Technology, Pedagogy and Education

ISSN: 1475-939X (Print) 1747-5139 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

Predicting technology integration based on a

conceptual framework for ICT use in education

Nilüfer Atman Uslu & Yasemin Koçak Usluel

To cite this article: Nilüfer Atman Uslu & Yasemin Koçak Usluel (2019): Predicting technology
integration based on a conceptual framework for ICT use in education, Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2019.1668293

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1668293

Published online: 09 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 37

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe20
TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1668293

Predicting technology integration based on a conceptual

framework for ICT use in education
a b
Nilüfer Atman Uslu and Yasemin Koçak Usluel
a
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Manisa Celal Bayar
University, Manisa, Turkey; bDepartment of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of
Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to propose a conceptual framework Received 17 June 2017
for classifying ICT use in education and (2) to develop and test a structural Accepted 6 November 2018
model including both teacher- and school-related factors, to explain technol- KEYWORDS
ogy integration. A conceptual framework has been developed in order to Technology integration; ICT
classify use of ICT (information and communications technologies) in educa- use; structural equation
tion with an instrumentalist perspective. Indicators of technology integration model
have been clearly identified and associated with the constructs in the frame-
work. Access, technical support, administrative support and professional
development support are examined under school-related variables, while
teachers’ beliefs and ICT competencies are investigated under teacher vari-
ables. A model based on these variables has been proposed and tested
through structural equation modelling. Data was collected from 403 teachers
working in primary and secondary schools. Results have indicated that factors
in the model explained 70% of the variance in the technology integration that
showed that the substantial amount of variance was predicted.

1. Introduction
The rapid development in information and communications technologies (ICT) has brought about the
emergence of new skills differing from those of the past century. The acquisition of skills in the twenty-
first century, such as learning, knowledge, media, life and career related, has emphasised two functions
of education. Firstly, it emphasises the economic function of education by preparing individuals for the
future workforce. Secondly, it emphasises the psychological and social role of education as an
individual’s self-empowerment and self-realisation. However, our schools have reflected twentieth-
century pedagogy regarding technology use and therefore have been far from supporting these
needed updated skills (Dede, 2010). This could be due to many reasons, including economic, social
and political dimensions. There is also the thought that these skills can be achieved by giving
importance to hardware access. For this reason, many governments have made significant expendi-
tures on projects aiming at hardware access in schools. However, it is necessary to assess technology
integration as a dynamic process which includes factors that interact over time (Tondeur, Devos, Van
Houtte, van Braak, & Valcke, 2009) rather than simply addressing it with the question of access.
Numerous studies have focused on examining the effects of a variety of factors that influence the
innovative use of ICT in schools in the last decade. While most of the research was centred on teacher-
level factors such as beliefs and attitudes (Chai, 2010; İnan & Lowther, 2010a, 2010b; Miranda & Russell,
2011; Sang, Valcke, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010), ICT competencies (Chai, 2010; Chen, 2010; Hsu, 2010a)

CONTACT Nilüfer Atman Uslu atmanuslu@gmail.com Department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technology, Faculty of Education, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey
© 2019 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education
2 N. ATMAN USLU AND Y. K. USLUEL

demographics (Lane & Lyle, 2011; van Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2004) and technology experience
(Miranda & Russell, 2011), school-related factors, including administrative and technical support
(Akbulut, 2010; İnan & Lowther, 2010a, 2010b) and access (Akbulut, 2010; Chen, 2010; Tondeur,
Valcke, & van Braak, 2008) were examined in recent years. However, when investigating factors
individually, it provides limited information about their combined effect (Karaca, Can, & Yıldırım,
2013). Teachers’ behaviours, teacher-and-school interaction, and interactions among other stake-
holders can be overlooked if the factors involved in the integration process are addressed individually
in schools. From this point, some researchers investigated the interplay between both teacher- and
school-related variables in technology integration (Chen, 2010; İnan & Lowther, 2010a, 2010b; Miranda
& Russell, 2011; Tondeur et al., 2008).
Although these studies have gained an understanding of the factors that are considered to be
influential in the process, it seems that there have been a great number of approaches in defining and
measuring educational use of ICT, which is regarded as an indicator of the integration in the structural
models. This point should not be omitted in interpreting the findings of the structural models that are
trying to explain the process. On the other hand, it has also been stated that the use of ICT in education
should be considered in a multidimensional manner (Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). Operating from
a conceptual framework that takes account of this multidimensionality can also have the potential to
examine the effects of different ICT use types on each other.
However, very few studies have proposed models for explaining the use of ICT for different
purposes (van Braak et al., 2004) and have examined their effect on each other (Sang, Valcke, van
Braak, Tondeur, & Zhu, 2011). Thus, it can be argued that more studies need to be done to examine
the extent of the relationship between pre-class and in-class ICT use. It is clear that teachers need
to know how to plan and design the learning process before integrating technology in the
classroom. As a matter of fact, a content analysis study of technology integration literature has
shown that 10 years ago, the focus was on how technology was used, while more recent studies
laid more emphasis on teachers’ thoughts about design (Sarıca, Yıldırım, & Usluel, 2016).
Additionally, recent studies indicate that teachers do not spend much time creating and planning
integrated learning environments with ICT (Almerich, Orellana, Suarez-Rodríguez, & Díaz-Garcia,
2016). At this point, it may be useful to examine which factors affect the use of ICT in the
classroom, as well as the use of ICT before the actual lesson. Unlike previous structural models,
this study aimed to propose a model, including school- and teacher-related factors and their
interrelationship, while moving from a conceptual framework of educational ICT use. Thus, factors
affecting the use of technology, both in the classroom and before the lesson, have been identified
so that the process has been approached holistically.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Technology integration and ICT use in education
A different interpretation of the relations between technology and learning has brought various
insights into classifying the use of ICT in education. For instance, Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001)
examined ICT according to learning theories and categorised them into skill-based transmission
and open-ended constructivist use. On the other hand, some research has focused on teachers’ ICT
use (Barron, Kemker, Harmes, & Kalaydijan, 2003; Hsu, 2010b; McNabb, Valdez, Nowakowski, &
Hawkes, 1999; Mumcu & Usluel, 2010; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003; van Braak et al.,
2004; Ward & Parr, 2010). The complex nature of integration, involving many factors, has led to
different insights into what can be taken as an indicator. As a result, there are numerous under-
standings of ICT use in structural models. For example, Karaca et al. (2013) have developed a path
model explaining teacher technology use in terms of use of various technologies such as compu-
ters, projectors, scanners, televisions and so forth. Although ICT use types have been identified, the
relationships between these forms of use have not been examined in most of the studies. For
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 3

instance, İnan and Lowther (2010a) developed a path model examining teachers’ characteristics
and their perceptions of environmental factors. They classified classroom computer use into three
categories: technology for instructional preparation, technology for instructional delivery and
technology as a learning tool. However, they did not investigate the relationships between these
types and considered any of these three types of use as technology integration.
It was first van Braak et al. (2004) who tried to explain different types of technology use. They
built a path model, examining teacher-level factors such as gender, attitudes towards computers,
computer training and technological innovativeness. They identified two types of technology use:
supportive use and class use (van Braak et al., 2004). The model included only teacher-level factors.
This explained the less variance in class use than in supportive use. More recently, Sang et al. (2011)
developed a model and examined relationships between supportive use and class use. They
surveyed primary school teachers and investigated internal teacher-level factors such as ICT
motivation and the teachers’ perceptions of ICT policy. They used the same instrument as van
Braak et al. (2004) for measuring classroom ICT use. While it was found that the supportive use had
the strongest effect on class use, the model ignored school-level factors. Although these studies
helped to see relationships between ICT use types, there is a need to move into a new framework
of educational ICT use that reflects twenty-first-century pedagogy.
ICT plays an important role in developing twenty-first-century skills such as creativity, problem
solving and technological literacy. In this context, the purpose of ICT use should be decisive in
determining the quality of both teachers’ and students’ ICT use, rather than the time, frequency or
diversity of technology. Thus, this study proposes a framework classifying ICT use in education with
an instrumentalist perspective. Unlike previous frameworks, this type of use focuses on the purpose
of technology use rather than highlighting the hardware or software use. As a matter of fact,
technological tools do not have intrinsic power to solve educational problems (McDonald &
Gibbons, 2009). With an instrumentalist perspective, we constructed a conceptual framework and
identified three types of educational ICT use: ICT use before teaching, ICT use for organising
teaching and ICT use for enhancing learning (Figure 1). This framework has been considered for
both teacher use and teacher-directed student use.
Teachers frequently benefit from ICT in searching for sources, preparation of their lesson plan
and materials, and administrative usage. ICT use before teaching covers teachers’ use of ICT for
preparing lesson materials and searching for resources. Secondly, ICT use for organising teaching
covers activities such as motivating students, delivering content and reviewing lessons for teaching
purposes. Thirdly, ICT used for enhanced learning covers activities that encourage students to
develop their twenty-first-century skills. In this type of use, the teachers’ responsibility is to transfer
the ICT facilities into the classroom to promote students’ skills, such as searching for and

ICT use in education

Indicators of ICT integration

Before teaching Organising teaching Enhancing learning

Resources Content delivery Product of

Lesson materials Review the lesson information
Documentation Motivate students Analyse
Problem solving
Teacher forefront Teacher forefront Student forefront

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for ICT use in education.

4 N. ATMAN USLU AND Y. K. USLUEL

processing information. In conclusion, it could be stated that the teacher is at the forefront of the
process in ‘organising teaching’, and the student is at the forefront in ‘enhancing learning’. As
a result, since these two types of utilisation are directly related to learning and teaching, they are
indicators of integration.

2.2. Teachers’ ICT competencies

Technology integration enhances the quality of education by helping teachers to do their job and by
helping students to learn more effectively (Göktaş, Yıldırım, & Yıldırım, 2009). Numerous studies
attempted to identify facilitating conditions regarding the best integration practices in schools.
Although basic ICT competencies are necessary for the integration process, they should be supple-
mented by advance competencies including integration skills. Advanced competencies, as opposed to
basic ICT competencies, cover complex knowledge and competencies, which include pedagogical
aspects. The best-known model for these competencies is the TPACK model, which Koehler and Mishra
(2005) constructed by adding the technology dimension to pedagogical content knowledge devel-
oped by Shulman (1986). Koehler and Mishra (2009) suggested that teacher education should focus not
only on using technology, but also on examining the intersection of technology with pedagogical and
content knowledge. However, most of the studies utilising TPACK have given limited information about
areas of intersection (Usluel, Ozmen, & Celen, 2015). Some researchers have pointed out the difficulties
in construct validation challenges of instruments assessing TPACK (Almerich et al., 2016; Tondeur et al.,
2017). As a result, in this study, we develop two types of ICT competencies rather than using TPACK. We
made a distinction between two types of ICT competencies: basic competencies and advanced
competencies. Basic competencies covered skills such as computer and Internet applications.
Advance competencies included activities such as developing lesson materials, designing project-
based learning with ICT and so on.

2.3. Teachers’ value beliefs regarding the role technology plays in education
The meaningful application of technology integration is affected by teachers’ belief systems (Chen, 2010;
Choy, Wong, & Gao, 2009; Ertmer, 2005; Miranda & Russell, 2011). While teachers’ epistemological beliefs,
self-efficacy beliefs and pedagogic beliefs have been investigated in recent studies, this research focused
on teachers’ value beliefs regarding the role of technology in education. Teacher value beliefs about the
role of technology in the teaching show that the teacher believes that technology can help achieve the
teaching goals that are important to students (Watson, 2006). There are a number of studies showing that
technological values beliefs are related to the use of technology by teachers (Chen, 2010; İnan & Lowther,
2010a, 2010b; Vongkulluksn, Xie, & Bowman, 2018).
According to Ertmer (2005), the obstacles expressed by teachers in the integration process lie in
the teacher’s belief in ICT’s role in education. It is also expressed that as long as the teachers’
theories and beliefs about teaching and learning are not focused on, understanding pertaining to
the integration process will remain limited (Mumtaz, 2000). It has been emphasised that teachers
who regarded technology as an add-on to the curriculum, complain about a shortage of time and
that the teachers who believe that ICT enriches teaching can overcome external obstacles (Ertmer,
Addison, Lane, Rose, & Woods, 1999). According to Ertmer et al., (1999), teacher beliefs interact with
external obstacles and either prevent or facilitate ICT use. Indeed, in a more recent study, ICT-
related values beliefs predicted the use of technology to develop student-centred learning and
higher-level skills and value beliefs moderated the extent of teachers’ translations of actual school
support into perceptions of support on first-order barriers (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018). As a result, it
was determined that value beliefs affect teachers’ interpretation process of external barriers.
Though teacher beliefs assume a critical role in the process, changing them requires
a considerable amount of time and professional development (Johnson, 2009).
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 5

2.4. School support

The accessibility of the hardware, software and network structure, and the provision of technical
support at the school, play a crucial role in meeting the prerequisites in realising the integration
process (Afshari, Abu Bakar, Su Luan, Abu Samah, & Say Fooi, 2009). It is also stated that teachers
can shift to productive and creative ICT use through access to safe and appropriate software and
hardware, professional development programmes which focus on professional matters rather than
technical subjects, and effective technical support (Chen, 2010). It is thought that examining the
characteristics and conditions of the school where the integration process was realised will be
beneficial towards understanding the factors which took part in an effective integration process
(Vanderlinde, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010).

2.5. The present study

This study proposes a model that includes school- and teacher-level variables. Variables in the
model were identified based on theoretical considerations. The educational use of ICT was
examined under the following three dimensions: (a) ICT use before teaching, (b) ICT use to organise
teaching, and (c) ICT use to enhance learning. Indicators of technology integration were identified
and associated with organising teaching and enhancing learning. ICT use before teaching was
hypothesised to affect technology integration directly (Sang et al., 2011).
Access, technical support, administrative support and professional development support were
investigated as school-related variables and hypothesised to influence ICT integration directly
(Afshari et al., 2009; Chen, 2010; Starkey, 2010; Tondeur et al., 2008). Moreover, teacher beliefs
and ICT competencies were examined as teachers’ variables. Teacher beliefs were hypothesised to
influence ICT use before teaching (Chen, 2010; Ertmer, 2005; Miranda & Russell, 2011). Unlike
previous models ICT competencies were investigated under two categories: basic competencies
and integration competencies. Basic competencies included skills related to basic computer and
Internet applications, whereas integration competencies cover skills in teaching with ICT. ICT
competencies have been hypothesised to directly affect both ICT use before teaching and ICT
integration (Chai, 2010; Chen, 2010). The descriptions of variables in the model are presented in
Table 1. As an end product of the study, a model was constructed to explain technology integra-
tion, and five hypotheses are formulated:

H1. Teachers’ value beliefs related to ICT have a significant direct effect on ICT use before teaching.

