer, Zheng, Niiya, Cotton, & Farkas,
2014), many students do not have regular and reliable access to a computer. Inconsistent
computer access makes it extremely difficult for instructors to integrate technology into existing
lesson plans. Routine access to hardware (i.e., laptops or tablets), software (e.g., reading and
writing software, internet browsers), and internet connection is a fundamental requirement.
Research demonstrates that much progress had been made to improve equipment and
internet access in schools over the last 20 years. Results from the National Center for Education
Statistics’ (NCES) 2009 survey of public school teachers revealed that 97% of all teachers have
at least one computer in their classroom every day (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). Compare
this result to the 1999 survey which found that only 84% of public school teachers had
computers available in the classroom (Smerdon, Cronen, Lanahan, Anderson, Ionnotti, &
Angeles, 2000). The 2009 results indicated that, on average, classrooms had 5.3 students to every
computer in the classroom (Gray et al., 2010). Results also showed that 93% of classroom
computers had internet access by 2009 (compared to 64% in the 1999 survey; Smerdon et al.,
2000). These results demonstrate that, by the year 2009, the ideal 1:1 computing model had not
been broadly realized, but computers are widely accessible in the modern classroom. Further
advances have presumably been made since the 2009 study, but up-to-date statistics are not
available.
Although impressive recent advances have been made, effective use of educational
technologies for literacy may require more frequent instructional time on computers than
currently afforded by the ratio of students to computers. Intelligent tutoring systems such as
those detailed in this book can individualize instruction to student progress within the system,
but consistent 1:1 computer access is highly desirable given this pedagogical approach. With
limited federal, state, and local funding, schools may often need to pursue unconventional
funding options for obtaining classroom technologies. Budgets may be supplemented using
crowdfunding sites, some of which specifically target education funding (e.g.,
AdoptAClassroom, DonorsChoose, IncitED). One challenge with crowdfunding is retaining
donors; a recent study by Althoff and Leskovec (2015) reported that 74% of donors only
contribute to one project. The authors found that donors were more likely to make additional
donations when teachers are prompt in sending recognition messages to donors and in
communicating the eventual impact. Thus, teachers who use crowdfunding sites muse consider
more than how useful a project is; they must also consider how to best communicate with donors
to increase the likelihood of repeat donations. Educators can also apply for grants to support
technology infrastructure, and websites make identifying funding opportunities easier (e.g.,
Edutopia, Fund for Teachers). Additionally, schools or teachers may seek support through
partnerships with local businesses or universities. Some schools have also moved toward a Bring
Your Own Device (BYOD) strategy in which students bring their own computing device to
school to use for educational purposes. BYOD has obvious cost-cutting benefits, but schools
must also be prepared with a network infrastructure that can accommodate the additional number
of devices and that is appropriately secure (Afreen, 2014).
Training
According to Ertmer et al. (2012), the most commonly cited reason for lack of technology
implementation in the classroom is inadequate professional development and training. The
National Education Association (NEA) includes expanding professional development in
technology as one of their policy recommendations (NEA, 2008). According to NEA results
(2008) teachers today report increasing confidence using classroom technology, operating
software, and searching the internet, but given that technology is constantly changing, it is more
important than ever that teachers stay up-to-date with their technological expertise. Even if a
school district were to hire only teachers who were literate in current classroom technology,
countless new technologies will be developed during their teaching careers, and they will need to
undergo additional training to keep their skills current. Without the necessary resources to
provide continuous technological training, schools and districts will continue to cite inadequate
professional development as a major barrier to technology implementation.
Survey results from public school teachers suggest that educational technology
professional development is reasonably widespread. In a 2009 survey, only 18% of teachers
reported having completed no educational technology training over the previous year; the
majority (53%) reported completing 1 to 8 hours training (Gray et al., 2010). Further, they
generally had positive perceptions of their training. Eighty-one percent agreed with the statement
“It met my goals and needs” and 88% agreed with the statement “It supported the goals and
standards of my state, district, and school.” Unfortunately, some research suggests that
professional development has a greater impact on teachers’ noninstructional (e.g., research,
administrative) tasks than on student instruction. A 2006 survey revealed that around two-thirds
of teachers felt their training was adequate for using the internet for research, using technology
equipment, and using administrative software (NEA – AFT, 2008). Fewer teachers regarded the
training adequate for the following instructional goals: evaluating student progress (57.6%);
integrating technology into instruction (55.7%); and designing individual lessons (45.6%). Given
limited budgets for professional development at the institution level, schools should verify their
chosen training focuses on technology for student instruction. As with issues regarding
technology access, more recent progress has likely been made in addressing these issues, but
more recent survey results from NCES or NEA were not available at the time of writing this
chapter.
