73-90

• Hechter, Richard, P.
• Vermette, Laurie Anne

This paper examines the barriers to technology integration for Manitoban K-12 inservice science educators (n = 430) based on a 10-item online survey; results are analyzed according to teaching stream using the Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. Quantitative descriptive statistics indicated that the leading barriers experienced by all teachers are inadequate: access; time; resources; training; budget; and support. Upon further examination, Middle Years and Senior Years teachers are considerably more likely to report that access and time hinder technology integration than their Early Years counterparts. Nearly 80% of all teachers remarked that technology was available to them, but about one quarter of respondents expressed frustration about the barriers that hinder effective technology integration in their classrooms. Implications of this study inform school division teacher support programs and planning, inservice professional development opportunities, and preservice teacher education.

• Educational sciences

• Εκπαιδευτική τεχνολογία

Science Education, Teaching and Learning, Technology Integration, Barriers, K-12 Classrooms

The data reported in this paper is based upon work supported by the University of Manitoba UM-SSHRC RGP under Grant No. 36259. We thank the teachers across Manitoba for participating in this study.

1. Adams, D., & Shrum, J. W. (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 777–787.Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), 1-31. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/442/565.Buffin, S. (2007). Screenagers and the net-gen: Catching up with the digital natives. Around the Globe, 3(3), 34.Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. London: Sage.Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5-13. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://bookstoread.com/etp/earle.pdf.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.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.Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), 423-435.Gado, I., Ferguson, R., & Van‟t Hooft, M. (2006). Using handheld-computers and probeware in a science methods course: Preservice teachers‟ attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 501-529.Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., Clair St., L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.Hakverdi-Can, M., & Dana, T.M. (2012). Exemplary science teachers‟ use of technology. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 94-112.Harris, J. (2005). Our agenda for technology integration: It‟s time to choose. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss2/editorial/article1.cfm.Hechter, R.P., Phyfe, L.D., & Vermette, L.A. (2012). Integrating technology in education: Moving the TPCK framework towards practical applications. Education Research and Perspectives, 39, 136-152.Hechter, R.P., & Vermette, L.A. (2013). Tech-savvy science education? Understanding teacher pedagogical practices for integrating technology in K-12 classrooms Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching (in Press).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, 277–302.Hughes, J. (2008). The Development of Teacher TPCK by Instructional Approach: Tools, Videocase, and Problems of Practice. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D.A. Willis (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 5227-5234). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.editlib.org/p/28108.Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269.Jones, J., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2009). Investigating Lecturers’ use of Learning Designs to Support Technology Enhanced Course Design. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 2719-2725). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.editlib.org/p/32870.Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 581–597.Laws, P. (1997). Millikan lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory courses. American Journal of Physics, 65(1), 14–21.Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.Lin,T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C.S., & Lee, M.-H. (2012). Identifying science teachers‟ perceptions of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, July, 1-12.Luu, K., & Freeman, J. G. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Australia. Computers & Education, 56, 1072–1082.Manitoba Education. (n.d.). An Action Plan for Science Education in Manitoba. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/science/action_plan/rationale.html.Metcalf, S. J., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 43–49.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D.A. Willis (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from www.editlib.org/p/24919.Nicolaou, C., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. (2007). Fourth graders ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 75–99.Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.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.Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAPs) (n.d.). Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.cmec.ca/302/Programs-and-Initiatives/Assessment/Pan-Canadian-Assessment-Program-%28PCAP%29/PCAP-2013/index.html.Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAPs). (2011). PCAP-2010 Report on the Pan-Canadian Assessment of Mathematics, Science, and Reading. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/274/pcap2010.pdf.Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2009). PISA Results: Canadian Students Score High in Performance, Canadian Education System Scores High in Equity. Retrieved 20 May 2013 http://cdnsba.org/all/education-in-canada/pisa-results-canadian-students-score-high-in-performance-canadian-education-system-scores-high-in-equity.Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37(2), 163-178.Penuel, W. R., & Fishman, B. J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 281-304.Reid-Griffin, A., & Carter, G. (2004). Technology as a tool: Applying an instructional model to teach middle school students to use technology as a mediator of learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 495–504.Roblyner, M. D. (2000). The national educational technology standards (nets): A review of definitions, implications, and strategies for integrating nets into K-12 curriculum. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 133.Rushkoff, D. (1996). Playing the future: What we can learn from digital kids – Children of chaos in the UK. New York: Riverhead Books.Russell, M., O‟Dwyer, L., Bebell, D., & Tao, W. (2007). How teachers‟ uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 393-417.Seimears, C. M., Graves, E., Schroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. (2012). How constructivist-based teaching influences students learning science. Educational Forum, 76(2), 265-271.Settlage, J. (1995). Children‟s conceptions of light in the context of a technology-based curriculum. Science Education, 79(5), 535–553.Shieh, R. S. (2012). The impact of technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) implementation on student learning and teachers' teaching in a high school context. Computers and Education, 59(2), 206-214.Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). (2012). Digital Economy Priority Area. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/priority_areas-domaines_prioritaires/digital_research-recherche_numerique-eng.aspx.Tsai, C.-C. & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Building the ICT capacity of the next generation of teachers in Asia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060.Varma, K., Husic, F., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Targeted support for using technology- enhanced science inquiry modules. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 341-356.Vonderwell, S., Sparrow, K., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Using handheld computers and probeware in inquiry-based science education. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 1(2), 1-11. Retrieved 20 May 2013, from http://www.rcetj.org.Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers‟ perspectives. Journal of Science Education Technology, 20, 17-25.Windschitl, M. (2009). Cultivating 21st century skills in science learners: How systems of teacher preparation and professional development will have to evolve. National Academies of Science Workshop on 21st Century Skills. Retrieved May 20 2013, fromhttp://education.washington.edu/research/reports/21stCenturySkills.pdf.Zucker, A. A., Tinker, R., Staudt, C., Mansfield, A., & Metcalf, S. (2008). Learning science in grades 3-8 using probeware and computers: Findings from the TEEMSS II project. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 42-48