technology integration research paper

• View  PDF
• Download full issue

Computers & Education

What is “technology integration” and how is it measured in k-12 education a systematic review of survey instruments from 2010 to 2021.

• • A shared understanding of how to measure technology integration is lacking.
• • Several instruments have no explicit conceptual or theoretical underpinnings.
• • Instruments should address aspect related to the quality of technology integration.
• • The study highlights several ways to measure the quality of technology integration.
• • Cognitive activation and collaboration are the most measured pedagogical aspects.
• Previous article in issue
• Next article in issue

Data availability

Cited by (0).

Technology Integration in Schools

• First Online: 01 January 2013

Cite this chapter

• Randall S. Davies 5 &
• Richard E. West 5  

32k Accesses

46 Citations

19 Altmetric

It is commonly believed that learning is enhanced through the use of technology and that students need to develop technology skills in order to be productive members of society. For this reason, providing a high quality education includes the expectation that teachers use educational technologies effectively in their classroom and that they teach their students to use technology. In this chapter we have organized our review of technology integration research around a framework based on three areas of focus: (1) increasing access to educational technologies, (2) increasing the use of technology for instructional purposes, and (3) improving the effectiveness of technology use to facilitate learning. Within these categories, we describe findings related to one-to-one computing initiatives, integration of open educational resources, various methods of teacher professional development, ethical issues affecting technology use, emerging approaches to technology integration that emphasize pedagogical perspectives and personalized instruction, technology-enabled assessment practices, and the need for systemic educational change to fully realize technology’s potential for improving learning. From our analysis of the scholarship in this area, we conclude that the primary benefit of current technology use in education has been to increase information access and communication. Students primarily use technology to gather, organize, analyze, and report information, but this has not dramatically improved student performance on standardized tests. These findings lead to the conclusion that future efforts should focus on providing students and teachers with increased access to technology along with training in pedagogically sound best practices, including more advanced approaches for technology-based assessment and adaptive instruction.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Comprehensive Review of Educational Technology on Objective Learning Outcomes in Academic Contexts

Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: teachers and students weigh in

Technology and teacher education: a brief glimpse of the research and practice that have shaped the field.

Akbulut, Y., Sendag, S., Birinci, G., Kilicer, K., Sahin, M. C., & Odabasi, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons of internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of internet-triggered academic dishonesty scale (ITADS). Computers in Education, 51 (1), 463–473.

Article   Google Scholar  

Annetta, L., Murray, M., Gull Laird, S., Bohr, S., & Park, J. (2008). Investigating student attitudes toward a synchronous, online graduate course in a multi-user virtual learning environment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (1), 5–34.

Google Scholar  

Atkins, D. E., Seely Brown, J., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the Open Educational Resources ( OER ) movement : Achievements , challenges , and new opportunities . A report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.oerderves.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/a-review-of-the-open-educational-resources-oer-movement_final.pdf .

Bahrampour, T. (2006, December 9). For some, laptops don’t computer: Virginia school pushes wireless learning. Washington Post , p. 1.

Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (1), 93–112.

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13 (4), 519–546.

Baum, J. J. (2005). CyberEthics: The new frontier. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49 (6), 54–56.

Bausell, C. V. (2008). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week: Technology Counts, 27 (30), 39–42.

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9 (2), 4–58.

Ben-Jacob, M. (2005). Integrating computer ethics across the curriculum: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (4), 198–204.

Bennett, L. (2005). Guidelines for using technology in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 96 (1), 38.

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15 (3), 195–203. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001 .

Calandra, B., Brantley-dias, L., Lee, J. K., & Fox, D. L. (2009). Using video editing to cultivate novice teachers’ practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (1), 73–94.

Cavin, R. (2008). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teachers through microteaching lesson study. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 5214–5220). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/28106 .

Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Center for Digital Education. (2008). A complete guide to one-to-one computing . Retrieved from http://www.one-to-oneinstitute.org/files/CDE07_Book_MPC_K12.pdf-oneinstitute.org/files/CDE07_Book_MPC_K12.pdf .

Cheesman, E., Winograd, G., & Wehrman, J. (2010). Clickers in teacher education: Student perceptions by age and gender. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18 (1), 35–55.

Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8 (3), 203–211.

Choy, D., & Wong, A. F. L. (2009). Student teachers’ intentions and actions on integrating technology into their classrooms during student teaching: A Singapore study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (2), 175–195.

Chuang, H. (2010). Weblog-based electronic portfolios for student teachers. Technology , 211–227. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9098-1 .

Cizek, G. J. (2010a). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges. In G. J. Cizek & H. L. Andrade (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cizek, G. J. (2010b). Translating standards into assessments : The opportunities and challenges of a common core . Brookings Institute Report . Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/∼/media/Files/events/2010/1028_race_to_the_top/1028_race_to_the_top_cizek_paper.pdf .

*Conati, C. (2009). Intelligent tutoring systems: New challenges and directions. Proceedings of the Twenty - First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI-09/paper/viewFile/671/576 .

Cook-Sather, A. (2007). Direct links: Using e-mail to connect preservice teachers, experienced teachers, and high school students within an undergraduate teacher preparation program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15 (1), 11–37.

Cooper, M. (2010). Charting a course for software licensing and distribution. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Fall Conference on SIGUCCS 2010 . doi: 10.1145/1878335.1878375

Cuban, L. (2006a, October 18). Commentary: The laptop revolution has no clothes. Education Week , p. 29. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/18/08cuban.h26.html

Cuban, L. (2006b, October 31). 1:1 laptops transforming classrooms: Yeah, sure . New York, NY: Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=12818 .

Davies, R. (2003). Learner intent and online courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 2 (1), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/2.1.4.pdf .

*Davies, R. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning , 55 (5), 45–52.

Davies, R., Sprague, C., & New, C. (2008). Integrating technology into a science classroom: An evaluation of inquiry-based technology integration. In D. W. Sunal, E. L. Wright, & C. Sundberg (Eds.), The impact of technology and the laboratory on K-16 science learning series: Research in science education (pp. 207–237). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

de Jager, K., & Brown, C. (2010). The tangled web: Investigating academics’ views of plagiarism at the University of Cape Town. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (5), 513–528.

Derham, C., & DiPerna, J. (2007). Digital professional portfolios of preservice teaching: An initial study of score reliability and validity. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15 (3), 363–381.

Deubel, P. (2010). Are we ready for testing under common core state standards? The Journal . Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/09/15/are-we-ready-for-testing-under-common-core-state-standards.aspx

Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach online: What works for pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40 (3), 357–376.

Dyal, A., Carpenter, L. B., & Wright, J. V. (2009). Assistive technology: What every school leader should know. Education, 129 (3), 556–560.

Elliot, S. (2003). Intellimetric: From here to validity. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 71–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39 (6), 23–27.

*Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect culture. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 42 (3), 255–284.

Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years? Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1), 74–93.

Fletcher, G., & Lu, J. (2009). Human computing skills: Rethinking the K-12 experience. Communications of the ACM, 52 (2), 23–25. doi: 10.1145/1461928.1461938 .

Garland, V. E. (2010). Emerging technology trends and ethical practices for the school principal. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38 (1), 39–50.

Gentry, L. B., Denton, C. A., & Kurz, T. (2008). Technologically-based mentoring provided to teachers: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (3), 339–373.

Gibson, S., & Kelland, J. (2009). Connecting preservice teachers with children using blogs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17 (3), 299–314.

*Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers ’ use of educational technology in U . S . public schools : 2009 (NCES 2010–040) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Greaves, T. W., & Hayes, J. (2008). American’s digital schools 2008: The six trends to watch . Encinitas, CA: Greaves Group and Hayes Connection.

Gunn, C. (2010). Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18 (2), 89–103.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 393–416.

Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhoupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in P-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers in Education, 51 (4), 1648–1663.

Howell, S. L., Sorensen, D., & Tippets, H. R. (2009). The new (and old) news about cheating for distance educators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12 (3).

Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities: Why do teachers want to participate in self-generated online communities of K-12 teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (3), 279–304.

Huysman, M., Steinfield, C., David, K., Poot, J. A. N., & Mulder, I. (2003). Virtual teams and the appropriation of communication technology: Exploring the concept of media stickiness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12 , 411–436.

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.

*International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008). National educational technology standards for teacchers (NETS-T) . Eugene, OR: Author.

International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008b). National educational technology standards for students (NETS-S) . Eugene, OR: Author.

Jocoy, C., & DiBiase, D. (2006). Plagiarism by adult learners online: A case study in detection and remediation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7 (1), 1–15.

Jones, N. B., & Graham, C. (2010). Improving hybrid and online course delivery emerging technologies. In Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning management system technologies and software solutions for online teaching : Tools and applications (pp. 239–258). doi: 10.4018/978-1-61520-853-1.ch014 .

Kang, M., Heo, H., Jo, I., Shin, J., & Seo, J. (2010–2011). Developing an educational performance indicator for new millennium learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43 (2), 157–170.

Kang, J. J., Wu, M. L., Ni, X., & Li, G. (2010). Developing a TPACK assessment framework for evaluating teachers’ knowledge and practice to provide ongoing feedback. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 1980–1983). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

*Keefe, J. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan , 89 (3), 217–223.

Keefe, J., & Jenkins, J. (2002). A special section on personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (6), 440–448.

King, C. G., Jr., Roger, W. G., Jr., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students’ views. Journal of Educators Online, 6 (1), 1–11.

*Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge ( TPCK ) for educators . New York, NY: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers in Education, 49 (3), 740–762.

Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Technology, 58 (2), 175–190. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4 .

Kose, E. (2009). Assessment of the effectiveness of the educational environment supported by computer aided presentations at primary school level. Computers in Education, 53 (4), 1355–1362.

Kruger, R. (2003). Discussing cyber ethics with students is critical. The Social Studies, 94 (4), 188–189.

Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Cuper, P. (2008). Technology, transfer, and teaching: The impact of a single technology course on preservice teachers’ computer attitudes and ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (4), 385–410.

Li, S. C. (2010). Social capital, empowerment and educational change: A scenario of permeation of one-to-one technology in school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (4), 284–295.

Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55 (5), 411–437.

Livingston, P. (2008). 1 to 1 Learning: Building and sustaining a computing program does not happen overnight. Education Week, 1 (3), 18–21.

Lowther, D. L., & Ross, S. M. (2012). Instructional designers and P-12 technology integration. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 208–217). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ma, H., Lu, E. Y., Turner, C. C., & Wan, G. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory Into Practice, 47 (3), 197–203.

Macdonald, R. J. (2008). Professional development for information communication technology integration: Identifying and supporting a community of practice through design-based research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40 (4), 429–445.

Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of organizational change? ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18 (3), 179–192.

*Marzano, R. J. (2009). Formative versus summative assessments as measures of student learning. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley (Eds.), Handbook of data-based decision making in education (pp. 261–271). New York, NY: Routledge.

McCaughtry, N., & Dillon, S. R. (2008). Learning to use PDAs to enhance teaching: The perspectives of preservice physical educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (4), 483–508.

McCurry, D. (2010). Can machine scoring deal with broad and open writing tests as well as human readers? Assessing Writing, 15 (2), 118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2010.04.002 .

McMillan-Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of educational technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 32 (3), 279–307. Retrieved from http://courses.ceit.metu.edu.tr/ceit626/week12/JECR.pdf .

Miller, G. (2009). Computers as writing instructors. Science, 323 (5910), 59–60. doi: 10.1126/science.323.5910.59 .

Milson, A. J., & Chu, B. W. (2002). Character education for cyberspace: Developing good netizens. The Social Studies, 93 (3), 117–119.

Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology , 23 (4), 40–42. Retrieved from http://loticonnection.com/pdf/LoTiFrameworkNov95.pdf .

Nagel, D. (2010, May 5). Report: Mobile and classroom technologies surge in schools. The Journal . Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/05/05/report-mobile-and-classroom-technologies-surge-in-schools.aspx

Niederhauser, D. S., & Lindstrom, D. L. (2006). Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34 (1), 91–128.

O’Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. T.H.E. Journal, 36 (3), 32–36.

Oliver, K. (2007). Leveraging web 2.0 in the redesign of a graduate-level technology integration course. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 51 (5), 55–61.

Osguthorpe, R. T., Osguthorpe, R. T., Jacob, J., & Davies, R. (2003). The moral design of instruction. Educational Technology, 43 (2), 19–23.

Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional development program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (1), 43–61.

Owusua, K. A., Monneyb, K. A., Appiaha, J. Y., & Wilmota, E. M. (2010). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on performance of senior high school biology students in Ghana. Computers in Education, 55 (2), 904–910. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.001 .

Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 417–441.

Pascual, P. C. (2005). Educational technoethics: As a means to an end. AACE Journal, 13 (1), 73–90.

*Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use . New York, NY: Gilford Press.

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (3), 329–348.

Richey, R. C., Silber, K. H., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field. TechTrends, 52 (1), 24–25.

Rickard, A., McAvinia, C., & Quirke-Bolt, N. (2009). The challenge of change: Digital video-analysis and constructivist teaching approaches on a one year preservice teacher education program in Ireland. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17 (3), 349–367.

Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2009). Effectively using technology in education. Better Evidence-Based Education, 2 (1), 20–21.

Ross, S. M., Morrison, G., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1 (1), 17–35.

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.

Russell, M., & Douglas, J. (2009). Comparing self-paced and cohort-based online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 443–466.

Samuels, L. B., & Bast, C. M. (2006). Strategies to help legal studies students avoid plagiarism. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 23 (2), 151–167.

Sangra, A., & Gonzalez-Sanmamed, M. (2010). The role of information and communication technologies in improving teaching and learning processes in primary and secondary schools. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18 (3), 207–220.

Saunders, G., Wenzel, L., & Stivason, C. T. (2008). Internet courses: Who is doing the work? Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5 (6), 25–35.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (2), 123–149.

Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9 (4), 6–10.

Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12 (3), 1–10.

Stucker, H. (2005). Digital “natives” are growing restless. School Library Journal, 51 (6), 9–10.

*Toch, T., & Tyre, P. (2010). How will the common core initiative impact the testing industry ? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://spencer.jrn.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Tyre_Fordham.pdf .

Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

Topol, B., Olson, J., & Roeber, E. (2010). The cost of new higher quality assessments : A comprehensive analysis of the potential costs for future state assessments . Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/pages/pubs/pub_docs/assessment/scope_pa_topol.pdf .

Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18 (2), 149–160.

Turner, C. C. (2005). A new honesty for a new game: Distinguishing cheating from learning in a web-based testing environment. Journal of Political Science Education, 1 (2), 163–174.

US Department of Education. (2002). Enhancing education through technology . Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 . Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html .

*US Department of Education (2010). Transforming American education : Learning powered by technology . National Education Technology Plan 2010. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.

US Government Accountability Office. (2009). Report to the chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. No Child Left Behind Act : Enhancements in the Department of Education ’ s review process could improve state academic assessments . GAO-09-911. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, September 2009. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09911.pdf .

Van Dam, A., Becker, S., & Simpson, R. M. (2007). Next-generation educational software: Why we need it & a research agenda for getting it (p. 32). SIGGRAPH ‘07: ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Courses. New York, NY: ACM.

Vandewaetere, M., Desmet, P., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Review: The contribution of learner characteristics in the development of computer-based adaptive learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (1), 118–130. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.038 .

Vavasseur, C. B., & Macgregor, S. K. (2008). Extending content-focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40 (4), 517–536.

Vigdor, J. L., & Ladd, H. F. (2010). Scaling the digital divide : Home computer technology and student achievement . Working paper no. 16078, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16078 .

Wang, Y. (2008). University student online plagiarism. International Journal on E-Learning, 7 (4), 743–757.

Warschauer, M. (2010, May). Netbooks and open source software in one - to - one programs . Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/netbooks-aera2010.pdf

Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can one laptop per child save the world’s poor? Journal of International Affairs, 64 (1), 33–51.

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34 (1), 179–225. doi: 10.3102/0091732X09349791 .

West, R. E., Rich, P. J., Shepherd, C. E., Recesso, A., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Supporting induction teachers’ development using performance-based video evidence. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17 (3), 369–391.

West, R. E., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C. R. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55 (1), 1–26. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9018-1 .

Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology , Learning , and Assessment , 9 (6), 4–19. Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org

Wiley, D. (2007). Open educational resources : On the sustainability of OER initiatives in higher education . Commissioned report for OECD. Retrieved January 6, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/9/38645447.pdf .

*Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology . Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/ccc/docs/groe/GROE%20Roadmap%20for%20Education%20Technology%20Final%20Report.pdf

Yang, F. (2010). The ideology of intelligent tutoring systems. ACM Inroads, 1 (4), 63–65. doi: 10.1145/1869746.1869765 .

Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15 (3), 311–333.

Zucker, A. (2005). A study of one - to - one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools . Education Development Center, Inc., SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.k12blueprint.com/k12/blueprint/cd/FinalReport.pdf .

Zucker, A. A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science , 323 (5910), 82–85. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/82.full .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University, MCKB 150, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

Randall S. Davies & Richard E. West

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randall S. Davies .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

J. Michael Spector

W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

M. David Merrill

, Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Davies, R.S., West, R.E. (2014). Technology Integration in Schools. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_68

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_68

Published : 22 May 2013

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3184-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3185-5

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Technology integration in higher education during covid-19: an assessment of online teaching competencies through technological pedagogical content knowledge model.

• 1 Department of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China
• 2 Department of Electronic Business and Commerce, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
• 3 Department of Information Technology, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly shifted education from traditional to an online version, which was an emergent state for teachers and students. The substantive situation thus raises the importance of technology integration in education, and teachers are required to update their competencies, respectively. In this regard, the study assessed online teaching competencies of faculty members following, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) model. Closed-ended surveys were employed for quantitative analysis of randomly selected 256 faculty members from public universities in Karachi, Pakistan. Results indicated that teachers possessed adequate levels of knowledge across all the domains of TPACK. The highest competency was obtained by content knowledge (CK), while technological knowledge (TK) was reported at the lowest level. Furthermore, a significant difference was noted in terms of gender and teaching experience. Correspondingly, the study proposes that the TPACK model should be employed in the professional development programs to develop teachers’ TPACK for integrating information communication and technology in the pedagogical practices. The findings of the study present a constructive overview of teachers’ digital competencies and technology use in teaching and learning in the time of the COVID-19 and also play a significant role in the integration of technology in the post-pandemic time in higher education. The study also suggests relevant educational authorities and policymakers for assessing and enhancing the technological competencies of teachers for quality online education.

Introduction

As it can be seen worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a significant interruption in all the domains of human lives. Likewise, the educational sector also encountered many challenges by the institutional closure from schools to universities, and traditional education shifted to the online paradigm ( UN, 2020 ). The scenario of this technological transition affected the education of about half of the student population globally ( UNESCO, 2020 ). Thereby, the situation raises the importance of technology integration in education, and teachers are required to update their competencies to endow quality education and make changes to their curriculum and instruction accordingly. Regarding the application of information communication and technology (ICT) in education, however, instructors and learners are familiar with the traditional technological teaching aids, such as Smartboards and PowerPoint; still, their practical employability is required in the teaching practices ( Nikolopoulou and Gialamas, 2016 ; Guillén-Gámez et al., 2018 ). Besides, this provisional period raised the necessity, especially for the teachers, to gain competency in applying ICT in their teaching practices. Meanwhile, the application of ICT in higher education has remained a major subject of concern for decades at the global level (e.g., US Department of Education, 2017 ; Daniela et al., 2018 ). Many studies have highlighted that the application of ICT in the classroom setting has become a critical factor for meeting the needs of the learner in the knowledge society ( Martins et al., 2019 ). Besides, the successful integration of ICT can make the learning process more exciting and keep learners motivated ( Hanafi et al., 2017 ), which are considered as the significant predictors of their academic performance ( Xu et al., 2021 ). In the same manner, the utilization of ICT is suggested by the government of Pakistan to optimize the educational outcomes, as it helps to enhance the pedagogical competencies of teachers and boost learners to learn actively [ Pakistan Ministry of Education (MoE), 2018 ].

Moreover, the effective integration of ICT is essential in systematizing an efficient online educational program. The successful application of ICT not only contributes to learners’ satisfaction but also helps individuals to acquire their desired outcomes ( Cervero et al., 2020 ). It is, therefore, essential to develop competencies in teachers to use ICT effectively in their pedagogical practices by organizing professional development programs ( Guillén-Gámez et al., 2020 ). However, teachers’ professional training for the efficient use of ICT in teaching did not apply because of the sudden pandemic situation and put students at risk ( Guillén-Gámez et al., 2020 ; Hong et al., 2021 ). Consequently, it caused excessive pressure on teachers to achieve students’ required educational attainment ( Rodriguez-Segura et al., 2020 ). Although teachers made every effort to continue students’ learning, yet they had to encounter several challenges in adopting digital platforms for teaching, which include insufficient inter-institutional coordination ( Talsma et al., 2021 ), little understanding, and investment in advanced technologies ( Akram et al., 2021 ). In the past decade, however, in Pakistan, online learning has also been handled significantly, still been endured with the various constraints that prevent the effective integration of ICT in educational practices ( Kanwal and Rehman, 2017 ; Salam et al., 2017 ). Earlier studies indicate that students generally show better academic performance in digital platforms comparing with the traditional ones ( Shehzadi et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the digital competencies of teachers are found inadequate, particularly in the formulation of lesson plans ( Farid et al., 2015 ). However, most of the teachers are digitally literate and can conduct online lessons, yet they are found incapable of integrating ICT efficiently in their teaching practices ( Al-Samarraie and Saeed, 2018 ). Consequently, their digital instructional approaches may remain unsuccessful in delivering the content effectively ( Adnan and Anwar, 2020 ). In this regard, the situation raises the importance of teachers’ professional learning to acquire technological competency, as a successful pedagogical practice would mainly be possible if teachers possess a sound technological competency. The relationship between technological competency with educational content was considered necessary by Mishra and Koehler (2006) and presented this in their framework, namely, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Their primary focus was derived on the basis of the premise that teachers are required to acquire technological competency to use it effectively in the instructional approaches. Regarding evaluation, several studies have presented instruments to evaluate the technological competencies of teachers differently, but their main focus remained on teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and adaptation ( Ertmer, 2005 ; Aldunate and Nussbaum, 2013 ; Kim et al., 2017 ). The complementary fact in various studies was that they comprised only one of the components of the concept.

In contrast, technological competency involves all the major components, such as knowledge (technological, pedagogical, and content), skills, and attitudes ( Voogt et al., 2015 ), whereas limited literature and studies have been found regarding all the major components. In addition, the acquisition of TPACK depends on social, cultural, and contextual attributes, which may vary from one country to another. However, several studies have been investigated teachers’ digital competencies through all the determinants of TPACK in various countries (i.e., Lin et al., 2013 ; Scherer et al., 2018 ; Ortega-Sánchez and Gómez-Trigueros, 2019 ; Acikgul and Aslaner, 2020 ; Castéra et al., 2020 ). But, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that aims to examine teachers’ digital competencies via all the mentioned sub-components of TPACK during the pandemic phase, specifically in the context of higher education in Pakistan. In this regard, the present study examines the integration of ICT in faculty members’ pedagogical practices by unfolding their technological competencies level. Subsequently, lecturers and professors from public universities of Karachi city of Pakistan were considered for a case study under the guidance of the following research questions:

1. What are the levels of TPACK of faculty members across higher institutions of Karachi?

2. Is there any significant difference between faculty members’ TPACK regarding their gender and teaching experience?

Review of Literature

Online teaching competencies.

The term online teaching can be exemplified with the help of these principles: (1) The learner and teacher interconnected with each other distantly via different digital platforms, (2) learning and learning materials can be accessed through technology, (3) the interaction between teacher and learner takes place via technology, and (4) teacher assists learner with the help of different digital channels of communication ( Anderson, 2011a ). In a general manner, online teaching is viewed as similar to the teaching for all other formal learning/teaching environments ( Anderson, 2011b ). On the other hand, teaching competency signifies the skills, attitudes, and knowledge of the teachers that enable them to perform in a way that meets or exceeds the expected standards successfully ( Richey et al., 2011 ). Without having adequate competencies, it is difficult for teachers to execute and organize online instructional programs efficiently as teaching is characterized by selecting a number of tactics for a specified discourse, which may involve lesson planning or instructional and learning materials. In this regard, the previous literature finds several categories and characteristics of online teaching competencies. For instance, Thomas and Graham (2017) emphasize course design as the core component of teachers’ competencies. Bigatel et al. (2012) focused on teaching behaviors and did not focus on instructional design. Contrarily, few researchers provide a brief description of teachers’ online competencies by means of personal, social, pedagogical, and technological characteristics ( Guasch et al., 2010 ; Baran et al., 2011 ; Palloff and Pratt, 2013 ). Other researchers propose a framework to demonstrate the features of teaching competencies. Among those, the widely used and renowned model is considered as the TPACK model, developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) . The present study employs the TPACK model to investigate online teaching competencies.

Technology Integration in Pedagogical Practices

Several studies draw attention to the importance of technology integration in pedagogical practices and imply that it does not facilitate only students but also the teacher in the learning process ( Salam et al., 2019 ). Islam et al. (2019) indicate that the utilization of technology in teaching makes teacher competent in pedagogical as well as content areas in the classrooms and helps learners to learn efficiently by the use of technological tools. Several studies highlight the advantages of technology use for teachers. For instance, the study of Vongkulluksn et al. (2018) highlights that the teachers prefer to spend more time teaching in the classrooms, who are good at utilizing technology. Furthermore, the technological competencies of teachers enable them to adapt other teaching strategies and approaches easily; as a result, their performance gets enhanced.

Oliva-Córdova et al. (2021) ascertain that the usage of technology in teaching practices enables learners to learn effortlessly; however, its efficient application generally depends upon teachers’ technological and pedagogical competencies. Various studies have identified the importance of these competencies and knowledge of teachers in teaching practices. Ifinedo et al. (2020) indicate that teachers’ technological knowledge either explicitly or implicitly contributes significantly to integrating ICT successfully, while teachers’ ICT pedagogical practices have found the lowest technology integration predictor. The results further suggested including professional training to assist teachers in integrating ICT efficiently by enhancing their technological competencies. To investigate the impact of teachers’ training programs on their online teaching effectiveness, Brinkley-Etzkorn (2018) conducted a survey. The findings revealed a significant change in teaching competencies and designing course syllabi in teachers, while no significant difference in teaching was observed according to their student perceptions.

Moreover, the knowledge of technology and expertise in the utilization of technology are considered two different modes of competencies ( Instefjord and Munthe, 2017 ). For instance, it is identified by some studies that despite having technology literacy, teachers were not capable of using technology in teaching efficiently ( Dinçer, 2018 ; Alanazy and Alrusaiyes, 2021 ). It indicates that technological knowledge and using technology in pedagogical practices are two different concepts. Several studies and theories have been proposed to highlight this aspect. Briefly, it can be summarized that the effective use of technology in teaching practices is possible only if teachers are equipped with all the fundamental competencies ( Ifinedo et al., 2020 ). Likewise, the TPACK model also ascertains that ICT cannot be integrated efficiently in educational practices until teachers do not possess all the essential technological skills ( Mishra and Koehler, 2006 ). This model is comprised of three main components of teachers’ knowledge or acquaintance (shown in Figure 1 ), i.e., technological, pedagogical, and content. Although all three components of the model seem different and separate knowledge domains, interfaces and associations among these core concepts establish the central point of the overall framework ( Archambault and Barnett, 2010 ). After following the convergence of the mentioned components, knowledge of teachers can be classified as technological content knowledge (TCK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), while the complete form of all components of knowledge is represented as TPACK ( Schmidt et al., 2009 ).

Figure 1 . The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework (retrieved from http://tpack.org ).

Teachers’ TPACK Concerning Their Gender and Teaching Experience

It is indicated by several empirical studies that teachers’ characteristics also play a significant role in integrating ICT, which may vary across the countries; for instance, some studies have identified a significant difference in gender with a more inclination of males toward digital instructional development than females ( Marín-Díaz et al., 2020 ). In terms of TPACK, studies also indicate the gender difference; for instance, Lin et al. (2013) identified higher pedagogical knowledge in female teachers with lower technological knowledge. Scherer et al. (2017) revealed that in all technological domains of TPACK, male teachers reported significantly higher competencies than females. In contrast, the TCK of female teachers was reported higher than the male teachers ( Ortega-Sánchez and Gómez-Trigueros, 2019 ). However, a study by Castéra et al. (2020) came across different results and found no significant difference between genders in terms of teachers’ TPACK.

Another element of central concern in the acquisition of digital competencies is the teaching experience of teachers. Regarding years of teaching experience, studies show mixed results. For instance, Koh et al. (2014) identified a significant difference in ICT integration concerning the teaching experience and determined that TPACK of novice teachers was higher than experienced teachers. In contrast, Jang and Tsai (2012) identified that senior teachers’ technological skills were higher than novice teachers. Therefore, the hypotheses of the study can be posited as:

H1: “There is a significant difference between faculty members’ TPACK with respect to their gender.”

H2: “There is a significant difference between faculty members’ TPACK with respect to their teaching experience.”

Methodology

For examining faculty members’ TPACK, a quantitative survey design was employed as it was considered the most appropriate approach to gain accurate reflection via numerical representation ( Watson, 2015 ). Subsequently, the study was guided by questionnaires, which were mailed and also emailed by the researcher to various universities.

Participants of the Study

The population of the study comprises all the faculty members from public universities of Karachi, which consists of 11 universities with estimated 785 faculty members [ Higher Education commission (HEC), 2015 ]. For ensuring a stable data analysis, the sample size was calculated by applying the Yamane Taro sample formula for a finite population ( Israel, 1992 ) and obtained a sample size of 260 respondents. The sample size for conducting this study was appropriate, as the size of the sample between 30 and 500 at a 5% confidence level is identified as adequate ( Altunışık et al., 2004 ). Subsequently, the questionnaires were distributed to lecturers/professors who were selected randomly from different public universities in Karachi. After excluding questionnaires with incomplete information, 256 questionnaires were considered for the data analysis. The ages of the respondents ranged from 29 to 54years, encompassing 44.1% ( n =113) were females and 55.8% ( n =143) were male faculty members. Their further details are presented in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Demographic statistics of the respondents.

Ethical Concerns

In order to ensure the reliability of the findings, the study followed all the ethical concerns to conduct the study. These concerns include the granted approval from the supervisor on account of the ethical committee. The other ethical concerns include assurance of the privacy and honor of the participants of the study, and questionnaires were filled after taking their consent.

Survey Instrument

The instrument utilized in this study was adopted from the validated scale formulated by Schmidt et al. (2009) , which was devised on the basis of the TPACK theoretical framework to examine teachers’ competencies within three basic domains, i.e., pedagogies, technology, and content. The said questionnaire was intensively used by other researchers (e.g., Scherer et al., 2018 ; Ortega-Sánchez and Gómez-Trigueros, 2019 ). Before conducting data, the questionnaire was modified according to the study’s approach; for instance, the questions from the domain (content knowledge) were rephrased from a specific subject to a general subject. Furthermore, the last three qualitative questions were also excluded from the survey. The modified form of the questionnaire comprised seven dimensions of 38 items, including (1) technological knowledge (TK) 7 items, (2) content knowledge (CK) 3 items, (3) pedagogical knowledge (PK) 7 items, (4) PCK 4 items, (5) TCK 4 items, (6) TPK 5 items, and (7) TPACK 8 items. The responses of each group’s items were laid down upon a five-point Likert scale extending from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”

Confirmation of the Model Fitness

In order to increase the reliability of the findings, it is imperative to align empirical data with the theoretical framework of the study. Thereby, the fitness of all the dimensions of the TPACK model was investigated through confirmatory factor analysis as shown in Table 2 . The chi-square value was less than 5 (i.e., χ 2/ df =4.1), which indicates the significant fitness of the model ( Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003 ). The other indicators were also reported significant (shown in Table 2 ), as their values were less than the threshold values, i.e., RMSEA≤0.06, CFI≥0.95, TLI≥0.95 ( Hu and Bentler, 1999 ); SRMR<0.05 ( Cangur and Ercan, 2015 ).

Table 2 . Confirmation of the model fitness.

Reliability of the Instrument

The reliability of all the constructs of TPACK was investigated through Cronbach’s alpha scale. The value of each construct was above 70% (shown in Table 3 ), which shows satisfactory consistency, as the collected data are reviewed as reliable if the alpha value is more than 60% ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ).

Table 3 . Reliability evaluation.

Data Analysis

All the collected data were analyzed by employing various descriptive and inferential statistical tests, i.e., descriptive test (mean and standard deviation) and inferential test ( T -test and ANOVA). Subsequently, the analysis was completed by applying the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which enabled the examination of the differences between subsamples with respect to their TPACK scores. The ROC curve is a two-dimensional graphical representation of the values of sensitivity vs. 1-specificity ranges from 0 to 1, which helps in determining the difference between different subgroups ( Bradley, 1997 ).

Research Question 1

Technological pedagogical content knowledge of faculty members was investigated by means of descriptive statistical tests, i.e., mean and standard deviation, which are shown in Table 4 . Knowledge of all the domains of TPACK was rated above 3, which demonstrates that faculty members possess adequate knowledge as M ≥3 ( Rabe-Hesketh and Everitt, 2003 ). Among all domains of TPACK, the highest mean value was obtained by the content knowledge (CK), i.e., 4.6, while technological knowledge (TK) obtained the least mean value.

Table 4 . Descriptive analysis of teachers’ TPACK.

Research Question 2 (Hypotheses)

Before checking hypotheses, the normality test was conducted through Shapiro–Wilk test to know whether the data meet the criteria of conducting a parametric test since it is considered the most prevailing test to investigate normality ( Razali and Wah, 2011 ). Results showed that the data were normally distributed as S-W value was 0.83 and the significant value was greater than 0.5, i.e., 0.61, which allows parametric tests to be conducted. Subsequently, the posited hypotheses of the study were checked by employing inferential statistics, i.e., T -test and ANOVA, where T -test was employed to investigate the difference between faculty members’ TPACK with respect to their gender and ANOVA was applied to test the hypothesis regarding teaching experience of faculty members.

Hypothesis 1

All the components of TPACK were compared by applying the T -test (shown in Table 5 ). Results revealed a significant statistical difference between male and female respondents (i.e., T =10.34; p =0.000) at alpha level 0.05. Therefore, the hypothesis regarding faculty members’ TPACK with respect to their gender was accepted. Furthermore, male faculty members got a significantly higher mean score (4.12) than the female teaching faculty (3.67), which shows that the TPACK of male faculty members was greater than the female ones.

Table 5 . T -test analysis by gender of teachers.

In addition, the gender difference with respect to TPACK scores was represented graphically through the ROC curve. The results shown in ( Table 6 ; Figure 2 ) showed high sensitivity and specificity with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.921 with a significant statistical difference, i.e., p =0.000 at alpha level 0.05.

Table 6 . ROC curve parameters (female gender).

Figure 2 . Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (gender).

Furthermore, to investigate the most optimal predictors of teachers’ TPACK, the mean of all the sub-components was compared with respect to their gender (shown in Figure 3 ). Results reveal that the TK of male faculty members was significantly greater than the female ones. However, the CK was found significantly higher in female faculty members than the male ones.

Figure 3 . Distribution of components of TPACK by gender.

Hypothesis 2

For examining the distinction between faculty members’ TPACK with regard to their teaching experience, the mean of TPACK was compared with the teaching experience of all the faculty members by applying the ANOVA test (shown in Table 7 ). Results reveal a significant difference between faculty members’ teaching experiences with their TPACK. Therefore, the hypothesis regarding the teaching experiences of faculty members was accepted, which further demonstrates that the TPACK of teachers with experience of 2–5years is higher than the novice and inexperienced teachers.

Table 7 . ANOVA by teaching experience of teachers.

In order to find out the further differences across all possible pairs of the faculty members’ teaching experiences, Tukey’s honestly significant difference post-hoc test was conducted. Since Tukey’s HSD test helps to compare the means of all the possible pairs ( Abdi and Williams, 2010 ). Results from Tukey’s post-hoc test ( Table 8 ) demonstrate that only one out of three groups had a significant difference among each other, i.e., teaching experiences up to 1year vs. 2–5years.

Table 8 . Post-hoc test.

In addition, the difference in teaching experience with respect to TPACK scores was represented graphically through the ROC curve. The results shown in ( Table 9 ; Figure 4 ) illustrated high sensitivity and specificity with an AUC of 0.716 with a significant statistical difference, i.e., p =0.000 at alpha level 0.05.

Table 9 . ROC curve parameters (teaching experience).

Figure 4 . ROC curve (teaching experience).

COVID-19 outbreak has transformed the traditional educational practices and brought teaching-learning around digital format across the world. This transformation not merely raises the importance of the educational technology infrastructure of the country but also establishes a prerequisite for teachers to integrate technology in their pedagogical practices effectively to sustain students’ learning. Since the systematic implementation of ICT in teaching practices is remained at an early stage and a limited focus has been given at the higher education level. In this regard, the current study gives a deep insight to understand the levels of core competencies of faculty members’ TPACK with the role of personal variables (i.e., gender and teaching experience) in the acquisition of digital competencies during the COVID-19 period.

In view of the obtained findings, the study reveals that faculty members possess adequate knowledge in all the sub-components of the TPACK model, which shows that teachers have sufficient knowledge and skills regarding technology use in their pedagogical practices. This finding shows consistency with the findings of Mouza et al. (2014) , where participants experienced a significant gain in all sub-components of TPACK. Hence, our results indicate that TPACK is an excellent framework to examine teachers’ competencies in the context of universities’ teachers of Pakistan.

The results further indicate that the highest competence of faculty members among all other domains was obtained by the content knowledge (CK), which shows that faculty members seem more confident in their content knowledge than other domains of expertise. A similar finding is also identified by Acikgul and Aslaner (2020) ; accordingly, teachers’ content knowledge was found adequate. In contrast, the study conducted by illustrated that teachers were confident primarily in the pedagogical knowledge (PK). It is therefore imperative to draw attention toward teachers’ content knowledge through continuous monitoring and by offering in-service workshops to sustain the students’ learning outcomes, as it helps learners to understand concerning concepts significantly.

Technological knowledge involves operating particular technologies, which plays a crucial role in integrating technology in the process of teaching and learning ( Chai et al., 2010 ). Besides, successful e-learning can only be yielded when teachers can use technology in their pedagogical practices appropriately. On the other hand, the technological knowledge (TK) of faculty members was found at the lowest level among all other domains, which indicates that teachers lack technological competence. Thus, they require professional guidance to update their technological skills. The findings of Schmid et al. (2021) also indicated that teachers’ technological and TCK emerged as the least acquired competencies. Therefore, to enhance the technological literacy in teachers, ICT training centers with ICT professionals should be originated at the national and provincial levels.

The knowledge regarding the interaction between all domains of TPACK plays a significant role in the development of an innovative learning environment ( Ortega-Sánchez and Gómez-Trigueros, 2019 ). However, the other reported lowest competence of faculty members was found in the domain of TPACK. This finding reflects the finding of Lye (2013) , who indicated that teachers possess low TPACK, and they need improvement in several areas of TPACK. In light of this result, teachers should be given a range of guidance in terms of all the domains of TPACK and the interaction between those domains by providing both initial and ongoing support to implement the technologies in their pedagogical practices successfully.

This study further found that male teachers’ TPACK was significantly higher than female faculty members. This finding reflects the finding of Koh et al. (2010) , where male teachers showed more positive attitudes, competencies, and knowledge with respect to technology use. This result indicates that female faculty requires more support to gain their competencies in all the sub-components of TPACK. Regarding teaching experience, it is usually expected that teachers’ knowledge increases with the increase in years of experience. In contrast, the results showed a statistical significance in the TPACK of faculty members’ knowledge, where faculty members with experience of 2–5years shown higher TPACK than the teachers with more experience and novice teachers. This finding supports the results of Claro et al. (2018) , where years of teaching experience were found significantly associated with the TPACK of teachers. Based on the personal factors, policymakers and teachers should be aware of gender differences’ effect on technological knowledge and competencies; therefore, gender differences should be monitored closely by conducting longitudinal TPACK studies. There should be an equal emphasis on training programs on pre-service as well as in-service teachers so that teachers of all levels may learn effectively to integrate technology into their educational practices.

In addition, the study suggests that the new technological instructional context in the COVID-19 phase appeared as an important moderator for teachers in upgrading their competencies in terms of TPACK. Regarding the contextual environment, Mishra (2019) indicates that the addition of contextual knowledge (XK) may reveal the situational and institutional limitations that teachers work within. During the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers and learners experienced their practices in multiple new and unfamiliar contexts, which impacted teachers’ abilities to teach successfully remotely in the digital environment. Therefore, future studies should examine teachers’ XK comprehensively to determine the influence of different contextual factors on teachers’ TPACK with a focus on facilitating teachers with contextual change.

Finally, remote work and online learning are teaching conditions that will continue to advance steadily. In turn, the post-COVID-19 reactivation and recovery processes do not seem to contemplate that the teaching and learning processes as before. Therefore, future research should be aimed not only at understanding human behavior while studying or teaching virtually but also at understanding the TPACK model and building better ways to integrate technology into educational practices. In this regard, the findings of the study are highly significant, not particularly in determining the technology integration during the COVID-19 pandemic phase, which is currently the most crucial issue, but also for the integration of technology in the post-pandemic time in higher education.

Based on the obtained results, the study affirms that the COVID-19 pandemic phase significantly influenced the digital competencies of faculty members and reveals adequate knowledge in all the sub-components of the TPACK, with a significant difference in terms of gender and teaching experience. Regarding consistency, the TPACK model was verified by means of factorial analyses in terms of seven sub-components and in the context of higher education faculty members in Pakistan, which supports the value and appropriateness of the model. Accordingly, the study suggests that the TPACK model should be employed in the professional development programs to develop teachers’ TPACK for integrating technology efficiently by bridging the gap between ICT knowledge and ICT practice.

Implications and Limitations

The findings of this study contribute to society in several ways. Regarding theoretically, this study has enriched the literature on the technological competencies of teachers during the COVID-19 transitory period and verified the reliability of the TPACK model in the context of Karachi, Pakistan. It can be further used for verification in other cities and countries. In terms of methodological contribution, the study provides tentative insight in evaluating the impact of the COVID-19 transitory period on teachers’ digital competencies and their state of implementation in pedagogical practices. Regarding academics, this study provides a pragmatic direction to relevant educational authorities and policymakers for the improvement of online education by providing pertinent solutions and recommendations as per the situation. In addition, the future planning of professional development and training programs for the teachers can be based on the feedback provided by the faculty members. The study can further contribute to elevating e-learning outcomes and satisfaction during as well as post-pandemic phase.

Furthermore, the study also noted some limitations. Firstly, faculty’s response biasness may have affected the results since digital competencies were assessed self-reported quantitatively. Therefore, the future studies may select other approaches to unfold the understanding of teachers and establish the criteria for evaluating the TPACK of teachers. Secondly, the current study only focused on the TPACK model to assess the digital competencies of faculty. The findings of this study can be further strengthened in the future by employing other indicators to examine the teachers’ competencies in teaching with technology.

Finally, the analysis was cross-sectional and evaluated the teaching practices of university teachers during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online technological, pedagogical, and content competencies of teachers may change over time, which should also be observed. Therefore, a longitudinal study should be conducted to strengthen the evidence by understanding the causal effects and interrelationships among various other variables, critical in elevating the online pedagogical practices at the higher level in Pakistan.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

HA is the principal investigator of the study. From conceptualization to the data analysis, she conducted by herself. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abdi, H., and Williams, L. J. (2010). Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. in Encyclopedia of Research Design. ed. N. J. Anderson. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage 1–5.

Google Scholar

Acikgul, K., and Aslaner, R. (2020). Effects of Geogebra supported micro teaching applications and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) game practices on the TPACK levels of prospective teachers. Educ. Inf. Technol. 25, 2023–2047. doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-10044-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adnan, M., and Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: students’ perspectives. J. Peda. Soc. Psych. 2, 45–51. doi: 10.33902/JPSP.202020261309

Akram, H., Aslam, S., Saleem, A., and Parveen, K. (2021). The challenges of online teaching in COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of public universities in Karachi, Pakistan. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 20, 263–282. doi: 10.28945/4784

Alanazy, M. M., and Alrusaiyes, R. F. (2021). Saudi pre-service special education teachers’ knowledge and perceptions toward using computer technology. Int. Educ. Stud. 14, 125–137. doi: 10.5539/ies.v14n3p125

Aldunate, R., and Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Comp. Human Behav. 29, 519–524. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017

Al-Samarraie, H., and Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative learning: opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment. Comp. Educ. 124, 77–91. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.016

Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., and Yıldırım, E. (2004). Research Methods in Social Sciences. 3rd Edn . Istanbul: Sakarya Bookstore.

Anderson, T. (2011a). “Towards a theory of online learning,” in Theory and Practice of Online Learning. ed. T. Anderson 2nd Edn . (Edmonton: Athabasca University Press), 45–74.

Anderson, T. (2011b). “Teaching in an online learning context,” in Theory and Practice of Online Learning. ed. T. Anderson 2nd Edn . (Edmonton: Athabasca University Press), 343–366.

Archambault, L. M., and Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring the TPACK framework. Comp. Educ. 55, 1656–1662. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009

Baran, E., Correia, A. P., and Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Dist. Edu. 32, 421–439. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610293

Bigatel, P. M., Ragan, L. C., Kennan, S., May, J., and Redmond, B. F. (2012). The identification of competencies for online teaching success. J. Asyn. Learn. Net. 16, 59–77.

Bradley, A. P. (1997). The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Patt. Recog. 30, 1145–1159. doi: 10.1016/S0031-3203(96)00142-2

Brinkley-Etzkorn, K. E. (2018). Learning to teach online: measuring the influence of faculty development training on teaching effectiveness through a TPACK lens. Int. High. Educ. 38, 28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.004

Cangur, S., and Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 14:14. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1430453580

Castéra, J., Marre, C. C., Yok, M. C. K., Sherab, K., Impedovo, M. A., Sarapuu, T., et al. (2020). Self-reported TPACK of teacher educators across six countries in Asia and Europe. Educ. Inf. Technol. 25, 3003–3019. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10106-6

Cervero, A., Castro-Lopez, A., AlvarezBlanco, L., Esteban, M., and Bernardo, A. (2020). Evaluation of educational quality performance on virtual campuses using fuzzy inference systems. PLoS One 15:e0232802. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232802

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., and Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educ. Technol. Soci. 13, 63–73.

Claro, M., Salinas, A., Cabello-Hutt, T., San Martín, E., Preiss, D. D., Valenzuela, S., et al. (2018). Teaching in a digital environment (TIDE): defining and measuring teachers’ capacity to develop students’ digital information and communication skills. Comp. Educ. 121, 162–174. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.001

Daniela, L., Visvizi, A., Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., and Lytras, M. (2018). Sustainable higher education and technology-enhanced learning (TEL). Sustainability 10:3883. doi: 10.3390/su10113883

Dinçer, S. (2018). Are pre-service teachers really literate enough to integrate technology in their classroom practice? Determining the technology literacy level of pre-service teachers. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 2699–2718. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9737-z

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 53, 25–39. doi: 10.1007/BF02504683

Farid, S., Ahmad, R., Niaz, I. A., Arif, M., Shamshirband, S., and Khattak, M. D. (2015). Identification and prioritization of critical issues for the promotion of e-learning in Pakistan. Comp. Hum. Behav. 51, 161–171. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.037

Guasch, T., Alvarez, I., and Espasa, A. (2010). University teacher competencies in a virtual teaching/learning environment: analysis of a teacher training experience. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 199–206. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.018

Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Mayorga-Fernández, M. J., and Álvarez-García, F. J. (2018). A study on the actual use of digital competence in the practicum of education degree. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 25, 667–684. doi: 10.1007/s10758-018-9390-z

Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Mayorga-Fernández, M. J., Bravo-Agapito, J., and Escribano-Ortiz, D. (2020). Analysis of teachers’ pedagogical digital competence: identification of factors predicting their acquisition. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 26, 491–498. doi: 10.1007/s10758-019-09432-7

Hanafi, H. F., Said, C. S., Wahab, M. H., and Samsuddin, K. (2017). Improving students’ motivation in learning ICT course with the use of a mobile augmented reality learning environment. IOP. Con. Series Mater. Sci. Engi. 226:012114. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/226/1/012114

Higher Education commission (HEC) (2015). Pakistan. Available at: https://www.hec.gov.pk/english/universities/Pages/AJK/University-wise-Full-time-faculty.aspx (Accessed March 12, 2021).

Hong, X., Zhang, M., and Liu, Q. (2021). Preschool teachers’ technology acceptance During the COVID-19: An adapted technology acceptance model. Front. Psychol. 12:691492. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.691492

Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc. Equa. Model. Multi. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Ifinedo, E., Rikala, J., and Hämäläinen, T. (2020). Factors affecting Nigerian teacher educators’ technology integration: considering characteristics, knowledge constructs, ICT practices and beliefs. Comp. Educ. 146:103760. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103760

Instefjord, E. J., and Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: a study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 67, 37–45. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016

Islam, A. A., Mok, M. M. C., Gu, X., Spector, J., and Hai-Leng, C. (2019). ICT in higher education: an exploration of practices in Malaysian universities. IEEE Access 7, 16892–16908. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2895879

Israel, G. D. (1992). Sampling the Evidence of Extension Program Impact. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

Jang, S. J., and Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Comp. Educ. 59, 327–338. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.003

Kanwal, F., and Rehman, M. (2017). Factors affecting e-learning adoption in developing countries–empirical evidence from Pakistan’s higher education sector. IEEE Access 5, 10968–10978. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2714379

Kim, M. K., Xie, K., and Cheng, S. L. (2017). Building teacher competency for digital content evaluation. Teach. Teacher Edu. 66, 309–324. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.006

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., and Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 563–573. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00372.x

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., and Tsai, C. C. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs, and teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17, 185–196.

