Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

The role of value on teachers' internalization of external barriers

T
and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology
integration
Vanessa W. Vongkulluksna,∗, Kui Xiea,b, Margaret A. Bowmana
a
The Ohio State University, 29 West Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
b
Central China Normal University, Luoyu Road 152, Hongshan District, Wuhan, Hubei 430079, China

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Recent research has shown that access alone does not automatically equate to greater or higher
Classroom technology integration quality of technology integration. Teacher beliefs are also important factors of how teachers
Teacher technology use integrate technology in the classroom. This study examined how teachers' value beliefs about
Teacher beliefs technology affect the way they internalize actual technology access and administrator support
Values
into perceptions of support on first-order barriers. This study also examined how teachers' value
Barriers
beliefs affect the relationship between perceived support on first-order barriers and their class-
room technology integration practice. Using hierarchical linear modeling and multilevel path
modeling, the study found that value beliefs moderated the extent to which teachers translate
actual school support into perceptions of support on first-order barriers. Value beliefs also
mediated and moderated the relationship between how teachers' perceived support on first-order
barriers influences both the quantity and quality of classroom technology integration, suggesting
a moderated-mediation interaction pattern. This study makes contribution to the literature by
highlighting the importance of teachers' values beliefs in technology integration.

1. Introduction

Technology is increasingly present in US classrooms. The latest report from the National Center for Education Statistics indicated
that the ratio of students to available computer has reached 1.7 across all public schools (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). One-to-one
laptop programs in which every student in a classroom has access to at least one computing device has spread across multiple states
(Zheng, Warschauer, Lin, & Chang, 2016). According to the Barrier to Technology Integration model, this increase in access lessens
external barriers known as first-order barriers (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Kopcha, 2012).
However, recent research has also shown that increasing access alone does not automatically equate to greater or higher quality of
technology usage (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Teacher beliefs and attitudes toward technology integration, also called
second-order barriers, were found to be important factors in the extent to which teachers integrate technology in their classroom
(Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010; Yu, 2013) as well as the quality of this integration. Teachers with more
positive beliefs and attitudes are more likely to use technology in delivering curricular contents (Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, &
Specht, 2008; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010; Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006), restructuring learning goals (Miranda &
Russell, 2012; Mueller et al., 2008), and transforming instruction to be more student-centered and cognitively stimulating (Ertmer
et al., 2012; Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Hsu, 2016).

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vongkulluksn.1@osu.edu (V.W. Vongkulluksn).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.009
Received 14 February 2017; Received in revised form 12 October 2017; Accepted 21 November 2017
Available online 22 November 2017
0360-1315/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

In particular, teachers' value belief, the belief about the value of technology for their teaching practice, is salient for effective
technology integration. Research suggests that teachers with more facilitative value beliefs (e.g., technologies are important to
classroom teaching; technologies are valuable in supporting student learning) maximize their resources to overcome other external
barriers to technology integration (e.g., Ertmer et al., 2012). As such, value beliefs likely have the most direct relationship with
teachers' technology integration practice.
The interactions between teachers' value beliefs, external barriers, and technology-integration practices in classrooms are com-
plex. For example, teachers' value beliefs may play a role in how teachers translate actual resource availability into perception of
access. That is, teachers with higher value beliefs for technology may perceive less resource barriers as they unquestioningly work
around access constraints that may be present. The purpose of this study is to examine how teachers' value beliefs about technology
affect the way they internalize actual technology access and administrator support into perceptions of external barriers. Concurrently,
this study also investigates how teachers' value beliefs affect the relationship between perceptions of external barriers and their
classroom practice.

2. Literature review

2.1. Barriers to technology integration and classroom practice

In the Barrier to Technology Integration model, Ertmer (1999), Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), Ertmer et al. (2012)
posited that teachers' decisions to incorporate technology in their classroom are influenced by two sets of barriers, namely, first-order
and second-order barriers.
First-order barriers are defined as those that are external to the teacher, reflecting school-wide administrative support and ex-
pectation for technology integration. Scholars, notably Hew and Brush (2007) and Kopcha (2012), have also refined and expanded
the notion of first-order barriers to include resource barriers (e.g., access to technology devices in the classroom, availability of
technical support, and sufficient time allowance to prepare for technology-integrated instruction) and institutional barriers (e.g.,
administrator's priority and school-wide plan for technology integration).
Although schools are working to increase technology access and making school environments more supportive to technology
integration, teachers still perceive first-order barriers as obstructing their technology integration efforts (Ertmer et al., 2012; Hechter
& Vermette, 2013; Hsu & Kuan, 2013; Mueller et al., 2008; Yu, 2013). Some of the persistent first-order barriers include: lack of
access to software and hardware, physical arrangement of available technology (i.e. arranging computers in labs; Ryan & Bagley,
2015; Hsu & Kuan, 2013; Groff & Mouza, 2008), lack of access to technical assistance (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Ertmer et al., 2012),
teacher-preparation programs with inadequate technology integration agendas (Brown & Warschauer, 2006), professional devel-
opment programs with few applied examples (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009), and the school environment lacking a unified vision for
classroom technology integration (Ertmer et al., 2012; Somekh, 2008). Importantly, these first-order barriers were shown to have
negative effects on how and how much teachers integrate technology in the classroom (Ertmer et al., 2012; Kopcha, 2012; Miranda &
Russell, 2012). For example, Miranda and Russell (2012) found that a perception of high external barriers is associated with a lower
amount of student-centered technology use in the classroom. A recent study by Ertmer et al. (2012) found that even for exemplary
teachers chosen for their award-winning technology practices, first-order barriers still impacted their ability to integrate technology.
Ertmer and associates concluded that there is a first-order “barrier threshold,” which, if not surmounted, limits what teachers can do
to integrate technology in the classroom. Thus, first-order barriers can be regarded as the first line of obstacles to be overcome as
schools and teachers work towards classroom technology integration. But, once this threshold is surpassed, second-order barriers
become more salient in predicting the quantity and quality of classroom technology integration. Second-order barriers are intrinsic to
teachers. They include knowledge and skills of how to operate specific devices and programs, to evaluate and select digital resources,
to teach with technology, and to manage student activities with technology (Xie, Kim, Cheng, & Luthy, 2017; Kim, Xie, & Cheng,
2017). They also include teachers' attitudes and beliefs about the role of technology in teaching, the value of technology in delivering
curricular content, as well as the difficulty of incorporating technology within a lesson (Ertmer et al., 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007;
Kopcha, 2012).
Among second-order barriers, teachers' value beliefs regarding the importance of technology for learning have been recognized as
the most proximal determinant of technology integration (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012; Mueller et al.,
2008). Teachers' value beliefs about technology refer to the extent to which teachers believe that technology can help fulfill in-
structional goals they identified as most important for their students (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010; Yu, 2013). When teachers
perceive technological tools as relevant to their instructional goals, they are more likely to integrate these tools into their classroom
routine. Considering that teachers often have very limited time between classes, yet preparing meaningful technology integration is
often time-demanding, these value judgments towards technology become even more salient. Researchers have found teachers' value
beliefs towards technology to be highly predictive of the quantity and quality of technology integration. A study by Wozney et al.
(2006) confirmed that teachers' values beliefs towards technology explain a significant amount of variation (33%) in technology
usage in the classroom. Facilitative beliefs about technology as valuable for learning and teaching positively predicted teachers' use of
technology in delivering curricular content (Mueller et al., 2008; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010; Wozney et al., 2006) as well as
students' use of technology to fulfill learning goals (Miranda & Russell, 2012; Mueller et al., 2008). Importantly, teachers with higher
value beliefs are more likely to use technology for student-centered instruction and for higher-order, critical thinking tasks (Ertmer
et al., 2012; Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Hsu, 2016). These value beliefs are also a driving force for teachers to consciously
overcome other, more distal barriers such as lack of resource or technical ability (Ertmer et al., 2012).

71
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

Other teacher-level factors also influence classroom technology integration. For example, teachers' ability belief for using tech-
nology for instructive purposes was found to influence how much teachers incorporate technology in their instruction (Hixon &
Buckenmeyer, 2009; Mueller et al., 2008), and the extent to which teachers lead students to use technology in the classroom
(Miranda & Russell, 2012). Teachers' teaching experience was also found to be negatively associated with technology integration
behaviors. More experienced teachers often report lower ability beliefs and less favorable attitudes towards technology integration,
leading to less technology usage in the classroom (Inan & Lowther, 2010).

2.2. From actual school support to perceived support on first-order barriers: the internalization process

With rising school spending on technology resources and training, a salient question is whether there exists a gap between schools'
provision of resources and teachers' perception of school support to overcome external, first-order barriers. An auxiliary question is,
then, what factors influence the process of how teachers internalize actual school support into perceptions of support on first-order
barriers. Despite their relevance to today's technology integration efforts in schools, these questions are yet to be answered by
empirical research.
In a seminal study of classroom motivation, Skinner and Belmont (1993) described the process in which teachers' provision of
support and resources shapes each individual student's perception that their needs are met, exerting powerful implications on stu-
dents' motivation to engage in classroom activities. Relatedly, in translational school leadership research, administrators' leadership
qualities (e.g., the ability to create a shared vision and structure resources) are shown to directly influence teachers' perception of
school-level support for a specific initiative (Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2003). Both of these examples suggest that the
relationship between schools' provision of technology support (e.g. access to resources, unified vision for technology use, opportu-
nities for professional development) would directly translate to teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers.
On the other hand, evidence specific to technology integration research suggests that this internalization process may not be as
straightforward as previously assumed. For instance, some qualitative studies have shown that teachers' perception of technology
access is often dependent on whether the technology is reliable and useful for instructional purposes (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Groff &
Mouza, 2008). Teachers' perceptions of access may differ from actual access provision when a particular software provided by the
school or district does not serve their instructional goals. Research has also shown that teachers with positive value beliefs towards
technology often work individually to overcome first-order barriers (Ertmer et al., 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). Ertmer
et al. (2012) gave an example of teachers who brought their own devices in order to facilitate their plan to integrate technology into a
lesson. The authors concluded that teachers assign different “relative weight” to first-order barriers according to their value beliefs
about classroom technology (p. 433). Specifically, teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers is not only related to actual
access, but also may involve how their value beliefs towards technology help them mitigate existing access issues. Therefore, teachers'
value beliefs towards technology may be a key variable that affect how actual school support is internalized into perceived support on
first-order barriers. The relationship among value beliefs, school support, and perceived support on first-order barriers is currently
only demonstrated through qualitative accounts, and usually through accounts of selective and exemplary teachers. Thus, more work
is needed to understand whether these trends are generalizable to larger, more representative teacher populations.

2.3. From perceived support on first-order barriers to classroom technology integration: the externalization process

When classrooms are sufficiently equipped and teachers are given adequate training, first-order barriers may no longer exert a
sizable influence on teachers' technology use (Ertmer et al., 2012). In contrast, value beliefs, as a second-order barrier, were de-
monstrated to exert a more direct influence on how and how much teachers incorporate technology to enhance student learning.
Multiple qualitative studies have pointed to how teachers' value beliefs towards technology influence their classroom technology
practice by overriding other first-order barriers, driving teachers to surmount other obstacles to integration (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012; Mueller et al., 2008). That is, value beliefs may affect how perceived support on first-order
barriers is externalized to classroom technology integration. Other studies also confirmed this relationship, with structural-equation
modeling (SEM) results showing that teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers are mediated by value beliefs in their effects
on classroom practice (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Miranda & Russell, 2012). However, these studies had more exploratory designs with
many variables mapped onto one SEM model. These exploratory research designs hinder a more nuanced understanding of how value
beliefs influence the way in which perceived support on first-order barriers affect teaching practice. Therefore, more research is
needed to investigate the unique role of teachers' value beliefs within technology integration efforts.

3. The present study

The purpose of this study is to examine how school support for technology integration is internalized by teachers as perceived
support on first-order barriers, and how the perceived support on first-order barriers are externalized into classroom technology
integration practice. Specifically, we sought to investigate the role of value beliefs in influencing both the internalization and ex-
ternalization processes.
Our conceptual model representing both of these processes is illustrated in Fig. 1. For the internalization pathway, we hy-
pothesized that value beliefs mediate the relationship between actual school support and perceived support on first-order barriers
(pathway #1). That is, actual school support may have a partial indirect effect on perceived support through the value beliefs
variable. We also hypothesized that value beliefs may function as a moderator that influences how actual school support is related to

72
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

perceived support on first-order barriers (pathway #2). For teachers who hold high levels of value beliefs for technology, an increase
in actual school support may translate to a higher increase in their perceived support compared to those with lower levels of value
beliefs. In addition, we hypothesized that actual school support would have an overall positive effect on perceived support on first-
order barriers (internalization process).
For the externalization pathway, we made a similar hypothesis that the relationship between perceived support on first-order
barriers and classroom technology integration practice may also be mediated (pathway #3) and/or moderated (pathway #4) by the
value beliefs variable. In addition, we hypothesized that perceived support on first-order barriers has a positive overall relationship
with teachers' classroom practice with technology (externalization process).
Related to our conceptual model, our research questions are:

1. How does actual school support affect teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers (internalization process)? How is this
relationship influenced by teachers' value beliefs?
2. How does teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers affect their classroom technology integration practice (externaliza-
tion process)? How is this relationship influenced by teachers' value beliefs?

4. Methods

4.1. Participants and procedure

The sample for this study was 624 sixth-to twelfth-grade teachers and 20 administrators from 16 schools across a Midwestern state
in the United States. There were 365 female and 259 male teachers. Of these, 157 teachers held a Bachelor's degree, 461 held a
Master's degree, and 6 held a doctorate degree. The average teacher had about 13 years of teaching experience and about 24 students
in his/her classroom. Participating teachers were asked to respond to an online survey about how they use technology for instruction,
perceived support on first-order barriers, value-beliefs for technology, and other demographic characteristics.
Administrators who participated in the study include school principals who supervise the overall school administration and
activities (n = 8), assistant principals who support the principals in the overall school administration (n = 7), and technology
coordinators who facilitate technology related policies, procedures, management, and activities in the schools (n = 5). Participating
administrators were asked to respond to an online survey about available technology resources, organizational resources, adminis-
trative leadership, and school culture in support of technology integration.

4.2. Measures

4.2.1. School support

The school support survey given to school administrators consisted of a composite of four subscales, including (1) technology
resources, (2) organizational resources, (3) administrative support, and (4) school culture in support of technology integration
(Cronbach's α = 0.70). The technology resource subscale was measured using three items probing the number of available desktop
computers, laptop computers, and tablets at each school (open numeric response). The number of devices was then divided by the
total number of student enrollment to determine the device-per-student ratios.
Because the Barriers to Technology Integration model posits that first-order barriers also consist of organizational resources in
addition to technology resources, we sought to include this aspect in our measure of school support. However, an extant measure

73
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

specifically geared towards asking administrators about the type of organizational resource they provide for teachers is missing from
current literature. Therefore, we look to organizational culture literature and adapted an organizational resource scale from Labin
(2014) to specifically target pertinent resources for technology integration. The organizational resources subscale consisted of five
dichotomous items, asking administrators to check all technology-related organizational resources available at their school. These
resources include technology integration committee, regular teacher meetings centering on technology integration, learning tech-
nology specialist, digital content evaluation specialist, and peer mentoring (Yes = 1, No = 0). Final scores for the organizational
resource subscale range from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating schools with no resource available and 5 indicating schools with all five
resources.
The administrative support (7 items) and school culture (4 items) subscales consisted of 5-point Likert scale items adapted from
Hsu and Kuan (2013). These surveys were shown by previous studies to have good reliability and construct validity. We chose the Hsu
and Kuan scale because of their explicit focus on tapping school-wide support and cultural norms, instead of focusing on individual
teacher's perceptions, as is the case in most other scales from works referencing the Barriers to Technology Integration model. School
support and culture as measured by the Hsu and Kuan scale were also found to be closely associated with teachers' technology
integration behaviors. A sample administrative support item is “I consider employing better learning technology and digital curri-
culum the first priorities in my school.” A sample school culture item is “Our school encourage teachers to access, communicate, and
disseminate their experience of learning technology to fellow teachers.” For all school support measures, scores are averaged when
more than one administrator submitted responses per school.

4.2.2. Perceived support on first-order barriers

Teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers was measured using a 14-item survey from Kopcha (2012; Cronbach's
α = 0.91). This survey is the most current and widely-used measurement for teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers, and
has been shown to have good reliability and construct validity. Items addressed teachers' perceptions of school support associated
with school culture, administrative vision, technology access, time resource, and professional development. Items were measured
using 5-point Likert scales. Consistent with methods used in Kopcha (2012), items were constructed so that higher scores represented
more facilitative perceptions of school support. A sample item is “I was expected to use technology to support content objectives.”

4.2.3. Value beliefs

Teachers' value beliefs towards technology were measured using a 3-item value beliefs survey from Kopcha (2012; Cronbach's
α = 0.78), which is a widely-used and validated scale for measuring teachers' value beliefs as part of second-order barriers. A sample
item is “I believe students' use of learning technology increases their overall learning.”

4.2.4. Ability belief

Teachers' perception of their ability to integrate technology into instruction was measured using a 5-item survey from Kopcha
(2012; Cronbach's α = 0.78), which is a widely-used and validated scale for measuring teachers' ability beliefs as part of second-order
barriers. A sample item is “I feel comfortable teaching with technology.”

4.2.5. Teaching experience

Teaching experience was also collected in the teacher survey, with teachers providing an open-ended numeric response in number
of years.

4.2.6. Classroom technology integration

Two aspects of classroom technology integration were measured, including quantity and quality of integration. Integration
quantity was measured using a scale adapted from Wozney et al. (2006). Teachers were first asked to indicate whether or not they use
the following technologies in their classroom: desktop computers, laptop computers, digital camera/camcorders, digital microphone,
DVD player/recorder, internet, tablets, mobile phones, projectors, smart interactive whiteboards, audio/video conferencing system,
student response systems (e.g., clickers), and Web 2.0 Technologies (e.g., Google Classrooms, Google Drive, Google Hangout, etc.).
Teachers were also asked to list additional technologies they use that were not on the list. Subsequently, teachers were asked to
indicate: “on average, what percentage of class time do you spend using these technologies?” Teachers' numeric percentage response
was used as their integration quantity score.
Integration quality was measured using an 11-item Classroom Technology Practice scale created in a previous study (Kim, Cheng,
& Xie, 2017). Four items asked respondents to indicate whether they typically use technology to engage in specific instructional
activities, including student presentation, group collaboration, individual student work, and provision of feedback (Check all that
apply; Yes = 1, No = 0). Also, four Likert scale items measured the extent to which teachers used technology to administer as-
sessment and provide personalized feedback. A sample item of this subscale is “I used technology to communicate student progress
with students, parents, and colleagues.” Three additional items measured the extent to which teachers used technology to facilitate
higher order tasks. A sample item of this subscale is “I used technology to support problem-solving activities and engage students in
higher-order thinking.” All Likert items are on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).
Overall, the four dichotomous questions addressed teachers' general tendencies to use technology for student-centered activities.
The Likert scale items supplemented this data by adding the degree to which teachers use technology for additional student-centered
activities (i.e. personalized assessment and feedback), as well as for higher-order thinking tasks. Due to differences in the range of
subscale scores, standardized composite scores were used in data analyses. Scores for each question were standardized and then

74
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

summed to create a final score. Together, the 11-item integration quality scale showed satisfactory reliability in the present study,
with Cronbach's α = 0.85. This scale also showed good construct validity, with a one factor solution demonstrating satisfactory fit
(χ2/df = 3.50, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06).

4.3. Data analysis

4.3.1. The internalization process

To test the mediation pathway in the internalization process (pathway #1), a 2-1-1 multilevel mediation analysis was performed
according to methods suggested by Krull and MacKinnon (2001). A mediated path model was constructed, with actual school support
specified as the independent variable, value beliefs as the mediator, and perceived support on first-order barriers as the dependent
variable. Actual school support is specified as a school level variable, whereas value beliefs and perceived support are specified as
teacher level variables. The model was fitted using mixed effect, restricted maximum likelihood (REML) regression methods, with
teachers specified as nested within schools. If the mediation path is statistically significant, the proportion of total effect mediated and
the ratio of indirect to direct effect were calculated.
In order to test the moderation pathway within the internalization process of how actual school support is translated into per-
ceived support on first-order barriers (pathway #2), hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used as the analytic tool. This method
accounts for correlations of residuals and heteroscedasticity due to nesting effects (i.e. effects of teachers nested within schools;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Models were built at two levels: the school level variable included actual school support, while the
teacher level variables included perceived support, value beliefs, ability beliefs, and teaching experience. Four models were fitted,
with teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers specified as the dependent variable. In the first model, only ability beliefs and
teaching experience were included as predictors. Actual school support, a more proximal variable, was entered as an independent
variable in the second model. In the third model, the value-beliefs variable was added to test its predictive effects above and beyond
those attributable to other variables. Finally, an interaction term between actual school support and value beliefs was added in the
fourth model to test whether value beliefs moderate the effect of actual school support on teachers' perceived support on first-order
barriers as hypothesized. For all models, intraclass correlations were calculated to examine the proportion of the variation in per-
ceived support attributable to school-level versus teacher-level differences.

4.3.2. The externalization process

To test the mediation pathway in the externalization process (pathway #3), a 1-1-1 multilevel mediation analysis was performed
similar to the methods used for the internalization pathway. All variables were specified to be at the teacher level, and random
school-level effects were specified. Two mediated path models were constructed, with perceived support on first-order barriers
specified as the independent variable, value beliefs as the mediator, and quantity and quality of classroom technology integration as
the dependent variable, in turn. The model was then fitted using the mixed effect, REML regression methods. If the mediation path is
statistically significant, the proportion of total effect mediated and the ratio of indirect to direct effect were calculated.
In order to test the moderation pathway within the externalization process of how perceived support on first-order barriers
influences classroom technology integration (pathway #4), hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was again used to account for nesting
effects (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). All variables were fitted at the teacher level, and school-level random effects were specified. Four
models were fitted for each of the two technology integration variables, with quantity and quality of technology integration fitted as
dependent variables in turn. The first model was fitted with teachers' ability belief and teaching experience. Then, the second model
added teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers as a predictor of classroom technology integration. The third model included
the value beliefs variable to test its predictive effects controlling for other, more distal variables. Finally, an interaction term between
perceived support and value beliefs was added in the fourth model to test whether value beliefs moderate the effect of perceived
support on classroom technology integration. Intraclass correlations were also calculated for each model to examine the proportion of
variance attributable to school-level similarities.

5. Results

5.1. Preliminary analysis

Descriptive statistics were examined, including variables' mean, standard deviation, and range (Table 1). For variables with
standardized composite scores, raw scores for each subscale were also reported to allow better inference of scale. Then, Pearson's
correlations were calculated (Table 2). On average, teachers used technology for about 46% of class time, as measured by the
quantity of technology integration index. Teachers also used technology at moderately high levels for personalized feedback and
higher order activities on average, scoring above the median score of 3 on these indices. All correlations were in the expected
direction. Quantity and quality of classroom technology use were significantly correlated (r = 0.50, p < 0.001), as well as with
teachers' value beliefs towards technology (r = 0.37 and r = 0.50 respectively, p < 0.001), actual school support (r = 0.19 and
r = 0.13, p < 0.05), perceived support on first-order barriers (r = 0.32 and r = 0.45, p < 0.001), and ability beliefs (r = 0.33 and
r = 0.47, p < 0.001). Quantity and quality of classroom technology integration were also negatively correlated with teaching
experience (r = −0.13 and r = −0.17 respectively, p < 0.01). Value beliefs towards technology, our main predictor of interest,
was also significantly correlated with perceived support on first-order barriers (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and ability beliefs (r = 0.61,
p < 0.001).

75
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

Table 1
Descriptive statistics.

Variable Mean SD Min Max

School support 0.00 1.00 −1.50 2.62

(standardized composite)
Desktop ratio 0.13 0.12 0 0.41
Laptop ratio 0.46 0.45 0 1.35
Tablet ratio 0.21 0.26 0 1.10
Organizational resources 2.47 0.62 1.67 4
Administrative support 3.80 0.41 3.14 4.57
School culture 2.32 0.29 2 2.75

Perceived support on first-order barriers 0.00 1.00 −4.13 2.22

(standardized composite)
School culture 3.94 0.82 1 5
Administrative vision 3.88 0.70 1 5
Technology access 3.86 0.67 1 5
Time resource 3.03 0.89 1 5
Professional development 3.44 0.82 1 5

Value beliefs 3.75 0.76 1 5

Ability beliefs 3.85 0.63 1 5
Teaching experience (years) 12.91 8.43 1 37

Quantity of tech integration 45.93 26.51 0.00 100.00

(% class time)
Quality of tech integration 0.00 1.00 −3.46 2.14
(standardized composite)
Instructional activities 2.01 1.24 0 4
Personalized feedback 3.74 0.71 1 5
Higher order activities 3.77 0.74 1 5

Table 2
Pearson's correlations of variables of interest.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. School support 1
2. Perceived support 0.21∗∗∗ 1
3. Value beliefs 0.03 0.68∗∗∗ 1
4. Ability beliefs 0.06 0.60∗∗∗ 0.61∗∗∗ 1
5. Teaching experience −0.01 −0.12∗∗ −0.13∗∗ −0.13∗∗ 1
6. Quantity of tech integration 0.19∗∗∗ 0.32∗∗∗ 0.37∗∗∗ 0.33∗∗∗ −0.13∗∗ 1
7. Quality of tech integration 0.13∗ 0.45∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗∗ 0.47∗∗∗ −0.17∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗∗ 1

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

5.2. The internalization process

5.2.1. Pathway #1: mediation of school support = > perceived support on first-order barriers
To test the mediation pathway for the internalization process, a 2-1-1 multilevel mediation model was fitted, with actual school

Fig. 2. Standardized mediation effect of value beliefs in the internalization process.

76
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

Table 3
Hierarchical regression of perceived support on first-order barriers.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

∗ ∗
School support – 0.14 0.14 0.14∗
(0.07) (0.07) (0.07)
Value beliefs – – 0.53∗∗∗ 0.52∗∗∗
(0.05) (0.05)
School support * Value beliefs – – – 0.17∗∗∗
(0.05)

Ability beliefs 0.59∗∗∗ 0.56∗∗∗ 0.27∗∗∗ 0.26∗∗∗

(0.03) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05)
Teaching experience −0.01∗ −0.01 −0.01 −0.01
(0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00)
Intercept 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.12
(0.12) (0.16) (0.14) (0.14)

Intraclass correlation 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09

Unstandardized regression coefficient (standard error).

Note. Standardized scores were used for perceived support on first-order barriers, school support, value beliefs, and ability beliefs; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01;
***p < 0.001.

support as the independent variable, value beliefs as the mediator, and perceived support on first-order barriers as the dependent
variable. Results showed that value beliefs and school support independently predict perceived support (Fig. 2). However, school
support was not shown to influence perceived support through its relationship with value beliefs. Therefore, there is no empirical
support for the mediation pathway for the internalization process.

5.2.2. Pathway #2: moderation of school support = > perceived support on first-order barriers
Four HLM models were fitted to examine the moderation pathway of the internalization process. Results of the first model showed
that the ability beliefs variable was a moderately large1 and significant predictor of perceived support on first-order barriers in the
control variables only model (Table 3, b = 0.59, p < 0.001). When actual school support was added into the regression model
(Model 2), it was also found to be a significant predictor of perceived support (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). In the third model, the value
beliefs variable was added and shown to be a moderately large and significant predictor of perceived support, even when actual
school support was controlled (b = 0.53, p < 0.001). Interestingly, the coefficient for ability beliefs was shown to decrease sig-
nificantly when the value beliefs variable was added into the regression model. Finally, the moderating role of value beliefs was
tested directly in the fourth model. Results show that the value beliefs variable was a significant moderator for the relationship
between actual and perceived school support (interaction b = 0.17, p < 0.001). Specifically, for teachers with higher value beliefs,
an increase in actual school support is associated with a higher increase in perceived support on first-order barriers. For example, for
teachers with an average value beliefs score (standardized value belief = 0), a one standard deviation increase in actual school
support is related to a 0.14 standard deviation increase in perceived support. In comparison, for teachers with a value belief score one
standard deviation above the mean, a one standard deviation increase in actual school support is associated with a 0.31 standard
deviation increase in perceived support.

5.3. The externalization process

5.3.1. Pathway #3: mediation of perceived support on first-order barriers = > classroom technology integration
To empirically test the mediation pathway for the externalization process, two 1-1-1 multilevel mediation models were tested
with classroom technology integration quantity and quality iteratively modeled as the dependent variables. In the integration
quantity path model, teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers was specified as the independent variable, value beliefs as the
mediator, and percent class time spent using technology (technology integration quantity) as the dependent variable. This model
showed that the value beliefs variable was a complete mediator of the relationship between perceived support and technology
integration quantity (Fig. 3). The proportion of total effect mediated is 0.69 and the ratio of indirect to direct effect is 2.24. In the
integration quality path model, teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers and value beliefs were again specified as the
independent variable and mediator, respectively. Technology integration quality was specified as the dependent variable in this
model. Results showed that the value beliefs variable was a partial mediator for the relationship between perceived support on first-
order barriers and technology integration quality. For this model, the proportion of total effect mediated is 0.55 and the ratio of
indirect to direct effect is 1.21.

1
We used the rubric from Ferguson (2009) and Olejnik and Algina (2000) in classifying effect sizes. Effect sizes were only inferred for predictive relationships
between standardized variables.

77
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

Fig. 3. Standardized mediation effect of value beliefs in the externalization process.

5.3.2. Pathway #4: moderation of perceived support on first-order barriers = > classroom technology integration
For the externalization process, the moderation pathway was tested with two dependent variables representing the extent of
classroom technology integration. The first four models tested how teachers' perceptions of school support and value beliefs predict
quantity of technology integration. In the control-variables only model, teachers' ability belief and teaching experience were found to
predict quantity of technology use. Teachers who reported more ability beliefs in technology use (Table 4, b = 8.02, p < 0.001) and
had less teaching experience (b = −0.29, p < 0.05) tended to use technology more in the classroom. Then, we added perceived
support on first-order barriers into the model. Perceived support significantly predicted quantity of technology use (b = 4.67,
p < 0.001). In the third model, value beliefs were also found to be a significant predictor of integration quantity (b = 6.47,
p < 0.001). Specifically, a one standard deviation increase in value beliefs is associated with a 6.47% increase in technology
integration quantity. We noted that, in this model, the coefficient for perceived support on first-order barriers decreased appreciably
in size and was no longer significant. In the final model, value beliefs were found to be a significant moderator of the relationship
between perceived support and integration quantity (interaction b = 2.22, p < 0.01). Specifically, for teachers with high value
beliefs, an increase in perceived support was associated with a higher increase in their quantity of technology use compared to those
with low value beliefs.
Another four HLM models were fitted with the technology integration quality index specified as the dependent variable. Similar to
results from the regression of integration quantity, the control-variables only model indicated that the ability beliefs variable is a
significant predictor of integration quality (Table 4, b = 0.46, p < 0.001), an index that includes the use of technology for student-
centered and higher-order thinking tasks. The second model showed that perceived support on first-order barriers is also a significant
predictor of integration quality (b = 0.25, p < 0.001), even when ability beliefs are controlled. In the third model, value beliefs
were shown to be the largest contributor to integration quality, with the highest standardized coefficient in a model that also included

Table 4
Hierarchical regression of classroom technology integration.

Integration Quantity Integration Quality

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Perceived support – 4.67∗∗∗ 1.46 1.57 – 0.25∗∗∗ 0.13∗∗ 0.13∗∗

(1.30) (1.46) (1.45) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05)
Value beliefs – – 6.47∗∗∗ 7.13∗∗∗ – – 0.25∗∗∗ 0.27∗∗∗
(1.47) (1.47) (0.05) (0.05)
Perceived support * Value beliefs – – – 2.22∗∗ – – – 0.05∗
(0.69) (0.02)

Ability beliefs 8.02∗∗∗ 5.23∗∗∗ 3.16∗ 3.08∗ 0.46∗∗∗ 0.31∗∗∗ 0.22∗∗∗ 0.22∗∗∗
(1.06) (1.30) (1.37) (1.35) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
Teaching experience −0.29∗ −0.25∗ −0.23 −0.25∗ −0.01∗∗ −0.01∗∗ −0.01∗ −0.01∗
(0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Intercept 51.06∗∗∗ 50.44∗∗∗ 50.26∗∗∗ 46.10∗∗∗ 0.19∗∗ 0.16∗ 0.16∗ 0.13
(2.40) (2.31) (2.36) (2.33) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)

Intraclass correlation 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unstandardized regression coefficient (standard error).

Note. Standardized scores were used for integration quality, perceived support on first-order barriers, value beliefs, and ability beliefs; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01;
***p < 0.001.

78
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

perceived support and ability beliefs (b = 0.25, p < 0.001). Interestingly, the regression coefficient for perceived support decreased
by 48% (from 0.25 to 0.13) when the value beliefs variable was introduced in the model. In the fourth and final model, the interaction
term representing a moderating role of value beliefs on the relationship between perceived support and integration quality was
shown to be relatively small, but statistically significant (interaction b = 0.05, p < 0.05). For teachers with high value beliefs, an
increase in perceived support on first-order barriers was associated with a slightly higher increase in technology integration quality
compared to those with low value beliefs.

6. Discussion

Results from this study have shown the importance of teachers' value beliefs on classroom technology integration. First, value
beliefs had a direct association with teachers' technology integration practice. Teachers who believed that technology would enhance
their teaching spent more time in the classroom using technology. In fact, we found that value beliefs were a stronger predictor of
integration quantity than teachers' ability beliefs for technology use, which previous studies have illustrated to be a strong de-
terminant of technology integration (Wozney et al., 2006). In addition, teachers' value beliefs also predicted how well teachers
integrated technology, including how much they used technology to foster student-centered instruction and higher order tasks. These
results echoed previous studies of technology integration, which have pointed to the large effect teachers' value beliefs have on
classroom practice with technology (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mueller et al., 2008; Wozney et al., 2006).
Our study also found that value beliefs were salient in influencing classroom technology integration practice through moderation
and mediation. Our examination of how teachers internalize technology access and administrator support revealed that value beliefs
play a large role in this process. Specifically, the results suggest that value beliefs moderate the extent to which teachers translate
actual school support into perceived support on first-order barriers. Teachers who believe that technology is valuable in the classroom
tend to amplify the access they have and place less weight on access constraints when they make judgments about how much external
barriers exist in their school context. This result provides empirical support for previous qualitative accounts that teachers who
believe in the value of technology actively work around lack of access by adopting other strategies, such as bringing their own device
for use in the classroom and spending time to find software applications that work with existing technology (Ertmer et al., 2012;
Kopcha, 2012). Our results also directly support previous theorization that teachers with differing value beliefs place different
“relative weight” on access constraints, which our study has empirically modeled as a moderation effect (Ertmer et al., 2012). Our
findings, coupled with those of previous studies, have broad implications amidst increased spending on providing access to tech-
nology in schools across the US (Burch, Good, & Heinrich, 2016). These results suggest that policy makers and administrators need to
be mindful that while increasing technology access in the classroom is important, ensuring that teachers have positive value beliefs
towards technology is also an important part of overcoming teachers' perception of external barriers to technology integration.
Our study also pointed to the role of value beliefs in influencing how teachers' perceived support on first-order barriers affect their
classroom practice with technology. Specifically, the results suggest that value beliefs mediate and moderate the relationship between
how perceived support on first-order barriers influences both the quantity and quality of classroom technology integration (i.e. the
extent to which teachers used technology to enhance student-centered and critical-thinking tasks). These results suggest an inter-
action pattern called moderated mediation, an empirical relationship in which there is both a mediation effect as well as a moderated
indirect effect where perceived support moderates how value beliefs predict classroom practice with technology (Muller, Judd, &
Yzerbyt, 2005; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Further, our results show that these salient effects of value beliefs on classroom
technology integration practice still hold after taking into account other teacher-level differences such as teaching experience and
ability beliefs for technology use. Similarly, previous qualitative studies have shown value beliefs to be one of the most proximal
determinants of teachers' classroom practice with technology (Miranda & Russell, 2012; Wozney et al., 2006). Beyond a barrier
threshold of technology access, the way in which teachers translate perceived school support into classroom practice is filtered
through their belief system regarding the usefulness and practicality of technology to lead to improved instruction and student
outcomes (Ertmer et al., 2012). The present study provides further empirical evidence supporting these findings.
The overall result of this study pointed to the salience of teachers' value beliefs to the success of any technology integration
enterprise. Current efforts to improve teachers' technology integration practices mainly focus on exposing teachers to learning
technologies and increasing teachers' skills to use these technologies, in hopes of indirectly improving teachers' value beliefs towards
technology (Ertmer et al., 2012; Ryan & Bagley, 2015). However, the influence of value beliefs may be more far-reaching than should
be left to indirect intervention. There is still a lack of concerted and direct effort to positively influence teachers' value beliefs towards
technology. In addition, many professional development programs are carried out on a self-selected pool of teachers who may already
have high value beliefs towards technology integration. This may leave behind a subgroup of teachers who lack both the skills to use
new educational technologies as well as the value-beliefs to drive them to overcome existing external barriers or mitigate their lack of
knowledge. As schools in the US spend millions of dollars building a technology infrastructure that could support widespread
classroom technology integration, the next step would be to ensure the effective use of available tools by bridging the value-gap that
is present in the teacher population.

7. Limitations and future directions

This study has limitations that stem from certain logistic and contextual constraints. The first limitation is a result of the use of
self-report surveys, particularly for our technology integration indices. We were not offered the opportunity to observe classrooms or
interview teachers, which would have provided more objective measures of classroom technology integration. As such, our results

79
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

may be skewed due to the self-report bias that is present when subjects are asked to report their own behaviors (Greene, 2015).
Although we noted that self-report surveys are typically used in studies referencing the Barriers to Technology model (e.g. Hixon &
Buckenmeyer, 2009; Kopcha, 2012; Miranda & Russell, 2012; Mueller et al., 2008), we endeavored to minimize this bias through
collecting multiple types of survey data. This includes asking teachers to assess the percentage of classroom time for which they
integrate technology, complete a checklist of the types of instructional practice for which they use technology, and use Likert-scale
measures to indicate perceptions that could not be tapped otherwise. In order to avoid the sole use of teachers' self-reported per-
ceptions, we also sourced data from school administrators and technology specialists. They provided us with more objective measures
of technology access, including the number of devices available in each school. Relatedly, another limitation of the study is a
consequence of using quantitative measures to explain the complex phenomenon of technology integration. Again, teachers' quali-
tative narratives would have bolstered our understanding of technology integration in each specific classroom. However, our aim is to
empirically corroborate the qualitative accounts of the role of value beliefs as documented in previous studies, and the use of
quantitative methods is appropriate for this purpose. Our study also followed a clear theoretical model, which delineated relation-
ships among different belief and behavior variables. As such, we could reasonably use the deductive, quantitative approach to answer
our research questions instead of more inductive, qualitative methods.
Despite its limitations, this study is one of a few to empirically document the importance of value beliefs as a factor of effective
technology integration across teachers with varying characteristics. This research also theoretically extended the Barriers to
Technology model, and placed value beliefs not only as a predictor of classroom technology integration practice, but also as a variable
that influences the complex process of how resource availability is translated into effective teacher practice. We hope that this work
will encourage future research to elaborate on the implications of teachers' beliefs on classroom technology integration. Furthermore,
although results from our study suggested the importance of explicitly fostering teachers' positive value beliefs towards technology,
we rely on future work by researchers and practitioners to examine the most effective and efficient ways to do so. Results from the
present study and future work in this area have the potential to be the turning point in our current narrative about technology
integration, moving the conversation from solely focusing on closing access and skill gaps to also include closing the value gap that
presents one of the final barriers to technology integration.

Acknowledgement

The study reported in this paper is based upon work in the EDCITE: Evaluating Digital Content for Instructional and Teaching
Excellence project and the College Ready Ohio project supported by the Straight A fund from the Ohio Department of Education. The
funding source had no involvement in the study design, data collection, data analysis, writing, and decision to submit the article for
publication. The conclusions and recommendations expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio
Department of Education.

References

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs
and practices. International Society for Technology in Education, 39(1), 22–43.
Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classrooms: Students' experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–621.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers' adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the
literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 8(1), 136–155.
Burch, P., Good, A., & Heinrich, C. (2016). Improving access to, quality, and the effectiveness of digital tutoring in K–12 education. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 38(1), 65–87.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(4), 47–61.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
CAE Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on teachers' commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of
Educational Administration, 41(3), 228–256.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30.
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal,
16(1), 21–46.
Hechter, R. P., & Vermette, L. A. (2013). Technology integration in K-12 science classrooms: An analysis of barriers and implications. Themes in Science and Technology
Education, 6(2), 73–90.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130–146.
Hsu, P. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,
60(1), 30–40.
Hsu, S., & Kuan, P. Y. (2013). The impact of multilevel factors on technology integration: The case of taiwanese grade 1–9 teachers and schools. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 61(1), 25–50.
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.
Kim, M. K., Cheng, S. L., & Xie, K. (2017a). The validation of a systemic evaluation framework to investigate the multi-layered impacts of technology integration

80
V.W. Vongkulluksn et al. Computers & Education 118 (2018) 70–81

projects. Paper presented the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Antonio, TX.
Kim, M. K., Xie, K., & Cheng, S. L. (2017b). Building teacher competency for digital content evaluation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 309–324.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers
& Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(2), 249–277.
Labin, S. N. (2014). Developing common measures in evaluation capacity building: An iterative science and practice process. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(1),
107–115.
Miranda, H. P., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation
modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 652–666.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers
with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852.
Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(3), 241–286.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and
student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42(1), 185–227.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Ryan, T., & Bagley, G. (2015). Nurturing the integration of technology in education. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(1), 33–50.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers' pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.). International handbook of information technology in primary
and secondary education (pp. 449–460). New York: Springer.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology & Teacher
Education, 14(1), 173–207.
Xie, K., Kim, M. K., Cheng, S. L., & Luthy, N. C. (2017). Digital content evaluation as technology professional development. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 65(4), 1067–1103.
Yu, C. (2013). The integration of technology in the 21st century classroom: Teachers' attitudes and pedagogical beliefs toward emerging technologies. Journal of
Technology Integration in the Classroom, 5(1), 5–11.
Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 86(4), 1052–1084.

81