H2. Teachers’ ICT competencies have a significant and direct effect on ICT use before teaching.

Table 1. Description of constructs.

Number of
Latent variable Indicators Descriptions items
INTEGRATION Organising ICT use for motivating students, delivering content, reviewing 3
Teaching the lesson
Enhancing ICT use for promoting student searching and processing 3
Learning information
ICT USE BEFORE ICT use for accessing resources, preparing lesson materials 4
TEACHING
BELIEFS Beliefs of teachers about the value of ICT in education 4
COMPETENCIES Basic ICT competencies in basic computer and Internet applications 3
Advanced ICT competencies in teaching with ICT 4
SUPPORT Access Perceived access to ICT equipment and resources 2
Tech. support Perceived support for technical problems 2
PD support Perceived support for PD opportunities 3
Administrative Perceived support for encouragement of ICT use by 2
support administrators
6 N. ATMAN USLU AND Y. K. USLUEL

H3. Teachers’ ICT competencies have a significant and direct effect on technology integration.

H4. ICT use before teaching has a significant and direct effect on technology integration.

H5. School support has a significant and direct effect on technology integration.

3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
The data was collected from 403 teachers from 26 primary and secondary schools in the capital city
of Turkey, Ankara. The survey was set up at the beginning of the first semester in the school year
2013–14. The majority of the participants are female (75.9%), and this case is parallel to district
statistics (73.5% female, Ankara Provincial Directorate of National Education, 2012). The partici-
pants’ age range varied from 23 to 64 years, with an average age of 42.4. The teaching experience
of most of the participants is more than 21 years (38.7%). The teachers’ ICT experience is
predominantly more than seven years (60.7%), while ICT experience in the classroom has closer
values among their years of experience (1–3 years: 35.9%; 4–6 years: 30.7%; >7 years: 33.4%).

3.2. Instruments
In this study, two instruments were used to collect teachers’ perceptions of technology integration
and their use of ICT in education. Instruments used in the research are given below.

3.2.1. The Classification of ICT Use in Education Scale

The Classification of ICT Use in Education Scale was developed by the researchers to measure
constructs in the conceptual framework which was proposed in this study. The instrument is
composed of 10 items under three factors: ICT use before teaching, ICT use for organising teaching
and ICT use for enhancing learning. A 5-point scale was used to measure items anchored with
notations 5 = always, 4 = often, 3 = occasionally, 2 = rarely, 1 = never. ICT use before teaching has
been measured by four items such as ‘I use ICT for preparing course materials (worksheets,
presentations, handouts, etc.).’ ICT use for organising teaching includes three items such as ‘I use
ICT for displaying course content (presentations, educational software, etc.)’ and ‘I use ICT for
drawing the attention of my students (educational games, pictures, animations, etc.).’ ICT use for
enhancing learning consists of three items, such as ‘I make my students use ICT to solve problems
related to their lesson’ and ‘I make my students use ICT to produce and assess information.’
In the process of developing an instrument, the literature was reviewed and an item pool was
created. Then, a draft version of the instrument was applied to 10 teachers working in a primary
school to obtain feedback on the clarity and comprehensibility of the items. Revisions were made
to the instrument on the basis of the suggestions received from the teachers. The reviewed
instrument was sent to 11 faculty members to evaluate and get expert opinions. Necessary
corrections were made after receiving expert assessments with content validity forms. Thus, the
drafts of the instrument were applied to the research group, comprised of 203 teachers who were
selected through convenient sampling. This research group is a different group of teachers who
were surveyed for structural equation modelling. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to verify
the theoretical basis between the items and the factors. Some items were removed from the
instruments on the basis of the findings.
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to validate the theoretical basis between items and
factors. As a result of the analysis, values were determined as [χ2 (51, N = 203) = 78.16, p < .000,
RMSEA = 0.059, S-RMR = 0.064, GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.98]. These
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 7

values showed data showed an acceptable and/or good fit. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability
coefficient was calculated for the reliability of the scale. According to this, it was calculated that the
Cronbach’s alpha of ICT use before teaching was 0.834, for organising teaching was 0.891 and for
enhancing learning it was 0.929. These results showed that the scale was in a reliable value range.

3.2.2. Teachers’ perceptions regarding technology integration

A data collection instrument which was developed by Uslu and Usluel (2018) was used to measure
teachers’ beliefs, ICT competencies and perceptions related to school support. This instrument
consisted of three subsections and 20 items. The first sub-section was composed of a 5-point Likert
scale (from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree) aimed at gathering the teachers’ beliefs
about ICT in education. The teachers’ beliefs related to ICT measured four items such as ‘ICT use in
lectures increases student motivation.’ The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of this section
was 0.832, indicating good internal consistency. The second sub-section was a seven-item ICT
competency scale that consisted of two factors: basic ICT competencies and advanced competen-
cies. Items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from I’m not totally sufficient (1) to I’m
totally sufficient (5). The teachers’ basic ICT competencies were measured by three items such as ‘I
can use Office programs’ and ‘I can use Internet applications (e-mail, blog, wiki . . . .).’ Advanced
competencies included four items to measure the teachers’ ICT skills in a pedagogic context, such
as ‘I could develop course materials with ICT’ and ‘I could organise ICT-supported project-based
learning activities.’ To determine the internal consistency of the factors, Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated at 0.865 for basic ICT competencies and 0.927 for advanced ICT competencies. The last
subsection is ‘school support’ and aimed to determine the teachers’ perceptions of school support.
The scale contains nine items and four factors: access, technical support, professional development
support and administrative support. All these items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (5). The teachers’ perceptions about access were measured
by two items, such as ‘I have access for ICT recourses and materials in school.’ Their perceptions of
technical support were measured by two items, such as ‘I can get help when Iam confronted
a technical problem when using ICT at school.’ Professional development support was measured by
three items, such as ‘PD opportunities-related ICT meets my professional needs.’ Administrative
support consisted of two items, such as ‘School management encourages teachers to use ICT in
lectures.’ The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated for access at 0.722, technical
support, 0.766, for professional development, 0.802 and for administrative support, 0.892.

4. Results
4.1. Testing the research model
Before structural analysis was performed, the data set was examined for missing values, outliers,
univariate normality, homoscedasticity and multicollinearity. To evaluate the outliers, the squares
of Mahalanobis distances (MD2) between the independent variables were calculated. Also, Cooks’
distances, scatterplots and residual plots were assessed, and it was found there were no cases that
need to be extracted from the data set. To ensure a normality assumption, the histogram and
P-P plot, skewness and kurtosis values were examined. After checking that the data did not violate
the normality assumption, homoscedasticity was examined by the scatter graph of the standar-
dised residual values. Bivariate correlations between variables were found to be less than the cut-
off value (0.90) recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). Also, all of the variance inflation
factor values were below 10 and tolerance values were higher than 0.1, showing that the
collinearity assumption was met (Field, 2000). After the data set was found to meet the assump-
tions required for the analyses, the measurement model was tested.
The measurement model, which consisted of five latent variables: belief, ICT competencies,
support, ICT use before teaching, and integration was validated by confirmatory factor analysis. To
8 N. ATMAN USLU AND Y. K. USLUEL

examine the model’s goodness of fit, the c2 (chi-square)/df (degree of freedom), Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) and Incremental Fit Index (IFI)
were used. The results indicated that the measurement model showed a good model fit [(χ2 (93,
N = 403) = 306.49, p < .000, RMSEA = 0.076, S-RMR = 0.046, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.96,
IFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.95]. The measurement model is presented in Figure 2.
To verify the reliability and convergent validity of the measurement model, composite reliability,
Cronbach’s alpha and average variance extracted values were assessed. As seen in Table 2, the
composite reliabilities of the constructs ranged between 0.742 to 0.895 and were higher than the
minimum acceptable value of 0.7 (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000; Nunnally, 1978). Cronbach’s
alpha scores of all factors exceeded 0.7, showing internal reliability (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998). All standard factor loadings of the measurement model varied from 0.50 to 0.95 and
were significant at p < 0.01. A majority of the factor loadings were above 0.70. Moreover, the
average variance extracted (AVE) values of all factors were found to be greater than 0.5 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981).
Discriminant validity of the measurement model was tested by comparing the square root of
AVE and the correlation shared between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 3,

Figure 2. Measurement model.

 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 9

Table 2. Item statistics.

Std Factor Cronbach’s Composite Average variance extracted
Construct items M Dev. Skewness Kurtoisis load alpha reliability (AVE > .50)
INTEGRATION 0.902 0.895 0.912
Organising 3.595 1.073 –0.656 –0.219 0.95
Enhancing 3.239 1.166 0.390 –0.705 0.85
ICT use before 0.872 0.876 0.729
Teaching
BT1 3.95 1.07 –0.910 0.708 0.68
BT2 3.83 1.22 –0.907 0.075 0.77
BT3 4.01 1.02 –0.903 0.846 0,90
BT4 4.09 0.960 –0.924 0.907 0,84
BELIEF 0.844 0.852 0.685
B1 3.87 0.991 –0.979 0.990 0.86
B2 3.87 0.975 –0.907 0.856 0.79
B3 3.85 0.970 –0.949 0.893 0.68
B4 4.01 0.819 –0.929 0.950 0.76
ICT competencies 0.818 0.818 0.846
Basic 3.765 1.240 –0.757 –0.379 0.87
Advanced 3.001 1.325 0.003 –0.902 0.79
SUPPORT 0.737 0.742 0.561
Access 3.476 1.056 –0.254 0.778 0.67
Technical 3.155 0.907 –0.654 –0.654 0.68
Prof. dev. 3.476 0.891 –0.713 0.431 0.50
Administrative 3.637 0.920 –0.888 0.329 0.73

Table 3. Discriminant validity for measurement model.

Integration ICT use before teaching Belief Competency Support
Integration 0.954
ICT use before teaching 0.682 0.853
Belief 0.342 0.423 0.827
Competency 0.472 0.507 0.237 0.919
Support 0.310 0.212 0.238 0.164 0.748

all square roots of the AVEs (bold scores in the diagonal) were higher than the corresponding off-
diagonal elements in the same row and column. The results indicate that the measurement model
has adequate discriminant validity.

4.2. Structural equation model

The structural model consisted of one exogenous variable (technology integration) and four
endogenous variables (beliefs, competencies, support and ICT use before teaching) was tested
through Lisrel 8.72 using maximum likelihood estimation. Results indicate that the structural model
as specified in Figure 3 showed a good model fit [(χ2 (97, N = 403) = 329.09, p < .000,
RMSEA = 0.077, S-RMR = 0.048, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.95]. The
chi-square/degrees of freedom value is close to 3 (3.38). Most of the fit indexes were over than 0.90
and pointed to a fairly good fit. The AGFI was under 0.90 (0.88) indicating an acceptable fit
(Schermelleh-Engel & Moosbrugger, 2003). The RMSEA was 0.075 and under 0.8, which indicated
a good model fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008).
As shown in Table 4, the structural model accounted for an R2 of 0.70, demonstrating that
technology integration could be strongly predicted. The beliefs-related ICT (β = .32, p < .001) and ICT
competencies (β = .52, p < .001) were found to be a significant factor in determining ICT use before
teaching (H1 and H2 supported). Also, the teachers’ ICT competencies were also significant and directly
linked to technology integration (β = .05, p < .001). Notably, H3 was supported to the extent that both
direct and indirect paths from ICT competencies to technology integration were .45 (p < .001), and the
10 N. ATMAN USLU AND Y. K. USLUEL

Figure 3. The result of proposed research model (standardised coefficients).

Table 4. Standardised casual effects for the model.

Outcome Determinant Direct Indirect Total effect
Integration (R2 = .70)
ICT use before teaching .76* .76*
ICT competencies .05* .40* .45*
Support .15* .15*
Beliefs – 0.24* 0.24*
ICT use before teaching (R2 = .46)
ICT competencies .52* .52*
Beliefs .32* .32*
Note: *p < .001.

association between ICT competencies and technology integration was mediated by ICT use before
teaching. H4 was fully supported to the extent that ICT use before teaching significantly and positively
affects technology integration and had the strongest direct effect on technology integration (β = .76, p
< .001). Thus, technology integration was highly related to the teachers’ ICT use before teaching. Also,
school-related support was found to have significantly influenced ICT integration (β = .15, p < .001).

5. Discussion and conclusion

Since the technology integration process has a multidimensional and dynamic nature, there are
various models for predicting this process in the literature. There is also a great deal of
understanding in the classification of the use of ICT in education, which causes theoretical
discussion on an uncertain basis. Thus, the purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to propose
a conceptual framework for classifying ICT use in education; (2) to develop and test a structural
model, including both teacher- and school-related factors, to explain technology integration. For
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 11

those purposes, a conceptual framework was developed and a model, including individual- and
school-level factors, has been proposed in this study. The results indicated that several factors,
including ICT use before teaching, teacher ICT competencies, beliefs and school support
explained 70% of the variance in technology integration, which showed that the substantial
amount of variance was predicted. The most obvious finding which emerges from this study is
that ICT use before teaching is clearly linked to integration. It can be suggested that ICT use
before teaching could initiate ICT use in the classroom. At this point, the use of ICT before
teaching may encourage classroom ICT use in two ways. First, ICT use before teaching might
support teachers in designing and planning classroom activities. For the integration process to
function soundly, teachers need to identify which technology is required, to know how to use
the tools to meet the students’ needs and to ensure that the students use the appropriate
technology in all stages of the learning (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2010). The teacher should be
confident in his or her design idea, should improve or reorganise the material, and should be
able to adapt to pedagogical needs (Tsai & Chai, 2012). Second, ICT use before teaching might
provide experience for teachers to use ICT in the classroom. It seems possible that teachers
might begin to transform their ICT use into class use over time. It is important to give time to
teachers to make the desired changes (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Moreover, teachers
who were new to technology reported time and ease-of-use issues regarding the usefulness of
technology, while a more experienced technology user group focused on student learning
(Usluel & Uslu, 2013). This preparation phase, which is pushing teachers out of the comfort
zone, is an activity that requires time and effort. Here, the question arises as to why some
teachers do this while others do not. Thus, in this study, the effects of two factors, namely belief
and ICT competencies and their influence on ICT use before teaching, were examined.
It was found that teacher ICT competencies and beliefs explained 46% of the variance in ICT use
before teaching. At this point, this study found that ICT competency is an important factor in ICT
use before teaching and also both directly and indirectly influenced technology integration. Also, it
is important to note that the direct effect of ICT competencies (β = .05, p < .001) has been found to
be smaller than its indirect effect (β = .40, p < .001) on technology integration. ICT use before
teaching has mediated the relation between technology integration and ICT competency. Lack of
administrative competencies pertaining to technology negatively affects the integration process
(Hew & Brush, 2007); and teachers should have at least basic technology competencies for them to
ensure that their students are technologically capable (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
However, it is also underlined that along with technological competencies being necessary,
these competencies should be further complemented by the teachers developing an understand-
ing of the pedagogical value of technology and of the culture of learning (Kim & Hannafin, 2011).
While this study has considered both technology and integration dimensions, these two compe-
tencies have been examined under one heading. Future studies could focus on developing new
scales measuring ICT competencies and examining the effects of technical and pedagogical aspects
of competencies separately on technology integration.
This study also indicated that teacher beliefs have a direct and significant effect on ICT use
before teaching. The importance of the teachers developing an in-depth understanding of the
purpose of the innovation so that they can actualise a significant change in their practices is
stressed (Park & Ertmer, 2008). However, it is stated that the beliefs expressed by teachers are not
always parallel to their classroom practices (Chen, 2008), and that a change in belief requires a long
time to take place (Belland, 2009; Johnson, 2009). Positive experiences on the utilisation of
computers in the classroom will have an important role in structuring teachers’ belief in the
potential of technology as an educational tool (Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht,
2008). The study has shown that although ICT use before teaching manifests the deepest impact,
school support has a direct and positive effect on technology integration. This effect is significant
in showing that school support has a role in the process. Likewise, it is iterated that teachers’
12 N. ATMAN USLU AND Y. K. USLUEL