The specific type of training that is available to teachers is also an important
consideration. For example, many schools are purchasing iPads; however, the usefulness of
iPads for education is not always immediately clear. One weakness of the iPad is the difficulty in
typing using the touch keyboard, making it less ideal for activities requiring students to generate
text, such as writing practice. One recent study with a sample of 21 teachers who had access to at
least one iPad reported that the perceived usefulness of iPads was mixed, with an average rating
of 2.75 on a 5 point scale. Several teachers reported not using the iPads frequently, with one
explanation being lack of familiarity with apps that would be useful for particular lessons. In
another study, nine teachers were provided with professional development that focused on using
iPads in science and math classrooms (Hu & Garimella, 2014). A pre-post comparison showed
that teachers perceived the iPad as being more useful and felt more proficient in using particular
apps (including organizational and communication apps such as Dropbox and Evernote) after
completing the professional development. Additionally, teachers felt more confident overall
about using the iPad and planned to integrate it into their classes. This study thus demonstrates
the effectiveness of professional development that is targeted to a specific technology. The iPad,
and mobile devices in general, are particularly appropriate technologies to target given their
pervasiveness and the abundance of educational software available that is often difficult to sort
through.
To realize effective technology integration, school administrators should seek assistance
to identify and provide ongoing training. The International Society for Technology in Education
approves materials aligned to their standards for integration of technology into the classroom
(http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards), including student curricula that integrate
technology (addressing student standards), professional development resources (training teacher
standards), as well as assessments (evaluating student standards). Professional development
programs approved by the ISTE include face-to-face instruction, online courses, online
communities of learning, online learning modules, and in-class mentoring, and target
development of different levels of teacher technology skills. Using guidance provided by ISTE,
schools can identify professional development programs that best fit their needs. Additionally,
some school districts use master teachers successful in implementing educational technologies to
lead professional learning communities, meeting regularly to train and support technology
integration. Finally, schools and teachers should pursue training from educational software
companies and educational technology researchers. Many software companies offer free
professional development courses, online training, and continuing support to educators. For
example, Apple sales representatives offer formal training for iPads (Vu, McIntyre, & Cepero,
2014).
Support
Though we cannot say for certain how the future will impact professional development, it
is clear that the teachers of today do not have optimal access to technological support. According
to statistics reported by the U. S. Department of Education (2010), 68% of school districts
reported having adequate support for educational technology. While it is encouraging to see that
the majority of responding districts feel that they have access to adequate support, there is clearly
room for improvement. With additional technology support, teachers can worry less about
technological barriers and instead focus on teaching their students.
Adopting a new educational technology can be a time-consuming process. If a
technology is adopted school-wide, teachers should have access to extended support from trained
professionals, as opposed to a single hour long meeting before the school day begins. Of course,
this will most likely require additional funding for schools, but creators of educational
technologies should also place increased emphasis on user support. With high quality support
from both creators of educational technologies and school employees, teachers will have access
to the resources they deserve. The knowledge that support is readily available may in turn
increase acceptance of classroom technologies.
Ertmer (1999) notes that the most essential form of support to teachers can change as the
technology integration project matures. During the earlier phases of a project, teachers require
more technical support just to use the new technology, which could be accomplished by hiring
educational technology and information technology professionals. As teachers become more
proficient in the technical skills required for the new technology, their needs may shift to
administrative and peer support to help develop and apply new uses for the technology in their
classrooms. This type of support may be provided in professional learning communities through
regular discussions regarding novel, domain-relevant uses of the technology.
Internal Challenges to Classroom Technology
In the previous section, we discussed external barriers to the classroom integration of
educational technologies. Of course, as Ertmer points out (1999), even with first-order barriers
removed, digital technology would not immediately and seamlessly appear within all classrooms
using appropriate pedagogy. Individual educators are ultimately responsible for using
technology, and thus even when given resources, they have choices about how to use technology.
