Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 554

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development

Kopcha, Theodore J.·2012·Computers & Education
DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Boulay, 2009, Technology mentoring: research results across seven campuses, International Federation for Information Processing, 302, 273
  2. Bradshaw, 2002, Technology for teaching and learning: strategies for staff development and follow-up support, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 131
  3. Brill, 2006, From isolation to legitimate peripheral participation: encouraging a community of practice among teacher education students through a web resource database, Vol. 31
  4. Chuang, 2003, Faculty technology mentoring programs: major trends in the literature, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19, 101
  5. Glazer, 2008, Factors that influence mentor and teacher interactions during technology integration collaborative apprenticeships, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 35
  6. Hinson, 2006, A failed effort to overcome tech barriers in a K-12 setting: what went wrong and why, International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 2, 148
  7. Hughes, 2004, Content-focused technology inquiry groups: preparing urban teachers to integrate technology to transform student learning, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 397, 10.1080/15391523.2004.10782422 · doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782422
  8. Kariuki, 2001, A technology partnership: lessons learned by mentors, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 407
  9. Smith, 2004, Technology integration solutions: preservice student interns as mentors, Assistive Technology: Benefits and Outcomes, 1, 42
  10. Sugar, 2007, Lessons learned from IMPACTing technology integration practices: four IMPACT model case studies, Computers in the Schools, 24, 15, 10.1300/J025v24n01_03 · doi:10.1300/j025v24n01_03
  11. Swan, 2005, Bringing Mohamed to the mountain: situated professional development in a ubiquitous computing classroom, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 353, 10.2190/2GMU-AG3T-Q3CC-GE5D · doi:10.2190/2gmu-ag3t-q3cc-ge5d
  12. Wells, 2007, Key design factors in durable instructional technology professional development, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 101
  13. Zhao, 2006, Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers' technology integration after state mandated technology training, Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 53

Cited by

See all 554

Metadata

Authors
Kopcha, T. J.
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
1109-1121
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
OpenAlex
W2129845462
Cited by
554
References
58
FWCI
135.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.