experience, beliefs, sentiments, knowledge and competencies, motivation etc. are in interaction
with the context of learning (Tondeur et al., 2008).
Although this study was based on the critical determinants of technology integration, several
limitations need to be acknowledged. First, the findings of this study need to be interpreted carefully
as the study used a convenience sample. Another limitation of this study is that variables in the model
were measured through self-report scales. Future studies might utilise qualitative procedures such as
classroom observations and interviews for measuring actual use. Future studies may also contribute to
the theoretical debate by examining the indirect relationships between the variables in the model.
Also, the model in the study could be extended with additional variables, particularly focusing
on ICT use before teaching. For example, it was found that the teachers’ value beliefs related to ICT
is a driving factor of ICT use before teaching in this study. However, teachers have fundamental
beliefs about ‘what is important in learning and teaching regarding technology’ (Kim, Kim, Lee,
Spector, & DeMeester, 2013, p. 77). It should be beneficial to investigate fundamental beliefs to
understand why teachers integrate ICT differently in the classrooms (Kim et al., 2013). The teachers’
belief systems seem to have a complex nature, and examining the effects of individual and
organisational factors on beliefs could make a contribution to understanding this complexity.
In summary, the findings of this study contribute to the field, both in practice and research. This
study tried to develop an understanding of technology integration, including a set of interrelated
factors. A model was proposed and explained a significant amount of variance in this process. Also, it
took a step towards determining indicators of technology integration with an instrumentalist
approach. This attempt can make a contribution to a comprehensive view of technology integration.
On the other hand, drawing borders with thick lines could result in a contractionary effect. Future
studies could focus on developing indicators of integration. The conceptual framework which was
developed in this study has considered pre-class and in-class use while highlighting student and
teacher use. For example, this conceptual framework could be extended with post-lesson use, such as
ICT-based assignments. A further contribution is the development and validation of the instrument for
educational ICT use. On a more practical level, this instrument could be beneficial in determining the
teachers’ current ICT use. This data could be utilised in professional development programmes and
facilitate the development of appropriate professional development courses. Finally, the model in this
study is also open for testing and reconstructing with future attempts.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Dr Nilüfer Atman Uslu is an Assistant Professor at Manisa Celal Bayar University. She focuses on ICT integration into
learning and teaching processes and teacher professional development.
Professor Yasemin Koçak Usluel is a Professor at Hacettepe University. Her research interests include the integration of
the ICT learning and teaching process, the question of how students can utilise ICT as a learning tool, and diffusion of
technology as an innovation in the educational context. She has conducted studies and published papers regarding these
topics. Most recently, she has focused on how emotion, education and technology can be integrated for wellness.

ORCID
Nilüfer Atman Uslu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2322-4210
Yasemin Koçak Usluel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6147-3333
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 13