Lin, T. -C., Tsai, C. -C., Chai, C. -S., and Lee, M. -H. (2013). Identifying science teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 22, 325–336. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9396-6

Lye, L. T. (2013). Opportunities and challenges faced by private higher education institution using the TPACK model in Malaysia. Procedia. Soci. Behav. Sci. 91, 294–305. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.426

Marín-Díaz, V., Riquelme, I., and Cabero-Almenara, J. (2020). Uses of ICT tools from the perspective of chilean university teachers. Sustainability 12:6134. doi: 10.3390/su12156134

Martins, J., Branco, F., Gonçalves, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Oliveira, T., Naranjo-Zolotov, M., et al. (2019). Assessing the success behind the use of education management information systems in higher education. Tele. Inform. 38, 182–193. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.001

Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: the TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. J. Dig. Learn. Teach. Educ. 35, 76–78. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611

Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a new framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 108, 1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S. Y., and Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Comp. Educ. 71, 206–221. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.020

Nikolopoulou, K., and Gialamas, V. (2016). Barriers to ICT use in high schools: Greek teachers’ perceptions. J. Comp. Educ. 3, 59–75. doi: 10.1007/s40692-015-0052-z

Oliva-Córdova, L. M., Garcia-Cabot, A., and Amado-Salvatierra, H. R. (2021). Learning analytics to support teaching skills: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access 9, 58351–58363. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3070294

Ortega-Sánchez, D., and Gómez-Trigueros, I. M. (2019). MOOCs and NOOCs in the training of future geography and history teachers: a comparative cross-sectional study based on the TPACK model. IEEE Access 8, 4035–4042. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2963314

Pakistan Ministry of Education (MoE). (2018). National Education Policy 2018. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan.

Palloff, R. M., and Pratt, K. (2013). Lessons From the Virtual Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching. san francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Rabe-Hesketh, S., and Everitt, B. (2003). Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata. London, New York: CRC Press.

Razali, N. M., and Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and Anderson-darling tests. J. stat. mod. Ana. 2, 21–33.

Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., and Tracey, M. W. (2011). The Instructional Design Knowledge Base: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Rodriguez-Segura, L., Zamora-Antuñano, M. A., Rodríguez-Reséndiz, J., Paredes-García, W. J., Altamirano-Corro, J. A., and Cruz-Pérez, M. Á. (2020). Teaching challenges in COVID-19 scenery: teams platform-based student satisfaction approach. Sustainability 12:7514. doi: 10.3390/su12187514

Salam, M., Iskandar, D. N. A., Ibrahim, D. H. A., and Farooq, M. S. (2019). Technology integration in service-learning pedagogy: a holistic framework. Tele. Inform. 38, 257–273. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2019.02.002

Salam, S., Jianqiu, Z., Pathan, Z. H., and Lei, W. (2017). Strategic barriers in the effective integration of ICT in the public schools of Pakistan. In Proc. 2017 Int. Con. Comp. Sci. Arti. Intell. 169–172. doi: 10.1145/3168390.3168422

Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., and Siddiq, F. (2017). On the quest for validity: testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model. Comp. Educ. 112, 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.012

Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., and Baran, E. (2018). The importance of attitudes toward technology for pre-service teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge: comparing structural equation modeling approaches. Comput. Hum. Behav. 80, 67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., and Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. Online 8, 23–74.

Schmid, M., Brianza, E., and Petko, D. (2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Comput. Hum. Behav. 115:106586. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., and Thompson, A. D. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): the development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 42, 123–149. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

Shehzadi, S., Nisar, Q. A., Hussain, M. S., Basheer, M. F., Hameed, W. U., and Chaudhry, N. I. (2020). The role of digital learning toward students’ satisfaction and university brand image at educational institutes of Pakistan: a post-effect of COVID-19. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 10(2). doi: 10.1108/aeds-04-2020-0063

Talsma, K., Robertson, K., Thomas, C., and Norris, K. (2021). COVID-19 beliefs, self-efficacy and academic performance in first-year university students: cohort comparison and mediation analysis. Front. Psychol. 12:643408. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643408

Tavakol, M., and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2, 53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomas, J. E., and Graham, C. R. (2017). Common practices for evaluating post-secondary online instructors. Onl. J. Dis. Lear. Admin. 20. Available at: https:// www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ (Accessed July 31, 2021).

U.S. Department of Education (2017). Office of educational technology. Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. U.S. department of education. Available at: https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf (Accessed January 11, 2017).

UN (2020). Education during COVID-19 and beyond. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/ 2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf (Accessed February 24, 2021).

UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 educational disruption and response. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-emergencies/coronavirus-school-closures

Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., and Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers’ internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Comp. Educ. 118, 70–81. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.009

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., and Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: towards an agenda for research and practice. Educ. Inf. Technol. 20, 715–728. doi: 10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6

Watson, R. (2015). Quantitative research. Nurs. Stand. 29, 44–48. doi: 10.7748/ns.29.31.44.e8681

Xu, Z., Yuan, H., and Liu, Q. (2021). Student performance prediction based on blended learning. IEEE Trans. Educ. 64, 66–73. doi: 10.1109/TE.2020.3008751

Keywords: technology integration, online teaching practices, higher institutions, technological pedagogical content knowledge, COVID-19, teaching experience, gender difference

Citation: Akram H, Yingxiu Y, Al-Adwan AS and Alkhalifah A (2021) Technology Integration in Higher Education During COVID-19: An Assessment of Online Teaching Competencies Through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model. Front. Psychol . 12:736522. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736522

Received: 05 July 2021; Accepted: 27 July 2021; Published: 26 August 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Akram, Yingxiu, Al-Adwan and Alkhalifah. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Huma Akr, [email protected] ; Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Educators’ perceptions of technology integration into the classroom: a descriptive case study

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 14 June 2019

Issue publication date: 3 December 2019

The purpose of this paper is to supply an in-depth description of the educators’ values, beliefs and confidence changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology.

Design/methodology/approach

The descriptive case study design was employed using descriptive statistical analysis and inductive analysis on the data collected.

Themes on a high level of confidence, the importance of professional development and training, self-motivation, and excitement about the way technology can enhance the learning, along with concerns over the lack of infrastructure and support for integrating technology, and about the ability of students to use the technology tools for higher ordered thinking surfaced.

Research limitations/implications

Additional research may include a more diverse population, including educators at the kindergarten to high school level. Another recommendation would be to repeat the study with a population not as vested in technology.

Practical implications

A pre-assessment of the existing values, beliefs and confidence of educators involved in the change process will provide invaluable information for stakeholders on techniques and strategies vital to a successful transition.

Social implications

To effectively meet the learning styles of Generation Z and those students following, educators need be able to adapt to quickly changing technology, be comfortable with students who multitask and be open to technology-rich teaching and learning environments.

Originality/value

This study filled a gap in the literature where little information on the humanistic challenges educators encounter when integrating technology into their learning environment providing insights into the values, beliefs and level of confidence of educators experiencing change.

• Educational technology
• Humanistic approach
• Integrating technology

Hartman, R.J. , Townsend, M.B. and Jackson, M. (2019), "Educators’ perceptions of technology integration into the classroom: a descriptive case study", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-03-2019-0044

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Rita J. Hartman, Mary B. Townsend and Marlo Jackson

Published in Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

How students prefer to learn has changed dramatically since the introduction of the internet. Students no long prefer passive dissemination of information being delivered by a teacher. Students prefer to watch a task taking place, and then attempt to duplicate it instead of reading or being instructed about the topic ( Genota, 2018 ; Seemiller and Grace, 2017 ; Shatto and Erwin, 2017 ; Swanzen, 2018 ). For example, 59 percent of Generation Z, 14–23-year olds, access YouTube for learning and information, 55 percent believe YouTube contributed to their education and only 47 percent prefer textbooks as a learning tool ( Global Research and Insights, 2018 ). The findings indicate virtual applications integrated into the curriculum can enhance the cognitive and creative skills of students through a student-centered environment ( Steele et al. , 2019 ). Although the study indicated 78 percent of the Generation Z believed teachers were important to their learning, only 39 percent preferred teacher-led instruction.

During the last seven years, the number of technology devices has grown 363 percent in our public schools. However, the use of classroom computers that duplicate the passive pedagogy of traditional classrooms has become more common, and the percentage of educational professional development opportunities for technology integration has remained unchanged ( Genota, 2018 ). Most college courses, even those that use a learning management system (LMS), tend to be teacher centered and lecture based ( Vercellotti, 2018 ). Higher education tends to be slow at adopting innovations in part because of the risk and the time commitment involved in exploring new tools and ideas ( Serdyukov, 2017 ). Simply adding more devices into the classroom is not enough to change instructional practices.

To effectively meet the learning styles of Generation Z and those students following, educators need be able to adapt to quickly changing technology, be comfortable with students who multitask and be open to technology-rich teaching and learning environments. However, most educators do not have the adequate knowledge, skills and confidence to effectively or efficiently use the available technologies to support technology integration into the learning environment ( El Fadil, 2015 ; Ferdig and Kennedy, 2014 ; Somera, 2018 ). In order to generate a systemic and empathetic change that can be sustained over time, educational leaders would need to explore the humanistic aspect of the change process as experienced by the educators. Inherent in the shifting role of educators is an in-depth understanding of the values, beliefs and confidence educators bring to the integration of technology into their classrooms.

Accessing information

The creation of the internet in 1990 by Tim Berners Lee ( Patterson, 1999 ) greatly influenced how people accessed information, interacted socially and prefer to learn. Generation Z (those born between 1995 and 2010) have grown up with easy access to the internet and are accustomed to multitasking, accessing information with a few clicks and watching something being done before trying it themselves ( Seemiller and Grace, 2017 ). Generation Z students prefer working with peers in collaborative groups over lectures. These students desire active learning with demonstrations and hands-on participation ( Adamson et al. , 2018 ; Seemiller and Grace, 2016 ). The students are also known by the monikers Net Generation, iGeneration or digital natives. By the year 2020, digital natives will make up one-third of the population in the USA ( Seemiller and Grace, 2016 ). Technology is a dominant part of their existence.

The traditional educational setting no longer meets the needs of a generation of students who strive to design their own learning experience ( Office of Educational Technology, Department of Education, 2017 ). However, the change from a teacher-centered learning environment to a student-centered learning environment with the integration of technology creates challenges and creates opportunities for educators ( Nicol et al. , 2018 ). Some educators recognize the benefits of integrating technology into their classrooms, which includes the advantages over traditional teaching and additional opportunities for improving student learning. Educators also consider benefits such as the availability of equipment, ease of use and the interest the technology may spark in each student ( Porter and Graham, 2016 ).

The process of identifying and implementing instructional technology requires different levels of support. The transition from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology requires a certain amount of self-education on the part of the instructor, and the change process may take years ( Nicol et al. , 2018 ). Some educators find the process of scheduling equipment and loading materials into online course shells frustrating, and others find professional development activities do not fulfill their needs. The professional development available to faculty may have the wrong instructional focus, may be the wrong type or format, or may not be at the appropriate instructional level of the learners involved ( Reid, 2017 ). Achieving the level of support required for educators to feel comfortable may be challenging to both the support staff and the educators.

Change process

Learning how to enhance teaching with technology can be difficult ( Reid, 2017 ). Some educators approach instruction with very traditional methods. Teacher-centered lectures, pages of notes and assigned readings represent traditional or old-school instructional practices. Few post-secondary instructors are taught how to teach and most learn by modeling the teaching style of others. Teachers have not been taught how to be a facilitator in a technology-rich classroom ( Nicol et al. , 2018 ). Those teachers who do not acknowledge the changes in learning preferences may find it more difficult to teach the new generation.

Not all educators have the ability to embrace change. They may approach change with a fixed-mindset attempting to use a new technology tool and giving up easily at the first sign of difficulty. They do not see themselves as capable of learning to use the new technology tools and fear the risk of failure when trying new things ( Dress, 2016 ). The transition from teacher centered to student centered is a significant change and may be seen as a relinquishment of control by the teacher. Educators who are most comfortable in a traditional approach to education need more support when changing to a student-centered approach.

