Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality criteria for conceptual technology integration models in education: bridging research and practice

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to effectively use technology in education, appropriate conceptual understandings are needed to guide the integration process. Today, there is a wide range of conceptual models that are developed and used in research and/or practice focusing on educational technology integration. Conceptual models are of relevance as they can bridge theory with practical applications. Today, there are a wide range of conceptual models are developed and used in research and/or practice focusing on educational technology integration. These models can be seen as simplified versions of theories for practical application or as condensed wisdoms of practice that need to be further investigated theoretically and empirically. However, there is insufficient agreement on the dimensions and criteria used to judge the quality of conceptual models in educational technology. Therefore, the main goals of this article are to: (1) develop criteria to assess the quality and scope of conceptual models and (2) identify and compare exemplary models for technology integration in educational settings along with these quality criteria. The resulting five criteria from this investigation provide the means to effectively evaluate the quality and scope of conceptual models focused on technology integration while providing additional insight into applying these models in research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computer & Education, 56, 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., Albayrak Sari, A., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers’ TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the construct ’just right? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2001). Instruments for assessing the impact of technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 18(2–3), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v18n02_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin, E., & Lemke, C. (1999). Professional competency continuum: Professional skills for the digital age classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers & Education, 130, 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisser, P., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (2020). Learners and learning contexts: New alignments for the digital age. EDUsummIT 2019 - eBook.

  • Frigg, R., & Hartmann. (2018). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2018 Ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/models-science.

  • Gennip, H., Smeets, E., & Marx, T. (2007). Education with ICT 2007 Main research results in second year monitor Four in balance. Retrieved from http://www.ictopschool.net/onderzoek/nieuws/Nieuwsbericht.2007-10.

  • Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grønfeldt Winther, R. (2015). The structure of scientific theories. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/.

  • Hall, G. E. (1974). The concerns-based adoption model: A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameran Educational Research Association (Chicago, Illinois, April 1974).

  • Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handelzalts, A. (2019). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. In J. Pieters (Ed.), Collaborative curriculum design for sustainable innovation and teacher learning (pp. 159–173). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen, H. L., de Jong, F. P., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). What is (good) practitioner research? Vocations and Learning, 9(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2013). Mental models and cognitive change. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.759935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Operationalizing mental models: Strategies for assessing mental models to support meaningful learning and design-supportive learning environments. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of Cscl 95: The first international conference on computer support for collaborative learning: October 17–20, 1995. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Indiana University. Retrieved from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Operationalizing-mental-models%3A-strategies-for-to-Jonassen/76c66017275649906b45bac450de55db863250b0.

  • Kennisnet. (2014). Four in balance monitor. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: Kennisnet Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.kennisnet.nl/fileadmin/kennisnet/corporate/algemeen/Four_in_balance_monitor_2015.pdf.

  • Khine, M. S., Ali, N., & Afari, E. (2017). Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 1605–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9507-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmons, R. (2015). Examining TPACK’s theoretical future. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 53–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2018). How useful are our models? Pre-service and practicing teacher evaluations of technology integration models. TechTrends, 62, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0227-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Hancock, R., & Shoho, A. (2000). Toward a structural model of technology integration. In Paper presented to the Annual Hawaii Educational Research Association Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 12, 2000.

  • Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher education, 9(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C. L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1–2), 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales, C. (2006). Cross-cultural validation of the will, skill, tool model of technology integration. University Dissertation Digital.library.unt.edu.

  • Moreira, G. I. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models and modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S. Y., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 71, 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niederhauser, D. S., & Lindstrom, D. L. (2018). Instructional technology integration models and frameworks: Diffusion, competencies, attitudes, and dispositions. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 335–355). Cham, CH: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 15–22). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (1993). The worldwide use of computers: A description of main trends. Computers & Education, 20(4), 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petko, D. (2012a). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivists orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petko, D. (2012b). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ’will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petko, D., Prasse, D., & Cantieni, A. (2018). The interplay of school readiness and teacher readiness for educational technology integration: A structural equation model. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M. (2015). Models of technology integration. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies (pp. 318–331). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/resources/tte/

  • Puentedura, R. R. (2012). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExemplars.pdf.

  • Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saubern, R. (2020). Is TPACK a theory?. In D. Schmidt-Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1958–1964). Online: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 20, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/215977/.

  • Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness. A critical review of the knowledge base. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (2001). Science seeks parsimony, not simplicity: Searching for pattern in phenomena. In A. Zellner, H. A. Keuzenkamp, & M. McAleer (Eds.), Simplicity, inference and modelling: Keeping it sophisticatedly simple (pp. 32–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, O. G., & Manzuoli, C. H. (2019). Models for the pedagogical integration of information and communication technologies: A literature review. Ensaio: Avaliação e Polticas Públicas em Educação, 27(102), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-4036201800270172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svetlova, E., & Dirksen, V. (2014). Models at work—models in decision making. Science in Context, 27(4), 561–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Brummelhuis, A. C. (1995). Models of educational change: The introduction of computers in Dutch secondary education. Retrieved from https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/models-of-educational-change-the-introduction-of-computers-in-dut.

  • Tondeur, J., Coenders, A., van Braak, J., ten Brummelhuis, A., & Vanderlinde, R. (2009). Using online tools to support technology integration in education. Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 389–402). IGI Global: Pennsylvania.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., De Bruyne, E., Van Den Driessche, M., McKenney, S., & Zandvliet, D. (2015). The physical placement of classroom technology and its influences on educational practices. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(4), 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., Howard, S., Knezek, G., Voogt, J., Ifenthaler, D., & Gibson, D., et al (2020). Based implications for policy and practice: Outcomes from EDUsummIT 2019 (Quebec). The 6th International Summit on Information Technology in Education. InEdMedia+ Innovate Learning 2020 Jun 23 (pp. 475–478). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 212–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuijnman, A. C., & ten Brummelhuis, A. C. (1992). Determinants of computer use in lower secondary schools in Japan and the United States. Computers & Education, 19(3), 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E., & Steffe, L. P. (1991). Conceptual models in educational research and practice. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 25, 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3–4), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, J., Harmes, J. C., & Winkelman, R. (2011). Florida’s technology integration matrix. Principal Leadership, 12, 69–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, R. E., Ertmer, P., & McKenney, S. (2020). The crucial role of theoretical scholarship for learning design and technology. Education Technology Research Development, 68, 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09770-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Multidisciplinary Institute of Teacher Education, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, B1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Jo Tondeur

  2. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Dominik Petko

  3. University of North Texas, Denton, USA

    Rhonda Christensen & Gerald Knezek

  4. Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany

    Kerstin Drossel

  5. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Louise Starkey

  6. Iowa State University, Ames, USA

    Denise A. Schmidt-Crawford

Authors
  1. Jo Tondeur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominik Petko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rhonda Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kerstin Drossel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Louise Starkey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerald Knezek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Denise A. Schmidt-Crawford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo Tondeur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

There are no human participants and/or animals involved in this study (concept paper). So no informed consent was needed.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tondeur, J., Petko, D., Christensen, R. et al. Quality criteria for conceptual technology integration models in education: bridging research and practice. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 2187–2208 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09911-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09911-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation