Education Tech Research Dev (2015) 63:539–554

DOI 10.1007/s11423-015-9391-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade

classrooms in a Florida school district

Tiffani Pittman1 • Trudi Gaines1

Published online: 3 July 2015

 Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Abstract Third, fourth and fifth grade teachers have the potential to shape the way their
students will begin to view and use technology. This study investigated the nature of technology
usage among third, fourth and fifth grade teachers in a Florida school district as well as the
relationship between the level of technology usage factors such as available technology
access/support, professional development relating to technology, and teachers’ attitudes and
beliefs toward technology usage. Also of interest was how teachers rate the barriers to technology
integration. An original survey instrument was designed, and responses from 75 participants
were analyzed. Results indicated that only 18.7 % of respondents met the requirements to be
considered high-level technology integrators. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the impor-
tance of technology integration and direct student access to computers within the classroom had
significant positive correlations with high-level technology usage. The strongest barrier to
technology integration was a lack of available computers/hardware, followed by factors relating
to the time required to develop and implement lesson plans that incorporate technology.

Keywords Elementary education
Improving classroom teaching
Pedagogical issues

Teaching/learning strategies

Introduction

Today’s students live in the age of mobile phones, iPods, television on demand, and
limitless resources, providing the answer to any question with just a few clicks of a
keyboard or taps on a screen. Although public education may not be on the cutting edge of

& Tiffani Pittman

tpittman2280@yahoo.com
Trudi Gaines
tgaines@uwf.edu
1
University of West Florida School of Education, Building 85, Room 196, 11000 University
Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514, USA

123
540 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

many technological advances, billions of dollars have been spent in recent years to equip
classrooms with technological tools and to provide students access to technology in their
classrooms throughout the country (Miranda and Russell 2012). According to a 2009
national survey by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 99 % of teachers had
computers either in the classroom or that could be brought into the classroom every day,
and 95 % of the computers had internet access (Gray et al. 2010). However, even with this
improved technology availability and access in classrooms, only 40 % of the K-12 teachers
surveyed across the country reported using technology ‘‘often’’ in instructional settings
(Gray et al. 2010).
From the perspective of learning theory, the integration of technology usage into the
classroom serves constructivist and sociocultural principles. According to the construc-
tivist view, learners create knowledge as a result of their interactions with the environment,
building on existing knowledge and dependent upon relevance of the content or instruc-
tional activity to their own lives. Technology can be an important tool used to enhance and
expand the learner’s opportunities to interact with the environment by providing access to a
virtual environment previously unavailable in real life and real time (Roblyer 2006). From
the sociocultural perspective, technology provides the platform and the tools to engage via
numerous media with other individuals and groups beyond the immediate reach of the
learner.
Practically speaking, there is an obvious need for students to be prepared to use tech-
nology in order to compete in a 21st century global economy. However, the task of
integrating technology into classroom instruction in a meaningful and state-of-the-art way
remains challenging. A 2013 study of 77K-12 teachers concluded that ‘‘teachers are still
not keeping pace with students’ outside-of-school practice by using digital tools and
technologies to enhance classroom practice’’ (Lawrence 2013, p. 64). Although there has
been a substantial amount of research conducted on this topic, no standard measurement
tool to evaluate technology integration and its related factors has been utilized as the basis
for research as of this writing. Researchers analyze this issue from such a variety of
perspectives that it is difficult to generalize the data in order to find realistic solutions that
can be implemented in today’s classrooms.
The low level of technology integration in public school classrooms has been the subject
of many studies approaching the topic from different perspectives (Miranda and Russell
2012). External factors such as availability and support, known as first-order barriers
(Ertmer et al. 2012), and internal factors such as teachers’ attitudes toward technology and
their pedagogical beliefs, known as second-order barriers (Ertmer et al. 2012), have been
investigated. Findings supported the idea that teachers’ attitudes toward technology play a
vital role in determining how and to what extent they will integrate technology into their
classrooms (Capo and Orellana 2011; Howley et al. 2011). Other findings pointed to
teachers’ experience with technology and their belief that technology is beneficial and
important to meet instructional goals as a strong predictor for integrating technology into
instructional activities (Fethi and Inan 2010; Miranda and Russell 2012; Wright and
Wilson 2011).
Another focus in this area of investigation is the extent and nature of educators’ pro-
fessional development with respect to technology. The 2009 NCES survey indicated that
13 % of the teachers surveyed spent no time on technology-related professional devel-
opment activities during the 12 months prior to the survey, while the largest percentage
(53 %) spent between 1 and 8 h (Gray et al. 2010). An and Reigeluth (2012) suggested that
current professional development programs do help improve teachers’ technology
knowledge; however, the majority of programs are too broad and not subject specific, they

123
Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade… 541

compress too much information into short trainings, and they often teach about technology
that is not available to the teachers. Technology implementation plans must be cohesive,
meeting the macro-level needs of IT developers, policymakers and administrators, while
also focusing on the specific micro-level needs of the teachers who must use the tech-
nology in their classrooms and the instructional needs of their students (Miranda and
Russell 2012). Tweed (2013) surveyed 124 teachers in East Tennessee, finding that age,
years of teaching experience, gender, and hours spent in technology-related professional
development did not significantly impact classroom use of technology.
The most significant contributor that discriminated between high and low integrators of
technology was shown to be the positive outcomes measure, which examined the fre-
quency with which teachers experienced positive outcomes using technology in their
classrooms (Mueller et al. 2008). The recommendation was that professional development
programs should focus on teacher attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and should include
mentor programs or workshop training to expose teachers to successful integration in a
positive and practical way. Other results emphasized the importance of explicitly showing
teachers how ideas about incorporating technology into instructional activities would work
in an actual classroom (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. 2010). The majority of the research
indicated that simply providing teachers with professional development opportunities
related to technology integration does not appear to translate into higher levels of inte-
gration in the classroom. Professional development must be refined to focus on improving
teachers’ attitudes toward technology by providing specific and practical ways that tech-
nology will improve student learning.
Even with good technology access and support, professional development opportunities
and positive attitudes toward technology integration, many teachers may experience bar-
riers that make it difficult to increase the level of technology integration in their class-
rooms. Although some teachers have positive attitudes and sufficient training, time to
prepare and to implement technology into classroom instruction poses one of the greatest
barriers to technology integration (Gorder 2009; Kirkscey 2012; Wright and Wilson 2011).
Teachers have reported that using laptops created more difficulty with classroom man-
agement, put more reliance on others, required extra time, and made it difficult to use
existing materials (Yan and Zhao 2006). Perhaps because of barriers teachers reportedly
experienced, those teachers who do use technology in the classroom often use it only for
lower-level tasks (Gorder 2009; Kirkscey 2012).
Developmental factors also contribute an important element to this conversation. As
early as the third grade, students have the cognitive and fine-motor skills necessary to
begin to use technology in sophisticated ways and are at an impressionable age when their
experiences with technology may have a lasting impact (Howley et al. 2011). Beginning in
third grade, teachers can provide the foundation for students to use technology as ‘‘cog-
nitive tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing
their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others’’ (Jonassen 1995
p. 41). Although extensive data are available about best practices for technology inte-
gration and many studies encompass specific student populations and or K-12 environ-
ments, there are few studies that include empirical research investigating the characteristics
that correlate with higher-level technology integration specifically by grade level. Most
previous studies in this area included teachers at all grade levels, with only one study
limited to elementary teachers (Miranda and Russell 2012) and one study limited specif-
ically to third grade teachers (Howley et al. 2011). Of the remaining studies, only four
examined differences based on grade level (Hsu 2010; Gorder 2008, 2009; Mueller et al.
2008).

123
542 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

The purpose of the current study is to focus on technology integration in third, fourth
and fifth grade classrooms, identifying high-level versus low-level technology usage,
examining the factors that are associated with this type of integration, and proposing a
potential measuring instrument to serve as a step toward a universal standard for measuring
technology integration in classrooms.
As students begin to develop technology habits, it is vital to teach them how to
effectively use the tools available to them in a safe and ethical way, and this is only
possible when there is a robust level of technology integration in classroom instruction.
The choices that third, fourth and fifth grade teachers make with regard to technology
integration have the potential to shape the way students will view and use technology as a
tool for learning. For these reasons, this study focused on an examination of such choices
by posing the following three research questions whose answers would help point the way
to increasing high-level technology integration in classrooms where students will form the
foundation for their future technology habits:
(1) What percentage of third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers in this school district is
using technology at a high level in their classrooms?
(2) What is the relationship between the level of their technology usage and its access
and support; their professional development relating to technology; and their
attitudes and beliefs about technology usage?
(3) What do teachers rate as greatest barriers to technology integration, including time
to develop and implement technology?
The first question provides an understanding of the extent of the problem with low
technology integration in the classroom, while the second question addresses a more
detailed insight into various factors previously discussed that are associated with such
integration. The third question, as with all meaningful examinations of a particular pop-
ulation, seeks to provide insight from the perspective of the participants. The researchers’
hypotheses with respect to these questions were (1) that there would be a lower percentage
of high-level technology usage (integrators), (2) that there would be significant differences
across survey items between high and low level usage groups as well as significant positive
correlations between mean usage scores and scores on survey items/sections, and (3) that
participants would select lack of technology hardware and time to devote to implemen-
tation as their greatest barriers to technology integration.

Materials and methods

Participants

The target population for the study consisted of third, fourth and fifth grade teachers from
the 47 public elementary schools located in Pasco County, Florida. Pasco County is located
north of the Tampa/St. Petersburg metropolitan area and includes elementary schools
classified as suburban and rural based on the NCES school locale definitions (‘‘Defini-
tions’’). According to the 2008–2009 Florida School Indicators Report published by the
Florida Department of Education, Pasco County School District spent an average of $7317
per student, slightly less than the state average of $7415 per student. Because district
approval, as well as principal approval for each individual school, is required for all
research in Pasco County public schools, nonprobability convenience sampling was used to
sample participants from the schools where principals’ permission was obtained. Of the 47

123
Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade… 543

principals, 14 agreed to allow distribution of the survey to the teachers at their schools,
resulting in a pool of 218 third, fourth and fifth grade teachers.

Measuring instrument

After an extensive review of the related literature, an original survey instrument was
designed (Appendix). The survey was developed by the researcher and designed to
(a) gather demographic data about the participant (e.g. age, experience, education—Items
1–6), (b) to determine the access and availability of technology at the participant’s school
and in the classroom (Items 7–14), (c) to determine the level of the participant’s profes-
sional development relating to technology (Items 15–18), (d) to determine the participant’s
attitude toward technology (Items 19–26), (e) to determine the level of the participants’
students’ technology integration in the classroom (Items 27–34) and the level of the
participants’ integration of technology in school-related activities (Items 35–43), and (f) to
identify the participants’ perception of the most important barriers to technology inte-
gration (Item 44). This survey built on an original tool created by An and Reigeluth (2012),
adding questions relating to the students’ use of technologies and providing a framework to
compare characteristics of high-level and low-level technology integrators.
The responses to Items 27–43 in the sections of the survey pertaining to technology
usage were analyzed to divide the participants into high-level and low-level technology
integrators. These items required respondents to rate both their frequency of use of certain
technologies and their students’ frequency of use of certain technologies. Both perspectives
were included in an effort to address the complexity of technology integration (requiring
both teachers and students to use technology) and to minimize the possibility of social
desirability bias that may occur when teachers must self-report their own performance with
regard to technology integration (Howley et al. 2011; Mueller et al. 2008).
A preliminary survey was distributed to an expert in the field for feedback. Additional
feedback was provided from seven third, fourth and fifth grade teachers who teach outside
of the school district for this study. The feedback was utilized to make revisions for
validity, clarity and consistency, and the final survey instrument included 17 closed-ended
questions with multiple items.
The reliability of the survey instrument was tested using a pilot group of seven third,
fourth and fifth grade teachers outside the population being studied. Their responses were
analyzed for consistency, and the responses under the categories of technology access and
support and attitudes toward technology were tested for internal reliability using Cron-
bach’s alpha. The coefficient of reliability for the six rated factors in the technology access
and support section was 0.773, indicating a high level of reliability. The coefficient of
reliability for the eight rated responses in the attitudes section indicated an alpha of 0.776,
also indicating a high level of reliability.
Internal validity was measured using feedback from an expert in the field and from the
seven teachers in the pilot group. These sources were provided the research questions and
the survey and were asked to analyze the structure and content of the survey to ensure that
it measured the constructs being studied. The feedback from these sources was utilized to
ensure the consistency of the questions, to eliminate ambiguity, and to remove any
potential bias in the survey questions. Further, survey items were specifically written to
address the several areas of interest, such as the level of technology usage by the partic-
ipants and by their students. The reviewers who examined the survey for content validity
alse reviewed the items as being representative of the respective section headings of the

123
544 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

survey instrument. The external validity of the survey instrument is lower, given the
nonprobability convenience sampling.

Procedures

The survey instrument was finalized for distribution using SurveyMonkey, an online
surveying tool. Thirteen of the 14 principals agreed to distribute the online survey to the
teachers at their schools, while one principal requested that the researchers directly dis-
tribute the survey to the teachers at one school. Surveys were distributed in an online
format via email to 218 teachers. SurveyMonkey provides a link that participants use to
take an online survey and then provides the responses from a general database that keeps
the respondents’ email addresses private and unknown to the researcher.

Data analysis

Data were collected and compiled from the online surveys. Demographic information was
analyzed using descriptive statistics with results presented in table format.
Two groups from among the participants were formed based on responses to survey
items pertaining to technology usage in order to establish low versus high users. High-level
integrators reported that they and their students used basic technologies at least several
times a week and more complicated technology tools at least once a month. High-level
integrators also rated their own level of technology integration and their students’ tech-
nology usage as average, above average, or excellent. The first requirement for a high-level
integrator was a mean score of 4.0 or higher on the basic types of technology used by
teachers and students (Items 27–29, 35–37). The second requirement for high-level inte-
grators was a mean score of 2.0 or higher for teachers’ and students’ use of the remaining
types of technology usage (Items 30–32, 38–41). The third requirement of high-level
integration was a mean score of 3.0 or higher on Items 34 and 43.
Responses from participants in these two groups were further analyzed using inde-
pendent samples t tests to determine the presence of any significant differences between the
two groups with respect to factors included in research question two. Correlation analysis
was performed to examine the relationship between participants’ overall integration scores
and their access to and support for technology; their experience with professional devel-
opment in technology; and their attitudes about the importance of technology integration in
instruction. Participants’ level of education, years of teaching experience, and ages were
analyzed to further identify any significant differences or correlations with their overall
integration scores.

Results

Surveys were distributed online to 218 teachers at14 schools in the school district. Of the
95 returned, 20 were considered ineligible in an effort to keep the sample pure with only
third, fourth and fifth grade teachers as these respondents worked with other grade levels,
with specific student populations, or in specialized fields such as art or music. Therefore,
the responses from 75 participants were analyzed with a response rate of 34 %. Demo-
graphic data for the participants is displayed in Table 1.

123
Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade… 545

Table 1 Participants’ demo-

Grade level taught n %
graphic data
Third 28 37
Fourth 24 32
Fifth 20 27
Highest education level n %
Bachelors 51 68
Masters 22 29
Specialist (Ed.S.) 1 1
Doctorate 0 0
Other M SD
Years of teaching experience 10.8 8.4
Age 40 11.4
Average no. of students per class 20 2.4

Participants were fairly evenly distributed across the three grade levels included in this study,
with the highest percentage for third grade. Almost one third of the participants had attained a
master’s degree, with one participant not responding to this question. Years of teaching
experience ranged from 1 to 30, ages from 22 to 63, and students per class from 10 to 28.
Based on the previously described analysis of Items 27–43, ‘‘Section 5: technology use
by students’’ section and ‘‘Section 6: technology use by participant’’ section of the survey,
results showed that 18.7 % (n = 14) of participants met the requirements for high-level
usage. In response to the first research question, this finding supports the hypothesis
derived from the literature that a lower percentage of teachers would meet the requirements
of high-level technology integration in their classrooms.
Results for ‘‘Section 2: technology access and support’’ section, Items 7–14 concerning
access to and support for technology in participants’ classrooms, are displayed in Table 2.
There was a significant difference between the two groups with respect to the number of
computers for students’ use within participants’ classrooms, but not with respect to overall
availability of computers in the school, such as in computer labs. There was no significant
difference between the two groups on the remaining items for this section of the survey;
however, the overall score on this section does indicate a significant difference between the
two usage groups. These results suggest that participants who used technology at the higher
level reported having no significantly greater technology support and resources outside the
classroom than the group who used technology at a low level. A correlation analysis was
conducted comparing participants’ overall mean scores on technology integration (the items
used to determine high or low integration group placement) with mean scores for Items 7–14.
Overall, participants do report greater access and support as their technology integration
increases. Further correlation analyses between individual items in this section and overall
integration scores indicated significant positive correlations for Items 7, 9, 10, and 14.
Results for the ‘‘Section 3: technology related professional development’’ section, Items
15–18 concerning participants’ experiences with professional development related to
technology usage, are displayed in Table 3. The independent samples t test for items in this
section indicated no significant differences between the high-level and low-level integrators.
A correlation analysis between participants’ overall mean scores for this section and their
overall mean scores on technology integration indicated a significant positive correlation
overall. Further correlation analyses between individual items in this survey section and
overall integration scores indicate significant positive correlations for Items 17 and 18.

123
546 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

Table 2 Mean results for items 7–14, technology access and support, for all participants and by usage level
group; correlation with overall usage scores
Item # Total High usage Low usage Group Correlation with
n = 75 n = 14 n = 61 difference overall usage score

7 1.40 2.00 1.26 0.74** r = 0.46**

8 3.44 3.50 3.43 0.07 r = 0.11
9 3.12 3.64 3.00 0.64 r = 0.27*
10 3.11 3.57 3.00 0.57 r = 0.31**
11 3.67 4.00 3.59 0.41 r = 0.22
12 3.73 3.79 3.72 0.07 r = 0.17
13 3.04 3.36 2.97 0.39 r = 0.14
14 3.12 3.50 3.03 0.47 r = 0.24*
7-14 3.07 3.42 3.00 0.42* r = 0.38**
* p \ .05
** p \ .01

Table 3 Mean results for items 15–18, technology related professional development, for all participants
and by usage level group; correlation with overall usage
Item # Total High usage Low usage Group Correlation with
n = 75 n = 14 n = 61 difference overall usage score

15 2.05 2.21 2.02 0.19 r = 0.04

16 2.33 2.33 2.34 0.05 r = 0.10
17 3.25 3.25 3.18 0.39 r = 0.54**
18 2.32 2.32 2.28 0.22 r = 0.32**
15–18 2.49 2.49 2.46 0.18 r = 0.41**
* p \ .05
** p \ .01

Table 4 displays results for ‘‘Section 4: the importance of technology in instruction’’

section, Items 19–26, concerning participants’ attitudes and beliefs about technology
integration. Significant differences between the two integration groups were found for
Items 22, 24, and 25, as well as between the groups’ overall mean scores for this section. A
correlation analysis between participants’ overall mean scores for this section and their
overall mean scores on technology integration resulted in a statistically significant positive
correlation. Further correlation analyses showed significant positive correlations between
each individual item in this section and participants’ mean overall scores on technology
integration. Findings displayed in Tables 2, 3 and 4 provide information that addresses the
second research question.
Table 5 displays results for participants’ ranking of perceived barriers to technology
integration in their classrooms from ‘‘Section 7: barriers to technology integration’’ section,
Item 44 of the survey. Barrier D, availability of computers and hardware, was selected most
often as the first-ranked barrier. Barrier G was selected most often as the second-ranked
barrier as well as for the third-ranked, Barrier C for fourth, and Barrier A for fifth-ranked. It
should be noted that of the 75 participants, only 49 completed this item of the survey.

123
Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade… 547

Table 4 Mean results for items 19–26, importance of technology in instruction, forall participants and by
usage level group; correlation with overall usage
Item # Total High usage Low usage Group Correlation with
n = 75 n = 14 n = 61 difference overall usage score

19 4.52 4.79 4.46 0.33 r = 0.40**

20 4.58 4.79 4.53 0.26 r = 0.37**
21 4.08 4.50 3.98 0.55 r = 0.34**
22 4.42 4.79 4.33 0.46* r = 0.41**
23 4.65 4.86 4.61 0.25 r = 0.24*
24 4.37 4.79 4.28 0.51** r = 0.38**
25 4.19 4.71 4.07 0.64** r = 0.33**
26 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 No value
19–26 4.48 4.78 4.41 0.37** r = 0.49**
* p \ .05
** p \ .01

Table 5 Results for ranking

Barrier 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
barriers to technology integration
A 5 4 8 9 8
B 2 7 5 5 7
C 6 5 7 10 4
D 23 3 5 4 1
E 4 5 4 2 4
F 0 2 0 2 5
G 3 13 9 5 3
H 0 0 0 0 0
I 2 3 6 9 3
J 4 4 4 1 7
K 0 3 1 2 6

In order to provide insight into how technology usage might differ according to
demographic variables, participants’ mean technology integration scores were also ana-
lyzed by level of education, years of teaching experience, and age. Results showed no
significant differences between levels of education or significant correlation with years of
teaching experience. Participants’ ages did significantly correlate negatively with mean
integration scores, r = -0.23, p \ .05.

Discussion

The current study sought to further investigate the findings in the literature on technology
integration and to expand those results with a focus on third, fourth, and fifth grade
teachers, grade levels that have been identified as important developmentally in technology
usage. In contrast to the 2009 NCES survey, which indicated that 40 % of the K-12
teachers reported using technology ‘‘often’’ (Gray et al. 2010), the current findings showed

123
548 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

considerably fewer high-usage teachers. More empirical data are needed to determine
potential causes for low-level technology integration across and to examine variables that
may be impacted in order to improve the level of technology usage.
Although access to hardware and software has become less of a barrier to technology
integration as schools have invested in technology, this study found that the specific
number of computers or hardware devices that are available in the classroom, rather than
the overall availability of devices within the school, impacts the level of technology
integration. Such a finding should inform administrators when making expenditures for
technology hardware. A 2009 national survey of K-12 teachers by NCES found that 99 %
of teachers had computers either in the classroom or that could be brought into the
classroom every day, and 95 % of the computers had Internet access (Gray et al. 2010).
The current study was consistent with the research findings that 92 % of respondents had at
least six computers for their use either in or outside their classroom. However, there was a
significant difference between the two usage groups in the number of computers available
for students’ use within the classroom and a strong positive correlation with overall
technology usage. In addition, when respondents were asked to rate the strongest barriers to
technology integration, the predominant number of participants selected lack of computers
or hardware. While such findings may seem obvious, it is not outside the purview of
research on this topic to establish reliable and accurate support for the self-evident. In cases
where budgetary decisions may be rationalized as having made sufficient expenditures for
hardware by installing a computer lab in a school, more pressure could be brought to bear
for expanding these expenditures where feasible to encompass more computers in more
classrooms.
Previous research also found that professional development relating to technology usage
and its applicability to classroom practices positively impacted technology integration,
with suggestions for ways to improve technology-related professional development to
make it translate into higher levels of technology integration (An and Reigeluth 2012;
Miranda and Russell 2012; Mueller et al. 2008; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. 2010). While the
current findings did not support significant differences between usage-level groups across
survey items in this category, there was a strong positive correlation between professional
development and overall technology integration. The majority of respondents (47 %)
reported that they had spent 1–3 h on technology-related professional development during
the previous 12-month period, with 23 % of respondents reporting zero hours of profes-
sional development, similar to the NCES findings in 2009 that 53 % of teachers had
between 1 and 8 h, and 13 % had spent no time on professional development (Gray et al.
2010). When rating barriers to technology usage, only 8 % of participants selected lack of
related professional development opportunities as their first-ranked barrier, and zero
reported a lack of applicability of the technology-related professional development as first-
ranked. However, Item16 asked respondents to rate the overall usefulness and applicability
of the technology-related professional development they have experienced, and the
majority of respondents rated them to be less-than-adequate. This finding is consistent with
prior research and suggests that more specifically tailored professional development or
mentoring experiences illustrating specific strategies for technology integration designed to
be immediately adopted into the classroom could be beneficial in increasing technology
integration.
Many of the existing studies agreed that teachers’ attitudes toward technology played a
vital role in determining how and to what extent they will integrate technology into their
classrooms and that, in fact, it was the strongest predictor of such integration (Capo and
Orellana 2011; Howley et al. 2011; Miranda and Russell 2012). Of the three factors that are

123
Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade… 549

related to integration, the strongest correlation with technology integration among the
current findings was attitude toward technology. Arguably, focused and relevant profes-
sional development in this area should contribute to more positive attitudes leading
towards increased integration. That the professional development findings here did not
show strong differences between usage levels is likely more a function of the quality or
type of that professional development than it is of its quantity.
Additional barriers to technology integration that were reported by a large number of
respondents were those related to time for development and implementation of technology.
These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that the two greatest bar-
riers to technology integration were finding the time to develop, implement and commu-
nicate with students and time to learn and implement technology (Gorder 2009; Kirkscey
2012).
Considering the findings as a whole, one solution to increase technology integration
could perhaps be the creation of more appropriate professional development opportunities
designed to meet three goals: (a) to lessen the time required for teachers to learn to use
technologies and implement them, (b) to provide specific strategies for instructing students
in the use of the technology, and (c) to focus on the importance of technology to students’
future success. Professional development could be used as a powerful catalyst for
improving teachers’ attitudes regarding the importance of technology integration, while
reducing the time required for integrating technology into the classroom.

Limitations and recommendations

A limitation to this and other existing research in this area of investigation is that there is
no accepted standard used to measure levels of technology integration or the other vari-
ables. The current data would be more valuable if a universal measuring instrument were
created in order to accurately compile and compare results across settings, grade levels,
and nationally. As with educational research in general, sampling is limited to available
populations and administrative permissions. Clearly, a greater sample size with some
option for randomization would address sampling limitations present in the current study.
Recommendations for future research include studies considering the specific number of
computers or hardware devices available within the classroom as compared to those
available at the schools in general. Further research investigating the effects of carefully
designed professional development programs is also recommended. The existing research
suggested that current professional development related to technology integration may not
be providing teachers with practical strategies for technology integration. Studies com-
paring integration levels before and after carefully designed professional development
experiences would be useful in discovering ways to focus professional development aimed
at increasing the number of teachers who integrate technology into the classroom at high
levels. In addition, as positive attitudes toward technology and its value to learning con-
struction appear to be a strong indicator of high-level technology integration, future
research to determine factors that affect teachers’ attitudes would be beneficial.
The most important recommendation would be the development of universal standards
for the measurement of technology integration in order to more effectively compile and
compare the data on this important topic. The measuring instrument developed for the
current study should be utilized in future research to further strengthen its being considered
as a standard for measurement in this area.

123
550 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

Conclusion

Both constructivist and sociocultural learning theories provide support for technology
integration in the classroom. The opportunity to engage broadly and deeply with virtual
environments made possible by technology continues to expand. The practical applications
for learners as they create knowledge for themselves are numerous and growing, as can be
evidenced by a simple internet search on the subject. Therefore, actual levels of technology
integration remain an important area of investigation. To paraphrase Dewey (1916), we
will rob our students of tomorrow if we teach today the way we taught yesterday.
This study provided further insight into factors that affect technology integration in third,
fourth and fifth grade classrooms in a Florida school district and presented a potential tool that
could be refined through future studies in order to become a universal standard for measuring
technology integration. Comparing high-level and low-level technology integrators, the
researchers found that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the importance of technology
integration and direct student access to computers within the classroom indicated significant
positive correlations with high-level technology usage, with attitude presenting the strongest
correlation. No significant correlations were found between the level of technology usage and
the teachers’ professional development related to technology, age, or years of experience. By
far, the largest number of participants reported lack of available computers/hardware to be the
strongest barrier to technology integration (47 % of respondents), followed by factors
relating to the time required to develop and implement lesson plans that incorporate tech-
nology(26 %). As discussed, few existing studies focus on technology usage in third, fourth
and fifth grade classrooms. As Howley et al. (2011) pointed out, students in third grade have
the cognitive and fine-motor skills necessary to begin to use technology in sophisticated ways
and are at an impressionable age when their experiences with technology may have a lasting
impact (p. 5). As students begin to develop technology habits, it is vital to teach them how to
effectively use the tools available to them in a safe and ethical way. Therefore, the choices that
third, fourth and fifth grade teachers make with regard to technology integration have the
potential to shape the way their students will begin to view and use technology as a tool for
learning. Future research considering these factors, utilizing a standard measurement tool,
and focusing on increasing the level of technology integration beginning in third grade
classrooms will improve our students’ potential for success in the 21st century.
Clearly, there are vast differences between the appropriate type and level of technology
integration in a kindergarten classroom and in a seventh grade or twelfth grade classroom. In
addition, the lack of a standard definition of high-level technology usage and a universal tool
for measuring high-level integration make generalization of results, and therefore clear
strategies for improvement, very difficult. Although this research study is not wide enough in
scope to overcome these issues, it does attempt to focus on specific grade levels and to provide
an initial research tool that could become a basis for a universal measuring instrument.

Appendix: survey of technology integration and related factors (STIR)

Section 1: demographic data

1. What grade level do you teach? 3rd, 4th, 5th, other

2. What subject area(s) do you teach? elementary ed., art/music, media/technology
specialist, special ed., other

123
Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade… 551

3. What is the highest level of education that you have obtained? Bachelor’s, Master’s,
Specialist, Doctorate
4. How many years have you been teaching?
5. What is your age?
6. What is your average number of students per class?

Section 2: technology access and support

7. How many computers are always available for students to use in your classroom or a
classroom where you typically teach (excluding computer labs or portable computers)?
1 = 0–5, 2 = 6–10, 3 = 11–15, 4 = 16?

8. How many computers are available in a computer lab or that can be brought into your
classroom for students’ use? 1 = 0–5, 2 = 6–10, 3 = 11–15, 4 = 16?
For items 9–14, choose the answer that best describes the following technology
availability/access at your school:
1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = adequate, 4 = good, 5 = excellent
9. The technological hardware available to you and your students for instruction
10. The software available to you and your students at your school
11. The speed of the available internet connection at your school
12. The reliability of the internet connection at your school
13. The technology resources that your school and district make available to you
14. The technology support that is available to you

Section 3: technology related professional development

For items 15–17, select the choice that best reflects your experience:
1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = adequate, 4 = good, 5 = excellent
15. How would you describe the number of technology-related professional development
opportunities that are provided to you by your school or district?
16. How would you describe the overall usefulness and applicability of the technology-
related professional development you have experienced?
17. How would you describe your confidence in your technological abilities?
18. (11) How many hours have you spent on technology-related professional develop-
ment activities during the 12 months prior to this survey? 0, 1–3, 4–6, 7–10, 11?

Section 4: the importance of technology in instruction

For the items 19–26, choose the answer that best reflects your agreement or disagreement:
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
19. Technology skills are essential for my students’ success.
20. Technology should be incorporated into the classroom curriculum.
21. Technology makes my job easier.
22. Incorporating technology into lessons enhances my instruction.
23. My students are motivated to use technology in the classroom.

123
552 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

24. I am motivated to integrate technology into my instruction.

25. Students’ use of technology in the classroom is important for knowledge
construction.
26. Improving my technological skills will help me as a professional.

Section 5: technology use by students

For items 27–32, how often do your students use the following technologies for school
related activities?
1 = not at all, 2 = once per month or less, 3 = once per week, 4 = several times per
week, 5 = daily
27. Word processors (typing)
28. Internet research
29. Drill and practice/Learning games/Tutorial
30. Presentation software
31. Online collaboration tools
32. Graphics programs (draw/paint, photo editing, video, etc.)
33. Please list other technologies your students use on a regular basis.
34. Generally speaking, how would you describe your students’ level of technology
usage for classroom-related activities? 1 = nonexistent, 2 = limited, 3 = average,
4 = above average, 5 = excellent

Section 6: technology use by participant

For items 35–41, how often do you use the following technologies for school-related
activities?
1 = not at all, 2 = once per month or less, 3 = once per week, 4 = several times per
week, 5 = daily
35. Internet research for planning and ideas
36. Organization/tracking software for classroom management
37. Communication with parents/students (email, blog, text, etc.)
38. Presentations during instruction (PowerPoint, etc.)
39. Multi-media enhancements during instruction (videos, simulations, etc.)
40. Website creation or maintenance (e.g. class website)
41. Providing individualized or remedial instruction
42. Please list other technologies.
43. Generally speaking, how would you describe your level of technology integration for
instruction? 1 = nonexistent, 2 = limited, 3 = average, 4 = above average,
5 = excellent

Section 7: barriers to technology integration

44. Integrating technology into the classroom can be a challenging task. Of the following
barriers to technology integration, choose what you feel are the top 5 barriers. Rank
only the top 5 barriers, starting with ‘‘1’’ being the most important or strongest
barrier. Leave the remaining barriers blank.

123
Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade… 553

A. Time required to develop lesson plans that incorporate technology

B. Time required for the teacher to learn to use the technology
C. Classroom time required to teach students to use the technology
D. Lack of available computers/hardware
E. Lack of professional development opportunities related to technology use
F. Lack of applicability of the technology-related development that is provided
G. Difficulty scheduling time to use common computers/hardware
H. Lack of administrative encouragement/support
I. Lack of IT personnel to help with technology issues
J. Unavailability of personal computers for students’ home use
K. Difficulty finding appropriate uses of technology for instruction

References
An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. (2012). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K-12 teachers’
beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
28(2), 54–62.
Capo, B., & Orellana, A. (2011). Web 2.0 technologies for classroom instruction: High school teachers’
perceptions and adoption factors. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(4), 235–253.
Definitions: School locale definitions. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/
ruraled/definitions.asp
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
Fethi, A., & Inan, D. L. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path
model. Education Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 137–154.
Florida School Indicators Report, 2008–2009. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http://www.fldoe.org/
accountability/data-sys/edu-info-accountability-services/fl-school-indicators-report.stml.
Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the class-
room. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76.
Gorder, L. M. (2009). Is technology integration finding its way into the classroom? Journal for Computing
Teachers, 34(2), 187–211.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools:
2009 (NCES, 2010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(9), 1–13.
Hsu, S. S. (2010). Developing a scale for teacher integration of information and communication technology
in grades 1–9. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(3), 175–189. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.
00348.x.
Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: learning with technology, not from technology.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40–73.
Kirkscey, R. (2012). Secondary school instructors’ perspectives on the integration of information and
communication technologies (ICT) with course content. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 17–33.
Lawrence, S. A. (2013). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of literacy and use of technology in classroom
practice: Analysis of self-reported practice in one school district. Journal of Literacy and Technology,
14(1), 51–97.
Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of
technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(4), 652–666.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables
between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers &
Education, 51, 1523–1537.

123
554 T. Pittman, T. Gaines

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs
associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education,
55, 1321–1335.
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River: Pearso
Education Inc.
Tweed, S. R. (2013). Technology implementation: teacher age, experience, self-efficacy, and professional
development as related to classroom technology integration. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Paper 1109. http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1109.
Wright, V. H., & Wilson, E. K. (2011). Teachers’ use of technology: Lessons learned from the teacher
education program to the classroom. SRATE Journal, 20(2), 48–60.
Yan, B., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Benefits or problems, what teachers care about most when integrating tech-
nology? Paper presented at the 2006 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, California

Tiffani Pittman holds an M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of West Florida with a
focus on technology and learning.

Trudi Gaines is an assistant professor and the Director of Teacher Education Student Services at the
University of West Florida.

123
Copyright of Educational Technology Research & Development is the property of Springer
Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.