The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed?
Abstract
The effectiveness of Tennessee EdTech Launch (TnETL), a statewide technology program designed to meet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate, was investigated in this matched treatment‐control quasi‐experimental study. The goal of the program was to provide full‐time, on‐site technology coaches to prepare teachers to create lessons that engage students in critical thinking and use of computers as tools in order to increase learning. The study examined TnETL impact on student achievement, teachers' skills and attitudes toward technology integration; use of research‐based practices; and students' skills in using technology as a tool. The study was implemented in two cohorts: “Launches” 1 and 2. This paper presents the findings of Launch 1, a three‐year program that involved 26 schools, 12,420 students and 927 teachers. Program effectiveness was measured via direct classroom observations, surveys, student performance assessments, focus groups, and student achievement analysis. Survey results showed that program teachers had significantly higher confidence to integrate technology and in using technology for learning. Observation results revealed that program compared with control students more frequently used computers as tools, worked in centers, and engaged in research and project‐based learning. Although the TnETL program demonstrated progress in changing school culture to benefit students through the use of technology, student gains on high‐stakes tests were mixed. The implications of the results are discussed relative to implementation successes and barriers, sustainability prospects, and the observed impacts of technology integration on teaching and student learning. Est‐ce que l'intégration de la technologie “fonctionne” lorsqu'on enlève les barrières principales? L'efficacité de Tennessee EdTech Launch (TnETL) en avant dans la Technologie Educative, un programme technologique couvrant la totalité de cet état, conçu pour répondre aux injonctions de NCLB, a fait l'objet d'une recherche dans le cadre de cette étude quasi expérimentale avec alternance traitement/contrôle. Le but de ce programme était de fournir sur place des “formateurs” pour préparer les enseignants à créer des leçons qui amènent les élèves à réfléchir de façon critique et à utiliser les ordinateurs comme outils pour améliorer l'apprentisage. La présente étude a porté sur l'impact de TnETL sur les résultats des élèves, les compétences et les attitudes des enseignants vis à vis de l'intégration des technologies; le recours à des pratiques fondées sur la recherche; et les compétences des élèves pour utiliser la technologie comme outil. L'étude a été mise en place dans deux groupes: Lancement 1 et 2. L'article présente les résultats de Lancement 1, programme de trois ans qui a concerné 26 écoles, 12,420 élèves et 927 enseignants. L'impact réel a été mesuré par des observations directes dans les classes, des enquêtes, des évaluations de la performance des élèves, des groupes cibles, et l'analyse des résultats des élèves. Les résultats de l'enquête ont montré que les enseignants du programme avaient un niveau de confiance nettement plus élevé pour intégrer la technologie et pour utiliser cette technologie pour apprendre. Les résultats de l'observation ont montré que les élèves du programme, à la différence du groupe de contrôle, utilisaient les ordinateurs comme des outils, travaillaient dans les centres et s'engageaient dans des apprentissages fondés sur la recherche et les projets. Bien que le programme TnETL ait fait apparaître des progrès dans le changement de la culture scolaire pour que les élèves soient enrichis par l'usage des technologies, les résultats des élèves aux tests à fort enjeu ont été mitigés. Les implications de ces résultats font l'objet de discussions par rapport aux succès et aux obstacles à la mise en place, par rapport aux perspectives de fonctionnement durable et à l'observation des impacts qu'a l'intégration de la technologie sur l'enseignement et l'apprentissage des élèves. „Funktioniert“ Technikintegration sobald Schlüsselbarrieren entfernt sind? In diesem Artikel wird über Ergebnisse der staatenweiten Einführung von Tennessee EdTech (TnETL), einem Informationstechnikprogramm, das im Bundesstaat Tennessee im Rahmen von NCLB [No Child Left Behind] eingeführt worden ist, berichtet. Das Konzept von EdTech beruht darauf, dass Lehrenden ständig und vor Ort Techniktrainer angeboten werden, um sie in ihrer Unterrichtsplannung, welche das Ziel hat Schüler zu kritischem Denken und zur Verwendung von Computern zu motivieren, zu unterstützen. Die Studie untersuchte welche Auswirkungen TnETL auf Schülerleistungen, Lehrermeinungen und ‐fähigkeiten bezüglich der Integrationen neuer Techniken, ausserdem den Nutzen von forschungsbasierten Anwendungen, und die Fähigkeit von Schülern, Technik als Werzeug zu begreifen und einzusetzen, hatte. Die Studie wurde in zwei Kohorten, Einführung 1 und 2, durchgeführt und in diesem Artikel wer
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,361
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215
Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?
Ertmer, P. A. (2005) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02504683 · Cited by 2,408
International Society for Technology in Education
(2016) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Online Education · doi:10.4135/9781483318332.n193 · Cited by 1,021
Changing How and What Children Learn in School with Computer-Based Technologies
Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000) · The Future of Children · doi:10.2307/1602690 · Cited by 830
Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model
Jonassen, D. H. (1994) · Educational Technology archive · Cited by 798
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006) · Cited by 713
Technology Integration Practice as a Function of Pedagogical Expertise
Pierson, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Research on Computing in Education · doi:10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325 · Cited by 502
Teacher Dispositions as Predictors of Classroom Technology Use
Vannatta, R. A., & Nancy, F. (2004) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782415 · Cited by 396
Cited by
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 · Cited by 2,107
Kopcha, T. J. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014 · Cited by 554
Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process
Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018) · Educational Media International · doi:10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712 · Cited by 528
Schiff, D. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2 · Cited by 489
“This line of work can help to identify implementation barriers (Lowther et al. 2008; Nye 2015) as well as expected and unexpected (positive or negative) ethical and policy consequences associated with AIED.”
BackgroundChallenges and Solutions when Using Technologies in the Classroom
Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. G., & Soto, C. M. (2016) · Adaptive Educational Technologies for Literacy Instruction · doi:10.4324/9781315647500-2 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M.
- Venue
- Educational Media International
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 195-213
- ISSN
- 0952-3987 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5790
- OpenAlex
- W1995547121
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 31.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09523980802284317
- The paper
- Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802284317
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.