Eğitimde Teknoloji Entegrasyonunun Önündeki Engellere Bütüncül Bir Bakış

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Engeller,kurumsal altyapı,habitus,öğretmen inançları,teknoloji entegrasyonu

A Holistic View to Barriers to Technology Integration in Education

Öz

Technology integration is sustainable and persistent change in the social system of schools caused by the adoption of technology to help students construct knowledge (Belland, 2009). Although it is not possible for technology integration initiatives to have an absolute purpose, studies are conducted and application examples are designed to make this integration process more effective and efficient. The focus of many of research is to identify barriers to technology integration and provide solutions. In literature, factors affecting technology integration in education are handled in different ways and various classifications are used. The aim of this study is to compile the results of research on factors affecting 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 literature review methods. In this study, barriers and solutions to the integration of technology in education are determined 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 these barriers 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 barriers in order to achieve technology integration. Technology integration should be seen as adapting and transforming it into a culture rather than a mechanical process.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Barriers,institutional substructure,habitus,teacher beliefs,technology integration

Kaynakça

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. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179−211.
3. Al-Alwani, A. (2005). Barriers to integrating information technology in Saudi Arabia science education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Kansas.
4. Anderson, J. E., Schwager, P. H., & Kerns, R. L. (2006). The drivers for acceptance of tablet PCs by faculty in a college of business. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(4), 429.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Arslan, S. (2016). Eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlerdeki değişimin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Samsun.
8. 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.

9. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Behrend, T. S., Wiebe, E. N., London, J. E., & Johnson, E. C. (2011). Cloud computing adoption and usage in community colleges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(2), 231-240.
15. Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52, 353–364.
16. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Symbolic power. Critique of Anthropology, 4(13-14), 77-85.
17. 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.
18. Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43.
19. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. 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.
21. Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology integration through professional learning community. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 59-82.
22. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189−211.
23. Cooper, H. M. (1986). The integrative research review: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
24. 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.
25. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318−339.
26. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111−1132.
27. Demiraslan, Y., & Usluel, Y. K. (2006). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğrenme-öğretme sürecine entegrasyonunun Etkinlik Kuramı’na göre incelenmesi. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23, 38-49.
28. Demirbağ, M. (2018). Öğretmen İnançları perspektifinden fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin teknoloji entegrasyonu (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.
29. Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J., &, Apple Computer Inc. (1990). Teacher beliefs and practices: Patterns of change. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Advanced Technology Group. ACOT Report.
30. Erbas, A. K., Ince, M., & Kaya, S. (2015). Learning mathematics with Interactive Whiteboards and Computer-Based Graphing Utility. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 299-312.
31. 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.
32. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
33. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182.
34. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435.
35. Falloon, G. (2015). What's the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in conventional classrooms. Computers & Education, 84, 62-77.
36. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37. Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 161-169.
38. Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 57-67.
39. 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(1), 21-39.
40. Gomes, C. (2005). Integration of ICT in science teaching: A study performed in Azores, Portugal. Recent research developments in learning technologies, 13(3), 63-71.
41. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
42. Haslaman,T., Kuskaya-Mumcu, F.& Kocak-Usluel,Y. (2008). Integration of ICT Into The Teaching-Learning Process: Toward A Unified Model. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications.2384-2389. AACE.
43. 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.
44. Howard, S. K., Chan, A., Mozejko, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). Technology practices: Confirmatory factor analysis and exploration of teachers' technology integration in subject areas. Computers & Education, 90, 24-35.
45. Hsu, H. H. (2012). The Acceptance of Moodle: An Empirical Study Based on BTKK.Creative Education, 3, 44-46. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.38b010.
46. Huang, J. H., Lin, Y. R., & Chuang, S. T. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library, 25(5), 585-598.
47. Hur, J. W., Shannon, D., & Wolf, S. (2016). An investigation of relationships between internal and external factors affecting technology integration in classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(3), 105-114.
48. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525-534.
49. Ilgaz, H. & Usluel, Y. (2011). Öğretim sürecine BİT entegrasyonu açısından öğretmen yeterlikleri ve mesleki gelişim. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 10(19), 87-106.
50. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154.
51. Jhurree, V. (2005). Technology integration in education in developing countries: Guidelines to policy makers. International Education Journal, 6(4), 467-483.
52. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
53. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85.
54. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
55. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109-1121.
56. Kopcha, T. J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Self-presentation bias in surveys of teachers’ educational technology practices. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 627-646.
57. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of educational research, 77(4), 575-614.
58. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284-296.
59. 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.
60. Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 83-116.
61. Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct of computer mediated classroom lesson. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 807–828.
62. Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community. Computers & education, 54(2), 600-610.
63. Liu, S. H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1012-1022.
64. 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.
65. Malik, N., & Shanwal, V. K. (2015). A comparative study of academic achievement of traditional classroom and smart classroom technology in relation to intelligence. Educational Quest, 6(1), 21.
66. Maor, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in computerized classroom environments. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 839-854.
67. Marsh, J. (2006). Popular culture in the literacy curriculum: A Bourdieuan analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 160-174.
68. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerine entegrasyonu: Modeller ve göstergeler. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 1(1), 62-79.
69. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2017). Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim 2016-2017 Yılı http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_03/31152628_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2016_2017_1.pdf adresinden 11 Nisan 2017 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
70. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192−222.
71. Moran, M., Hawkes, M., & Gayar, O. E. (2010). Tablet personal computer integration in higher education: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use technology model to understand supporting factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 79-101.
72. Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447-472.
73. National Center for Educational Statistics (2002). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools, and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474409.pdf adresinden 1 Nisan 2017 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
74. Neuman, L. W. (2007). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar (S. Özge, Çev.). İstanbul: Yayın Odası Yayıncılık.
75. Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and teacher education, 17(1), 15-31.
76. Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2015). Barriers to the integration of computers in early childhood settings: Teachers’ perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), 285-301.
77. Noyes, A. (2004). (Re) producing mathematics educators: A sociological perspective. Teaching Education, 15(3), 243-256.
78. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321-1335.
79. Overbay, A., Patterson, A. S., Vasu, E. S., & Grable, L. L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use: Findings from the IMPACTing leadership project. Educational Media International, 47(2), 103-120.
80. Pac, R. L. (2008). Factors that influence technology use during instructional time (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University, USA.
81. Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yılmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2013). Öğretmen ve öğrenci bakış açısıyla tablet PC ve etkileşimli tahta kullanımı: FATİH Projesi değerlendirmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(3), 1799-1822.
82. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863-870.
83. Robyler, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, N. J: Merrill Prentice Hall.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
84. 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(4), 297-310.
85. Sandholtz, J. H. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of teacher development programs. Journal of technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 349-374.
86. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112.
87. Scott, P., & Mouza, C. (2007). The impact of professional development on teacher learning, practice and leadership skills: A study on the integration of technology in the teaching of writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(3), 229-266.
88. Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: the influence of subject cultures. Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 29-48.
89. Sheninger, E. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin & Ontario Principal’s Council.
90. Shin, D. H., Shin, Y. J., Choo, H., & Beom, K. (2011). Smartphones as smart pedagogical tools: Implications for smartphones as u-learning devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2207-2214.
91. Shriki, A., & Lavy, I. (2005). Assimilating innovative learning/teaching approaches into teacher education: Why is it so difficult?. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 185-192.
92. Sicilia, C. (2005). The challenges and benefits to teachers' practices in constructivist learning environments supported by technology. (Unpublished master’s thesis) McGill University, Montreal.
93. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”?. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321-1341.
94. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101.
95. Sumak, B., Polancic, G., & Hericko, M. (2010, February). An empirical study of virtual learning environment adoption using UTAUT. In Mobile, Hybrid, and On-Line learning, 2010. ELML'10. Second International Conference on (pp. 17e22). IEEE.
96. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT Usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 561−570.
97. Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre‐service teachers. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 163-174.
98. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre‐service teachers' computer attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of computer assisted learning, 24(2), 128-143.
99. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124−143.
100. Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73-89.
101. Toledo, C. (2005). A five-stage model of computer technology integration into teacher education curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 177-191.
102. Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Karadağ, E., & Orhan, S. (2015). The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and use of technology. Computers & Education, 81, 169-178.
103. Tosuntaş, Ş. B. (2017). Öğretmenlerin etkileşimli tahta kullanımına etki eden faktörler ve öğretmen performansına etkisi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
104. Türel, Y. K. (2011). An interactive whiteboard student survey: Development, validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2441-2450.
105. Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The" third"-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060.
106. Valcke, M., Rots, I., Verbeke, M., & Van Braak, J. (2007). ICT teacher training: Evaluation of the curriculum and training approach in Flanders. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 795-808.
107. Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of educational computing research, 25(2), 141-157.
108. Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852.
109. Van Schaik, P. (2009). Unified theory of acceptance and use for websites used by students in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research,40(2), 229-257.
110. Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The e-capacity of primary schools: Development of a conceptual model and scale construction from a school improvement perspective. Computers & Education, 55(2), 541-553.
111. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
112. Voogt, J., & McKenney, S. (2017). TPACK in teacher education: are we preparing teachers to use technology for early literacy?. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 69-83.
113. Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 17-25.
114. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231-250.
115. Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411-419.
116. Wang, Q., & ve Woo, H. L. (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Educational Technology and Society, 10(1), 148-156.
117. Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communication technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 235–286.
118. Williams, P. W. (2009). Assessing mobile learning effectiveness and acceptance. Unpublished Dissertation, The George Washington University.
119. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
120. Woodbridge, J. (2003). Technology integration as a teaching strategy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Walden University, Minneapolis.
121. Yen, J. C., & Lee, C. Y. (2011). Exploring problem solving patterns and their impact on learning achievement in a blended learning environment. Computers & Education, 56(1), 138-145.