In this section, we describe barriers that relate specifically to teachers, their beliefs, and their
knowledge. These issues are, by their nature, personal and thus vary greatly from teacher to
teacher even within the same environment. Consequently, it is difficult to address these issues
broadly. However, we attempt to provide an overview of common frameworks, provide
examples of the research being done using these frameworks as guides, and discuss implications
with regard to literacy technology.
First, we will discuss educators’ attitudes and beliefs, referred to as second-order barriers
(Ertmer, 1999). If teachers do not expect new technology to be useful or do not think they have
the required experience to use such technologies, they are more likely to persist using more
traditional methods. Closely related to the attitudes and beliefs, teacher resistance may present a
barrier to technology integration. Finally, we discuss the influence of teachers' skills and
knowledge as they pertain to technology.
Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs
Teachers' attitudes and beliefs are crucial factors in determining the role and effectiveness
of technology in classrooms. Attitudes and beliefs about both educational technology and
pedagogy in general will ultimately influence how teachers implement technology. In the
following sections, we discuss these issues and ways to promote positive attitudes that can
optimize technology use. Now that technology is being widely used in schools, perhaps the most
important question is how to best implement technology, rather than whether technology will be
used (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al., 2012; Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008; Lowther, Inan,
Strahl, & Ross, 2008).
Confidence in skills and knowledge
Given the abundance of available educational technology, it is essential that teachers feel
comfortable and confident about their ability to use them effectively. Many current teachers grew
up without access to technologies like the personal computer and the internet, but students today
are raised in an environment saturated by computer technology. These “digital natives” can
intimidate teachers, especially teachers with little technological experience. If teachers feel they
do not have the necessary competencies when using technology, they may feel less in control of
the class, use less technology, and be unlikely to explore new possibilities that utilize technology
when designing their classes (Hughes, 2005; Rakes & Casey, 2002). By sticking to traditional
teaching methods, teachers who are less fluent with technology maintain a feeling of control in
the classroom and will not have to prepare to face the challenges of instructing digital natives in
a digital environment.
In a survey of 764 teachers, Wozney, Venkatesh, and Abrami (2006) found that one of
the two strongest predictors of teachers’ technology use was confidence in achieving
instructional goals using technology. Teachers who believe they lack training can either decide to
work with technology at their current level of expertise, or postpone the use of technology until
they consider that they have sufficient competence (Ertmer, 1999). To build teachers' knowledge
to a sufficient level, boosting confidence in the process, training and support from the
educational administrators is necessary.
About technology and learning
Teachers may use technology throughout the curriculum or to complement a specific
lesson. Variations in technology usage reflect important differences in teachers' beliefs about the
utility of technology in the educational process. Ertmer found that “teachers were able to enact
technology integration practices that closely aligned with their beliefs.”(Ertmer et al., 2012).
These beliefs are greatly influenced by the teachers’ philosophy regarding how students learn. If
the teacher regards student learning as primarily dependent on explicit teacher teaching,
classroom activities will be driven by the traditional chalk-and-talk approach. More traditional
educational beliefs have been related to less integration of computer-based technology in
classrooms (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008).Thus, the use of technology will
likely be limited to supplementary demonstrative activities within particular educational units.
For teachers to achieve effective use of computers, they must experience a paradigm shift
from the teacher centered classroom to the student-centered classroom (Adams & Burns, 1999;
Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Hannafin & Savenye, 1993; Harris & Grandgenett, 1999; Mandinach &
Cline, 2000). In this situation, educational technologies will likely have a more central role
because they permit active student learning activities in which the teacher serves as facilitator of
the learning process. Ravitz, Becker, and Wong (2000) reported that teacher implementation of
constructivist learning environments were often limited by difficulties meeting individual student
needs, balancing multiple objectives, and responding to external forces and expectations.
Teachers in these situations will thus more frequently use technology when they believe that it
connects directly with their specific content areas and/or grade levels, allowing them to more
readily meet their classroom goals (Hughes, 2005; Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001).
The increasing acceptance of constructivist learning philosophies, along with intelligent
learning technologies offer new possibilities to address individual differences of the student, one
of the emphases of modern educational pedagogy. However, new technologies should
incorporate student performance visualization tools that permit teachers to easily understand
student progress on their educational objectives. Although technologies can be powerful means
to improve learning, the teacher remains the critical factor to student success, and must be
informed of student progress in order to intervene directly with his/her students.
