The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for sustaining technology integration in educational settings. The framework is developed based on a review of other frameworks as well as supplemental findings of a recent research study. The framework describes constant and essential influences for sustenance of a change process and is explicated to inform change mechanisms in terms of planning and implementation of technology integration. Various technology integration change models are initially reviewed, followed by a discussion of the specific framework that emerged via a research study. The framework describes three major components from the research study, which include people, process activities, and systems. The dynamics of the three major components are described with a number of guidelines for managing three components in the technology integration change process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AvraamidouL.Zembal-SaulC.. “Making the Case for the Use of Web-based Portfolios in Support of Learning to Teach.”The Journal of Interactive Online Learning1 (2002): 1–19.
2.
BalachC. A.SzymanskiG. J.. “The Growth of a Professional Learning Community through Collaborative Action Research.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, USA, 2003.
3.
BanathyB. H.A Systems View of Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology, 1992.
4.
BanathyB. H.“Systems Inquiry and its Application in Education.” In Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology edited by JonassenD. H., 74–93. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1996.
5.
BauerD. G.“Finding the Money.”Principal Leadership1 (2001): 24–28.
6.
BransfordT.BrownA.CockingK., eds. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
7.
BrushT.GlazewskiK.RutowskiK.. “Integrating Technology in a Field-based Teacher Training Program: The PT3@ASU Project.”Educational Technology Research and Development51 (2003): 57–72.
8.
CibulkaJ.NakayamaM.. Practitioners Guide to Learning Communities. National partnerships for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, 2001.
9.
CliftR. T.VealM. L.HollandP.JohnsonM.McCarthyJ.. Collaborative Leadership and Shared Decision Making: Teachers, Principals, and University Professors. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1995.
10.
CooperJ. M.BullG.. “Technology and Teacher Education: Past Practice and Recommended Directions.”Action in Teacher Education19 (1997):97–106.
11.
EdigerM.Computers, Technology, and the Reading Curriculum. Eric Digest: USA, 2002.
12.
ErtmerP. A.“Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration?”Educational Technology Research and Development53 (2005): 25–39.
13.
ElyD.“Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations.”Journal of Research on Computing in Education23 (1990): 298–305.
14.
FullanM.StiegelbauerS.. The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teacher College Press, 1991.
15.
GroveK.StrudlerN.OdellS.. “Mentoring toward Technology Use: Cooperating Teacher Practice in Supporting Student Teachers.”Journal of Research on Technology in Education37 (2004): 85–109.
16.
HallG.HordS.. Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1987.
17.
HavelockR.ZlotolowS.. The Change Agent's Guide, Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1995.
18.
HsuP. S.SharmaP.. “A Systemic Plan of Technology Integration.”Educational Technology and Society9 (2006): 173–184.
19.
HsuP. S.SharmaP.. “A Case Study of Enabling Factors in the Technology Integration Change Process.”Educational Technology and Society11 (2008): 213–228.
20.
JosephR.JenlinkP. M.ReigeluthC. M.Carr-ChellmanA.NelsonL. M.. “Banathy's Influence on the Guidance System for Transforming Education.”World Future58 (2002): 379–394.
21.
LambertL.“A Framework for Shared Leadership.”Educational Leadership59 (2002): 37–40.
22.
MaeroffG. I.CallanP. M.UsdanM. D.. The Learning Connection. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 2001.
23.
Penn State Library. “Penn State College of Education.”Penn State Paterno Library, Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu (assessed November 8, 2004).
24.
ReigeluthC.GarfinkleR.. “Envisioning a New System of Education.” In Systemic Change in Education edited by ReigeluthC.GarfinkleR., 59–70. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1994.
RobbinsN.GordonB.. “Successful Alternatives to How Technologists Work with Schools.”THE Journal27 (2000): 132–136.
27.
RoddaC.“East Side Union High School District.”Thrust for Educational Leadership29 (1999): 24–60.
28.
RogersE. M.The Diffusion of Innovation (4th ed.). New York: Free Press, 1995.
29.
SeelsB.CampbellS.TalsmaV.. “Supporting Excellence in Technology through Communities of Learners.”Educational Technology Research and Development51 (2003): 91–104.
30.
SengeP. M.The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1990.
31.
WhiteB. S.BranchR. M.. “Systematic Pilot Testing as a Step in the Instructional Design Process of Corporate Training and Development.”Performance Improvement Quarterly14 (2001): 75–94.
32.
WarschauderM.MatuchniakT.. “New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing the Performance of Diverse Learners.”Review of Research in Education34 (2010):179–225.
33.
ZaltmanG.DuncanR.. Strategies for Planned Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1997.