Humanistic influence on technology integration

The humanistic approach is described as involving the whole person and is manifested in the values, beliefs, confidence and emotions of the individual ( Fedorenko, 2018 ). Teaching is a humanistic endeavor, and educators find joy in being able to interact with their students and in being able to share their knowledge directly ( Azzaro, 2014 ). Learning organizations need educators who can bridge the gap between human and technological cultures ( Dominici, 2018 ). However, changing from a teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach to instruction and learning may be difficult, and requiring the use of technology may seem too impersonal for educators to accept.

The educators’ values, beliefs and level of confidence are factors in the adoption of new technologies and pedagogies. A positive attitude toward using technology was found to be a significant factor in the intention to use educational technology. Positive attitudes have a major influence on the acceptance or rejection of the new technology integration. The change may come in the form of an educational change initiated by the college or university.

An educator’s beliefs about using technology become a factor in the ability to adopt the new technology into their pedagogy. If the transition was smooth and the process was positive, educators may be more open to accepting the change. If the change was not positive, the announcement may produce negative feelings and doubt related to any new initiative. The change may produce resistance, self-doubt and uncertainties ( Kilinc et al. , 2017 ; Reid, 2017 ). The doubt causes them to question the change and their belief system. Past experiences may also influence educators’ ability to be successful with the implementation of a new innovation, such as technology ( Demirbağ and Kılınç, 2018 ; Reid, 2017 ). If the focus of the change contradicts the current belief system, teachers are less likely to put the reforms into practice; therefore, they become resistant to the change. Changes that align with core beliefs are more likely to be successful ( Demirbağ and Kılınç, 2018 ). The alignment allows teachers to feel confident about the change process and more likely to be a user of technology.

Educators produce resistance by using the technology superficially or not at all. The resistance builds when the educational technology seemingly does not contribute to their traditional teaching ( Demirbağ and Kılınç, 2018 ). Educators may perceive learning to use the newly adopted technology as a burden ( Cheung et al. , 2018 ). The educational technology may be meaningful, but the resistance prevents them from exploring further opportunities for using the technology.

Resistance to technology can also be in association with an educator’s efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s own ability to succeed in a context-specific task or behavior ( Bandura, 1986 ; Alenezi, 2017 ). Confidence and knowledge with using technology and computers is known as computer self-efficacy (CSE). CSE refers to the ability and the application of skills to achieve a result ( Alshammari et al. , 2016 ). The importance of CSE increased since the implementation of computer-based learning at all educational levels ( Bhatiasevi and Naglis, 2016 ). Educators with limited exposure to technology in their everyday and personal lives or with limited or nonexistent support will be resistant to using technology ( Kilinc et al. , 2017 ). An educator who demonstrates higher levels of CSE will have less frustration and will increase their use of technology in the future ( Cheung et al. , 2018 ). Users of technology tend to believe in the value of technology if it is easy to use and makes completing tasks simpler ( Bhatiasevi and Naglis, 2016 ). Lower levels of CSE coincide with low motivation and the perception of the technology as difficult and useless ( Alshammari et al. , 2016 ). CSE is a major factor in the resistance of the change, but it is a barrier which is difficult to detect. However, when combining CSE with an educator’s background experiences, one may have the ability to determine an educator’s resistance to technology.

Educators who are comfortable with traditional teaching methods may feel more comfortable with a colleague or mentor easing them into the process of integrating technology. This mentor or colleague would be the change agent. The change agent would provide reassurance and support. It would not only require a change in an educators’ knowledge of pedagogy and technology but also in their self-efficacy ( Reid, 2014 ). These mentors can provide just-in-time support and help ease the educator into increasing the use of technology.

Purpose statement and research question

What were the values, beliefs, confidence and level of preparedness of educators making the change from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology?

Method and design

Descriptive case studies provide insight into complex issues and describe natural phenomenon within the context of the data that are being questioned ( Zainal, 2007 ). The goal of a qualitative descriptive study is to summarize the experience of the individuals or participants ( Lambert and Lambert, 2012 ). The design is appropriate for this study as the researchers were seeking to gain a rich description of educators’ experiences transitioning from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology (Harrison, 2017; Yin, 2013 ). A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the 12 Likert-type questions and an inductive analysis was conducted on the narrative data collected from five open-ended questions included in the survey.

Participants

The sample recruited from the membership of Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) during the fall of 2018 were community college, university, graduate level educators and others who had experienced changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology. AECT has a membership of about 2,000 individuals from 50 countries (T. Lawson, personal communication, September 10, 2018). This population was of special interest because of the value and experience that they place on technology as evidence by their membership in AECT. The members of this group are familiar with technology and embrace the use of technology leaving the move from teacher centered to student centered as the key challenge. An invitation was sent out to the membership through the AECT website, and members of the organization self-selected to take part in the survey by clicking on the Member Consent, “Yes, I agree to participate.” An informed Consent approval was electronically signed through the SurveyMonkey tool describing the purpose and intent of the research study and describing how the participant’s identity and responses would remain protected.

In total, 42 participants started the survey. Tables I–IV provide the demographic information collected from the first four questions of the survey.

Data collection

After an invitation was sent out to the membership through the AECT website, members of the organization self-selected to take part in the survey. Participants were provided with a link to SurveyMonkey where they were asked to complete 12 Likert-type items and five open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were collected from the Likert-type items. Participants responded to a series of statements indicating he or she strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree ( Croasmun and Ostrom, 2011 ; Salkind, 2009 ). Three of the items (7, 10 and 17) were negatively worded requiring the participants to think about the statement avoiding automated responses to the items ( Croasmun and Ostrom, 2011 ). The three items and corresponding responses were translated to a positive wording for analysis purposes. The results of the Likert-type items are displayed in Figures 1–3 . In the final section of the survey, participants were asked to respond to five open-ended questions. SurveyMonkey generated a document with each participants’ narrative comments. Survey results retrieved from SurveyMonkey were anonymous with no participant names or identifiers, other than the demographic information collected was accessible to the researchers.

Procedure for analysis

SurveyMonkey site generated a graphic representing the responses of participants to the 12 Likert-type items. Due to the nature of the 12 items, descriptive statistics analysis was appropriate for describing the qualitative data in terms of percentages ( Hussain, 2012 ). A content analysis approach was used to analysis the narrative responses to the five open-ended questions allowing us to systematically describe the data surfacing descriptive codes leading to major themes ( Finfgeld-Connett, 2013 ; Miles and Huberman, 1994 ; White and Marsh, 2006 ). Researchers initially coded the narrative statements independently, then engaged in a process of reviewing and analyzing the codes through four rounds until consensus was reached on the cluster of codes leading to emerging themes. The codes were unique and used to describe the educators’ experiences and perceptions changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology ( Hseih and Shannon, 2005 ; Merriam, 2009 ; Vaismoradi et al. , 2013 ).

Responses to the Likert-type questions were combined into three figures. The related questions are grouped together for easier analysis. The questions related to confidence are organized into Figure 1 . The questions that addressed beliefs are organized into Figure 2 . The questions that addressed the values of participants are organized in Figure 3 . A detailed description of each figure is provided below.

Likert-type items

Responses to the Likert-type items 6, 9, 10 and 15 focused on the confidence of level participants integrating technology. The results can be seen in Figure 1 . Combining the responses of strongly agree and agree, 97 percent of the participants indicated they had a high level of confidence in integrating technology into their learning environment. In total, 95 percent of the participants had confidence in their abilities to enhance the learning environment with the integration of technology. In total, 81 percent indicated they were prepared for moving from a teacher-centered learning environment to a student-centered learning environment. There was an 86 percent response to the participants’ confidence in technology to enrich and deepen the learning experience for students.

Likert-type items 7, 12, 13, 14 and 17 addressed participants beliefs in technology integration into the classroom with the results displayed in Figure 2 . While the participant responses indicated confidence in technology integration, the beliefs of participations in how the technology contributed to student learning were more varied. In total, 86 percent believed technology contributed to the success of students. The responses to the extent to which technology engages students in higher order thinking indicated 69 percent either strongly agreed or agreed, while 29 percent indicated they neither agree or disagree. In total, 71 percent believed their value as a teacher was enhanced with the integration of technology, 72 percent believe the culture of their organization supports technology integration and 81 percent believed they had adequate training in technology integration.

Participants responses to the value of technology integration were high, at least 95 percent in each item as shown in Figure 3 . There was a 98 percent strongly agreed or agreed to the additional functions technology provides to monitor, adjust and extend student learning. In total, 95 percent of the participants value the opportunities technology integration provided them in creating and generating relevant lessons for students. In addition, 95 percent also valued ongoing training and professional development in integrating technology.

Open-ended questions

A systematic process was used for coding the responses to the open-ended questions. The process began with open coding in which similarities and differences in the responses were identified. Labels were created and examined for the emerging concepts. Axial coding was used to generate relationships between the categories, and these were tested against the theoretical framework. This process was repeated for each of the open-ended questions.

Participants reflected on some of the ways their personal values and beliefs were challenged in Question 18. Of the sample, 36 people responded to the question. Through the analysis of the question, several themes and subthemes were uncovered. These themes were: no impact, concerns about confidence and a change to student-centered instruction.

In total, 16 participants indicated a positive feeling toward technology or that there was no impact on their values or beliefs. One participant stated, “I’ve always believed in the value of technology.” Another said, “My personal beliefs were not challenged. I was one of the teachers leading the technology parade.” Under the theme of confidence, nine of the respondents indicated they had challenges to their beliefs due to concerns of their ability to use technology. One participant stated, “It took me several weeks to feel comfortable combining teaching and using the technology.” Another shared, “I was not sure I could truly deliver as engaging a lesson as I could face-to-face.” A similar comment was related to being able to manage students when technology was added, “My confidence in students’ ability to self-regulate has been challenged more than ever recently […] especially in terms of their unbelievable ability to distract themselves […].” In addition, nine of the respondents indicated the change to a student-centered approach brought about by the technology changes created challenges to their values and beliefs. One respondent shared, “The main challenge was in accepting a more learner-centered approach after decades of using the traditional approach to teaching.” This finding is significant, because it would be anticipated the participants would be comfortable with technology and yet, the move from teacher centered to student centered still held some challenges.

The ways participants were prepared for the change to a learning environment integrating technology was explored through Question 19. There were 36 responses to this question. Through the analysis of the responses, two main themes were uncovered. The themes were: prior experience with technology or formal training with the technology and being self-motivated to learn about the technology. Some of the respondents stated more than one thing that helped them prepare to use technology.

In total, 21 shared they had prior experience with the technology or formal training with technology that helped prepared them. “I was enrolled in technology classes that helped me in college and this opened many avenues for my learning.” Another subject stated, “I was a TA for two semesters for the course I taught. I attended the class and corrected papers, which helped me become familiar the Canvas, the LMS we use.” Other examples of formal training were, “Lots of grad school, at my own expense.” and, “My field is instructional design – it’s what I’m trained to do.”

In total, 18 of the respondents shared they were self-motivated to learn. Their responses included comments such as, “Trying out the technology before bringing it into the classroom.” Another participant stated, “Because of a personal interest in technology, I had been learning on my own.” Watching how-to videos on YouTube was another example of how participants were teaching themselves. There were some comments that were not common enough to merit a theme, but that still seemed worth mentioning. These referenced the importance of collaboration among peers. The comment, “Familiarity with the technology tools was important, but more important was the discourse with colleagues and former students about instructional strategies that allow students to grasp complexity,” reflected the value put on collaboration.

With Question 20, participants were asked to reflect on some of the challenges they encountered when moving to a learning environment integrating technology. In total, 34 provided responses. One major theme and two minor themes emerged. IN total, 19 of the participants indicated the greatest challenge was resources. Resources included those of time, financial and infrastructures. Time was needed for training, for development and redesigning of materials and lessons. One participant commented, “I need extra time on improving my digital capabilities, somehow add extra workload for me.” Specific to students, “when I ask them (the students) to use the technology. It consumes time, which is demotivating.” There was also concern about the “best use of time and resources when the technology may not ultimately be useful. ‘Knowing what will endure (and hence worth the effort) is difficult.’”

Financial support and a strong infrastructure to support the integration of technology was a concern. There were issues expressed about “access for all,” “reliability and expensive of technology,” “access to computer lab shared with other instructors” and “Tech support for things I can’t fix myself.”

In total, 11 participants expressed concerns about their lack of knowledge relative to technology resulting in a steep learning curve for educators and students. One participant was surprised at the “low technology skill level of students,” and another on the challenge of “becoming both subject matter expert and IT consultant to the students.” One participant was concerned about, “Learning new technologies and making sure that the activities and resources effectively help students learning,” and another mentioned a “Lack of knowledge about software/apps and ability to use them to enhance learning.”

Resistance surfaced in eight of the participants’ responses and reflected resistance on the part of students, teachers and administrators. Comments included, “student unwillingness to learn to use the technology,” the need for “opening people’s minds to a new learning style,” and “resistance from supervisors who are not forward thinking.”

Participants shared their level of confidence in the change process and any surprises or unexpected events they encountered during the transition in Question 21. There were 34 responses to this question. Through the analysis of the question, several themes and subthemes were uncovered. These themes were: confidence, attitudes and infrastructure. In total, 26 participants responded they were confident about the change process. One of the participants who identified confidence stated, “I am usually very confident because I am an avid technology user.” Another participant stated, “My confidence rests on the awareness that there is always more to learn about merging technology and instruction, and teaching and learning is a shared endeavor.” Few participants identified lack of confidence about the change process. The participant said, “I was not confident at first, but when I found students learning and enjoying the process my confident [ sic .] increase.”

The next theme which emerged was attitude. In total, 23 participants identified attitudes as surprising or unexpected about the change process. This theme was divided into two subthemes: teacher attitude and student attitude. One participant who mentioned student attitude said of his or her students were “very confident, student [ sic .] more creative, get more learning resources.” Participants also mentioned teacher attitude. One participant was “surprised by the jealousy of others who lacked knowledge and wanted to learn. Other teachers complained they couldn’t ever use the laptop cart, since I alwasy [ sic .] had it in my room and used it daily.”

Our last question was an open-ended question asking participants if there was anything else they would like to share that was not addressed by the previous questions. In total, 30 participants provided additional ideas. Comments related to instruction were made by 12 participants. The statement, “Although instructors should be cautious about the potential the extraordinary new technologies afford, there is much reason to excite our capacities to teach in ways that were not possible without these technologies,” reflects the participants views on the ways technology can and will influence their instruction.

In total, 11 participants expressed support for embracing technology and the potential technology holds for the learning environment with comments such as, “technology will be embraced by learners and it will enhance their learning and performance,” and “The potential of a learning environment with integrated technology is enormous.” Instruction and the importance of the designing the learning environment was expressed by eight participants. Respondents believed technology can enhance the learning, not drive the learning. “We must emphasize the design aspect in the learning environment as we do technology.”

Reflecting on their experiences transitioning from a traditional learning environment to one integrating technology, 42 participants shared their insights on the humanistic aspects of the change process leading to the generation of potential strategies and approaches for future change efforts.

The descriptive statistics indicated a strong level of confidence on the part of the participants in their abilities to integrate technology and a strong sense of the value technology brought to their educational setting. However, the beliefs on how technology contributed to student learning were more diverse. The results suggest there are still some questions about the extent to which technology engages students in higher order thinking and the degree to which technology enhances the role of the educator.

Three major themes emerged from the content analysis of the narrative responses: a sense of confidence and self-motivation in integrating technology in the educational environment, the importance of professional development/training opportunities, and a sense of excitement about the way technology can enhance the learning now and in the future. Approaching the humanistic aspects of change can lead to greater acceptance of the change and a deeper commitment to the change process. Efforts of resistance can be mitigated when the educators have a sense of self-assurance in the process, feel there is an alignment with their core values and have a sense of self-efficacy toward the ultimate goal. A parameter of the study was that the participants were members of the AECT and by membership, indicated an existing interest and awareness of the potential integrating technology into the educational environment.

In order to generate a systemic and empathetic change which can be sustained over time, educational leaders would need to explore the humanistic aspect of the change process as experienced by the educators, including the support and resources needed for the effective integration of technology into the educational environment. As anticipated, the participants in this study were more confident and comfortable about the change to technology. The challenge was the shift in emphasis from teacher- to student-centered pedagogies. Inherent in the changing role is an in-depth understanding of the confidence, beliefs and values educators bring to the integration of technology into their classrooms. A pre-assessment of the existing resources, needed resources and potential resources to support the change process, as well as, an assessment of the existing values, beliefs and confidence of educators involved in the change process will provide invaluable information for stakeholders on techniques and strategies vital to a successful transition.

Recommendations/limitations

The descriptive statistics and content analysis of the educators’ responses provided an awareness of the complex aspect of the change process when embracing technology as a tool to enhance the learning environment. The findings may provide schools, community colleges and universities, as well as graduate level educators, educational leaders and educational organizations moving to technology-driven learning platforms with valuable information on the humanistic aspect of designing strategies, techniques and support structures to assist educators in effectively and successfully embracing the innovation. Additional research may include a more diverse population, including educators at the kindergarten to high school level. Another recommendation would be to repeat the study with a population not as vested in technology as the members of the AECT.

Contributions

With the expanding capabilities of technology and ease of access to the internet, students at all levels are moving toward technologically driven approaches providing flexibility, active engagement and self-control over the learning experience ( Huh and Reigeluth, 2018 ; Utami, 2018 ). The informational age is moving education from teacher centered to learner-centered supported with the integration of technology. Research exists on the success of specific technology platforms and on the implementation of teacher training to support the integration of technology into the learning environment. However, there is little to no research on the values, beliefs and confidence of educators changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology. Educators are entering into the new innovations with limited skills and knowledge to successfully implement the educational strategies needed for technology integration ( Somera, 2018 ). The findings from this study add to the literature on the complex issues educators encounter when integrating technology into their classrooms and providing additional insights into a humanistic approach to change.

Confidence level of participants integrating technology

Beliefs of participants in how technology contributed to student learning

Participants responses to the value of technology integration

Years teaching

Educational level currently teaching

Subject or field currently teaching

Age range of participants

Adamson , M.A. , Chen , H. , Kackley , R. and Michael , A. ( 2018 ), “ For the love of the game: game- versus lecture-based learning with Generation z patients ”, Journal of Psychological Nursing and Mental Health Services , Vol. 56 No. 2 , pp. 29 - 36 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.3928/02793695-20171027-03

Alenezi , A. ( 2017 ), “ Obstacles for teachers to integrate technology with instruction ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 1797 - 1816 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1145944&site=eds-live&scope=site

Alshammari , S.H. , Ali , M.B. and Rosli , M.S. ( 2016 ), “ The influences of technical support, self efficacy and instructional design on the usage and acceptance of LMS: a comprehensive review ”, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET , Vol. 15 No. 2 , pp. 116 - 125 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1096463&site=eds-live&scope=site

Azzaro , G. ( 2014 ), “ Human drive and humanistic technologies in ELT training ”, Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication , No. 27 , pp. 287 - 312 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=ufh&AN=94592418&site=eds-live&scope=site

Bandura , A. ( 1986 ), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognition Theory , Prentice-Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Bhatiasevi , V. and Naglis , M. ( 2016 ), “ Investigating the structural relationship for the determinants of cloud computing adoption in education ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 21 No. 5 , pp. 1197 - 1223 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1109546&site=eds-live&scope=site

Cheung , G. , Wan , K. and Chan , K. ( 2018 ), “ Efficient use of clickers: a mixed-method inquiry with university teachers ”, Education Sciences , Vol. 8 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1174987&site=eds-live&scope=site

Croasmun , J.T. and Ostrom , L. ( 2011 ), “ Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences ”, Journal of Adult Education , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 19 - 22 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ961998&site=eds-live&scope=site

Demirbağ , M. and Kılınç , A. ( 2018 ), “ Preservice teachers’ risk perceptions and willingness to use educational technologies: a belief system approach ”, Journal of Education and Future , No. 14 , pp. 15 - 30 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/2122479666?accountid=35812

Dominici , P. ( 2018 ), “ For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological in the hypercomplex society ”, European Journal of Futures Research , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Dress , A. ( 2016 ), “ Adopting a growth mindset ”, Exchange , Vol. 228 , pp. 12 - 15 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eue&AN=115865494&site=eds-live&scope=site

El Fadil , B. ( 2015 ), “ High school technology design process – goals and challenges ”, International Journal of Arts & Sciences , Vol. 8 No. 6 , pp. 109 - 116 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/1764688920?accountid=35812

Fedorenko , S. ( 2018 ), “ Humanistic foundations of foreign language education: theory and practice ”, Advanced Education , Vol. 5 No. 10 , pp. 27 - 31 .

Ferdig , R. and Kennedy , K. ( 2014 ), Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning , Library of Congress, ETC Press , Pittsburgh, PA .

Finfgeld-Connett , D. ( 2013 ), “ Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 341 - 352 , doi: 10.1177/1468794113481790 .

Genota , L. ( 2018 ), “ Why Generation Z learners prefer YouTube lessons over printed books; video learning outranks printed books in survey ”, Education Week , No. 1, available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.555427761&site=eds-live&scope=site

Global Research and Insights ( 2018 ), “ Beyond millennials: the next generation of learners ”, available at: www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2018/The-Next-Generation-of-Learners_final.pdf (accessed October 21, 2018 ).

Harrison , H. , Birks , M. , Franklin , R. and Mills , J. ( 2007 ), “ Case study research: foundations and methodological orientations ”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research , No. 1 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.2959900b435b4c988812267188f7b1f8&site=eds-live&scope=site

Hseih , H.F. and Shannon , S.E. ( 2005 ), “ Three approaches to qualitative content analysis ”, Qualitative Health Research , Vol. 15 No. 9 , pp. 1277 - 1288 , doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687 .

Huh , Y. and Reigeluth , C.M. ( 2018 ), “ Online K-12 teachers’ perceptions and practices of supporting self-regulated learning ”, Journal of Educational Computing Research , Vol. 55 No. 8 , pp. 1129 - 1153 , doi: 10.1177/0735633117699231 .

Hussain , M. ( 2012 ), “ Descriptive statistics – presenting your results I ”, The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association , Vol. 62 No. 7 , p. 741 .

Kilinc , A. , Demiral , U. and Kartal , T. ( 2017 ), “ Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: the effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher ”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching , Vol. 54 No. 6 , pp. 764 - 789 , available at: https://doi-org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1002/tea.21385

Lambert , V.A. and Lambert , C.E. ( 2012 ), “ Editorial: qualitative descriptive research: an acceptable design ”, Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 255 - 256 .

Merriam , S.B. ( 2009 ), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Miles , M.B. and Huberman , A.M. ( 1994 ), Qualitative Data Analysis , 2nd ed. , Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Nicol , A.A. , Owens , S.M. , Le Coze , S.S.L. , MacIntyre , A. and Eastwood , C. ( 2018 ), “ Comparison of high-technology active learning and low-technology active learning classrooms ”, Active Learning in Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 253 - 265 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731176

Office of Educational Technology, Department of Education ( 2017 ), “ Higher education supplement to the National Education Technology Plan ”, available at: https://tech.ed.gov/higherednetp/ (accessed August 12, 2018 ).

Patterson , R. ( 1999 ), “ The web’s future? Ask the man who invented it ”, Canadian Medical Association Journal , Vol. 160 No. 1 , p. 95 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/204826444?accountid=35812

Porter , W.W. and Graham , C.R. ( 2016 ), “ Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education ”, British Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 748 - 762 , available at: https://doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/bjet.12269

Reid , P. ( 2014 ), “ Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 383 - 407 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1053119&site=eds-live&scope=site

Reid , P. ( 2017 ), “ Supporting instructors in overcoming self-efficacy and background barriers to adoption ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 22 No. 1 , pp. 369 - 382 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1125291&site=eds-live&scope=site

Salkind , N.J. ( 2009 ), Exploring Research , 7th ed. , Pearson Prentice Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Seemiller , C. and Grace , M. ( 2016 ), Generation Z Goes to College , Josey Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Seemiller , C. and Grace , M. ( 2017 ), “ Generation Z: educating and engaging the next generation of students ”, About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 21 - 26 , doi: 10.1002/abc.21293 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2017 ), “ Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? ”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 4 - 33 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Shatto , B. and Erwin , K. ( 2017 ), “ Teaching millennials and Generation Z: bridging the generational divide ”, Creative Nursing , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 24 - 28 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1891/1078-4535.23.1.24

Somera , S.L. ( 2018 ), “ Educator experiences transitioning to blended learning environment in K-6 public schools ”, Order No. 10746266, No. 2019657254, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Ann Arbor, MI, available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/2019657254?accountid=134061

Steele , P. , Johnston , E. , Lawlor , A. , Smith , C. and Lamppa , S. ( 2019 ), “ Arts-Based instructional and curricular strategies for working with virtual educational applications ”, Journal for Educational Technology Systems , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 411 - 432 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239518803286

Swanzen , R. ( 2018 ), “ Facing the generation chasm: the parenting and teaching of generations Y and Z ”, International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies , Vol. 9 No. 2 , p. 125 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edb&AN=129900585&site=eds-live&scope=site

Utami , I.S. ( 2018 ), “ The effect of blended learning model on senior high school students’ achievement ”, SHS Web of Conferences , Vol. 42 , pp. 1 - 6 , doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20184200027 .

Vaismoradi , M. , Turunen , H. and Bondas , T. ( 2013 ), “ Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study ”, Nursing and Health Sciences , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 398 - 405 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/nhs.12048

Vercellotti , M.L. ( 2018 ), “ Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of classroom context ”, Active Learning in Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 197 - 210 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735606

White , M.D. and Marsh , E.E. ( 2006 ), “ Content analysis: a flexible methodology ”, Library Trends , Vol. 55 No. 1 , pp. 22 - 45 , doi: 10.1353/lib.2006.0053 .

Yin , R.K. ( 2013 ), Case Study Research: Design and Methods , Applied Social Research Methods , 5th ed. , Sage , Los Angeles, CA .

Zainal , Z. ( 2007 ), “ Case study as a research method ”, Jurnal Kemausiaan , Vol. 9 , pp. 1 - 6 , available at: http://psyking.net/htmlobj-3837/case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of Dr Mansureh Kebritchi research chair of the Center of Educational and Instruction Technology Research of the University of Phoenix.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Technology Integration in Schools

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 4th edition

37 Pages Posted: 21 Jan 2016

Randy Davies

Brigham young university, richard west.

Date Written: 2014

It is commonly believed that learning is enhanced through the use of technology and that students need to develop technology skills in order to be productive members of society. For this reason, providing a high quality education includes the expectation that teachers use educational technologies effectively in their classroom and that they teach their students to use technology. In this chapter we have organized our review of technology integration research around a framework based on three areas of focus: (1) increasing access to educational technologies, (2) increasing the use of technology for instructional purposes, and (3) improving the effectiveness of technology use to facilitate learning. Within these categories, we describe findings related to one-to-one computing initiatives, integration of open educational resources, various methods of teacher professional development, ethical issues affecting technology use, emerging approaches to technology integration that emphasize pedagogical perspectives and personalized instruction, technology-enabled assessment practices, and the need for systemic educational change to fully realize technology’s potential for improving learning. From our analysis of the scholarship in this area, we conclude that the primary benefit of current technology use in education has been to increase information access and communication. Students primarily use technology to gather, organize, analyze, and report information, but this has not dramatically improved student performance on standardized tests. These findings lead to the conclusion that future efforts should focus on providing students and teachers with increased access to technology along with training in pedagogically sound best practices, including more advanced approaches for technology-based assessment and adaptive instruction.

Keywords: Educational Technology, Technology Integration, Education

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Randy Davies (Contact Author)

Brigham young university ( email ).

Provo, UT 84602 United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, social sciences education ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Anthropology of Education eJournal

Information systems: behavioral & social methods ejournal, anthropology of science & technology studies ejournal.

Integration of technology in education and its impact on learning of students

• January 2015

• Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University - Bikaner
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Nur Chamimmah

• Andi Mariono
• Lailis Indriani

• Fini Widya Fransiska

• Ayudia Mokodompit
• Cecile de Mesa Espiritu

• Anwar Junior Molwele

• Muskan Khan Pathan

• Robert L. Blomeyer

• Allan Collins

• COMPUT EDUC

• Joseba Saenz-de-Navarrete

• Lucinda Gray
• Nina Thomas
• Laurie Lewis

• J Early Child Literacy
• Meryl Alper
• J.D. Bransford
• R. R. Cocking
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Technology Integration

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Inservice Follow Following
• Edtech Follow Following
• Technology Integration in Schools Follow Following
• Educational Technology Follow Following
• E-Resources Follow Following
• Process Improvement Follow Following
• Professional Development Follow Following
• Computer Education and Instructional Technology Follow Following
• Barriers for Ict Integration Follow Following
• Library Services Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Integration of laser scanning, digital photogrammetry and bim technology: a review and case studies.

1. Introduction

1.1. point cloud definition, 1.2. point cloud extraction methods, 1.2.1. laser scanning (lidar), 1.2.2. digital photogrammetry, 1.3. bim modeling based on point clouds, 1.4. bim definition, 2. literature review, 2.1. state of the art, 2.2. the objectives, 3. materials and methods: workflow—from point clouds to building information model, 4. results—case studies, historical/heritage building information modeling (hbim), 5. discussion, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Mengiste, E.; Prieto, S.A.; De Soto, B.G. Comparison of TLS and photogrammetric 3D data acquisition techniques: Considerations for developing countries. In ISARC, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Bogotá, Colombia, 12–15 July 2022 ; IAARC Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2022; Volume 39, pp. 491–494. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grilli, E.; Menna, F.; Remondino, F. A review of point clouds segmentation and classification algorithms. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017 , XLII-2/W3 , 339–344. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morgenstern, H.; Raupach, M. Quantified point clouds and enriched BIM-Models for digitized maintenance planning. MATEC Web Conf. 2022 , 364 , 05001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Geoportal. Available online: https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/imap/Imgp_2.html (accessed on 18 May 2024).
• Kadhim, N.; Mhmood, A.D.; Adb-Ulabbas, A.H. The creation of 3D building models using laser-scanning datafor BIM modeling. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021 , 1105 , 012101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lichti, D.D.; Gordon, S.J.; Stewart, M.P.; Franke, J.; Tsakiri, M. Comparison of digital photogrammetry and laser scanning. In Proceedings of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Hyderabad, India, 7–9 December 2002; pp. 39–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dardanelli, G.; Maltese, A.; Pipitone, C.; Pisciotta, A.; Lo Brutto, M. NRTK, PPP or static, that is the question. Testing different positioning solutions for GNSS survey. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 1406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suchocki, C.; Damięcka-Suchocka, M.; Katzer, J.; Janicka, J.; Rapiński, J.; Stałowska, P. Remote detection of moisture and bio-deterioration of building walls by time-of-flight and phase-shift terrestrial laser scanners. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 1708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masciotta, M.G.; Sanchez-Aparicio, L.J.; Oliveira, D.V.; Gonzalez-Aguilera, D. Integration of laser scanning technologies and 360º photography for the digital documentation and management of cultural heritage buildings. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2023 , 17 , 56–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilgrim, L.; Sabzali, M. Investigation of Correlation between Self-Calibration Parameters of Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS). Asian J. Geoinform. 2023 , 23 , 2311016-1–2311016-16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt, J.; Volland, V.; Iwaszczuk, D.; Eichhorn, A. Detection of hidden edges and corners in slam-based indoor point clouds. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2023 , XLVIII-1/W , 443–449. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• TPI. Available online: https://tpi.com.pl/produkt/faro-focus-premium (accessed on 18 May 2024).
• NavVis. Available online: https://www.navvis.com/vlx (accessed on 18 May 2024).
• Pepe, M.; Alfio, V.S.; Costantino, D. UAV platforms and the SfM-MVS approach in the 3D surveys and modelling: A review in the cultural heritage field. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 12886. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zawada, K.; Rybak-Niedziółka, K.; Donderewicz, M.; Starzyk, A. Digitization of AEC Industries Based on BIM and 4.0 Technologies. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 1350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borkowski, A.S. BIM model from a point cloud. Build. Sci. 2020 , 1 , 42–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; 626p. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borkowski, A.S. A Literature Review of BIM Definitions: Narrow and Broad Views. Technologies 2023 , 11 , 176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tomana, A. BIM Innovative Technology in Construction. Basics, Standards, Tools ; PWB MEDIA Zdziebłowski Spółka Jawna: Kraków, Poland, 2016; pp. 59–60. ISBN 978-83-944969-0-6. (In Polish) [ Google Scholar ]
• Kochański, Ł.; Borkowski, A.S. Automating the conceptual design of residental areas using visual and generative programming. J. Eng. Des. 2024 , 35 , 195–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borkowski, A.S. Low-Cost Internet of Things Solution for Building Information Modeling Level 3B—Monitoring, Analysis and Management. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2024 , 13 , 19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kasznia, D.; Magiera, J.; Wierzowiecki, P. BIM in Practice ; PWN Scientific Publishers SA: Warsaw, Poland, 2017; pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-83-01-21052-6. (In Polish) [ Google Scholar ]
• Adamus, Ł. Building Information Modeling (BIM): Theoretical foundations. Pr. Inst. Tech. Bud. 2012 , 41 , 13–26. (In Polish) [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, J.; Willkens, D.; Gentry, R. A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) into the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). Architecture 2023 , 3 , 505–527. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jordan-Palomar, I.; Tzortzopoulos, P.; García-Valldecabres, J.; Pellicer, E. Protocol to manage heritage-building interventions using heritage building information modelling (HBIM). Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 908. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alshawabkeh, Y.; Baik, A.; Miky, Y. Integration of laser scanner and photogrammetry for heritage BIM enhancement. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021 , 10 , 316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, J.; Azhar, S.; Willkens, D.; Li, B. Static terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) for heritage building information modeling (HBIM): A systematic review. Virtual Worlds 2023 , 2 , 90–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, C.; Yuan, Y.; Tang, Y.; Tian, B. Application of terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. Sensors 2021 , 22 , 265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Available online: https://cloudcompare-org.danielgm.net/release/ (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Pocobelli, D.P.; Boehm, J.; Bryan, P.; Still, J.; Grau-Bové, J. BIM for heritage science: A review. Herit. Sci. 2018 , 6 , 30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Autodesk. Available online: https://help.autodesk.com/view/NAV/2022/ENU/?guid=GUID-7F1C93E2-66A8-4884-85E1-15B180E0C46F (accessed on 8 June 2024).
• Quattrini, R.; Pierdicca, R.; Morbidoni, C. Knowledge-based data enrichment for HBIM: Exploring high-quality models using the semantic-web. J. Cult. Herit. 2017 , 28 , 129–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eadie, R.; Clifford, S.; Stoyanov, V. Building information modeling (BIM) automated creation of gothic arch windows from point clouds. In Proceedings of the XXII International Scientific Conference on Construction and Architecture VSU’2022, Sofia, Bulgaria, 6–8 October 2022; p. 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez-Aparicio, L.J.; Del Pozo, S.; Ramos, L.F.; Arce, A.; Fernandes, F.M. Heritage site preservation with combined radiometric and geometric analysis of TLS data. Autom. Constr. 2018 , 85 , 24–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, O.C.; Chin, C.S.; Majid, Z.; Setan, H. 3D documentation and preservation of historical monument using terrestrial laser scanning. Geoinf. Sci. J. 2010 , 10 , 73–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moyano, J.; Carreño, E.; Nieto-Julián, J.E.; Gil-Arizón, I.; Bruno, S. Systematic approach to generate Historical Building Information Modelling (HBIM) in architectural restoration project. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 143 , 104551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roca, P. Restoration of historic buildings: Conservation principles and structural assessment. Int. J. Mater. Struct. Integr. 2011 , 5 , 151–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pezeshki, Z.; Ivari SA, S. Applications of BIM: A brief review and future outline. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2018 , 25 , 273–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saricaoglu, T.; Saygi, G. Data-driven conservation actions of heritage places curated with HBIM. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2022 , 13 , 17–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bosch, A.; Volker, L.; Koutamanis, A. BIM in the operations stage: Bottlenecks and implications for owners. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2015 , 5 , 331–343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christenson, M. Problematizing the model-building duality: Examining the New Sacristy at S. Lorenzo, Florence, Italy. Front. Archit. Res. 2023 , 12 , 651–663. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borkowski, A.S. Evolution of BIM: Epistemology, genesis and division into periods. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon) 2023 , 28 , 646–661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Borkowski, A.S.; Kubrat, A. Integration of Laser Scanning, Digital Photogrammetry and BIM Technology: A Review and Case Studies. Eng 2024 , 5 , 2395-2409. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040125

Borkowski AS, Kubrat A. Integration of Laser Scanning, Digital Photogrammetry and BIM Technology: A Review and Case Studies. Eng . 2024; 5(4):2395-2409. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040125

Borkowski, Andrzej Szymon, and Alicja Kubrat. 2024. "Integration of Laser Scanning, Digital Photogrammetry and BIM Technology: A Review and Case Studies" Eng 5, no. 4: 2395-2409. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng5040125

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals