define integration education

866.342.1813   |    Email Us

27 Jul Integration vs. Inclusion

Are you familiar with the difference between integration and inclusion when it comes to the classroom environment? The trend in education today is moving away from integration and toward inclusion. While both approaches aim to bring students with disabilities into the mainstream classroom, one system expects students to adapt to the pre-existing structure, while the other ensures the existing education system will adapt to each student.

An integrated classroom is a setting where students with disabilities learn alongside peers without disabilities. Extra supports may be implemented to help them adapt to the regular curriculum, and sometimes separate special education programs are in place within the classroom or through pull-out services. In theory, integration is a positive approach that seeks to help students with disabilities be part of the larger group. In practicality, the differences in the way all people learn can make this system of education less effective overall.

Following guidelines for accessibility makes an inclusive classroom possible. Bridgeway Education can support you in your transition to an accessible curriculum. Contact us for a free accessibility evaluation of a sample of your content, or sign up for The Accessibility Imperative   professional development course to learn about creating accessible learning experiences for all students.

What is integration in education and difference with inclusion and concept

Educational Integration

“Integration is envisaged as a process aimed at taking into account and meeting the diversity of the needs of all students for greater participation in learning, cultural life and community life, and for a reduction in the number of students. that are excluded from education or excluded within education. It involves changing and adapting the content, approaches, structures and strategies, based on a common vision that encompasses all children in the age group contemplated and with the conviction that the ordinary educational system has the duty to educate all children. In this article we will define you that What is integration in education ?

Birch (1974) defines educational integration as a process that aims to unify ordinary and special education with the aim of offering a set of services to all children, based on their learning needs.

Kaufman (1985), defines integration in the educational framework “mainstreaming” as: “referred to the temporal, instructive and social integration of a selected group of exceptional children, with their normal companions, based on educational planning and a process` evolutionary and individually determined programmer. This integration required a classification of responsibilities between the regular and special educational personnel and the administrative, instructor and auxiliary personnel. “

The NARC (National association of Retarded Citizens, USA) defines it as: “integration is a philosophy or principle of offering educational services that is put into practice through the provision of a variety of instructional and class alternatives, which are appropriate to the educational plan, for each student, allowing the maximum instructive, temporal and social integration between deficient and non-deficient students during the normal school day “.

Educational integration assumes that:

• A child who goes to school for the first time and who, due to his characteristics, could have been sent to the special center, is taken into the ordinary center.
• Children who are in special centers go to ordinary centers in one of the integration modalities.
• Children who are full-time in a special education unit of an ordinary center are gradually incorporating it into the ordinary classroom.
• Boys and girls who are in the ordinary classroom that in other circumstances would move to a more restrictive place – a special classroom or a specific center – will now continue in that ordinary classroom.

All this taking into account a series of premises such as:

• This is a difficult and complex process and depends on many circumstances: the child himself or herself, the center and the family. Each case requires a study and a specific treatment.
• There are different situations or forms of integration. It will not always be possible for the student to be integrated into the ordinary classroom of an ordinary school; This is the ideal towards which one should tend, but there will be cases in which, due to various circumstances, their integration modality has to be different.
• The placement of a child in a certain place or environment will not last forever, they are that, through periodic reviews, an attempt will be made to provide them with situations that involve a higher level of integration.
• This integration process begins with the assessment and identification of the student’s special educational needs and is accompanied by the provision of personal aids , materials, curricular adaptations, etc., that enable further development.
• Integration does not imply a simple physical location in the least restrictive environment possible, but it means an effective participation in schoolwork, which provides the differentiated education that it needs, relying on the adaptations and means that are pertinent in each case.

Integration or inclusion?/difference

Semantically, include and integrate have very similar meanings, which makes many people use these verbs interchangeably. However, in social movements, inclusion and integration represent totally different philosophies, even when they have apparently the same objectives, that is, the insertion of people with disabilities in society .

The inclusive school is built on the participation and agreements of all the educational agents that come together in it. It considers the learning process of the students as the consequence of their inclusion in the school. It arises from an educational dimension whose objective is aimed at overcoming the barriers that some students encounter at the time of carrying out the school journey. An inclusive school is about achieving recognition of the right that everyone has both to be recognized, and to recognize themselves as members of the educational community to which they belong, whatever their social environment, their culture of origin, their ideology, sex, ethnicity or personal situations derived from a physical, intellectual, sensory disability or intellectual giftedness.

In this proposed school, the development of coexistence is carried out through dialogue . Conflicts become an opportunity for personal and social development , because it allows the agents in conflict to come together and develop their learning.

We can establish some of the differences between integration and inclusion , as Arnaiz (2003) and Moriña (2002) point out.

Related Articles

Functionalism in linguistics/communicative competence.

What is game based learning/features/importance/5 examples

Theory of multiple intelligences definition/intelligences in learning, what is constructivist approach/psychological constructivism, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please input characters displayed above.

• Why Integration Matters in Schools
• Share article

Desegregation may seem like a distant memory to many and an unknown experience to the rest, but integrated schools are no less important today than they were 60 years ago. When Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was first decided in 1954, litigants asked courts, and later policymakers, to make a leap of faith and assume that school integration would improve educational outcomes for minority students. After all, there were no integrated schools to test the proposition. Six decades later, research confirms their instincts were correct.

Today, we know integration has a positive effect on almost every aspect of schooling that matters, and segregation the inverse. We also know integration matters for all students. Both minorities and whites are disadvantaged by attending racially isolated schools, although in somewhat different ways: The harms to minorities are primarily academic; the harms to whites are social and academic.

Predominantly minority schools, on the whole, deliver inadequate educational opportunities. First, these schools tend to serve predominantly poor students. Due to peer influences and environment, students in these schools routinely have lower rates of achievement than students in mostly middle-income schools. This holds true regardless of a student’s race or socioeconomic status.

Second, the curriculum in these schools is lower in quality, and course offerings—like Advanced Placement and college-prep—are far fewer in number. More importantly, predominantly poor and minority schools find it extremely difficult to attract and retain high-quality teachers. To be clear, there have been, are, and always will be a number of excellent teachers in these schools, but on the whole, these schools enjoy a much smaller share and face high teacher-turnover rates. This has the unique effect of undermining instructional continuity and institutional knowledge while increasing administrative burdens. This unequal access to teachers matters because, aside from peer influences, research shows teacher quality is one of the factors most closely linked to student achievement.

Brown at 60: New Diversity, Familiar Disparities

Even with ground-shifting demographic changes, many public schools continue to be highly segregated 60 years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the principle of “separate but equal” education, but those shifts have also created opportunities to approach diversifying schools and classrooms in new ways.

This special series includes data on race and ethnicity in U.S. schools and the following Commentaries on integration.

• I, Too, Am America: Making All Students Feel Like They Belong
• K-12 Education: Still Separate, Still Unequal
• Hispanics Are Forgotten in Civil Rights History
• Integration: New Concepts for a New Era

Money alone cannot easily fix these challenges because the racial and socioeconomic characteristics of schools significantly influence where teachers decide to teach. In the absence of huge salary increases, which are beyond the capacity of nearly every needy district, teachers with options tend to choose schools in wealthier districts.

The negative effects of unequal access to quality teachers and middle-income peers are compounded over time, producing drastically lower graduation rates in predominantly poor and minority schools. On average, only four out of 10 students graduate on time in the nation’s predominantly poor and minority high schools. Lower graduation rates hold true for any student attending one of these schools, regardless of his or her race or wealth. With these odds, it is no wonder that attending a predominantly poor and minority school tends to limit students’ access to later opportunities in higher education and employment.

Of course, not all high-poverty, racially isolated schools are low in quality. A small but high-profile contingent of predominantly poor and minority schools deliver exceptional opportunities on a daily basis.

But these schools are defying the odds and demonstrate that, while delivering a quality education to students under circumstances of concentrated poverty can be done, it costs far more per pupil than it otherwise would. The need for intensive instructional and social-service programs tends to be much greater in high-poverty schools, and we have yet to see the consistent willingness of policymakers to make these sorts of investments.

To the contrary, nationally, the per-pupil expenditures in high-poverty, predominantly minority schools are significantly lower than in other schools. When this fact is raised, these disadvantaged schools are then forced to defend the proposition that “money matters.”

In short, the only tried, tested, and cost-effective solution to unequal and inadequate education is integrated education.

Too often, the conversation around integration focuses exclusively on the benefits for poor and minority communities. However, integration holds substantial benefits for middle-income and white students as well. First, integrated schools improve critical thinking. In diverse environments, students are faced with new and varied perspectives and forced to think through their own or new positions more carefully, which improves their critical-thinking skills. Second, integrated schools better prepare students to navigate the multicultural world and global economy they will face upon graduation.

On these two metrics, whites are seriously disadvantaged. Data indicate that, to the surprise of many, whites are actually the most racially isolated student group in the nation (see charts, Page 31). Research demonstrates that this isolation ill prepares them for the future. Major corporations make this point even more concretely in briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court. They attest that they want graduates who are prepared to work in multicultural environments. Integrated schools produce these students.

In other words, white families who are concerned about long-term competitiveness need integrated schools as much as anyone.

So the key question today is not whether integrated schools matter, but how to achieve them. Various school districts, from Wake County, N.C., to Berkeley, Calif., have shown us the way. In 2000, Wake County adopted an assignment plan that capped the percentage of low-income students that could be assigned to any single school. In 2004, Berkeley adopted a plan that took the race, income, and education level of a student’s neighborhood into account in determining where the student would be assigned.

Unfortunately, courts and policymakers are no longer solidly aligned in support of efforts of these sorts. Positive outcomes in integrating districts now often come in spite of, not because of, courts and policymakers.

For integration to flourish outside the most committed districts, federal and state policymakers once again appreciate that integration and improving test scores are part of the same conversation, not disconnected ideas.

A version of this article appeared in the May 14, 2014 edition of Education Week as Why Integration Matters

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

What is integrated education?

Integrated schools bring together children, staff and governors from all religious and cultural traditions within a single school community where they celebrate diversity and inclusivity.

Integrated Education means the education together, in an Integrated school, of those of different cultures and religious beliefs and of none: including reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic children or young persons; those who are experiencing socio-economic deprivation and those who are not; and those of different abilities.

An Integrated school is a school which intentionally supports, protects and advances an ethos of diversity, respect and understanding between those of different cultures and religious beliefs and of none, between those of different socio-economic backgrounds and between those of different abilities, and has acquired grant-maintained Integrated status, or controlled Integrated status under the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

Integrated Education encourages open-minded attitudes among pupils as well as building the confidence and ability to question, observe, listen and make informed decisions.

Integrated Education recognises the value of parents and parental involvement in all aspects of school life is actively encouraged.  Parents are encouraged to take an active role in the governance of the school and the Parent’s Council.

• Open access
• Published: 01 March 2016

STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration

• Lyn D. English 1  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  3 , Article number:  3 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

94k Accesses

412 Citations

129 Altmetric

Metrics details

This commentary was stimulated by Yeping Li’s first editorial (2014) citing one of the journal’s goals as adding multidisciplinary perspectives to current studies of single disciplines comprising the focus of other journals. In this commentary, I argue for a greater focus on STEM integration, with a more equitable representation of the four disciplines in studies purporting to advance STEM learning.

The STEM acronym is often used in reference to just one of the disciplines, commonly science. Although the integration of STEM disciplines is increasingly advocated in the literature, studies that address multiple disciplines appear scant with mixed findings and inadequate directions for STEM advancement. Perspectives on how discipline integration can be achieved are varied, with reference to multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches adding to the debates. Such approaches include core concepts and skills being taught separately in each discipline but housed within a common theme; the introduction of closely linked concepts and skills from two or more disciplines with the aim of deepening understanding and skills; and the adoption of a transdisciplinary approach, where knowledge and skills from two or more disciplines are applied to real-world problems and projects with the aim of shaping the total learning experience.

Research that targets STEM integration is an embryonic field with respect to advancing curriculum development and various student outcomes. For example, we still need more studies on how student learning outcomes arise not only from different forms of STEM integration but also from the particular disciplines that are being integrated. As noted in this commentary, it seems that mathematics learning benefits less than the other disciplines in programs claiming to focus on STEM integration. Factors contributing to this finding warrant more scrutiny. Likewise, learning outcomes for engineering within K-12 integrated STEM programs appear under-researched. This commentary advocates a greater focus on these two disciplines within integrated STEM education research. Drawing on recommendations from the literature, suggestions are offered for addressing the challenges of integrating multiple disciplines faced by the STEM community.

International concerns for advancing STEM education have escalated in recent years and show no signs of abating. Educators, policy developers, and business and industry organizations, to name a few, are highlighting the urgency for improving STEM skills to meet current and future social and economic challenges (e.g., Caprile et al., 2015 ; Honey et al., 2014 ; Marginson et al., 2013 ; Prinsley and Baranyai, 2015 ; The Royal Society Science Policy Centre, 2014 ). The almost universal preoccupation with STEM education in shaping innovation and development is evident in numerous reports. In the USA for example, the 2013 report from the Committee on STEM Education stressed that “The jobs of the future are STEM jobs,” with STEM competencies increasingly required not only within but also outside of specific STEM occupations (National Science and Technology Council, 2013 , p. vi). Developing competencies in the STEM disciplines is thus regarded as an urgent goal of many education systems, fuelled in part by perceived or actual shortages in the current and future STEM workforce (e.g., Caprile et al., 2015 ; Charette, 2013 ; Hopkins et al., 2014 ; The Royal Society Science Policy Centre, 2014 ), as well as by outcomes from international comparative assessments (e.g., OECD, 2013 ).

Although global interest in STEM from educational and workforce perspectives has proliferated in recent years, the acronym was coined in the USA during the 1990s by the National Science Foundation (USA). The combining of the disciplines was seen as “a strategic decision made by scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians to combine forces and create a stronger political voice” (STEM Task Force Report, 2014 , p. 9). Since this time, the debates and dilemmas surrounding STEM employment shortages and STEM education in general have compounded.

Perspectives on the nature of STEM education and on the competencies requiring development are mixed, however. With the increased focus on STEM integration (e.g., Honey et al., 2014 ; Johnson et al., 2015 ), it appears timely to consider issues pertaining to STEM and its disciplinary integration and consider some research recommendations for advancing the field.

Perspectives on STEM and STEM integration

One of the problematic issues for researchers and curriculum developers lies in the different interpretations of STEM education and STEM integration. As indicated in numerous articles, STEM education has been defined variously ranging from disciplinary through to transdisciplinary approaches (e.g., Burke et al., 2014 ; Honey et al., 2014 ; Moore and Smith, 2014 ; Rennie et al., 2012 ; Vasquez, 2014 /2015; Vasquez et al., 2013 ). In acknowledging the lack of an agreed-upon definition, the California Department of Education ( 2014 ) provides a broad perspective on STEM education, namely, “[STEM]… is used to identify individual subjects, a stand-alone course, a sequence of courses, activities involving any of the four areas, a STEM-related course, or an interconnected or integrated program of study” ( http://www.cde.ca.gov/PD/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp ).

In his editorial for the journal’s first issue, Yeping Li introduced the publication as “a brand new, forward looking journal that will add the multidisciplinary perspectives needed to complement current disciplinary-focused journals in the field of STEM education” (Li, 2014 , 1:1). In doing so, Li emphasized the need for researchers to “span disciplinary boundaries.” Boundary crossing is a primary feature of integrated STEM perspectives, although the extent of disciplinary crossing in definitions of integration varies considerably. In their National Academies Press report, STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research , Honey et al. ( 2014 ) provide a basic definition of integration as “working in the context of complex phenomena or situations on tasks that require students to use knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines” (p. 52). A more comprehensive perspective on STEM integration is featured in Vasquez et al.’s work (2013; Table  1 ), where different forms of boundary crossing are displayed along a continuum of increasing levels of integration, with progression along the continuum involving greater interconnection and interdependence among the disciplines.

An increased commitment to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary STEM integration has appeared in recent years in several US documents. For example, the STEM Task Force Report ( 2014 ) adopts the view that STEM education is far more than a “convenient integration” of its four disciplines, rather it encompasses “real-world, problem-based learning” that links the disciplines “through cohesive and active teaching and learning approaches” (p. 9). The Report argues that the disciplines “cannot and should not be taught in isolation, just as they do not exist in isolation in the real world or the workforce” (p.9). Likewise, the California Department of Education adopts the axiom that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts” in its call for an increased focus on STEM integration ( http://www.cde.ca.gov/PD/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp ). More in-depth connections among the STEM disciplines are further advocated in the US Common Core State Standards for Mathematics ( http://www.corestandards.org/Math/ ) as well as the Next Generation Science Standards ( http://www.nextgenscience.org/ ).

Given the various interpretations of STEM education and STEM integration, it is little wonder that confusion can arise when researchers and policy developers refer to STEM education but differ considerably in their perspectives. Although the STEM acronym was initially coined to highlight the importance of the respective disciplines, the interdisciplinary nature of the world in which we live and work demands a broadening of STEM education and research (Hoachlander, 2014 /2015). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to STEM research are emerging in the literature; however, the presence of integration as a distinct field of study is in its embryonic stages (Honey et al., 2014 ).

Inequitable STEM discipline representations

Although each of the integrative approaches in Table  1 has value in advancing learning, as Vasquez et al. ( 2013 ) pointed out, a major concern is that of inequitable discipline representations in STEM research and learning outcomes (English, 2015 ; English and Kirshner, 2016 ; Hoachlander, 2014 /2015; Honey et al., 2014 ; Marginson et al., 2013 ; Moore et al., 2014 ; Shaughnessy, 2013 ). As one example of this uneven representation, of the 141 regular papers presented at the 2014 STEM conference in Vancouver, 45 % were devoted to science, 12 % to technology, 9 % to engineering, 16 % to mathematics, and interestingly, the remaining 18 % were classified as “general” with several papers in this category addressing two or more of the STEM disciplines ( http://stem2014.ubc.ca/presentations/ ).

As several researchers have lamented (e.g., Barrett et al., 2014 ; Honey et al., 2014 ), the effectiveness of integrated STEM education in developing students’ knowledge of core content is relatively under-researched. More studies are needed to identify ways in which learning across the disciplines might be more evenly distributed so that student achievement in one area does not overshadow or reduce gains in others. As Marginson et al. ( 2013 ) expressed metaphorically, “we need to lift the level of the peaks of the STEM mountain range, and broaden and elevate the whole of the range at the same time” (p. 72).

While acknowledging that reference to science could be interpreted as encompassing the other disciplines, especially mathematics, the STEM acronym itself is frequently defined as simply “science” (e.g., Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014 ). Many nations also refer to the role of STEM education as one that fosters “broad-based scientific literacy,” with a key objective in their school programs being “science for all” in efforts to lift science education in the elementary, middle, and secondary school curricula (Marginson et al., 2013 , p. 70). As Marginson et al. indicated, STEM discussions rarely adopt the form of “mathematics for all,” even though mathematics underpins the other disciplines: “the stage of mathematics for all should be shifted further up the educational scale” (p.70). Likewise, Shaughnessy ( 2013 ) warned of programs that are merely a STEM veneer, that is, where approaches do not genuinely integrate the disciplines and thus may be devoid of important learning especially in mathematics. Even the rise in engineering education, beginning in the early school years (e.g., Lachapelle & Cunningham, 2014 ), would appear to be oriented towards the science strand with less emphasis on mathematics. Hoachlander ( 2014 /2015) reiterates the above concerns:

Despite more than a decade of strong advocacy by practitioners, employers, and policymakers, STEM education in US schools leaves a great deal to be desired. In too many schools, science and math are still taught mostly in isolation from each other, and engineering is absent (p. 74).

Although several policy and curriculum documents are now recognizing the important role of the respective disciplines in STEM integration, including engineering, a focus on connecting core content knowledge and processes across the disciplines still appears limited.

Advancing integrated STEM education research

Given the global importance accorded to STEM achievements as measured by national and international assessments, it is not surprising that many nations are questioning the quality of their curricula and the strategic actions needed to enhance the STEM disciplines. If we are to advance STEM integration and lift the profile of all of its disciplines, we need to focus on both core content knowledge and interdisciplinary processes. Nations that enjoy high international testing outcomes as well as strong STEM agendas have well-developed curricula that concentrate on twenty-first century skills including inquiry processes, problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, and innovation as well as a strong focus on disciplinary knowledge (English and Gainsburg, 2016 ; Marginson et al., 2013 ; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011 ). The need to nurture generic skills, in-depth conceptual understandings, and their interdisciplinary connections is paramount.

Making STEM connections more apparent

Developing students’ understanding and appreciation of how integrated content, skills, and modes of thinking interact, including how they support and complement one another, is not an easy task (Honey et al., 2014 ; Moore et al., 2014 ). As Moore et al. ( 2014 ) noted, just because these connections might be emphasized in a curriculum, there is no guarantee that students will identify them or make the connections on their own. Consequently, the desired integrated STEM learning may well be lost. Likewise with respect to mathematics, Shaughnessy ( 2013 ) stressed that the “M” must be made “transparent and explicit.” We cannot assume that all students will “see” the mathematics that is inherent in a particular problem (p. 324). More research is called for on ways to help students make STEM connections more transparent and meaningful across disciplines, including how this might be achieved at different grade levels. At the same time, further research is required on ways of assisting teachers to foster these connections, especially when appropriate curriculum frameworks and resources might be lacking.

Targeting student outcomes

Research on student outcomes in STEM integration appears limited and inconclusive, especially from a long-term perspective. A number of research issues arise including how integrated STEM programs might encourage more student engagement, motivation, and perseverance (Honey et al., 2014 ). Unfortunately, Honey et al.’s review of research reports indicated that such aspects, especially from a long-term view, are rarely measured in evaluations of these programs. Their review revealed that “few data convincingly correlate integrated STEM education with student outcomes” (Honey et al., 2014 , p. 136). This finding is of particular concern, especially with respect to students’ achievements in each of the STEM disciplines at different grade levels. Studies have yielded varied results. For example, Becker and Park’s ( 2011 ) meta-analysis of studies investigating the possible differential effects of integration types on students’ learning showed a large effect size (1.76) when all disciplines were integrated. In contrast, the effect size for integrating engineering and mathematics was small (0.03), as was the case when mathematics was integrated with science and technology (0.23).

Given that a number of studies analyzed by Becker and Park ( 2011 ) did not report on students’ mathematics achievements, there remains the problem of inadequate research on the effects of integrative approaches on mathematics learning. Honey et al.’s ( 2014 ) review suggests that mathematics achievement is difficult to promote through STEM integration. If this is the case, then possible reasons for this need further investigation including whether a sequenced and structured approach to mathematics instruction hinders in-depth learning within STEM integration (Honey et al., 2014 ; Lehrer and Schauble, 2000 ).

Lifting the profile of mathematics in STEM integration

Recent concerns for the often diminished focus on mathematics include how its concepts and practices can contribute more effectively to an understanding of the remaining STEM disciplines (e.g., English, 2015 ; English and Kirshner, 2016 ; Fitzallen, 2015 ; Rennie et al., 2012 ; Shaughnessy, 2013 ). As Fitzallen ( 2015 ) highlighted, many reports claim that STEM provides contexts for fostering mathematical skills but these reports do not acknowledge the reciprocal relationship between mathematics and the other STEM disciplines. That is, the ways in which “mathematics can influence and contribute to the understanding of the ideas and concepts of other STEM disciplines” (p. 241) are not being addressed.

Coupled with the above is how we might best develop in-depth understanding of core mathematics content and processes within STEM experiences, while at the same time acknowledge that not all of mathematics can or should be learned within an integrated program (Honey et al., 2014 ). An inadequate focus on assisting students (and teachers) to recognize and make mathematics connections to the remaining disciplines further contributes to undermining mathematics learning within STEM. Making explicit the role of mathematics by repeatedly foregrounding the desired content and temporarily backgrounding other STEM content is one way in which the discipline might be advanced (Silk et al., 2010 ).

One example of how mathematics could provide core foundations and promote learning in the other disciplines is through a focus on mathematical literacy (English, 2015 ). Mathematical literacy was a core feature of PISA 2012 (OECD, 2013 ), where “meeting life needs… through using and engaging with mathematics, making informed judgements, and understanding the usefulness of mathematics in relation to the demands of life” were emphasized (Thompson et al., 2013 ). Mathematical literacy is foundational to STEM education, where skills in dealing with uncertainty and data are central to making evidence-based decisions involving ethical, economic, and environmental dimensions. Furthermore, with the exponential rise in digital information within STEM, the ability to handle contradictory and potentially unreliable online data is critical (Lumley and Mendelovits, 2012 ). Mathematics thus warrants increased recognition for its role in developing students’ abilities to analyze and reason with data in making informed decisions and to engage in constructive debate about local and global issues (The Royal Society Science Policy Centre, 2014 ).

Lifting the profile of engineering in STEM integration

Although engineering across K-12 is emerging as a significant research area in its own right (e.g., Johri and Olds, 2014 ; Purzer et al., 2014 ; Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education ), its presence within integrated STEM education deserves heightening. Engineering design and thinking, recognized as major components of K-12 engineering education, provide foundational linking processes across the STEM disciplines and are not just confined to engineering (Bryan et al., 2015 ; Lucas et al., 2014 ; Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS], 2014 ; The National Academies, 2014 ). The NGSS specifically includes core practices and concepts from engineering alongside those for science, highlighting the interrelated nature of science and engineering education.

Broadening the role of engineering design and elevating it to the same level as scientific inquiry, the NGSS defines engineering design practices as those that all citizens should develop. Core features of engineering design are commonly described as comprising iterative processes including (a) defining problems by specifying criteria and constraints for acceptable solutions, (b) generating a number of possible solutions and evaluating these to determine which ones best meet the given problem criteria and constraints, and (c) optimizing the solution by systematically testing and refining, including overriding less significant features for the more important. Although there is increasing research demonstrating ways in which engineering can link the mathematics, science, and technology disciplines, mathematics still requires greater recognition in these experiences. In the next section, I provide one example of how both mathematics and engineering can be elevated within a modeling with data activity.

Engineering-based modeling with data

Modeling with data addresses the mathematical literacy domain addressed previously and comprises important learning features that facilitate different forms of integration including the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches of Table  1 . As displayed in Table  2 , modeling with data involves several features that support engineering within integrated STEM approaches including design processes, problem-solving and thinking, and testing, revising, and improving generated products.

In a collaborative research project (English and Mousoulides, 2015 ), 48 students from two sixth-grade classes (12-year-olds) in a K-6 urban public school in Cyprus worked a problem that addressed the 2007 structural failure of the 35W Minneapolis Bridge in Minnesota (adapted from Guzey et al., 2010 ). Developing models to rebuild the damaged bridge was a new experience for the students.

The problem commenced with an introductory session (35–45 min) where students studied a newspaper article about the bridge collapse as well as a video clip; they then answered questions to establish their understanding of the context and its data. In the second session (1 h 20 min–1 h 30 min), students were presented with two tables of data, together with the problem description. The first table of data comprised the key characteristics of the four main bridge types (truss, arch, suspension, cable-stayed), namely, the advantages and disadvantages of each bridge, the span range, the main materials used in construction, and the design effort (low, medium, high). The second table contained two samples of each of the major bridge types and some of their key features including the total length, the number of car lanes, the construction difficulty, and the building costs (in current values).

The problem stated that the Minnesota Public Works Department urgently needed to construct a new bridge in the same location given specific parameters including a highway length of approximately 1000 ft and a deck of four lanes with additional side lanes. Students were to assist the Department by creating a way (model) for comparing the different bridge types so as to choose the appropriate one to build across each span.

Working in small groups of 3–4 (mixed-achievement in school mathematics), the students drew on the given data to generate, refine, and document their models. The groups were to develop a model that (a) included calculating the cost for each one of the four bridge types (using the given characteristics of the four main bridge types) and (b) would enable selection of the best possible bridge type for the reconstruction of the collapsed bridge. All possible factors related to bridge type, materials used, bridge design, safety, and cost were to be taken into consideration. In the final session (40–50 min), each student group explained to their peers the models they had generated and their key findings, which they documented in a poster.

Data from 13 audiotaped student groups were analyzed together with videotapes of all whole-class discussions. The data sources also included students’ worksheets and the researchers’ field notes. Interpretive techniques (Miles & Huberman, 1994 ) were used to analyze the data, with detailed analysis of all data sources enabling identification of the mathematization and statistical reasoning processes students applied during solution. Students’ phases of model development, reflecting aspects of engineering design, were identified through iterative refinement cycles of analyses to generate more in-depth evidence of students’ learning (Lesh and Lehrer, 2000 ).

Students’ models varied in the number of problem factors considered (cost per surface unit of bridge deck, aesthetics of the various bridge types, bridge design effort, construction difficulty, length), as well as in how they reasoned with these data, and in the sophistication of their models. Excerpts from one student group’s model development, where they reasoned with multidisciplinary components, are presented next.

This group began the problem by excluding a truss-type bridge explaining that, “The collapsed bridge was a truss one” (student A) and “Selecting the truss type bridge would make people feel insecure and bring back all those bad memories” (student B). The group then decided that a cost model for ranking the different bridge types was needed, but after developing an initial model that involved calculating the average cost (money per ft 2 ) for each bridge type, they decided that it was not the most appropriate solution. The group concluded that the substantial variation in their results for bridges of the same type could be addressed by integrating more factors within their initial model:

Student C: Our calculations are correct. There is nothing wrong. The cost is very different.

Student D: There are other things (factors) that are important and influence the cost … for those (bridges) that are close to sea it is more difficult.

Student C: Yes, like in the Golden Gate Bridge. It is so expensive and not that long.

Student B: Cost is not proportionally related to the surface of the bridge (deck), but also the level of difficulty in constructability, just like in the Golden Gate, is an important factor.

On returning to the key characteristics of the four major bridge types (advantages, bridge span etc.), the group concluded that all types had their advantages as well as disadvantages. It was thus decided that a suitable bridge type could not be determined from this set of data alone. This realization prompted the next phase of model development as students examined further data. Students’ reflections on their prior discussion regarding an initial cost model also contributed to their movement towards a more comprehensive model.

The group’s next phase of model development involved a consideration of engineering, scientific, and societal factors. The group decided that these should be incorporated within their earlier model. These additional data included the necessary extra lanes for bridges, bikes, and pedestrians, as well as the difficulty level for each bridge construction. The last factor was determined by dividing the estimated final cost per square feet by 1.5 for the given examples of the four major bridge types. The group referred to this as the “difficult constructability” factor, which they specifically created to provide the same basis of comparison for all bridge types.

The refined model ranked the bridge types from cable-stayed as most favored, followed by the arch, truss, and suspension bridge types. In deciding on their final model, however, the students were aware of scientific and engineering issues and thus selected the arch type as the best possible solution. They were still concerned about the stability of a cable-stayed bridge for long-span bridges.

Students’ reasoning in working the above problem illustrates how they drew upon multiple disciplinary features, reflecting Charette’s ( 2014 /2015) sentiments on STEM integration: “If we truly want students who can think critically, solve problems, and communicate their thoughts clearly, then some kind of systematic, cross-disciplinary instruction is required” (p. 82).

In this commentary, I have argued for a greater focus on STEM integration, with a more balanced focus on each of the disciplines. Specifically, I have maintained that mathematics and engineering are underrepresented in studies claiming to address STEM education. Identifying ways in which we might achieve a more equitable representation of the disciplines is a complex endeavor, especially given the lack of a globally accepted definition of STEM education, as well as the different perspectives on and approaches to STEM integration within and across nations. Vasquez et al.’s ( 2013 ) continuum of disciplinary through transdisciplinary approaches to integration, with increasing interconnection and interdependence among the disciplines, provides one framework for addressing STEM integration. Developing and implementing integrated STEM programs, however, is challenging especially if one is to ensure that the respective core concepts and skills are given due attention. Different approaches to teaching each of the disciplines, such as a sequenced and structured approach to mathematics, could hinder some learning outcomes during integrated experiences.

Although STEM integration is receiving increasing emphasis in many curriculum documents and policy reports, there appears inadequate research that yields substantive evidence of desired learning outcomes. Existing studies of integrated STEM education rarely document in sufficient detail the curriculum or program being implemented including the nature of the integration and ways in which it was supported. The form of evidence collected to demonstrate whether the intervention goals were achieved is also frequently lacking (Honey et al., 2014 ).

Clearly, there remain many research questions regarding STEM integration, as documented by Honey et al. ( 2014 ) and others (e.g., Kimmel et al., 2014 ). In an effort to provide much-needed direction to future research, Honey et al. ( 2014 ) developed a descriptive framework of core features and subcomponents of integrated STEM education incorporating goals and outcomes for students and educators, together with the nature and scope of integration and features of implementation (p. 32). Emanating from this framework, their recommendations include as a necessary starting point a consistent use of terminology that establishes a common STEM language. The development and application of substantial theoretical frameworks, and a better delineation of the nature of STEM integration programs, including how evidence for learning is gathered and the types of learning supports provided, are also essential to advancing the field.

With respect to program implementation, I noted previously the need to investigate ways to make connections among the STEM disciplines more transparent for both students and teachers. One expectation of effective STEM education programs is that students are encouraged to make new and productive connections across two or more of the disciplines, which may be evidenced in improved student learning and transfer as well as interest and engagement. These learning outcomes require students to be competent with specific discipline content as well as discipline representations, together with “representational fluency” in translating among these representations (Honey et al., 2014 , p. 144). These competencies may require teacher scaffolding especially for younger learners. The research of Dorie et al. ( 2014 ) demonstrated how appropriate adult scaffolding can promote the “natural” engineering talents of young learners. The question of how much scaffolding should be provided, however, warrants further investigation. English and King ( 2015 ) recommend that such support needs to be balanced in terms of establishing an understanding of core concepts and allowing students to apply this learning in ways they choose during problem solution.

Integrated STEM education continues to raise more questions than there are presently answers. It is hoped that this commentary has prompted further avenues for research and discussion on how we can advance the STEM field including keeping abreast of the exponential growth in technology. The multifaceted ways in which technological advances can enhance student outcomes are expanding rapidly (Johnson et al., 2013 ), opening up new directions and challenges in our STEM research endeavors.

Barrett, B. S., Moran, A. L., & Woods, J. E. (2014). Meteorology meets engineering: an interdisciplinary STEM module for middle and early secondary school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 1 , 6. doi: 10.1186/2196-7822-1-6 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: a preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12 (5/6), 23–37.

Google Scholar  

Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (pp. 23–37). London: Taylor & Francis.

Burke, L., Francis, K., & Shanahan, M. (2014). A horizon of possibilities: a definition of STEM education. Paper presented at the STEM 2014 Conference , Vancouver, July 12–15.

California Department of Education. (2014). Science, technology, engineering, & mathematics (STEM) information . http://www.cde.ca.gov/PD/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp . accessed December, 2014.

Caprile, M., Palmen, R., Sanz, & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market (Directorate-General for Internal Policies: European Parliament).

Charette, R. N. (2013). The STEM crisis is a myth . Retrieved 23 December, 2014 from http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth .

Charette, R. N. (2014/2015). Commentary: STEM sense and nonsense. Educational Leadership , December 2014/January 2015, 79–83.

Dorie, B. L., Cardella, M. E., & Svarovsky, N. (2014). Capturing the design thinking of young children interacting with a parent. Paper presented at the 121st SEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Indianapolis, IN, June 15–18.

English, L. D. (2015). STEM: challenges and opportunities for mathematics education. In K. Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–18). Hobart, Australia: PME.

English, L. D., & Gainsburg, J. (2016). Problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 313–335). New York: Taylor & Francis.

English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education , 2 (14). DOI: 10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.

English, L. D., & Kirshner, D. (2016). Changing agendas in international research in mathematics education. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 3–18). New York: Taylor & Francis.

English, L. D., & Mousoulides, N. (2015). Bridging STEM in a real-world problem. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20 (9), 532–539.

Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: what does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman (Eds.), Mathematics Education in the Margins . Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Sunshine Coast, June 28-July 2 (pp. 237–244). Sydney: MERGA.

Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2010). Curriculum development for STEM integration: bridge design on the white earth reservation. In L. M. Kattington (Ed.), Handbook of Curriculum Development (pp. 347–366). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.

Hoachlander, G. (2014/2015). Integrating SET&M. Educational Leadership , (December 2014/January 2015), 74–78.

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research . Washington: National Academies Press.

Hopkins, S., Forgasz, H., Corrigan, D., & Panizzon, D. (2014). The STEM issue in Australia: what it is and where is the evidence? Paper presented at the STEM Conference. Vancouver, Canada ( http://stem2014.ubc.ca ).

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Martín, S. (2013). Technology outlook for STEM+ education 2013–2018: an NMC horizon project sector analysis . Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (2015). STEM roadmap: a framework for integration . London: Taylor & Francis.

Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (Eds.). (2014). Cambridge handbook of engineering education research . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kimmel, H. S., Burr-Alexander, L. E., Hirsch, L., Rockland, R. H., Carpinelli, J. D., & Aloia, M. (2014). Pathways to effective K-12 STEM programs. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference . Madrid, Spain.

Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2014). Engineering in elementary schools. In S. Purzer, J. Stroble, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Research in synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 61–88). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analyses of conceptual change. In R. Lesh & A. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 665–708). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Li, Y. (2014). Editorial: International Journal of STEM Education—a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide. International Journal of STEM Education , 1:1.

Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Hanson, J. (2014). Thinking like an engineer: implications for the education system . Royal Academy of Engineers. www.raeng.org.uk/thinkinglikeanengineer .

Lumley, T., & Mendelovits, J. (2012). How well do young people deal with contradictory and unreliable information on line? What the PISA digital reading assessment tells us . Vancouver: Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons . Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education, 15 (1), 5–10.

Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Research into practice (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

National Science and Technology Council. (2013). A report from the committee on STEM education . Washington, D.C: National Science and Technology Council.

Next Generation Science Standards (USA, 2014). http://www.nextgenscience.org/

OECD (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy . OECD Publishing ( http://www.oecdilibrary.org/content/book/9789264190511-en ).

Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Benchmarking Australian science, technology, engineering and mathematics . Canberra: Australian Government.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning 2-page . Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework .

Prinsley, R., & Baranyai, K. (2015). STEM skills in the workforce: what do employers want? Occasional Papers Series, issue 9, March. Office of the Chief Scientist.

Purzer, S., Stroble, J., & Cardella, M. E. (Eds.). (2014). Engineering in pre-college settings: synthesizing research, policy, and practices . Purdue: Purdue University.

Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Reflecting on curriculum integration: seeking balance and connection through a worldly perspective. In L. Rennie, G. Venville, & J. Wallace (Eds.), Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward (pp. 123–142). New York: Routledge.

Rennie, L., Wallace, J., & Venville, G. (2012). Exploring curriculum integration: why integrate? In L. Rennie, G. Venville, & J. Wallace (Eds.), Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge.

Shaughnessy, M. (2013). By way of introduction: mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle school, 18 (6), 324.

Silk, E. M., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). Designing technology activities that teach mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 69 (4), 21–27.

STEM Task Force Report. (2014). Innovate: a blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education . Dublin, California: Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.

The National Academies. (2014). Next generation science standards: for states, by states . Washington: National Academy of Sciences.

The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education . London: The Royal Society.

Thompson, S., Hillman, K., & De Bortoli, L. (2013). A teacher’s guide to PISA mathematical literacy . Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Vasquez, J. (2014/2015). STEM: beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership , Dec./Jan.,10-16.

Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This commentary drew upon findings that have emanated from several research studies supported by grants from the Australian Research Council (ARC), including projects LP120200023 and DP DP120100158. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ARC.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, S Block, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland, 4059, Australia

Lyn D. English

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyn D. English .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The author declares that she has no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

English, L.D. STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. IJ STEM Ed 3 , 3 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

Download citation

Received : 04 December 2015

Accepted : 20 February 2016

Published : 01 March 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• STEM integration
• STEM research
• Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary integration
• Mathematics education
• Engineering education

• NEP 2020 Curriculum
• Centre of Wellbeing
• LRPAX Model
• Balanced Schooling
• Safety Certification
• Co-Curricular Learning
• Digital Learning
• Chimney Hills CBSE
• Electronic City CBSE
• Yelahanka CBSE
• Bannerghatta CBSE
• Whitefield CBSE
• Airoli ICSE
• Balkum Thane CBSE
• Ghodbunder Thane ICSE
• Dombivli CBSE
• Upper Thane CBSE
• Kharadi CBSE
• Wakad (CBSE)
• Wakad (ICSE)
• Metro Campus CBSE
• Hitec City CBSE
• Hitech City CBSE

Understating Integrated Education, Its Goals & Scope

Education is an effective tool with the power to change lives. The goal of integrated education, sometimes called inclusive education, is an approach that strives to provide equal opportunities for all students, no matter their abilities or disabilities.

Teachers are the backbone of an educational institution. Without teachers and effective teaching techniques. Teachers can only offer quality education when they are equipped with modern-day technology that enhances the education experience. That’s where an integrated curriculum and learning system comes in. It is a boon for students and teachers who are trying to impart a satisfactory educational experience.

Integrated education aims to develop an inclusive learning environment where students with different needs and backgrounds, including those who have emotional, cognitive, or physical disabilities, may study alongside their classmates in conventional classes. It highlights acceptance, diversity, and understanding among students, increasing a sense of equality and feeling connected.It highlights acceptance, diversity, and understanding among students, increasing a sense of equality and feeling connected.

Also Read: Guide To Childhood Education – Daycare, Preschool, Or Kindergarten

How Does It Work in India?

The goal of integrated education in India is to guarantee that all children, regardless of their upbringing or disability, receive a decent education in public institutions. Let’s examine some crucial elements of the Indian education system’s implementation of integrated education:

Inclusive Curriculum

Integrated education emphasises creating a curriculum that satisfies the various learning requirements of every student. The curriculum is versatile and flexible and highlights personalised instruction and assistance to enhance academic success for every child.

Infrastructure that is accessible

Schools take measures to make their buildings physically accessible. They install ramps, elevators, and modified restrooms, enabling students with physical disabilities to navigate the school premises comfortably and safely.

Individualised help

Special educators, resource rooms, and assistive technology are used to provide students with special needs with personalised help.

Teacher preparation

Teachers are essential for inviting a learning atmosphere. To recognise and meet the requirements of various learners, they undergo specialised training. Through this training, they are given the tools they need to effectively adjust their lessons to the learning styles of each student.

Collaboration and Peer Support

To create suitable solutions and accommodations for kids with disabilities, regular classroom instructors work with special educators and therapists. In addition to providing support, fostering connections, and encouraging a sense of belonging among all students, peers also contribute to an inclusive atmosphere.

Sensitization and Awareness

To encourage acceptance, empathy, and understanding among students, teachers, and parents, schools hold sensitization and awareness programmes. These programmes work to dispel misconceptions and develop a caring and welcoming school environment. Also Read | Benefits of ICSE Board Education

Objectives of Integrated Education

Equal opportunities.

Integrated curriculum and education attempts to give all pupils equal chances, regardless of their talents or limitations. It aims to remove obstacles that can limit some students’ access to high-quality education.

Inclusive Learning Environment

Integrated education aims to establish an inclusive learning environment where students with various needs may come together to study and develop. It encourages kids to accept one another and to respect one another.

Academic Success

Ensuring that all students achieve academic success is the goal of integrated curriculum. It focuses on modifying instructional techniques, offering specialised assistance, and encouraging an inclusive curriculum that satisfies the various learning requirements of students.

Social Inclusion

It increases interaction between students and collaboration, and integrated education attempts to promote social inclusion. It promotes empathy, eliminates misconceptions, and cultivates wholesome connections among kids with and without impairments.

Personal Development

Integrated curriculum emphasises the value of each student’s personal development. It tries to increase their independence, self-confidence, and self-esteem so they may realise their full potential and make valuable contributions to society.

Freedom and Rights

Integrated teaching seeks to empower students with disabilities by ensuring their rights to education, participation, and equal opportunities. It aspires to establish a society that respects each person’s dignity and cherishes variety.

Strategies and Examples

One real-time execution example of integrated teaching is the use of differentiated instruction. Teachers introduce various teaching strategies, materials, and assessment methods to cater to the diverse learning needs of their students. To accommodate students with a variety of knowledge of mathematics, a teacher could offer several levels of worksheets or tasks during a maths class. Each student can proceed at their own speed while receiving the right level of challenge or assistance thanks to this.

Another example is the utilization of assistive technology. Specialised tools or equipment that help disabled students access information, participate in class activities, or communicate effectively may be helpful. A student with vision problems, for instance, may use screen reading software or Reading devices to access written materials, while a student with hearing disability would use assistive listening equipment or captioning services to access aural information.

Types of Integrated Curriculum

Theme-based integration.

This approach connects different subjects by organizing learning around a central theme or topic. For example, a unit on the environment could involve studying science concepts, exploring literature related to nature, and analysing the social and economic impact of environmental issues.

Project-based Integration

Students engage in extended projects that integrate multiple subject areas. They collaborate to solve real-world problems, applying knowledge and skills from different disciplines. For instance, a project on designing a sustainable community might involve elements of science, mathematics, social studies, and technology.

Inquiry-based Integration

This approach among the types of integrated curriculum emphasizes student-driven inquiry and exploration. Students pose questions, investigate topics, and make connections across various subjects to construct their own knowledge. Teachers facilitate the process and guide students’ learning experiences.

Arts Integration

Integrating arts (visual arts, music, drama, etc.) into the curriculum enhances creativity and allows students to express themselves while making connections to other subject areas. For example, a history lesson on ancient civilizations could include creating art inspired by that era.

Technology Integration

This approach incorporates technology tools and resources across different subjects to enhance learning. Students use technology for research, data analysis, multimedia presentations, and collaboration.

Also Read: CBSE vs ICSE: The Difference Between CBSE and ICSE Board

Advantages of Integrated Education

• Enhanced social skills and empathy through interaction with diverse peers.
• Improved academic outcomes for all students due to tailored instruction.
• Promotes inclusivity, fostering a sense of belonging for students with disabilities.
• Develops teamwork and collaboration skills.
• Prepares students for a diverse and inclusive society.
• Reduces stigmatization and promotes acceptance of differences.
• Encourages respect and appreciation for individual abilities and backgrounds.

At EuroSchool , we understand that Integrated education in India signifies an important step towards building a society that values diversity and provides equal educational opportunities for all. Integrated schooling ensures that every kid may learn, grow, and flourish alongside their classmates by establishing inclusive policies, creating flexible curriculum, and creating a supportive atmosphere. Let’s embrace this strategy totally, recognising the individuality of every student, and building a more promising, inclusive future for everyone.

Recent Post

• Behaviour & Discipline
• Child Development
• Important Days
• Parent's Zone
• Play & Activities

WHY EUROSCHOOL

• Testimonials

OUR SCHOOLS

• Undri (ICSE)

To Know More, Email or Call us at :

Digital Marketing Services

© Copyright EuroSchool 2024. All Rights Reserved.

Admission Enquiry

Integrated Curriculum: Changing the Future of Teaching

Service-learning is fast becoming an essential tool used in schools to enhance students personal and interpersonal growth and development. But for service-learning to be effective, it needs to be a part of an integrated curriculum. What do we mean by this? What is an example of how schools can do this?

What is an integrated curriculum?

An integrated curriculum is described as one that connects different areas of study by cutting across subject-matter lines and emphasizing unifying concepts. Integration focuses on making connections for students, allowing them to engage in relevant, meaningful activities that can be connected to real life [1] . An integrated curriculum aims to connect the theory learned in the classroom, with practical, real-life knowledge and experiences. The practical and experiential learning aspect of an integrated curriculum is facilitated through service-learning.

There has been extensive research done on integrated curriculums and what they look like in the learning and teaching space. From this research, three particular integrated curriculum paradigms were identified, each of them having overlapped and aligned elements [2] . These include:

Multidisciplinary integration

Interdisciplinary integration, transdisciplinary integration.

Service-learning is used as a tool in each of these paradigms to create engagement with students, enhance their learning experience and to motivate them to learn. Service-learning, as part of an integrated curriculum, addresses real issues and community needs, which creates more engagement and makes students more likely to invest their time and effort in their learning [6] .

Can service-learning be incorporated into any type of course work?

It is often difficult for many educators to understand how service-learning can be integrated into their course work and curriculum. We have to agree with Barbara Jacoby’s answer to this, where she states that “service-learning is certainly not appropriate for every course, but it can be effective in every discipline . This is because service-learning works well for students across a wide range of learning styles, from theoretical learners, who learn best through abstract conceptualization, to those who learn best from active, concrete experience” [7].

An example of a Serve Learn Curriculum is a unit on sustainability . Students will understand how systems of nature, economy, wellbeing and society are interconnected. Awareness of consumption and implementation of innovative, practical solutions help us uphold our responsibility to live sustainable lifestyles. Students investigate the concept and through action research methods they are able to understand the needs and issues. Students select areas of focus that they are interested in: nature, economy, wellbeing and society- based on the verified needs of the community they are able to plan and prepare for action.  Students work collaboratively with peers, partners, teachers, building skills and dispositions to solve real world problems for effective change together. They reflect before, during and after meaningful service learning experiences as they continue to learn and grow. To celebrate with partners and share their service learning with the community they demonstrate and communicate the service learning for sustainability.

Service-learning within an integrated curriculum enhances the learning experience and facilitates more engagement between the student and teacher as well as the course work. The concept selected in the Serve Learn example of sustainability is transdisciplinary, and various conceptual lenses are applied to sustainability.

How do you implement an integrated curriculum in your school?

The benefits of an integrated curriculum both for teaching and learning are endless. For an integrated curriculum to be effective, the curriculum does need to be thought out and developed. Here are a few steps that need to be considered when developing an integrated curriculum [9] :

•   Select achievable learning outcomes
• Consider what service experiences are most likely to enable students to achieve the desired outcomes
• Approach potential community partners
• Plan the experience in detail
• Determine how you will prepare students for the experience
• Select activities that are appropriate and meaningful for the students
• Integrate critical reflection through experience
• Address logistical issues
• Develop a plan to measure the achievement of students and community outcomes
• Seek closure, recognize and celebrate success

By creating an integrated curriculum using service-learning, you are changing the teaching and learning experience for both the teacher and the learner. Integrated curriculums allow students to have a deeper understanding of the course subject matter and how to apply the material that they have learned in the classroom in a real-world situation [10] . This ultimately helps prepare them for their future studies, career and life in general.

[1] https://study.com/academy/lesson/integrated-curriculum-definition-benefits-examples.html

[2, 3, 4, 5] Drake,S,M & Burns,R,C. (2004). Meeting Standards Through Integrated Curriculum. United States of America. ASCSD

[6,7,8,9] Jacoby,B, Howard,J. (2015). Service-Learning Essentials: Questions, Answers and Lessons Learned. United States of America, Jossey-Bass. PG 80-146 .

[10] Astin,A,W, Eyler,J, & Dwight, E,G Jr. (1999). Where’s The Learning In Service-Learning? . United States of America, Jossey-Bass. PG 80

Tara brings passion and a deep understanding of service learning, rooted in years of experience, to her training. Her training builds bridges from theory to implementation while generously sharing her resources and knowledge to ensure our success. Tara works with the whole school (administration, teachers, students, and SL leaders) to build a sustainable program that is embedded in the curriculum and tied to the mission. She energized a faculty on a Friday afternoon, no easy feat, leaving them with a desire to learn more about SL and to become more involved. I cannot recommend Tara highly enough.

Tara Barton

Trending now.

• Integrated Curriculum: Changing the Future of Teaching December 10, 2019
• 10 creative service learning projects to inspire your students March 6, 2020
• Experiential Learning in and out of Classrooms August 20, 2019

Recent Posts

• How global citizen education is impacted through service learning
• Improving the 5 learning outcomes with service-learning
• 5 ways to integrate service-learning through an online learning approach
• The future of Collaborative Learning
• How to effectively implement Reciprocal Teaching in a learning environment

Previous Post Principles for Effective Student Leadership

Next post what is service-learning, recommended for you.

5 quick steps to conduct a formative assessment

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

© 2024 Serve Learn. Sitemap | Web Design by Digileads

• Conference Presentations
• Keynote Addresses
• Upcoming Events
• Collaboration

Integrated Education and Learning pp 337–354 Cite as

Education of Integrated Science: Discussions on Importance and Teaching Approaches

• Kaan Bati 3  
• First Online: 02 January 2023

596 Accesses

Part of the book series: Integrated Science ((IS,volume 13))

The economic and technological development of societies depends on the training of students who can make connections between daily life and science issues and have problem-solving skills. Integrated science education supports the holistic development of the student’s personality by establishing a relationship between school and real life. Although there are different approaches, it is understood that all approaches to integrated science are more effective than the traditional single discipline-based approach for the student to learn. This chapter discusses the importance of integrated science education, teaching approaches at the K-12 level, and the skills that need to be emphasized to answer this question. An integrated science teaching program based on the transdisciplinary approach is exemplified as well.

Graphical Abstract/Art Performance

Transdisciplinary teaching process.

• Computational thinking
• Creative thinking
• Critical thinking
• Integrated science education
• Interdisciplinarity
• Multidisciplinarity
• Transdisciplinarity

Science is the only true guide in life . Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Ananiadou K, Claro M (2009) 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, 41, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154

Rotherham AJ, Willingham DT (2010) 21st-century skills, not new, but worthy challenge. American Educator, Spring, 17–20

Google Scholar  

OECD (2019) PISA 2018 results (volume I): what students know and can do. OECD Publishing, Paris, PISA

Book   Google Scholar  

Leung WLA (2006) Teaching integrated curriculum: teachers’ challenges. Pacific Asian Educ 18(1):88–102

Lipson M, Valencia S, Wixson K, Peters C (1993) Integration and thematic teaching: integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts 70(4):252–264

Yager RE, Lutz MV (1994) Integrated science: the importance of “how” versus “what.” Sch Sci Math 94:338–346

Article   Google Scholar  

Harrell PE (2010) Teaching an integrated science curriculum: linking teacher knowledge and teaching assignments. Issues Teacher Educ 19(1):145–165

Henriksen D (2011) We teach who we are: creativity and trans-disciplinary thinking in the practices of accomplished teachers. Michigan State University, Educational psychology and educational technology

Henriksen D (2014) Full STEAM ahead: creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. STEAM J 1(2):1–7

Henriksen D (2016) The seven transdisciplinary habits of mind of creative teachers: an exploratory study of award winning teachers. Think Skills Creativity 22:212–232

Zeidler DL, Keefer M (2003) The role of moral reasoning and the status of socio-scientific issues in science education: philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In Zeidler DL (ed) The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education. Kluwer Academic Press, The Netherlands

Sadler TD (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: a critical review of research. J Res Sci Teach 41(5):513–536

Zeidler DL, Sadler TL, Simmons ML, Howes EV (2005) Beyond STS: a research based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Sci Educ 89(3):357–377

Walker AK, Zeidler LD (2007) Promoting discourse about socio-scientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. Int J Sci Educ 29(11):1387–1410

Yetisir MI, Kaptan F (2008) STS from a historical perspective and its reflection on the curricula in Turkey. Int J Environ Sci Educ 3(1):3–8

Olson S, Labov J (2014) STEM learning is everywhere: summary of a convocation on building learning systems. National Academies Press

Bybee RW (2013) The case for STEM education: challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press, Arlington, Virginia

Dugger WE (2010) Evolution of STEM in the United States (Paper). In: Australia: 6th bi-ennial international conference on technology education research

Öner AT, Capraro RM (2016) Is STEM academy designation synonymous with higher student achievement? Educ Sci 41(185):1–17

Brush T, Saye J (2000) Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: a case study. Educ Tech Res Dev 48(3):79–100

Nadelson LS, Seifert AL (2017) Integrated STEM defined: contexts, challenges, and the future. J Educ Res 110(3):221–223

Jon JE, Chung HI (2013) Consultant report securing Australia’s future STEM: country comparisons-STEM Report Republic of Korea

Papanikolaou K (2010) Introducing robotics to teachers and schools: experiences from the terecop project. Constructivism, Paris. Available via http://hermes.di.uoa.gr/frangou/papers/eurologo%202010.pdf

Resnick M, Silverman B (2005) Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children (IDC ‘05), pp 117–122

Perignat E, Katz-Buonincontro J (2019) STEAM in practice and research: an integrative literature review. Thinking Skills Creativity 31:31–43

Armknecht MP (2015) Case study on the efficacy of an elementary STEAM laboratory school. A Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education School of Education

Csorba C (2013) Design and delivery of a training program for teachers in primary education: interdisciplinary organization for key competences training for young schoolchildren, from pre-school class to class IV. Procedia Social Behav Sci 76:285–290

Helmane I, Briška I (2017) What is developing integrated or interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary education in school? Signum Temporis 9(1):7–15

Drake SM, Burns RC (2004) Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. ASCD

Collin A (2009) Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration: Implications for vocational psychology. Int J Educ Vocat Guidance 9(2):101–110

Slatin C, Galizzi M, Melillo KD, Mawn B, Phase In Healthcare Team (2004) Conducting interdisciplinary research to promote healthy and safe employment in health care: promises and pitfalls. Publ Health Rep 119:60–72

Fawcett J (2013) Thoughts about multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research. Nurs Sci Q 26(4):376–379

Pruitt SL (2014) The next generation science standards: the features and challenges. J Sci Teacher Educ 25(2):145–156

Choi BCK, Pak AWP (2006) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy. 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 29:351–364

Boix-Mansilla V (2010) Learning to synthesize: the development of interdisciplinary understanding. In: Frodeman R, Thomson-Klein J, Mitcham C, Holbrook JB (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 288–306

Kidron A, Kali Y (2015) Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Res Learn Technol 23

Çorlu MS, Capraro RM, Capraro MM (2014) Introducing STEM education: implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Educ Sci 39(171):74–85

Liao C (2016) From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: an arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Educ 69(6):44–49

Costantino T (2018) STEAM by another name: transdisciplinary practice in art and design education. Arts Educ Policy Rev 119(2):100–106

Awang H, Ramly I (2008) Creative thinking skill approach through problem-based learning: pedagogy and practice in the engineering classroom. Int J Human Social Sci 3(1):18–23

Isaksen SG, Lauer KJ, Ekvall G, Britz A (2001) Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creat Res J 13(2):171–184

Alves J, Marques MJ, Saur I, Marques P (2007) Creativity and innovation through multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation. Creativity Innov Manage 16(1):27–34

Ward TB, Smith SM, Vaid JE (1997) Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes. American Psychological Association, pp xv-567

Cevik M (2018) From STEM to STEAM in ancient age architecture. World J Educ Technol Current Issues 10(4):52–71

Martinsen QL (2011) The creative personality: a synthesis and development of the creative person profile. Creat Res J 23(3):185–202

Selby EC, Shaw EJ, Houtz JC (2005) The creative personality. Gifted Child Quart 49(4):300–314

Weisberg RW (2006) Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Wiley

Spooner M (2004) Generating integration and complex understanding: exploring the use of creative thinking tools within interdisciplinary studies. Issues Integr Stud 22:85–111

SoonBeom K, Dongsoo N, TaeWuk L (2011) The Effects of Convergence Education based STEAM on Elementary School Students’ Creative Personality. T. Hirashima et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computers in Education. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education

Sousa DA, Pilecki T (2013) From STEM to STEAM: Using brain-compatible strategies to integrate the arts. Corwin Press.

Bailin S (2002) Critical thinking and science education. Sci Educ 11(4):361–375

Sternberg RJ (1986) Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement. National Institute of Education. Available via http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED272882.pdf

Ennis RH (1985) A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educ Leaders 43(2):44–48

Norris SP (1989) Can we test validly for critical thinking? Educ Res 18(9):21–26

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. The California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Willingham DT (2007) Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? Am Educ 31(3):8–19

Paul RW (1992) Critical thinking: what, why, and how? New Directions Commun Colleges 1992(77):3–24

Case R (2005) Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Educ Can 45(2):45–49

Ennis RH (1991) Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teach Philos 14(1):5–24

Lai ER (2011) Critical thinking: a literature review. Pearson’s Res Rep 6:40–41

Bailin S, Case R, Coombs JR, Daniels LB (1999) Conceptualizing critical thinking. J Curric Stud 31(3):285–302

Facione PA (2000) The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic 20(1):61–84

Ruggiero VR (1988) Teaching thinking across the curriculum. Harper & Row

Pithers RT, Soden R (2000) Critical thinking in education: a review. Educ Res 42(3):237–249

Grover S, Pea R (2013) Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):38–43

Knuth DE (1985) Algorithmic thinking and mathematical thinking. Am Math Mon 92(3):170–181

Denning PJ (2009) Beyond computational thinking. Commun ACM 52(6):28–30

Barr D, Harrison J, Conery L (2011) Computational thinking: a digital age skill for everyone. Learn Lead Technol 38(6):20–23

Wing JM (2008) Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Phil Trans R Soc 366:3717–3725

Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35

Weintrop D, Beheshti E, Horn MS, Orton K, Jona K, Trouille L, Wilensky U (2014) Defining computational thinking for science, technology, engineering, and math. In: Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association (AERA 2014), Philadelphia. Available via http://ccl.northwestern.edu/2014/CT-STEM_AERA_2014.pdf

Yadav A, Zhou N, Mayfield C, Hambrusch SE, Korb JT (2011) Introducing computational thinking in education. In: Proceeding SIGCSE ‘11 proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, pp 465–470

Fraillon J, Ainley J, Schulz W, Friedman T, Duckworth D (2019) Preparing for life in a digital world: the IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 international report. IEA, Amsterdam

Huntley MA (1998) Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. Sch Sci Math 98(6):320–327

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaan Bati .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Stockholm, Sweden

Nima Rezaei

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Bati, K. (2022). Education of Integrated Science: Discussions on Importance and Teaching Approaches. In: Rezaei, N. (eds) Integrated Education and Learning. Integrated Science, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15963-3_19

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15963-3_19

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-15962-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-15963-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Acknowledgements

Introduction

• List of Authors
• Author Index
• I. Definitions and History
• 1. The Proper Way to Become an Instructional Technologist
• 2. What Is This Thing Called Instructional Design?
• 3. History of LIDT
• 4. A Short History of the Learning Sciences
• 5. LIDT Timeline
• 6. Programmed Instruction
• 7. Edgar Dale and the Cone of Experience
• 8. Twenty Years of EdTech
• II. Learning and Instruction
• 10. Intelligence
• 11. Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism
• 12. Sociocultural Perspectives of Learning
• 13. Learning Communities
• 14. Communities of Innovation
• 15. Motivation Theories and Instructional Design
• 16. Motivation Theories on Learning
• 17. Informal Learning
• 18. Overview of Problem-Based Learning
• 19. Connectivism
• 20. An Instructional Theory for the Post-Industrial Age
• 21. Using the First Principles of Instruction to Make Instruction Effective, Efficient, and Engaging
• III. Design
• 22. Instructional Design Models
• 23. Design Thinking and Agile Design
• 24. What and how do designers design?
• 25. The Development of Design-Based Research
• 26. A Survey of Educational Change Models
• 27. Performance Technology
• 28. Defining and Differentiating the Makerspace
• 29. User Experience Design
• IV. Technology and Media
• 30. United States National Educational Technology Plan
• 31. Technology Integration in Schools
• 32. K-12 Technology Frameworks
• 33. What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge?
• 34. The Learner-Centered Paradigm of Education
• 35. Distance Learning
• 36. Old Concerns with New Distance Education Research
• 37. Open Educational Resources
• 38. The Value of Serious Play
• 39. Video Games and the Future of Learning
• 40. Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics
• 41. Opportunities and Challenges with Digital Open Badges
• V. Becoming an LIDT Professional
• 42. The Moral Dimensions of Instructional Design
• 43. Creating an Intentional Web Presence
• 44. Where Should Educational Technologists Publish Their Research?
• 45. Rigor, Influence, and Prestige in Academic Publishing
• 46. Educational Technology Conferences
• 47. Networking at Conferences
• 48. PIDT, the Important Unconference for Academics
• VI. Preparing for an LIDT Career
• 49. What Are the Skills of an Instructional Designer?
• 50. Careers in Academia: The Secret Handshake
• 51. Careers in K-12 Education
• 52. Careers in Museum Learning
• 53. Careers in Consulting
• Final Reading Assignment
• Index of Topics
• Translations

Technology Integration in Schools

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Editor’s Note

The following is a prepublication version of an article originally published in the fourth edition of the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology [https://edtechbooks.org/-Ln] .

Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 841–853). Springer New York.

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

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 mandated an emphasis on technology integration in all areas of K–12 education, from reading and mathematics to science and special education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). This mandate was reinforced in the U.S. Department of Education’s (2010) National Education Technology Plan. Under current legislation, education leaders at the state and local levels are expected to develop plans to effectively utilize educational technologies in the classroom. The primary goal of federal education legislation is to improve student academic achievement, measured primarily by student performance on state standardized tests. Secondary goals include the expectation that every student become technologically literate, that research-based technology-enhanced instructional methods and best practices be established, and that teachers be encouraged and trained to effectively integrate technology into the instruction they provide. The directive to integrate instructional technology into the teaching and learning equation results from the following fundamental beliefs: (1) that learning can be enhanced through the use of technology and (2) that students need to develop technology skills in order to become productive members of society in a competitive global economy (McMillan-Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

By most measures, the quality and availability of educational technology in schools, along with the technological literacy of teachers and students, have increased significantly in the past decade (Center for Digital Education, 2008; Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010; McMillan-Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005; Nagel, 2010; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). In addition, educators are generally committed to technology use. Most educational practitioners value technology to some degree, yet many researchers and policy analysts have suggested that technology is not being used to its full advantage (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Woolfe, 2010). Even at technology-rich schools, effective integration of technology into the instructional process is rare (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010). To fully understand this criticism requires in-depth consideration of the goals and criteria used for evaluating technology integration.

Most efforts to integrate technology into schools have the stated goal of appropriate and effective use of technology (Center for Digital Education, 2008; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008; Niederhauser & Lindstrom, 2006; Richey, Silber, & Ely, 2008); however, many current efforts have focused predominantly on gaining access to and increasing the extent of technology use. For example, in 1995 Moersch provided an extremely useful framework describing levels of technology integration—a tool which is still being used (see http://loticonnection.com). Like other indicators, the Levels of Teaching Innovation (LoTi) Framework tends to rely on access to and pervasive innovative use of instructional technology as an indicator of the highest level of technology integration and literacy. To some degree frameworks of this type assume that using technology will in itself be beneficial and effective. Clearly, effective and appropriate use of technology does not happen if students do not have access to learning technologies and do not use them for educational purposes; however, pervasive technology use does not always mean that technology is being used effectively or appropriately, nor does pervasive use of technology necessarily lead to increased learning. The field of adaptive technologies is one area where educational technology holds much promise. It is widely believed that intelligent tutoring systems could be used to enhance a teacher’s ability to teach and test students, but advances in this area have failed to produce the same kinds of formative and diagnostic feedback that teachers provide (Woolfe, 2010). As a result, recent efforts to identify appropriate and effective uses for technology have focused more on the pedagogically sound use of technology to accomplish specific learning objectives (see for example, Koehler & Mishra, 2008).

To better orient our understanding and evaluation of technology integration efforts at both classroom and individual levels, integration might best be viewed as progressive steps toward effective use of technology for the purposes of improving instruction and enhancing learning. The current status of technology integration efforts could then be evaluated by the degree to which teachers and students (1) have access to educational technologies, (2) use technology for instructional purposes, and (3) implement technology effectively to facilitate learning (Davies, 2011). After first defining technology and technology integration, this chapter uses this framework for understanding and evaluating current technology integration efforts in schools, along with the challenges associated with technology integration.

Defining Technology and Technology Integration

Efforts to describe and critique current use of technology must recognize that not everyone shares a common understanding of what technology is and what technology integration means. For many, technology is synonymous with computer equipment, software, and other electronic devices (U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Woolfe, 2010), while technology integration means having and using this equipment in the classroom. However, these definitions are rather narrow. Interpreting technology integration to mean simply having access to computers, computer software, and the Internet has led critics to identify the mandate to integrate technology into schools as a simplistic solution to a complicated endeavor (Bahrampour, 2006; Cuban, 2006a; Warschauer & Ames, 2010). Similarly, defining technology simply as electronic devices tends to place an unwarranted emphasis on using digital technologies in schools regardless of the merits for doing so (Davies, Sprague, & New, 2008). However, most technology integration efforts do intentionally focus on attempting to establish innovative and creative best practices as they progress in gaining access to new and developing digital technologies (ISTE, 2008; Woolfe, 2010).

For this analysis we define technology integration as the effective implementation of educational technology to accomplish intended learning outcomes. We consider educational technology to be any tool, piece of equipment, or device—electronic or mechanical—that can be used to help students accomplish specified learning goals (Davies, Sprague, & New, 2008). Educational technology includes both instructional technologies, which focus on technologies teachers employ to provide instruction, and learning technologies, which focus on technologies learners use to accomplish specific learning objectives.

Increasing Access to Educational Technology

Teachers find it particularly challenging, if not impossible, to integrate technology when the technologies they would like to use are either not available or not easily accessible to them or their students (Ely, 1999). Fortunately, by most measures the availability of technology in schools has increased significantly in the past decade (Bausell, 2008). In 2009 Gray, Thomas, and Lewis (2010) conducted a nationally representative survey of 2,005 public schools across 50 states. A total of 4133 surveys were administered with a response rate 65%. From these results they estimated that 97% of teachers in the U.S. had access to one or more computers in their classroom every day (a ratio of approximately five students per computer on average). In addition, these authors reported that 93% of schools had access to the Internet.

However, 60% of teachers providing data for this report also indicated that they and their students did not often use computers in the classroom during instructional time. In fact, 29% of the teacher respondents reporting daily access to one or more computers also reported that they rarely or never used computers for instructional purposes. A study conducted by Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker (2010) suggested that teachers most frequently use the computer technology they had for administrative purposes (e.g., record keeping), personal productivity (e.g., locating and creating resources), and communicating with staff and parents. Students’ use of technology most often for information gathering (i.e., internet searches) or for completing tasks more efficiently by using a specific technology (e.g., word processing, cloud-based computing) (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Davies, Sprague, & New, 2008; Stucker, 2005).

Thus while the availability of technology in schools may have increased in recent years, measures of access likely provide an overoptimistic indicator of technology integration. In fact, some feel that for a variety of reasons the current level of technology access in schools is far too uneven and generally inadequate to make much of an impact (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Toch & Tyre, 2010). While some question the wisdom and value of doing so (Cuban, 2006b; Warschauer & Ames, 2010), many believe we must strengthen our commitment to improving access to technology by making it an educational funding priority (O’Hanlon, 2009; Livingston, 2008).

One-to-one Computing Initiatives

The primary purpose of one-to-one computing initiatives is to increase access to technology in schools. Essentially this means providing each teacher and student in a school with individual access to an internet-enabled computer or to a laptop (tablet PC or mobile computing device) for use both in the classroom and at home (Center for Digital Education, 2005). Such access implies that schools would also provide and maintain the infrastructure needed to support these technologies (i.e., networking and internet access). While the number of these programs has increased worldwide, growth has been slow, largely due to the cost of implementation and maintenance (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Greaves & Hayes, 2008; Livingston, 2008). In practice, major one-to-one computing programs in the U.S. require large federal or state grants, which are often directed at Title I schools in areas characterized by high academic risk (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010). Often these programs partner with equipment providers to alleviate implementation costs (including training and support) as well as maintaining and upgrading equipment. These partnerships have resulted in several pockets of technology-rich schools around the nation, some of which have demonstrated excellence in integrating technology effectively. More often one-to-one computing programs have provided equipment to schools, but students’ access to it could not be considered ubiquitous, nor has having access to more computer equipment dramatically changed the instruction in most classrooms (Penuel, 2006; Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).

Evidence of academic impact that can be attributed to one-to-one computing initiatives has been mixed. A few studies have provided evidence that infusing technology into the classroom has closed the achievement gap and increased academic performance (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010; Zucker & Light, 2009); however, Cuban (2006b) reported that most studies have shown little academic benefit in these areas, and Vigdor and Ladd (2010) suggested that providing ubiquitous computer access to all students may actually widen the achievement gap.

Other studies have suggested that additional benefits derived from technology integration might include increased access to information, increased motivation of students to complete their studies, and better communication between teachers and students (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Zucker; 2005). However, such studies often referred to the “potential” technology has for increasing learning, acknowledging that any scholastic benefit technology might produce depends on factors other than simply having access to technology (Center for Digital Education, 2008; McMillan-Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005; Woolfe, 2010).

Open Educational Resources

An important factor associated with access is the issue of educational resource availability: i.e., having access to technological tools without access to the educational resources needed to utilize those tools effectively. Much of the current work in this area has focused on developing research-based instructional resources such as online courses and instructional materials that can be used in the classroom to improve student achievement. This can be costly and time consuming. Facing budget cuts and restrictions in funding, many schools need freer access to educational resources.

The Open Educational Resource (OER) movement is a worldwide initiative providing free educational resources intended to facilitate teaching and learning processes (Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007). A few examples of OER initiatives include the OpenCourseWare Consortium (www.ocwconsortium.org), the Open Educational Resources Commons (www.oercommons.org), and the Open Learning Initiative (oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning), along with Creative Commons (creativecommons.org), which provides the legal mechanism for sharing resources. Since one of the largest impediments to technology integration has been cost (Greaves & Hayes, 2008), some policy analysts have identified the need to provide free educational resources as essential to the success of any technology integration mandate; but this idea has been controversial because it means individuals must be willing to create and provide quality educational resources without compensation. Wiley (2007) has pointed out that as the OER movement is currently an altruistic endeavor with no proven cost recovery mechanism, the real costs associated with producing, storing, and distributing resources in a format that operates equally well across various hardware and operating system platforms constitute a sustainability challenge for the OER movement. The topic of open education is discussed more completely in another chapter of this handbook.

Increasing Instructional Technology Use

Even when schools have adequate access to educational technologies, teachers and students do not always use them for instructional purposes. Efforts to improve technology use in schools have typically focused on professional development for teachers. In addition, both social and moral ethical issues have been raised.

Professional Development as a Method for Increasing Technology Use

Much of the research on increasing technology use in schools has focused on training those preparing to become teachers, although discussions regarding professional development for current classroom teachers are becoming more common. Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) suggested that most professional development in technology for teachers uses one of five models: (a) software-focused initiatives, (b) demonstrations of sample resources, lessons, and projects, (c) technology-based educational reform efforts, (d) structured/standardized professional development workshops or courses, or (e) technology-focused teacher education courses. According to these authors, there is, as yet, very little conclusive evidence that any of these models has been successful in substantially increasing the effective use of technology as measured by increased learning outcomes. Research on technology integration training for teachers has typically focused on either (a) the effectiveness of the professional development training methods or (b) the desired objectives of the professional development.

Technology Integration Professional Development Methods

Many methods have been utilized to provide professional development to teachers on technology integration issues. We highlight three methods on which the research evidence seems strongest: (a) developing technological skills, (b) increasing support through collaborative environments; and (c) providing increased mentoring.

Skill Development Using Technology

Some scholars have focused on using technology to mediate professional development. Technology integration practices are modeled by using blogs and other forms of internet communication (Chuang, 2010; Cook-Sather, 2007; Gibson & Kelland, 2009); video-based self-assessment (Calandra, Brantley-Dias, Lee, & Fox, 2009; West et al., 2009); electronic portfolios (Derham & DiPerna, 2007); and individual response systems (Cheesman, Winograd, & Wehr, 2010). These approaches are intended to help teachers gain experience and confidence with technology, as well as provide them with models for how it might be used effectively.

Collaborative Environments

Other scholars have found that increasing collaboration among teachers learning to integrate technology can improve professional development outcomes. In an article on technology integration, MacDonald (2008) wrote that “to effect lasting educational change” collaboration for teachers needs to be facilitated in “authentic teacher contexts” (p. 431). Hur and Brush (2009) added that professional development needs to emphasize the ability of teachers to share their emotions as well as knowledge. Most collaborative environments typically only emphasize knowledge sharing when emotion sharing may be linked to effective professional development.

An increasingly popular medium for enabling this collaboration and development of emotional safety is online discussions and social networking. While this trend needs more research, positive effects have been indicated. For example, Vavasseur and MacGregor (2008) found that online communities provided better opportunities for teacher sharing and reflection, improving curriculum-based knowledge and technology integration self-efficacy. Also, Borup, West, and Graham (2012) found that using video technologies to mediate class discussions helped students feel more connected to their instructor and peers.

Similar to research on teacher collaboration, some scholars have discussed the important role of mentoring in helping teachers gain technology integration skills. Kopcha (2010) described a systems approach to professional development emphasizing communities of practice and shifting mentoring responsibilities throughout various stages of the technology integration adoption process. Kopcha’s model was designed to reduce some of the costs associated with teacher mentoring—a common criticism of the method. In addition, Gentry, Denton, and Kurtz (2008) found in their review of the literature on technology-based mentoring that while these approaches were not highly used, technology can support mentoring and improve teachers’ technology integration attitudes and practices. The authors noted however that many of these effects were self-reported, and not substantiated through direct observation, nor was there any evidence of subsequent effect on student learning outcomes.

Goals of Technology Integration Professional Development

In addition to a variety of methods and approaches to providing professional development on technology integration issues, researchers have found that the goals and objectives of the professional development have also varied. Perhaps the most common objective has been to change teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration in an effort to get them to use technology more often (e.g., Annetta et al., 2008; Lambert, Gong, & Cuper, 2008; McCaughtry & Dillon, 2008; Rickard, McAvinia, & Quirke-Bolt, 2009). This has included efforts to change teachers’ ability to use specific technologies (through skill development) and thereby to improve their technology integration self-efficacy (e.g., Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008). It also included changing teachers’ attitudes regarding the pedagogical value of using technology in the classroom (Bai & Ertmer, 2008; Ma, Lu, Turner, and Wan, 2007). In many of these studies, increasing positive teacher attitudes was seen not only as a way to increase technology use but as an important and necessary step towards increasing effective technology integration (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Palak & Walls, 2009).

Ethical Issues Affecting Increased Technology Use

Because education is a human, and thus a moral, endeavor (Osguthorpe, Osguthorpe, Jacob, & Davies, 2003), ethical issues frequently surface. Technology integration has caused major shifts in administrative and pedagogical strategies, thus creating a need for new definitions and ideas about ethical teaching and learning (Turner, 2005). Although some have cautioned that ethical issues should be considered before implementing technology-based assignments (Oliver, 2007), the pressure to increase access to and ubiquitous use of technology has often outpaced the necessary development of policies and procedures for its ethical use (Baum, 2005), creating challenges for administrators and teachers who are integrating it in schools. In many cases unintended negative consequences and ethical dilemmas have resulted from inappropriate use of technology, and addressing these issues has required that restrictions be applied. Scholars have specifically mentioned the issues related to technology-based academic dishonesty, the challenges of technology accessibility for all students, and the necessity for developing standards for ethical technology use.

Technology-based Academic Dishonesty

According to Akbulut et al. (2008), the most common examples of academic dishonesty include fraudulence, plagiarism, falsification, delinquency, and unauthorized help. Lin (2007) adds copyright infringement and learner privacy issues to the list of unethical behaviors. Many researchers have discussed the potential for technology to increase these kinds of academic dishonesty and unethical behaviors. Of concern to many teachers is that technology provides easy access to information, giving students more opportunities to cheat (Akbulut, et al., 2008; Chiesl, 2007). King, Guyette, and Piotrowski (2009) found that the vast majority of undergraduate business students in their study considered it easier to cheat online than in a traditional classroom setting. Scholars also believed that the increasingly social and collaborative nature of the Web creates a greater acceptance of cheating by students (Ma, Lu, Turner, & Wan, 2007). Baum (2005) reported, “Many computer-savvy kids as well as educators, administrators and parents are unclear about what is and what is not ethical when dealing with the World Wide Web” (p. 54). Greater opportunities and relaxed attitudes about cheating have led to issues of plagiarism, among other challenges (de Jagar & Brown, 2010; Samuels & Blast, 2006). However, other research has contradicted these conclusions, arguing that online learning does not necessarily facilitate greater dishonesty. For example, Stuber-McEwen, Wiseley, and Hoggatt (2009) surveyed 225 students and found that students enrolled in online classes were less likely to cheat than those in regular classes, leaving the question of whether the online medium facilitates greater cheating still unanswered.

Accessibility

Accessibility of educational technologies has been recognized as one of the most prominent ethical concerns facing schools (Lin, 2007). In support of this notion, Garland (2010) suggested that one of the school principal’s most important roles is ensuring ethical technology use and guarding against inequities in technology access between groups of students. However scholars are not consistent on how accessibility might be a problem. Traxler (2010), for example, has suggested that unequal access to technology creates a digital divide that can impede the social progress of some student groups, contributing to a potential nightmare for institutions. In contrast, Vigdor & Ladd (2010) pointed out that providing all students with ubiquitous access to educational technology would increase not decrease the achievement gap. In addition to enabling all student groups to have access to the same educational technologies, institutions must also increase access to assistive technologies for students with disabilities (Dyal, Carpenter, & Wright, 2009).

Developing Ethical Use Behaviors

A quick search of the internet using the keywords “appropriate technology use policy” reveals a plethora of documents from schools stipulating the expectation that students use technology for appropriate educational purposes only. Although technology has the potential to benefit students in their educational pursuits, making technology ubiquitously available to students and teachers has the obvious risk that technology will be used inappropriately on occasion. Thus most K-12 schools find it necessary, as a moral imperative, to monitor Internet use and restrict student access to this technology and the information the technology may provide.

Researchers have suggested several possible methods for developing students’ ability to use technologies more ethically. Bennett (2005) suggested using the National Education Technology Standards (NETS•S) as a guide (see ISTE 2008b); however, while instructive, these standards are not specific enough to inform direct strategies. Including ethical training in teacher professional development has also been explored (Ben-Jacob, 2005; Duncan & Barnett, 2010). Some academics feel it is the teacher’s responsibility to create a safe and ethical learning environment with and without technology (Bennet, 2005; Milson, 2002). Several researchers have suggested classroom strategies for teachers. For example, Kruger (2003) recommended teaching by example and working cyber ethics into assignments and discussions. Baum (2005) echoed these ideas, adding that teachers should create acceptable use policies with students and involve them in making pledges concerning their ethical behavior. Ma, Lu, Turner, and Wan (2007) added that effectively designed activities that are engaging and relevant to students’ interests encourage more ethical technology use. Still other scholars have suggested using technology to combat technological-based dishonesty through anti-plagiarism software (Jocoy & DiBiase, 2006) or the use of webcams to verify that online students who complete the work are the same students enrolled in the courses (Saunders, Wenzel, & Stivason, 2008). In addition, instructors can make it a personal goal to stay abreast of technological developments and their potential ethical implications (Howell, Sorensen, & Tippets, 2009). Finally, some researchers have suggested building a supportive social community characterized by a culture of academic honesty (Ma, Lu, Turner, & Wan, 2007; Wang, 2008) because “students who feel disconnected from others may be prone to engage in deceptive behaviors such as academic dishonesty” (Stuber-McEwen et al., 2009, p. 1).

Despite the concern expressed and implied in these suggestions, it is apparent that as a society we have been slow in developing the ethics, norms, and cultural practices needed to keep pace with technological advances (Traxler, 2010), leaving many teachers unaware of proper “technoethics” (Pascual, 2005, p. 73). As we continue to increase access to and use of technologies, it will become paramount to address these and other ethical considerations if we are to succeed in promoting effective and sustainable technology integration.

Increasing Effective Use of Technology

Researchers have reported that even when teachers and students have sufficient access to educational technologies, adequate training in technology use, and confidence in their abilities to apply it, not all of them actually use technology in the classroom, and those who do may not always use it effectively (Choy, Wong, & Gao, 2009; Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010; Van Dam, Becker & Simpson, 2007; Woolfe, 2010; Zhao, 2007). For example Choy, Wong, and Gao (2009) found that student teachers who had received technology integration training indicated they were more likely to use technology in their classrooms; but in practice they used technology in teacher-centered functions rather than in more effective student-centered pedagogies.

The complex and dynamic nature of the teaching and learning process contributes to the difficulty of effective technology integration. For example, experts and stakeholders do not always agree on what to teach and how to teach it (Woolfe, 2010). Also given the complexity of most educational tasks, the certainty of accomplishing specific learning goals with or without technology is often low (Patton, 2011). Thus establishing research-based technology-enhanced instructional methods and best practices is challenging. However, emerging research into the effective use of technology has identified some best practices by considering issues such as (1) the need to focus on pedagogically-sound technology use, (2) ways to use technology to personalize instruction, and (3) benefits of technology-enabled assessment. An additional area of concern is the need for systemic changes at the organizational level.

Need for Pedagogically Sound Technology Integration Practices

A major criticism of current teacher professional development efforts is that many of them have emphasized improving teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration and increasing their self-efficacy without a strong enough emphasis on pedagogically sound practice. Some scholars have indicated that professional development goals must shift to emphasize understanding and utilizing pedagogically sound technology practices (Inan & Lowther, 2010). For example, Palak, and Walls (2009) explained that “future technology professional development efforts need to focus on integration of technology into curriculum via student-centered pedagogy while attending to multiple contextual conditions under which teacher practice takes place” (p. 417). Similarly, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) argued that “we need to help teachers understand how to use technology to facilitate meaningful learning, defined as that which enables students to construct deep and connected knowledge, which can be applied to real situations” (p. 257). According to Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2010), to achieve technology integration that targets student learning, teachers need to identify which technologies support specific curricular goals. Doing so would require understanding the technological tools themselves, as well as the specific affordances of each tool that would enable students to learn difficult concepts more readily, hopefully resulting in greater and more meaningful student outcomes (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

An emerging framework for professional development technology integration that attempts to help teachers focus more on learning is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). This framework is discussed elsewhere in this handbook, but it is worth mentioning here in that it has been proposed as a guiding framework for training teachers and evaluating effective technology integration efforts (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). Mishra and Koehler (2009; see also Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007) developed the concept of TPACK as a specific type of knowledge necessary for successful teaching with technology. TPACK is the intersection of three knowledge areas that individual educators might possess: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge. Teachers are expected to be knowledgeable in pedagogical issues related to teaching and learning (PK). They are also required to have in-depth content knowledge of the subjects they are to teach (CK). In addition, they are expected to have technological knowledge in general (TK), along with an understanding of how specific technologies might facilitate student learning of specific content in a pedagogically sound way (TPCK). TPACK proponents argue that teachers must understand the connections between these knowledge areas so that instructional decisions regarding technology integration are pedagogically sound and content driven.

Since TPACK emerged as a theoretical framework, researchers have explored its potential professional development applications (Cavin, 2008), as well as ways to assess teachers’ abilities and skills in this area (Kang, Wu, Ni, & Li, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009). However, work in this area is still ongoing, and methods and principles for creating effective TPACK-related professional development and measurement should continue to develop as an area of research.

Need for Technology-enabled Personalized Instruction

Most educators hope to personalize instruction for their students, which generally includes identifying the needs and capabilities of individual learners; providing flexibility in scheduling, assignments, and pacing; and making instruction relevant and meaningful for the individual student (Keefe, 2007). The goal of personalizing instruction usually means rejecting the “one size fits all” model of education and replacing it with customized instruction. The idea of personalized or differentiated instruction is not new (Keefe & Jenkins, 2002; Tomlinson, 2003); however the potential for technology to facilitate differentiation is appealing to many educators (Woolfe, 2010).

Many factors are required for technology-enabled personalized instruction to become a reality. Access to the mobile devices needed for ubiquitous individualized instruction would need to be more prevalent (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kemker, 2008; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Nagel, 2010). And few of the many existing educational software programs are designed to provide differentiated instruction, monitor student progress, and assess student achievement on a comprehensive set of learning objectives (Fletcher & Lu, 2009; Ross & Lowther, 2009).

Critics of educational initiatives that use technology as a primary means of instruction contend that computers do not teach as well as human beings (Kose, 2009; Owusua, Monneyb, Appiaha, & Wilmota, 2010). We do not have the type of artificial intelligence needed to replicate all that teachers do when providing instruction (Woolfe, 2010). However, hybrid courses (blended learning) are now utilizing technology (like intelligent tutoring systems) but maintaining face-to-face aspects of the traditional classroom (Jones & Graham, 2010; Yang, 2010).

Much of the educational software currently being used in schools focuses on content delivery (with some pacing flexibility and assessment) or on knowledge management systems using information communication technology, but not necessarily customization that tailors instruction to the individual needs of the learner. Computer software used in K-12 education has primarily involved drill and practice for developing reading and mathematics skills (i.e., computer-based instructional products). Improving basic word processing skills (i.e., typing) is also a prevalent technology-facilitated instructional activity taking place in schools (Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010). These educational software programs are intended to supplement the work of teachers rather than replacing them and are typically not integrated directly into classroom instruction.

Some intelligent tutoring systems (also called intelligent computer-assisted instruction or integrated learning systems) have been studied and made available to schools (Conati, 2009; Lowther & Ross, 2012; Vandewaetere, Desmet, & Clarebout, 2011; Yang, 2010). These systems have been designed to customize instruction for individual students, but many challenges are involved with their use (Conati, 2009; Yang, 2010). They are not widely implemented in schools, as many are in a developmental stage, are limited in scope, and are quite expensive (Conati, 2009; Cooper, 2010; Lowther & Ross, 2012; Yang, 2010). In most cases they attempt to differentiate instruction but fail to rise to the level of adaptive intelligent tutors. The current efforts to personalize instruction with technology have focused on managing learning (e.g., providing instruction, practice, and summative testing) because programming intelligent formative and diagnostic assessment and feedback into these systems has proven to be a daunting challenge (Woolfe, 2010).

Need for Technology-enabled Assessment

Assessment is an important aspect of differentiated instruction that can be strengthened by technology. The primary focus of summative standardized testing in schools has been accountability (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009); but the true power of assessment is obtaining diagnostic and formative information about individuals that can be used to customize instruction and remediation (Cizek, 2010a; Keefe, 2007; Marzano, 2009). For this critical purpose, technology has the potential to be extremely valuable.

Summative Assessment and Accountability Efforts

Since 2002 the cost of testing in schools has increased significantly (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009). Testing costs result primarily from accountability mandates that emphasize increased achievement on state standardized tests. With the current imperative to adopt common core standards and establish national online standardized testing in the U.S., the need for technology-enabled assessment will only increase (Toch & Tyre, 2010), including the use of computer-adaptive testing techniques and technologies. The major concern with these initiatives is that schools are not now, nor in the immediate future will they be, equipped to handle the requirements of large scale online testing in terms of access to computers and the internet, as well as the networking infrastructure needed (Deubel, 2010; Toch & Tyre, 2010).

Formative and Diagnostic Assessment Efforts

One of the greatest benefits of online testing is the potential for teachers and individual students to get immediate results (Deubel, 2010; Toch & Tyre, 2010). State standardized testing in its current form does little to improve learning for individual students, as the lag time between taking a test and receiving the results prevents the information from being useful. In addition, most standardized assessments are not designed to help individual students (Marzano, 2009). Embedding assessment into the learning activities for both formative and diagnostic purposes can be facilitated by using technology, but the ability to do this is at the emergent stage. Critics of technology-enabled assessment have pointed out that the tools required to accomplish this type of testing are far from adequate.

The desire to benefit from having computerized assessment systems in schools may be compromised by a lack of quality. For example, while assessment vendors claim high correlations between the results of computer-scored and human-scored writing tests (Elliot, 2003), critics have described serious flaws in the process (McCurry, 2010; Miller, 2009). Writing software using computer scoring can be programmed to identify language patterns, basic writing conventions, and usage issues; the software cannot, however, read for meaning, creativity, or logical argument (McCurry, 2010), which are more important aspects of literacy development. Thus the accuracy and validity of computer-scored writing assessments are suspect. At this time, schools using these technologies are forced into a tradeoff between quality assessment and practicality (Miller, 2009). However, computer-scored writing assessment is an area of great interest in schools.

Another criticism of current assessment trends relates to how tests are developed and used. Diagnostic formative assessments should be narrower in focus, more specific in content coverage, and more frequent than the summative standardized testing currently being mandated for accountability purposes (Cizek, 2010b; Marzano, 2009). For this type of testing to become a reality, students would need better access to personal computers or mobile devices, school networks, and the internet (Toch & Tyre, 2010). In addition, instructional software would have to be aligned with approved learning objectives (Cizek, 2010b). Assessment would need to be integrated into the learning process more thoroughly, with instructional software designed to monitor and test the progress of students and then provide prompt feedback to each individual learner (Marzano, 2009). We expect teachers to provide formative assessment and feedback to their students, but teachers are often overwhelmed by the task. Technology has the potential to facilitate learning by enabling this process, but greater advancements in this area are needed to make this a workable reality (Woolfe, 2010).

Need for Change at Systemic Level

While TPACK and other pedagogically driven technology integration efforts are an improvement in the drive towards more effective use of educational technologies, to focus on pedagogically sound technology use alone would be insufficient for lasting change. Many teachers and educational technologists have learned that even when teachers adopt technologies and learn how to use them in pedagogically appropriate ways, they are hampered in their integration efforts by the educational system. Thus as Sangra and Gonzalez-Sanmamed (2010) argued, true technology integration is possible only when systemic changes are made in the way we teach and provide education (see also Gunn, 2010). Teacher-level implementation of technology is not always the most significant predictor of student achievement. For example, Li (2010) found through observations and focus group interviews of students, teachers, and school stakeholders in a school in Hong Kong that changing teachers’ conceptions did not necessarily impact outcomes without an accompanying increase in “social trust, access to expertise, and social pressure” (p. 292) in a way that empowered the teachers to take risks and supported their pedagogical changes, suggesting a great need for social support for whatever educational initiative is being implemented. And Shapley et al. (2010) suggested that students’ use of laptops outside of school to complete learning tasks may be the strongest predictor of academic success. Thus, possibly the most important indicator of whether an educational initiative will be effective is the individual students’ desire and effort to learn (Davies, 2003).

The importance of social and organizational structures is further confirmed as many teachers and educational technologists have encountered barriers to effective implementation at the administrative, collegial, parental, or community level. As Marshall (2010) reported, based on evidence from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, “university culture and existing capability constrain such innovation and to a large extent determine the nature and extent of organizational change” (p. 179). Marshall also argued that without strong and supportive leadership, rather than being a catalyst for more effective instruction, educational technologies reinforced the status quo of existing beliefs and practices (see also, Ely, 1999). Similarly in their study of faculty adoption of course management technologies, West, Waddoups, and Graham (2007) found that the attitudes of peers, administrators, and even teaching assistants were often more influential than the perceived quality of the tool and the availability of technical support on campus.

Much discussion of systemic change is occurring in the field of educational communications technology. It appears that these efforts will become more critical as “educational performance based on the learning outcomes of formal schooling in a future knowledge society could be significantly different from that of today” (Kang, Heo, Jo, Shin, & Seo, 2010-2011, p. 157), requiring new and evolving uses of technologies, curriculum, and systems to facilitate these changes (Facer & Sandford, 2010).

We find it surprising that scholars appear to be lagging in this effort to understand systemic influences on technology integration. As Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, and Valcke (2008) reported, research on technology in schools is focused mostly on classroom rather than organizational variables. Additionally, there seems to be a major gap in the literature regarding the development of a technology integration framework that, like TPACK, is pedagogically driven but sensitive to systemic variables. We are unsure what an “organizational TPACK” model would look like, but we believe this to be a potentially fruitful research endeavor for the next decade.

Conclusions

Legislative mandates for schools to utilize educational technologies in classrooms are based on the belief that technology can improve instruction and facilitate learning. Another widely held belief is that students need to develop technology literacy and skills in order to become productive members of society in a competitive global economy. This chapter explored school technology integration efforts as progressive steps: increasing access to educational technologies, increasing ubiquitous technology use, and improving effective technology implementation.

Over the past decade, one-to-one computing programs have been the most prominent initiatives used to increase access to technology in schools. These initiatives are designed to increase the availability of primarily digital technologies and related software for teachers and students. The biggest access obstacle has been the cost of obtaining and maintaining technology resources. The Open Educational Resource (OER) movement is attempting to alleviate some of the cost associated with providing quality educational resources, but OER programs struggle with sustainability issues. The cost of providing and maintaining technology as well as the way federal programs fund technology initiatives have often resulted in uneven levels of access, creating pockets of technology-rich schools.

While technology availability in schools has increased significantly over the past decade, measures of access likely provide an overenthusiastic impression of progress in effective technology integration and use. Having greater access to and improved use of technology (i.e., computer and internet availability) has not always led to substantial increases in learning. Typically, studies refer to technology’s potential for increasing learning but acknowledge that any scholastic benefit depends on factors other than simply having technology access.

Once schools have access to educational technologies, the focus of technology integration often turns to increasing technology use. Researchers have reported that even when teachers and students have sufficient access, they do not always use technology for instructional purposes. Issues that hinder technology use in schools include social and moral ethics, like the question of inequitable access to technology for all students, which causes some teachers to avoid requiring students to use technologies to do assignments at home. Many schools also find it necessary to restrict the use of various technologies due to potential negative consequences and ethical dilemmas, considering it a moral imperative to monitor internet use and limit student access to this technology.

In an effort to increase technology use in classrooms, most schools encourage teachers to participate in professional development activities. The most common goal for teacher development has been to change teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration and to strengthen their abilities to use specific technologies. A major criticism of these efforts is that they do not provide a strong emphasis on practice that is contextually based and pedagogically sound. TPACK proponents argue that teachers must understand the connections between the specific affordances of various technologies and the ways each tool might best be used to facilitate specific content learning.

However, efforts to establish research-based technology-enhanced instructional methods and best practices encounter many challenges. Given the contextual complexity and extraneous factors that affect most educational endeavors, our ability to accomplish specific learning goals with or without technology can be difficult. But researchers warn that pedagogically sound practice must be implemented before substantial increases can be made in the effectiveness of technology use in schools. Specific areas where technology has the potential for improving instruction and learning include personalizing instruction and improving assessment. But by most accounts, given the current state of technology, our ability to customize instruction and assessment effectively with technology would require better technology access, tools, and methods.

In conclusion, future efforts to improve instruction and learning using educational technologies will still need to focus on providing students and teachers with ubiquitous access to new technologies and educational resources. However, pedagogically sound best practices will need to be established, and professional development will need to focus more on using technology to improve learning—not just on changing teachers’ attitudes and abilities in general. Substantial systemic changes will likely need to be made in educational systems, administration, and resources in order to support teachers in making these types of transformations. The development of adaptive intelligent tutors is an area of great potential. Technology-enabled assessment will be an especially important area of research and development in this regard. In addition to these efforts we would need more discussion on pedagogically oriented systemic changes that can support frameworks such as TPACK at the organizational level.

Key Takeaways

Technology integration: the effective implementation of educational technologies to accomplish intended learning outcomes.

Educational technology: any tool, equipment, or device—electronic or mechanical—that can help students accomplish specified learning goals. Educational technology includes both instructional and learning technologies.

Instructional technology: educational technologies teachers employ to provide instruction.

Learning technology: educational technologies learners use to accomplish specific learning objectives and tasks.

TPACK: technological pedagogical content knowledge, the knowledge teachers need to effectively and successfully teach their specific content area with content-specific technologies.

Educational policy: mandates for schools to utilize educational technologies in classrooms based on the beliefs that (1) technology can improve instruction and facilitate learning and (2) students need to develop technology literacy and skills in order to become productive members of society in a competitive global economy.

Technology-enabled assessment: assessment that utilizes technology to facilitate and improve a teacher’s ability to measure student learning outcomes.

Personalized instruction: adaptive technologies that use information obtained about individual students (including formative and diagnostic assessment data) to modify the way instruction is provided.

Application Exercises

• After reading the chapter, what do you believe to be the number one barrier to having technology used in the classroom? Share how you would overcome this?
• Think about how you currently use technology in your formal education settings. How is it being used effectively? How could it be integrated more effectively?
• If you were to hold a professional development for teachers to help increase skills and self-efficacy in their use of technology in the classroom, what would that training look like? Use research from the article to support your plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inan, F.A., & Lowther, D.L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58 (2), 137–154.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keefe, J., & Jenkins, J. (2002). Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (6), pp. 440–448.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (4), 297–310.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* U.S. Department of Education (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Education Technology Plan 2010. Office of Educational Technology: Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brigham Young University

Dr. Randall S. Davies is an associate professor of Instructional Psychology & Technology at Brigham Young University (BYU), where he teaches courses in educational inquiry, measurement, and evaluation. He previously worked at Indiana University South Bend as an Assistant Professor of Educational Research and at IU Bloomington in the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. He received his Ph.D. in Instructional Psychology & Technology from BYU as well as a B.Ed. in secondary education and a B.Sc. in mathematics & computing science from the University of Alberta.

Dr. Richard E. West is an associate professor of Instructional Psychology and Technology at Brigham Young University. He teaches courses in instructional design, academic writing, qualitative research methods, program/product evaluation, psychology, creativity and innovation, technology integration skills for preservice teachers, and the foundations of the field of learning and instructional design technology.

Dr. West’s research focuses on developing educational institutions that support 21st century learning. This includes teaching interdisciplinary and collaborative creativity and design thinking skills, personalizing learning through open badges, increasing access through open education, and developing social learning communities in online and blended environments. He has published over 90 articles, co-authoring with over 80 different graduate and undergraduate students, and received scholarship awards from the American Educational Research Association, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, and Brigham Young University.

He tweets @richardewest, and his research can be found on http://richardewest.com/

This content is provided to you freely by BYU Open Learning Network.

Access it online or download it at https://open.byu.edu/lidtfoundations/tech_integration_in_schools .

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

integration

Definition of integration

Examples of integration in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'integration.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1620, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Phrases Containing integration

• anti - integration
• large - scale integration

Dictionary Entries Near integration

integrating wattmeter

integration by parts

Cite this Entry

“Integration.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integration. Accessed 10 Apr. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of integration, medical definition, medical definition of integration, legal definition, legal definition of integration, more from merriam-webster on integration.

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for integration

Nglish: Translation of integration for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of integration for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about integration

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 5, 12 bird names that sound like compliments, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 8 uncommon words related to love, games & quizzes.