References
Afshari, M., Abu Bakar, K., Su Luan, W., Abu Samah, B., & Say Fooi, F. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’ use of
information and communication technology. International Journal of Instruction, 2, 77–104.
Akbulut, Y. (2010). A structural model proposal for Turkish faculties of education regarding ICT integration indicators.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 1, 322–334.
Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suarez-Rodríguez, J., & Díaz-Garcia, I. (2016). Teachers’ information and communication
technology competences: A structural approach. Computers & Education, 100, 110–125.
Ankara Provincial Directorate of National Education. (2012). 2012–2013 school year statistics. Retrieved from http://
ankara.meb.gov.tr/www/egitim-istatistikleri/icerik/24
Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K–12 schools:
Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 35, 489–507.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). The measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple measures are
more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 45–63.
Belland, B. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration.
Computers & Education, 52, 353–364.
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.
Chai, C. S. (2010). The relationships amoung Singaporean preservice teachers’ ICT competencies, pedagogical beliefs
and their beliefs on the espoused use of ICT. The Asia-Pacific Educational Researcher, 19, 387–400.
Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration. The Journal of
Educational Research, 102, 65–75.
Chen, R.-J. (2010). Investigating model for preservice teachers’ use of technology to support student centered
learning. Computers & Education, 55, 32–42.
Choy, D., Wong, A. F. L., & Gao, P. (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,
175–195.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills (pp.
51–75). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational
Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Ertmer, P. A, Addison, P, Lane, M, Ross, E, & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology
in the elementary Classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 54–71.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and
culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 255–284.
Field, A. P. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows: Advanced techniques for the beginner. London: Sage.
Fornell, G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measure-
ment error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research
practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1–79.
Göktaş, Y., Yıldırım, S., & Yıldırım, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service
teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 193–204.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and
recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 223–252.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
Hsu, S. (2010a). The relationship between teacher’s technology integration ability and usage. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 43, 309–325.
Hsu, S. (2010b). Developing a scale for teacher integration of information and communication technology in grades
1–9. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 175–189.
İnan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010a). Factors affecting technology integration in K–12 classrooms: A path model.
Educational Technology Research &Development, 58, 137–154.
İnan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010b). Laptops in the K–12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use.
Computers & Education, 55, 937–944.
Johnson, D. B. (2009). The digital disconnect: Uncovering barriers that sustain the phenomena of unplugged teachers in
a technological era (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Louisiana, LA.
Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yıldırım, S. (2013). A path model for technology integration into elementary school settings in
Turkey. Computers & Education, 68, 353–365.
14 N. ATMAN USLU AND Y. K. USLUEL

Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011).Developing situated knowledge about teaching with technology via web-
enhanced case-based activity. Computers & Education, 57, 1378–1388.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of
technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 131–152.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.
Lane, C. A., & Lyle, H. F. (2011). Obstacles and supports related to the use of educational technologies: The role of
technological expertise, gender, and age. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 38–59.
McDonald, J. K., & Gibbons, A. S. (2009). Technology I, II, and III: Criteria for understanding and improving the practice
of instructional technology. Education Tech Research Dev, 57, 377–392.
McNabb, M. L., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Hawkes, M. (1999). Technology connections to school improvement:
Planners’ handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and the North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2011). Predictors of teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms:
A multilevel SEM approach using data from the USEIT study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43,
301–323.
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.
Mumcu, F. K., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). ICT in vocational and technical schools: Teachers’ instructional, managerial and
personal use matters. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9, 98–106.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the
literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 319–342.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15–31.
Nunnally, Y. J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Park, S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using
a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 631–643.
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, 297–310.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration:
Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54, 103–112.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Zhu, C. (2011). Predicting ICT integration into classroom teaching in
Chinese primary schools: Exploring the complex interplay of teacher-related variables. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 27, 160–172.
Sarıca, H. Ç., Yıldırım, D., & Usluel, Y. K. (2016, October). A content analysis of ICT integration in education: Then and now.
Paper presented at the 2016 AECT (The Association for Educational Communications and Technology) International
Convention, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance
and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Starkey, L. (2010). Supporting the digitally able beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1429–1438.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Pynoo, B., van Braak, J., Fraeyman, N., & Erstad, O. (2017). Developing a validated instrument to
measure preservice teachers’ ICT competencies: Meeting the demands of the 21st century. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 48, 462–472.
Tondeur, J., Devos, G., Van Houtte, M., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2009). Understanding structural and cultural school
characteristics in relation to educational change: The case of ICT integration. Educational Studies, 35, 223–235.
Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in
primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 494–506.
Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The ‘third’-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher
education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 1057–1060.
Uslu, N. A., & Usluel, Y. K. (2018). The validity and reliability study of the structures that can predict the integration of
information and communication technologies in the learning-teaching process. Manisa Celal Bayar University
Journal of Social Sciences, 16, 45–62.
Usluel, Y. K., Ozmen, B., & Celen, F. K. (2015). Integration of ICT in learning and teaching process and a critical look at
the technological pedagogical content knowledge model. Educational Technology Theory and Application, 5, 34–54.
Usluel, Y. K., & Uslu, N. A. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions regarding usefulness of technology as an innovation. Ilkögretim
Online, 12, 52–65.
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 15

van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school
teachers. European Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 407–422.
Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Using an online tool to support school-based ICT policy planning in
primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 434–447.
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers’ internalization of external barriers
and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Computers & Education, 118, 70–81.
Ward, L., & Parr, J. M. (2010). Revisiting and reframing use: Implications for the integration of ICT. Computers &
Education, 54, 113–122.
Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-efficacy. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 151–165.