Teacher Resistance to Technology in the Classroom
Browsing online teacher forums makes it clear that implementing new technologies into
lesson plans can be a difficult task. Perhaps the most common reason mentioned by teachers for
not actively integrating new technologies is that many teachers are satisfied with their current
lesson plans. A teacher’s desire for their students to learn effectively drives classroom
instruction, and if current lesson plans meet the needs of students, there is very little motivation
for the teacher to alter them. Educators spend countless hours creating lesson plans that will hold
attention and make learning exciting. Revising lesson plans means several hours of additional
work for the teacher, which is problematic given an already demanding schedule.
Simply revising lesson plans can occupy a great deal of time, but revising lesson plans to
incorporate technology is even more labor intensive. When adopting new classroom
technologies, educators face the problem known online as the “double innovation” problem
(Cleaver, 2014). Double innovation essentially adds an additional layer of preparation teachers
must work through. The teacher must first learn the technology well enough to utilize it in a
classroom setting before deciding how to integrate the technology with classroom objectives and
curriculum. While educational technologies are becoming easier to learn, the double innovation
problem still results in additional preparation time. Data collected from teacher interviews
conducted by Ertmer et al. (2012) showed time as being the sixth most influential barrier to
integrating new classroom technologies. A teacher’s time is extremely valuable, and it should
come as no surprise that time is one of the most commonly cited barriers to integrating new
technologies in the classroom.
Clearly, there are numerous reasons a teacher might shy away from new technology in
the classroom, but once teachers decide to further incorporate technology into lesson plans, they
must first choose what technologies to use. There are thousands of internet technologies, tutoring
systems and learning environments for teachers to choose from, so deciding which ones will
enhance the student learning experience and align with curricula is a daunting task. Even if
teachers find a technology they believe will help their students, it is not always clear if these
programs are actually effective. Many technologies claim to improve the academic and cognitive
abilities of students, but claims can be false and are often only created as advertisement. Having
to verify the truthfulness of these claims is an additional burden placed on the educator, who may
not have time to search for classroom technologies in the first place. Perhaps as a consequence,
decisions about technology are often made by school or district administrators without input
from teachers. In some ways, this can be helpful by saving teachers the time and effort required
to evaluate technologies, but lack of choice can also negatively impact an instructor’s perception
of the technology. Teachers may view the new technology as an imposition, when in reality the
technology may make their teaching experience easier and more enjoyable.
Solutions to Increase Acceptance of Classroom Technology
Time will inevitably bring about the increased adoption of classroom technology on a
large scale, so here we suggest some strategies that can be used by educators and researchers
alike to encourage technology integration now. First, it is extremely important that teachers have
a say in what technologies they will use in their instruction. Teaching is a deeply personal
experience, and when educators feel as though they have lost the ability to teach in a manner that
best suits them, it can be frustrating and discouraging. No single educational technology will be
perfect for every teacher, and educators should have the ability to select a technology that they
feel most comfortable with. By allowing teachers more freedom of choice they will retain the
very important sense of classroom control.
While the importance of teacher autonomy in the selection of educational technology
cannot be understated, it does introduce the burden of sifting through a vast number of available
technologies. A second solution to encouraging acceptance of classroom technology is a call for
better organization of available technologies. While a typical internet search will turn up
thousands of results for educational technology tools, there are very few places that effectively
organize and evaluate available technologies. Teachers should be able to easily find and access
rigorously tested technologies within a specific learning domain. In fact, this book can serve as a
valuable resource to teachers looking to find such technologies. Better organization of
empirically validated educational technologies will serve to save valuable time and will place
less of a burden on the teacher.
Teacher Skills and Knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has long been discussed as crucial for effective
teaching (Shulman, 1986). Effective educators must not only be domain experts, but also
understand how to flexibly use the affordances of different pedagogies for particular content
topics. With the advent of numerous novel technologies over the past decades, educators have an
abundance of technologies to leverage to make their teaching more effective. Although the
potential benefits are clear, the sheer number of possible combinations of technologies and
pedagogies for different tasks and students is overwhelming. The TPACK framework expands
on the focus of PCK to also include technology as a knowledge domain (Mishra & Koehler,
2006). TPACK focuses on technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge individually, and also
on their interactive combinations; this leads to a sum of seven types of knowledge that TPACK
supporters argue are crucial for ideal integration: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge,
technological knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge,
technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge (see
Figure 1).
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
Clearly, educators with expertise in the three core knowledge types will have some
proficiency in the combined types. However, there is specialized knowledge in the combined
domains. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) requires more than knowing useful
pedagogical techniques and familiarity with technologies; it requires an understanding of how
particular technologies can provide support for particular pedagogical strategies or techniques.
As an example, the selection of a social networking tool for collaborative learning must be
informed by the affordances specific to each platform (e.g., Twitter might encourage a great
number of messages to be shared, but following threads of conversations between numerous
students would be very difficult). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
additionally requires an understanding of how technologies can support pedagogies for specific
domains.
How can the TPACK framework be useful? It has been conceptualized in different ways,
but most relevant for our current discussion is that it is often viewed as the complete set of
knowledge necessary to teach with technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Thus, a goal is to
promote these knowledge domains; clearly, most of these knowledge domains are already
heavily emphasized during teacher training and professional development (e.g., mastering the
content in which a teacher specializes). The intersections between technological knowledge and
content/pedagogical knowledge, however, is more specialized and less frequently taught. For
example, consider the case of writing instruction. Teaching writing techniques and strategies
(requiring content knowledge) through deliberate writing practice and feedback (requiring
pedagogical knowledge) is something successful writing teachers do and an example of
pedagogical content knowledge. Digital technology can further support instruction by allowing
teachers to provide feedback through word documents. This is an example of TPACK; however,
training on the capabilities of different technologies might allow teachers to further optimize the
experience for students. Programs such as myAccess or the Writing Pal can provide automated
immediate feedback, increasing the efficiency with which students receive feedback (Allen,
Jacovina, & McNamara, 2015). Without training, teachers are unlikely to understand exactly
how these feedback mechanisms work and therefore will not optimize their effectiveness (e.g.,
Grimes & Warschauer, 2010). Thus, training on TPACK might be helpful for writing
instructors. TPACK can be taught effectively, making this goal tenable. Researchers
investigating how TPACK knowledge in preservice teachers developed over an 11-month Master
of Arts in Education (M.A.Ed.) program generally showed positive increases in knowledge
(Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012).
Brantley-Dias and Ertmer (2013) urge caution in extending TPACK too far; although it
might seem advantageous to encourage teachers to develop their knowledge in each of the 7
domains, there is little evidence that such a practice leads to more effective teaching. We respect
this caution and view TPACK as something that teachers should be aware of and discuss, but
that does not have a definitive end goal. Despite any weaknesses in the TPACK framework,
there have been interesting, though not strongly empirically supported, activities and suggestions
that have come from it. First, it does provide common language for educators to discuss methods
and techniques for improving knowledge related to technology. Second, these discussions can be
made into activities that promote flexible thinking about technology affordances. For example, a
TPACK game has been used by various groups as part of professional development (Richardson,
2010; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z3aP_Chj6c). Such activities are ways for teachers to
increase their knowledge of technology.
Considerations from an International Perspective
When educators or researchers grapple with technology integration issues in only their
own country, they may lose perspective regarding variables that could influence results when
using technology in the classroom. Thus, examination of comparative studies across various
nations may help us to reconsider important factors in the planning of school interventions.
Ample evidence indicates that, in the U.S., many first order barriers have largely been conquered
(Ertmer et al., 2012). Thus, current challenges relate to identifying and implementing methods to
most effectively integrate technology in the educational context. Measuring integration success is
potentially an even more difficult task. Will it be possible to assess the progress made in the U.S.
and other countries, and compare outcomes across countries? The answer is potentially linked to
diverse standards adopted by different countries regarding educational technology development.
The U.S. follows educational technology standards defined by the ISTE, the United Kingdom the
Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), and other European countries often follow the European
Pedagogical Informational and Communication Technology (ICT), and so on. Because different
criteria are used, researchers seeking evidence concerning international experiences in
educational technology integration face substantial challenges.
When considering the educational technology progress in various countries, one
discovers provocative cases of failures and successes. For example, in Chile, progress may be
different than other countries of Latin America. The Education Ministry of Chile has been
promoting systematic development in educational technology since 1992, with the aim of
contributing to improving the quality and equity of public education (Cancino & Donoso, 2004).
In terms of access to technology, the ENLACES program has made Chile a pioneer country in
Latin America. From 2000 to 2010, the number of Chilean students per computer went from 80
to approximately 10 students per computer. Furthermore, in 1998, fewer than 1,000 schools in
Chile had access to the internet; in 2008, around 7,000 schools had access, reaching broad
national coverage.
Currently, one of the key challenges in Chile is the struggle to secure sufficient
professional development and technology support to teachers through collaboration with and
support of different institutions (universities, government, administrators, ENLACES and
schools). On this issue, the experiences in the U.S. could be invaluable, given its relative
successes in educational technology implementation (Ertmer et al. 2012). Once technology
integration policies are adopted, a further challenge concerns establishment of valid instruments
and methods to assess the impact of programs and determine how use of technology is affecting
academic learning outcomes. Policy-makers in Chile considered whether to adopt an existing
international standard, eventually deciding instead to create their own separate standards related
to educational technology (Toro, 2010).
Careful deliberation of comparative studies across multiple countries may also be useful
in determining a sound assessment approach. For example, a 2012 international study evaluated
the impact of educational technology on academic performance, examining different factors
related to educational technology and their impact on the PISA test reading results (San Martin,
Jara, Preiss, Claro, & Farina, 2012). Spanish speaking countries in South America (Uruguay and
Chile) were compared with countries in Europe which share characteristics (Spain and Portugal).
Results revealed that the use of the educational technology led to varied improvements
depending on an additional factor, class time devoted to reading. Students in Spain and Portugal
spent more time reading than their counterparts in Chile and Uruguay, and the correlation
between use of technology in class and PISA reading scores was higher in Chile and Uruguay.
One of the more interesting conclusions of the San Martin study is that when traditional reading
time is low, reading through technology contributes positively to reading outcomes (San Martin
et al., 2012). Studies by Jackson and colleagues with U.S. students seem to lend support to this
interpretation (Jackson et al. 2006; Jackson, Von Eye, Witt, Zhao, & Fitzgerald 2011). The
authors conclude that more internet use over time is associated with better reading results for
students with low reading skills. One explanation for this is that because the internet is largely
based on reading written text, its use encourages the students to read more than they typically do
when not on the internet.
Reviewing international experiences may be a valuable way to obtain essential
information about public policies on educational technology, helping to generate plans for
implementation of key processes like teacher training and support. Moreover, international
comparison studies could serve as valuable resources for assessment adoption or development,
and can help us understand how technology impact learning and when other factors moderate
those effects.
Conclusion
Although the task of technology integration presents significant challenges to school
districts, school administrators, and teachers alike, exciting new educational technologies are
increasingly available that offer teachers novel ways of presenting material to students. Research
on the reading and writing technologies reviewed throughout this book demonstrates they can
have considerable positive impacts on student performance. And, efforts to adopt new
educational technologies in the classroom will be rewarded, albeit with some potential barriers.
Recent research on technology use in the classroom indicates that significant advances
have been made to overcome the first-order (external) barriers to technology integration,
especially concerning access to computing resources. Recommendations to make further
improvement include the following: 1) obtain funds for resources via non-traditional sources
(e.g., crowdfunding, grants); 2) seek guidance from the ISTE to identify effective professional
development programs; 3) exploit the expertise of master teachers in professional learning
communities; 4) request training on newly adopted educational software directly from software
companies; and 5) ensure that adequate technical, administrative, and peer support is available to
teachers during the implementation. In comparison, overcoming second-order (internal) barriers
to technology integration will likely be a more difficult hurdle. Our suggestions to confront the
challenges internal to the teacher (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, skills, and knowledge) include the
following: 1) provide teacher training that highlights constructivism and student-centered
education; 2) focus professional development efforts toward those which emphasize the use of
technology in instruction, rather than for administrative tasks; 3) include visualization tools in
student tracking technologies which allow teachers to easily interpret student progress; 4)
involve teachers in the decision-making process when adopting new technologies; and 5) offer
teachers training on the intersection of technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
content knowledge (TPACK). Technology integration in the classroom will require the ongoing
collaborative efforts of teachers, educational technology professionals, school administrators,
researchers, and educational software personnel. Fortunately, the benefits to schools, teachers,
and students will yield tremendous returns.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to recognize the support of the Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education, through Grants R305A130124 and R305A120707, and the Office
of Naval Research, through Grant N00014140343, to Arizona State University. The opinions
expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S.
Department of Education.
References
Adams, M., & Burns, M. (1999). Connecting student learning and technology. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Afreen, R. (2014). Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Higher Education: Opportunities and
Challenges. International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer
Science, 3, 233-236.
Allen, L. K., Jacovina, M. E., & McNamara, D.S. (in press). Computer-based writing instruction.
In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research.
Althoff, T., & Leskovec, J. (2015). Donor retention in online crowdfunding communities: A case
study of DonorsChoose.org. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World
Wide Web, 34-44.
Bitner, N. & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating Technology into the Classroom: Eight Keys to
Success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100. Norfolk, VA:
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education.
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the Construct “Just
Right?” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46, 103–128.
Cancino, V. & Donoso, S. (2004). El programa de informática educativa de la reforma educativa
chilena: análisis crítico. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 8(36), 129-154.
Cleaver, S. (2014). Technology in the Classroom: Helpful or Harmful? Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/magazine/article/effective-technology-teaching-child/
Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-
61.
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers &
Education, 59, 423-435.
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C., & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on
computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S.
Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a Fallible Tool: A Multi-Site Case Study of
Automated Writing Evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6),
n6.
Hannafin, R. D., & Savenye, W. C. (1993). Technology in the classroom: The teacher's new role
and resistance to it. Educational Technology, 33(6), 26-31.
Harris, J. B., & Grandgenett, N. (1999). Correlates with use of telecomputing tools: K-12
teachers’ beliefs and demographics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
31(4), 327–340.
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 and
Education, 51 (4), 1499-1509.
Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal
study of preservice teachers in a secondary M.A.Ed. program. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 45, 83–106.
Hu, H. & Garimella, U. (2014). iPads for STEM teachers: A case study on perceived usefulness,
perceived proficiency, intention to adopt, and integration in K-12 instruction. Journal of
Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 7, 49-66.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of technology and teacher education, 13(2),
277-302.
Jackson, L., Von Eye, A., Biocca, F., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. (2006). Does
home internet use influence the academic performance of low-income children?
Developmental Psychology, 42, 429-435.
Jackson, L., Von Eye. A., Witt, E., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. (2011). A Longitudinal Study of
the Effects on Internet Use and Videogame Playing on Academic Performance and the
Roles of Gender, Race and Income in these Relationships. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27, 228-239.
Keengwe, J., G., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer Technology Integration and
Student Learning: Barriers and Promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
17(6), 560-565.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J. D., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration
‘‘work’’ when key barriers are removed?. Educational Media International, 45 (3), 189–
206.
Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (2000). It won’t happen soon: Practical, curricular, and
methodological problems in implementing technology-based constructivist approaches in
classrooms. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools. No more walls (pp. 377-
395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108, 1017-1054.
National Education Association. (2008). Technology in Schools: The Ongoing Challenge of
Access, Adequacy and Equity. Washington, DC: NEA Policy and Practice Department.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB19_Technology08.pdf.
National Education Association – American Federation of Teachers (NEA – AFT). (2008).
Access, adequacy, and equity in education technology: Results of a survey of America’s
teachers and support professionals on technology in public schools and classrooms.
Washington, DC: NEA. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/NEA-
Access,Adequacy,andEquityinEdTech.pdf.
Rakes, G. C., & Casey, H. B. (2002). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional
technology. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1).
Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. T. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and
practices among U.S. teachers (Report no. 4). Irvine, CA: Teaching, learning and
computing.
Richardson, K. W. (2010). TPACK: Game on. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37, 34–35.
San Martín, E., Jara, I., Preiss, D., Claro, M., & Farina, P. (2012) ¿Cuán relevante es el aporte
de diversos usos de TIC para explicar el rendimiento lector en PISA? . Modelando el
aporte neto TIC en Chile, Uruguay, España, Portugal y Suecia. Informe de investigación
Proyecto FONIDE N°: FE11124. Chile.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teachers. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers'
Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers' Use of Technology. Statistical
Analysis Report.
Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2001). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30 (1), 85–11
Toro, P. (2010) “Enlaces: contexto, historia y memoria”. In A. Bilbao & A. Salinas (Eds.). El
Libro Abierto de la informática educativa, lecciones y desafíos de la red Enlaces (pp. 38-
50). Santiago de Chile: Enlaces, Centro de Educacion y Tecnologia del Minesterio de
Education.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology
Plan 2010. Retrieved March, 20, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf.
Vu, P., McIntyre, J., & Cepero, J. (2014). Teachers’ use of the iPad in classrooms and their
attitudes toward using it. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging
Pedagogie, 2, 58-76
Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one
equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs.Equity & Excellence in
Education, 47(1), 46-62.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies:
Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14,
173-207.
