Recent studies have shown that integrating technology into the teaching-learning process positively affects the academic performance of students (Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010; Schmid et al., 2009; Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2011). In other words, as the level of technology integration into the classroom instruction increases, learning also increases (Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). Furthermore, it was reported that the utilization of technology in facilitating student learning reinforces achievement (Hur & Oh, 2012).

Despite these previous findings, however, which tend to put prime emphasis on the outcome of technology integration on student performance, Hew and Brush (2006) earlier argued that the barriers which negatively influence the integration of technology into the K-12 curriculum should also be highlighted. Since our educational system is to face a sheer reform as the K-12 program is expected to be at its full swing this school year, it would be insightful that these barriers confronted by other countries are taken into great consideration. After all, learning from history always proved to be a salutary habit.

To begin with, it is very important to have a firm grasp of what technology integration means in the context of implementing the K-12 program. For Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001), there are two levels of technology integration: low and high. Low level of technology integration would mean the way by which learners perform simple internet searches. On the other hand, high level of technology integration would entail the creation of multimedia presentations and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data by students using technology. For Hennessy, Ruthven, and Brindley (2005), technology integration simply means the way teachers perform their daily tasks in a manner that is innovative and technology-oriented. And although the academic literature cannot provide a clear cut definition of technology integration, there seem to be some unifying themes with respect to the barriers in its usage particularly in the implementation of the K-12 curriculum.

Hew and Brush (2006) listed six classifications of technology integration barriers found in the previous literature namely (1) resources, (2) knowledge and skills, (3) institution, (4) attitudes and beliefs, (5) assessment, and (6) subject culture.  According to Karagiorgi (2005), lack of resources is also related to limited access to technology and lack of time. For O’Mahony (2003), however, lack of technical support may also be considered under the first classification. Regarding the second classification, Hughes (2005) argued that the lack of a particular knowledge and skills about technology, technology-oriented pedagogy, and technology-oriented classroom management skills are among the major barriers to technology integration. As for the third classification, Fox and Henri (2005) found that school planning, organizational structure, and leadership styles influence technology integration. Under attitudes and beliefs, Hermans, Tondeur, Valcke, and Van Braak (2006) found that the attitudes and beliefs that teachers have towards technology integration influenced by their perceptions of its implementation served as a major barrier as well. As for the assessment, Butzin (2004) reported that the pressures of high-stakes testing and other forms of assessment were a major barrier to technology integration. Finally, regarding the sixth classification, Hennessy et al. (2005) found that subject culture which is also understood as the accepted practices in school as a learning institution could be a major barrier too when teachers avoid technology adoption as they deem it contrary to what is expected in the subject culture.

By being informed of these barriers to technology integration into the K-12 curriculum, teachers will be able to maximize the positive effects that it has on student achievement.

References

Butzin, S. M. (2004). Project CHILD: A proven model for the integration of computer and curriculum in the elementary classroom. Retrieved on May 23, 2006 from http://www.acecjournal.org/archives_archives.php.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834

Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 161–169.

Hennessy, S. Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., Valcke, M. M., & van Braak, J. (2006). Educational beliefs as predictors of ICT use in the classroom. Paper presented at the convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development,55(3), 223-252.

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.

Hur, J. W., & Oh, J. (2012). Learning, engagement, and technology: Middle school students’ three-year experience in pervasive technology environments in South Korea.Journal of Educational Computing Research,46(3), 295-312.

Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing light into the black box of implementation: ICT in Cyprus elementary schools. Educational Media International, 42(1), 19–32.

O’Mahony, C. (2003). Getting the information and communications technology formula right: access + ability=confident use. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2).

Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning.Contemporary Educational Technology,1(1), 17-35.

Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Abrami, P. C., Wade, C. A., … & Lowerison, G. (2009). Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: a Stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications.Journal of computing in higher education,21(2), 95-109.

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students’ learning opportunities and achievement.The Journal of Educational Research,104(5), 299-315.

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study.Review of Educational research,81(1), 4-28.

By: Maria Cristina E. Austria |T-II|Morong National High School