Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry / 2019 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

A Holistic View to Barriers to Technology Integration in Education

Eğitimde Teknoloji Entegrasyonunun Önündeki Engellere Bütüncül Bir Bakış

Pages
439–461
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Technology integration should be seen as adapting andtransforming it into a culture rather than a mechanical process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Technology integration is sustainable and persistent change in the social system of schools caused bythe adoption of technology to help students construct knowledge (Belland, 2009).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to compile the results of research on factorsaffecting technology integration in education according to Hew and Brush (2007) and Belland (2009)classification.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Technology integration should be seen as adapting andtransforming it into a culture rather than a mechanical process.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Technology integration is sustainable and persistent change in the social system of schools caused bythe adoption of technology to help students construct knowledge (Belland, 2009). Although it is notpossible for technology integration initiatives to have an absolute purpose, studies are conducted andapplication examples are designed to make this integration process more effective and efficient. Thefocus of many of research is to identify barriers to technology integration and provide solutions. Inliterature, factors affecting technology integration in education are handled in different ways andvarious classifications are used. The aim of this study is to compile the results of research on factorsaffecting technology integration in education according to Hew and Brush (2007) and Belland (2009)classification. This study was designed using integrative review method which is one of the literaturereview methods. In this study, barriers and solutions to the integration of technology in education aredetermined by Hew and Brush (2007) (i) resources, (ii) knowledge and skills, (iii) institution, (iv)attitudes and beliefs, (v) assessment, (vi) subject area culture, and (vii) habitus determined by Belland(2009). When the barriers to technology integration in education are examined, it is seen that thesebarriers are mostly directed towards teachers. In other words, teachers' knowledge, skills, attitudes,beliefs and inclinations on integration should be emphasized after the elimination of external barriersin order to achieve technology integration. Technology integration should be seen as adapting andtransforming it into a culture rather than a mechanical process.

Özet

Teknoloji entegrasyonu, öğrencilerin bilgiyi yapılandırmalarına yardımcı olmak amacıyla teknolojinin benimsenmesi sonucunda okulların sosyal sisteminde sürdürülebilir ve devam eden bir değişimdir. Teknoloji entegrasyonu girişimlerinin mutlak bir amacının olması mümkün görülmemekle birlikte, bu entegrasyon sürecinin daha etkili ve verimli olması adına araştırmalar yapılmakta ve uygulama örnekleri tasarlanmaktadır. Bu araştırmaların birçoğunun odak noktası teknoloji entegrasyonunun önündeki engelleri belirlemek ve çözüm yolları sunmaktır. Literatürde eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörler faklı şekillerde ele alınmakta ve çeşitli sınıflandırmalar kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlere yönelik yapılmış araştırma sonuçlarını Hew ve Brush (2007) ve Belland’ın (2009) sınıflandırması doğrultusunda derlemektir. Bu çalışma literatür değerlendirme yöntemlerinden bütünleştirici değerlendirme yöntemi kullanılarak desenlenmiştir. Bu çalışma kapsamında eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonu önündeki engeller ve çözüm önerileri Hew ve Brush’ın (2007) belirlediği (i)kaynaklar, (ii)bilgi ve beceriler, (iii)kurum, (iv)tutumlar ve inançlar, (v)değerlendirme, (vi)konu alanı kültürü ve Belland’ın (2009) belirlediği (vii)habitus olmak üzere toplam 7 kategori altında incelenmiştir. Eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunun önündeki engeller incelendiğinde bu engellerin daha çok öğretmenlere yönelik olduğu görülmektedir. Diğer bir ifadeyle, teknoloji entegrasyonunu gerçekleştirmek amacıyla dışsal engellerin ortadan kaldırılması sonrasında öğretmenlerin entegrasyon konusundaki bilgi, beceri, tutum, inanç ve eğilimleri üzerinde durulmalıdır. Teknoloji entegrasyonu, mekanik bir süreçten çok, bireysel ve kurumsal düzeyde teknolojiye uyum sağlama ve bunu bir kültür haline dönüştürme olarak görülmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çubukçu, Z., İnci, T., Tosuntaş, Ş. B. (2022). A Holistic View to Barriers to Technology Integration in Education. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 439–461. https://ajindex.com/articles/617077

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143.
  2. Al-Alwani, A. (2005). Barriers to integrating information technology in Saudi Arabia science education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Kansas. Albaaly, E., & Higgins, S. (2012). The impact of interactive whiteboard technology on medical students' achievement in ESL essay writing: an early study in Egypt. The Language Learning Journal, 40(2), 207-222.
  3. Almekhlafi, A.G. (2006). The effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a foreign language (EFL) school students achievement and attitude. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 121-142.
  4. Arslan, S. (2016). Eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlerdeki değişimin incelenmesi (Unpublished master thesis). Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun. Ay, Y., Karadağ, E., & Acat, M. B. (2015). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-practical (TPACK-Practical) model: Examination of its validity in the Turkish culture via structural equation modeling. Computers & Education, 88, 97-108.
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
  6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519. Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboards in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 328- 348. A Holistic Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52, 353–364.
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Symbolic power. Critique of Anthropology, 4(13-14), 77-85.
  8. Bradshaw, L. K. (2002). Technology for teaching and learning: Strategies for staff development and follow-up support. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 131-150.
  9. Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer